#Spygate

[Cumbria Saint]

10 minutes ago, sockeye said:

The least of all evils but who will be satisfied? I can only think of Hull. And maybe the Met.

Saints = miss out on a playoff final place which was completely deserved

Boro = I don't buy that they (Gibson and their board) actually would rather Hull go up automatically and they not have a chance at promotion. That is just being said to avoid being seen as opportunistic

Broadcasters, Wembley and nearby businesses = miss out on a large chunk of income due to no game

EFL = have to fight an annoying case against Saints who will go after them for a disproportionate 

Yup. Whatever the outcome it will result in chaos. I sincerely hope my suggestion is wrong, that we play Hull on Saturday, beat them and everything turns out rosy. 🤔

[Lord Duckhunter]

14 minutes ago, Willo of Whiteley said:

Millwall would kick off if Middlesbrough get a bye to the play off final despite losing fair and square.

- Wrexham for potentially not being included as the new fourth play off team.

What a load of pony. 
 

It’s got nothing to do with Wrexham or Millwall. 
 

If we’re kicked out it will because the independent body thought Middlesbrough weren’t knocked out “fair and square”. What makes is so difficult for people to understand. If we’re kicked out, Boro will play Hull, it’s as simple as that…

[Saint_lambden]

21 minutes ago, Cumbria Saint said:

I agree absolutely but they might think this is the least of all evils.

What a shitshow.

They’re not going to cancel the final and promote Hull straight up. That’s why they have contingency plans in place for moving the final if the legal process extends beyond Tuesday. It’s the showpiece game of the EFL. 

[benjii]

18 minutes ago, sockeye said:

The least of all evils but who will be satisfied? I can only think of Hull. And maybe the Met.

Saints = miss out on a playoff final place which was completely deserved

Boro = I don't buy that they (Gibson and their board) actually would rather Hull go up automatically and they not have a chance at promotion. That is just being said to avoid being seen as opportunistic

Broadcasters, Wembley and nearby businesses = miss out on a large chunk of income due to no game

EFL = have to fight an annoying case against Saints who will go after them for a disproportionate punishment

And sponsors. EFL would have to refund some money or provide an alternative opportunity of similar value.

[saintant]

5 hours ago, St Chalet said:

Their defence would be that league rules protected them being spied on. The offence is not ‘how much’ we observed, it is that we observed. It’s binary, yes / no. 
 

Whether we did it in a public place and to the extent we did it is irrelevant. 

That's a bit like saying burglary is against the law so I can leave all my doors and windows open even when not inside my property. The law is there  as a deterrent but must be used in conjunction with a common sense attitude by the home owner.

[Jack]

9 minutes ago, warsash saint said:

Kick Celtic out the league for the outrageous pitch invasion 🙃

SPL title should be awarded to Middlesbrough IMO

[CB Fry]

1 minute ago, saintant said:

That's a bit like saying burglary is against the law so I can leave all my doors and windows open even when not inside my property. The law is there  as a deterrent but must be used in conjunction with a common sense attitude by the home owner.

Please for the love of God give up with these fucking moronic analogies

[Tamesaint]

Here's an idea.... 

Why don't the EFL punish us by just banning us from next season's League Cup??

[Saint_clark]

1 minute ago, saintant said:

That's a bit like saying burglary is against the law so I can leave all my doors and windows open even when not inside my property. The law is there  as a deterrent but must be used in conjunction with a common sense attitude by the home owner.

Someone would still be prosecuted for walking in and taking your TV though. 

[saintant]

Just now, CB Fry said:

Please for the love of God give up with these fucking moronic analogies

Oh here he comes, the saints forum chief copper 🙂

[Colinjb]

Just now, Saint_clark said:

Someone would still be prosecuted for walking in and taking your TV though. 

But, not for watching it.

[Mr X]

I might be simplifying things but surely the club can say we never told the intern to do that and unless he has evidence that we did we can just say he was doing his own thing off his own back??? 

[Barry the Badger]

1 minute ago, Mr X said:

I might be simplifying things but surely the club can say we never told the intern to do that and unless he has evidence that we did we can just say he was doing his own thing off his own back??? 

And hang the poor lad out to dry? IF we did send him, that's a miserable move to make 

[AlexLaw76]

Just now, Barry the Badger said:

And hang the poor lad out to dry? IF we did send him, that's a miserable move to make 

Surely someone at the club was involved. Just almost impossible to imagine he randomly went up there without telling anyone

[Toadhall Saint]

1 minute ago, Barry the Badger said:

And hang the poor lad out to dry? IF we did send him, that's a miserable move to make 

Not if it’s true.

[obelisk]

7 minutes ago, Saint_clark said:

Someone would still be prosecuted for walking in and taking your TV though. 

You think so? There'd likely not even be an investigation.

[Lord Duckhunter]

2 minutes ago, saintant said:

Oh here he comes, the saints forum chief copper 🙂

He’s right though. 
 

Some of the pony on here is ridiculous. 
 

I’ll bet my life when the verdict is back, future recommendations won’t include Boro building a wall or not training where they can be overlooked. 

[Sunglasses Ron]

1 minute ago, Mr X said:

I might be simplifying things but surely the club can say we never told the intern to do that and unless he has evidence that we did we can just say he was doing his own thing off his own back??? 

It doesn’t work that way in reality.

As a minimum, I would say that the club would need to provide proof that he was provided with some kind of ethics training that specifically covered the requirement not to observe training less than 72 hours before a game.

Even then, you have to question how logical it is that their Line Manager wouldn’t have been aware of a lengthy trip to Middlesbrough.

If the above could be proved then there would be a fair argument to say that the club made all reasonable steps and that the employee effectively went rogue.

 

[Saint_clark]

2 minutes ago, obelisk said:

You think so? There'd likely not even be an investigation.

This place has gone nuts.

[Toadhall Saint]

4 minutes ago, AlexLaw76 said:

Surely someone at the club was involved. Just almost impossible to imagine he randomly went up there without telling anyone

So you think someone at the club said go up to boros training ground and film their first team within 72 hours from the game taking place?

[Barry the Badger]

4 minutes ago, Toadhall Saint said:

Not if it’s true.

That's not what X was saying though. He's saying can't we just pin it on the intern, which would be a pretty crappy move on saints part. 

[obelisk]

Just now, Saint_clark said:

This place has gone nuts.

Get a grip.

[AlexLaw76]

Just now, Toadhall Saint said:

So you think someone at the club said go up to boros training ground and film their first team within 72 hours from the game taking place?

Not said to go, but very aware it was going to happen. The point Boro are making is that this is routine business so I could have been, er routine.

[aintforever]

7 minutes ago, AlexLaw76 said:

Surely someone at the club was involved. Just almost impossible to imagine he randomly went up there without telling anyone

Not really, it’s entirely plausible. Without seeing the evidence we just don’t know.

[AlexLaw76]

Just now, aintforever said:

Not really, it’s entirely plausible. Without seeing the evidence we just don’t know.

I wager that when the dust settles, said analyst was not up there off his own back on his own annual leave.

If it was that obvious why on earth is an independent panel spending days over it

[Toadhall Saint]

1 minute ago, AlexLaw76 said:

Not said to go, but very aware it was going to happen. The point Boro are making is that this is routine business so I could have been, er routine.

That’s on the assumption it was routine. Where’s the proof of that? 

[AlexLaw76]

Just now, Toadhall Saint said:

That’s on the assumption it was routine. Where’s the proof of that? 

Ask Boro, their Journo's are adamant the club have it.

[Toadhall Saint]

1 minute ago, AlexLaw76 said:

Ask Boro, their Journo's are adamant the club have it.

So you are now believing Boro?

[Leighsterrr]

Not sure if it's been mentioned anywhere on here, but the reports mentioned that the "spy" was told to delete the recordings

 

Who by? Whoever he was sending them to or by the Middlesbrough guys that caught him?

 

If it was the latter, why the hell would they do that, then take it to the level they have?

 

If it was the former then they already know who is guilty at SFC don't they?

[Lord Duckhunter]

1 minute ago, Sunglasses Ron said:

It doesn’t work that way in reality.

As a minimum, I would say that the club would need to provide proof that he was provided with some kind of ethics training that specifically covered the requirement not to observe training less than 72 hours before a game.

Even then, you have to question how logical it is that their Line Manager wouldn’t have been aware of a lengthy trip to Middlesbrough.

If the above could be proved then there would be a fair argument to say that the club made all reasonable steps and that the employee effectively went rogue.

 

Yep, trying to claim he acted alone would be laughed out of the hearing. I think the best case for us is the head of his team sent him up there, without the knowledge of Tonda or his staff. And that Tonda and his staff are totally separate from that team. When they got the reports, they would act on it without knowing the specifics as to how it was obtained. Thinking this didn’t come from the very top of the that department is for the fairies.

 

8 minutes ago, Toadhall Saint said:

So you think someone at the club said go up to boros training ground and film their first team within 72 hours from the game taking place?

Yes 

[aintforever]

1 minute ago, AlexLaw76 said:

I wager that when the dust settles, said analyst was not up there off his own back on his own annual leave.

If it was that obvious why on earth is an independent panel spending days over it

I doubt it was just him but to say it’s impossible is just bollocks. At a guess I would say others were probably involved but those at the top were not aware.

When you look at the risk v reward it makes little sense to have some geeky twat just standing there openly filming when the repercussions are potentially so severe.

[Pamplemousse]

Some info, the match officials for the play off final were finalised yesterday, which would be unusual if the two teams weren't already confirmed.

https://ratetheref.createaforum.com/select-group-premier-league/efl-play-offs-2026/60/

Insider referee's forum, they publish them there before they get officially announced.

It may not mean anything but it may suggest that the EFL aren't actively pushing for us to be disqualified. Would also explain Middlesbrough's hissy fit statement.

Edited 4 hours ago by Pamplemousse

[Lord Duckhunter]

Just now, Pamplemousse said:

Some info, the match officials for the play off final were finalised yesterday, which would be unusual if the two teams weren't already confirmed.

Dear god. 
 

Here’s an idea. They picked the officials who could officiate Southampton V Hull or Boro V Hull. I’d imagine, it’s not that difficult to pick them on that basis. 

[Pamplemousse]

Just now, Lord Duckhunter said:

Dear god. 
 

Here’s an idea. They picked the officials who could officiate Southampton V Hull or Boro V Hull. I’d imagine, it’s not that difficult to pick them on that basis. 

Potentially, yes. Hence why I said it may not mean anything. But it is unusual to finalise referee appointments before the two teams are confirmed. So people can read into it what they like or ignore it.

[do i not like fizzy pop]

1 hour ago, NewYorkSaint said:

without revealing which team I supported I invited latest ChatGPT model to thoroughly research spygate and make its predictions.  Quite an impressive response.    
 

The “Spygate” controversy between Southampton F.C. and Middlesbrough F.C. has escalated from “slightly embarrassing football scandal” to “potential constitutional crisis for the EFL.”

Here’s the clearest reconstruction of what seems to have happened — and then my prediction.

What actually happened

In the buildup to the Championship playoff semifinal, Middlesbrough alleged that a Southampton staff member secretly observed and recorded a closed training session at Rockliffe Park. Reports identify the individual as a Southampton analyst/intern named William Salt. Multiple outlets report Middlesbrough have CCTV, photos, witness testimony, and location/payment evidence placing him near the training ground.

The EFL then formally charged Southampton with misconduct under rules introduced after the famous Marcelo Bielsa/Leeds “Spygate” scandal in 2019. Those rules specifically prohibit observing an opponent’s training session within 72 hours of a match.

This is not just tabloid smoke. The EFL has:

• formally charged Southampton,
• accelerated disciplinary proceedings,
• acknowledged that expulsion from the playoffs is theoretically possible,
• and scheduled a hearing before the playoff final.

Meanwhile:

• Southampton beat Middlesbrough 2-1 on aggregate after extra time.
• Middlesbrough are demanding Southampton be expelled and replaced in the final.
• Hull City are stuck in limbo wondering who they’ll play at Wembley.
• The EFL looks like it swallowed a hornet’s nest.

Why this is much more serious than Bielsa’s Leeds case

The key issue is precedent.

Back in 2019, Leeds United F.C. were fined £200k after Marcelo Bielsa openly admitted sending a staffer to observe Derby County F.C. training. But crucially:

• the EFL rules at the time were vaguer,
• Leeds were not accused of covert filming on private property,
• and the league had not yet created explicit anti-spying language.

This case lands after the rules were tightened specifically to stop this exact behavior.

That matters enormously.

If the EFL now hands Southampton only a fine, the league basically announces:

“Yes, the rule exists, but no, we won’t actually protect sporting integrity when promotion money is at stake.”

And the money is gigantic. Promotion to the Premier League is routinely valued at over £200m in future revenue. Middlesbrough’s argument is that a fine would be meaningless compared with the reward.

That logic is pretty compelling.

The evidence problem for Southampton

Southampton’s public posture has been revealing.

They have not aggressively denied the spying occurred.

Instead, they’ve:

• asked for more time,
• launched an “internal review,”
• emphasized cooperation,
• and seemingly floated the idea that this may have been a rogue employee acting independently.

That is not the behavior of a club confident the allegation is fabricated.

If they had hard exculpatory evidence (“wrong person,” “public land,” “not recording,” etc.), you would likely already hear it loudly.

Instead, the fight appears to be over:

1. who authorized it,
2. how systematic it was,
3. and what sanction is proportionate.

There are also reports that other Championship clubs suspect similar spying incidents. Some of that may be hysteria. But if corroborated, Southampton’s position gets dramatically worse.

The EFL’s real dilemma

The EFL now has three terrible options.

Option 1: Fine Southampton only

This is the easiest operationally.

Problem:

• Middlesbrough likely sues.
• The EFL looks spineless.
• The anti-spying rule becomes effectively decorative.

I think this outcome is politically difficult now because the EFL itself escalated the matter by charging the club quickly and publicly emphasizing possible sporting sanctions.

Option 2: Points deduction

There are reports a six-point deduction is under consideration.

But this creates a bizarre procedural problem:

• The playoff semifinal is already over.
• A points deduction doesn’t cleanly map onto knockout football.

It feels legally messy and competitively incoherent.

Option 3: Expel Southampton / award tie to Middlesbrough

This is the nuclear option.

And despite sounding sensationalist, it is now very clearly on the table.

The cleanest mechanism would be:

• Southampton forfeit the first leg,
• Middlesbrough receive a default win,
• aggregate flips,
• Middlesbrough go to Wembley.

That would preserve the idea that sporting advantage obtained improperly invalidates results.

But this creates its own chaos:

• Southampton would almost certainly appeal.
• Fans who bought travel and tickets get wrecked.
• Hull City’s preparation is distorted.
• The EFL risks weeks of litigation.

So the league is balancing:
sporting integrity vs institutional stability.

Classic football governance problem:
Everybody wants principles until the ticketing department gets involved.

My prediction

I think Southampton will be found guilty.

I’d put that above 80%.

The combination of:

• the EFL charge,
• Southampton’s cautious language,
• the specificity of reported evidence,
• and the urgency of proceedings

strongly suggests there is substantial proof something improper occurred.

The harder question is sanction.

My actual prediction:

I do not think Southampton will ultimately be expelled from the playoff final.

I think the EFL and disciplinary commission will land on:

• a severe financial penalty,
• future sporting sanctions,
• suspensions for individuals,
• possibly a points deduction next season,
• and strong language condemning the conduct.

Why?

Because expelling Southampton now would create:

• immediate legal warfare,
• operational chaos,
• television/scheduling disaster,
• potential injunctions before Wembley,
• and huge reputational risk for the EFL itself.

Institutions almost always choose “contained embarrassment” over “systemic detonation.”

That said, I think Middlesbrough have a morally stronger argument than many people realize.

If the commission genuinely believes Southampton gained a competitive advantage from prohibited spying, then logically the sporting result should be tainted. Otherwise the rule is basically theater.

So my split forecast would be:

Outcome	Probability
Southampton guilty + heavy non-expulsion sanctions	55%
Southampton expelled from playoffs	30%
Southampton cleared or lightly punished	15%

The fascinating thing is that this may become a watershed case in English football governance. The Bielsa incident was treated as quirky genius theater. This one feels different because:

• the rules are now explicit,
• the financial stakes are massive,
• and modern sports governance is much more willing to impose integrity-based sanctions.

Football has entered the era where “everyone does it” is no longer an adequate defense.

It's just scraping all the noise on the internet, shuffling it and spitting it out. 

[sotonjoe]

8 minutes ago, aintforever said:

I doubt it was just him but to say it’s impossible is just bollocks. At a guess I would say others were probably involved but those at the top were not aware.

When you look at the risk v reward it makes little sense to have some geeky twat just standing there openly filming when the repercussions are potentially so severe.

It wasn't MLG up there filming 

[Toadhall Saint]

9 minutes ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

 

Yes 

Well we’ll find out no later than Tuesday.

[AlexLaw76]

11 minutes ago, aintforever said:

I doubt it was just him but to say it’s impossible is just bollocks. At a guess I would say others were probably involved but those at the top were not aware.

When you look at the risk v reward it makes little sense to have some geeky twat just standing there openly filming when the repercussions are potentially so severe.

I have never suggested those at the top were/are

[Lord Duckhunter]

9 minutes ago, Pamplemousse said:

Potentially, yes. Hence why I said it may not mean anything. But it is unusual to finalise referee appointments before the two teams are confirmed. So people can read into it what they like or ignore it.

It’s unusual because……. We’re in an unusual situation. People can read what they like into it, but anyone who reads anything into it, is a plank…

Edited 3 hours ago by Lord Duckhunter

[Polaroid Saint]

Oh right. Yeah. Erm. Yeah 72hrs. Golf course. Cool.

[aintforever]

7 minutes ago, AlexLaw76 said:

I have never suggested those at the top were/are

No but it’s not impossible to imagine an intern, desperate to impress his boss, taking it upon himself to do something that stupid. Given how amateurish it looked that seems entirely plausible to me.

Edited 3 hours ago by aintforever

[Zorba]

1 hour ago, CB Fry said:

Stop pretending that we are denying or contesting the charge. We are not. We  have accepted it.

There's no "allegedly" here for fucks sake. Get over it.

tit

[EssEffCee]

1 minute ago, aintforever said:

No but it’s not impossible to imagine an intern, desperate to impress his boss, taking it upon himself to do something that stupid. Given how amateurish it looked that seems entirely plausible to me.

What and we didn't try and contact him when he didn't show up for work?

Less than 1% chance he did this entirely off his own back.

[CylonKing]

Here's a punishment idea.... we're not kicked out of the final but either have to play with the intern upfront or with Bazunu in goal. Undoubtedly, Hull go up either way.

[EssEffCee]

Just now, CylonKing said:

Here's a punishment idea.... we're not kicked out of the final but either have to play with the intern upfront or with Bazunu in goal. Undoubtedly, Hull go up either way.

I'm picking the intern up front in that situation.

[aintforever]

1 minute ago, EssEffCee said:

What and we didn't try and contact him when he didn't show up for work?

Less than 1% chance he did this entirely off his own back.

I would image his job is not one where you just turn up at an office and clock in from 9-5.

[AlexLaw76]

2 minutes ago, aintforever said:

I would image his job is not one where you just turn up at an office and clock in from 9-5.

as an analyst, in the days before the biggest game of the season, he could just do what he likes

This is barking mad

[Wade Garrett]

6 hours ago, hypochondriac said:

Agreed but the written statement from the ex analyst (and the betting guy on here who said he knows we've done it before) does rather suggest this isn't the first time 

It suggests fuck all.  A sacked ex-employee who has a lot of contacts at Boro.

[Jimmy_D]

11 minutes ago, EssEffCee said:

What and we didn't try and contact him when he didn't show up for work?

Less than 1% chance he did this entirely off his own back.

It’s possible he usually works remotely.

Assuming it’s the one everyone thinks it is, add in that he was used to working for Villa in the Prem where there’s no rule against spying, and he may have wanted to impress as an intern by providing data that happens to turn out to accurate, it makes more sense that his assessment of risk vs reward may have led to him deciding to go for it, more so than perhaps Saints assessment of risk vs reward would have led to us sanctioning it, where we’d have known we were taking a massive risk for minimal gain, but of course that’s just speculation on my part.

[aintforever]

1 minute ago, AlexLaw76 said:

as an analyst, in the days before the biggest game of the season, he could just do what he likes

This is barking mad

He’s a fucking intern, we’ve had interns before and you generally don’t give them anything important to do.

We don’t know what their setup is, he might have been tasked with giving his take on how they will line up and thought fuck it, I will go and do my own research and look like a genius when I get it right.