Jump to content

#Spygate

St Chalet

By St Chalet
in The Saints

 Share

Recommended Posts

Recommended

Posted by Miltonaggro,

Apologies for the war and peace post chaps – bear with or scroll past.  For the last week I have been trying to provide a steer on here as to why I think this silly episode will be concluded with a fine (in the region of £200k) and / or a possible future points deduction (though if I were advising Saints I would appeal this).  Simply that talk of forfeit and bans opens a legal can of worms that is well beyond the remit and scope of both the EFL and / or Middlesbrough FC. The best way to get

What a well thought out post. Thank you

Recommended by St Chalet

  • Like

111 reactions

Go to this post
Sergei Gotsmanov

Sergei Gotsmanov

Posted
Posted
12 minutes ago, saintant said:

Well that will kind of depend on how successful Gibbo and his hotshit lawyer get on when they come gunning for us for compo.

I suppose that they can do this through the courts. 

Whitey Grandad

Whitey Grandad

Posted
Posted
6 minutes ago, Sergei Gotsmanov said:

Yes I get that but do you not think that Boro who potentially have been cheated of place in the final have to feel they have something out of any ruling?

Certainly not. Their defeat had nothing to do with any alleged knowledge of their tactics or playing style. They were soundly beaten and have been declining for months. You're building this alleged breach of rule into far more than it is worth.

Which is why KFC keep harping on about it. They know they're not good enough when it comes to playing football.

  • Like 3
James G

James G

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, Sergei Gotsmanov said:

Yes I get that but do you not think that Boro who potentially have been cheated of place in the final have to feel they have something out of any ruling?

No, we beat them on them pitch. They had their chances and they lost

They are shit at set plays so there's no reason to watch them and nothing to be gained. All Salt would have seen would have been a bunch of blokes running about. Whatever their manager was crying about, Middlesbrough losing was probably because he changed the formation and their players got tired earlier. That's on him, not on us

The key thing is, we played the same way and did the same thing

Whitey Grandad

Whitey Grandad

Posted
Posted
9 minutes ago, Sergei Gotsmanov said:

I think MLG makes a good point below in terms of suspensions. I still feel that so much is at stake that Boro have to feel some form of content with the ruling....

That is exactly why they cannot be allowed to benefit. There are 24 teams in the League. One particular team cannot be more special than any other. If they did then allegations would be flying around right left and centre.

Sergei Gotsmanov

Sergei Gotsmanov

Posted
Posted (edited)
4 minutes ago, Whitey Grandad said:

Certainly not. Their defeat had nothing to do with any alleged knowledge of their tactics or playing style. They were soundly beaten and have been declining for months. You're building this alleged breach of rule into far more than it is worth.

Which is why KFC keep harping on about it. They know they're not good enough when it comes to playing football.

Go easy on Colonel Sanders. 

Edited by Sergei Gotsmanov
stknowle

stknowle

Posted
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, CB Fry said:

I think I speak for everyone when I say that we just want our day at Wembley.

Sorry but that implies that I would be happy if we had our day at Wembley and then got retrospectively expelled from the competition as a result of an appeal against the original decision to allow us to play in said final and did not lose it. I want my day at Wembley, us to win it, and not get expelled afterwards if we do. All this without taking into consideration that when you say ‘everyone’ that could literally refer to everyone alive on earth today, which would clearly be ridiculous as the vast majority of people alive on earth today have no interest in and to a lesser extent have never heard of Southampton Football Club. Yours, MLG.

I’ll do it for you - SHUT UP YOU TWAT.

Edited by stknowle
  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
hypochondriac

hypochondriac

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, stknowle said:

Sorry but that implies that I would be happy if we had our day at Wembley and then got retrospectively expelled from the competition as a result of an appeal against the original decision to allow us to play in said final and did not lose it. I want my day at Wembley, us to win it, and not get expelled afterwards if we do. All this without taking into consideration that when you say ‘everyone’ that could literally refer to everyone alive on earth today, which would clearly be ridiculous as the vast majority of people alive on earth today have no interest and to a lesser extent have never heard of Southampton Football Club. Yours, MLG.

I’ll do it for you - SHUT UP YOU TWAT.

Lol. I was just about to reply to you and call you a spazz and then I read the end. 

Sergei Gotsmanov

Sergei Gotsmanov

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, Whitey Grandad said:

That is exactly why they cannot be allowed to benefit. There are 24 teams in the League. One particular team cannot be more special than any other. If they did then allegations would be flying around right left and centre.

I think spying is a can of worms for the EFL to open. I said at the time to my son that if I was wanting to find out if their striker was fit to play I would have asked one of my players who had some kind of connection with the Boro dressing room to discretely ask the question.

I remember going to a talk from Kieran Bracken on the rugby world cup win shortly after the 2003 world cup win and he mentioned that Woodward hired a team of ex SAS to try and crack their line out codes. It was rife even in those days to check rubbish bins for evidence or any way they could to glean information.

  • Like 1
Sergei Gotsmanov

Sergei Gotsmanov

Posted
Posted (edited)
20 minutes ago, James G said:

No, we beat them on them pitch. They had their chances and they lost

They are shit at set plays so there's no reason to watch them and nothing to be gained. All Salt would have seen would have been a bunch of blokes running about. Whatever their manager was crying about, Middlesbrough losing was probably because he changed the formation and their players got tired earlier. That's on him, not on us

The key thing is, we played the same way and did the same thing

Do you think he would have seen that Hayden Hackney was not training?

Edited by Sergei Gotsmanov
Jimmy_D

Jimmy_D

Posted
Posted
13 minutes ago, WritingOnTheWall said:

You're completely right that this isn't about Middlesbrough. The top priority for the panel will be to preserve the integrity of the competition (the championship playoffs).

Which they will do by applying an appropriate sanction if we're found guilty. Precedent for a similar offence comes from Leeds spying for every game for half a season. The new rule added clarifies that spying is an offence, but makes no indication that it should be considered more seriously. Since a full range of sanctions is technically available, newspapers have been able to create clickbait by pointing out that it's technically possible the harshest of sanctions could possibly happen, and Boro have been creating a lot of noise calling for that to happen, but all the smart money at the bookies points otherwise.

  • Like 5
LegalEagle

LegalEagle

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, Jimmy_D said:

Which they will do by applying an appropriate sanction if we're found guilty. Precedent for a similar offence comes from Leeds spying for every game for half a season. The new rule added clarifies that spying is an offence, but makes no indication that it should be considered more seriously. Since a full range of sanctions is technically available, newspapers have been able to create clickbait by pointing out that it's technically possible the harshest of sanctions could possibly happen, and Boro have been creating a lot of noise calling for that to happen, but all the smart money at the bookies points otherwise.

A very nice concise little summary of where this is at

  • Like 1
Whitey Grandad

Whitey Grandad

Posted
Posted
14 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

Lol. I was just about to reply to you and call you a spazz and then I read the end. 

I've just noticed your latest avatar - smart work!

 

 

Who is it supposed to be?

stknowle

stknowle

Posted
Posted
16 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

Lol. I was just about to reply to you and call you a spazz and then I read the end. 

It’s been a looong week.

Maggie May

Maggie May

Posted
Posted

Sorry to keep bringing up the 72 hour rule. I’m reading that our charge only relates to spying on Middlesbrough within the banned limit. If that’s the case, why am I reading Middlesbrough may have evidence of us spying on other clubs? Surely that would be inadmissible during this probe? 

  • Like 2
WritingOnTheWall

WritingOnTheWall

Posted
Posted
10 minutes ago, Jimmy_D said:

The new rule added clarifies that spying is an offence, but makes no indication that it should be considered more seriously.

What do you mean by this? You're saying, the rule doesn't say that it should be considered more serious than before it existed?

badgerx16

badgerx16

Posted
Posted
47 minutes ago, saintant said:

Well that will kind of depend on how successful Gibbo and his hotshit lawyer get on when they come gunning for us for compo.

They would have to demonstrate they suffered a financial loss.

Sergei Gotsmanov

Sergei Gotsmanov

Posted
Posted
6 minutes ago, Whitey Grandad said:

He could have just read their local newspaper. 

What was it Nicky Butt said Fergie would do in Europe after training before a big game. Would always have a couple of key players leaving the training pitch with ice packs on their calfs,,,,

badgerx16

badgerx16

Posted
Posted
7 minutes ago, Maggie May said:

Sorry to keep bringing up the 72 hour rule. I’m reading that our charge only relates to spying on Middlesbrough within the banned limit. If that’s the case, why am I reading Middlesbrough may have evidence of us spying on other clubs? Surely that would be inadmissible during this probe? 

Totally irrelevant to this case, and the other clubs are denying it.

Jimmy_D

Jimmy_D

Posted
Posted
9 minutes ago, WritingOnTheWall said:

What do you mean by this? You're saying, the rule doesn't say that it should be considered more serious than before it existed?

The new rule makes no indication that it should be treated more seriously than the original acting in good faith rule that Leeds were charged with. It does, however, refer directly to that good faith rule, and the EFL's charge includes both the new spying rule and the original good faith rule, which gives a good indication that it's being treated as a similar level of offence.

James G

James G

Posted
Posted
27 minutes ago, Sergei Gotsmanov said:

Do you think he would have seen that Hayden Hackney was not training?

Their manager had already said Hackney was unlikely to play. Plus, no player comes back from injury and plays well

Smirking_Saint

Smirking_Saint

Posted
Posted
5 minutes ago, Jimmy_D said:

The new rule makes no indication that it should be treated more seriously than the original acting in good faith rule that Leeds were charged with. It does, however, refer directly to that good faith rule, and the EFL's charge includes both the new spying rule and the original good faith rule, which gives a good indication that it's being treated as a similar level of offence.

You also have the Canada womens precedent, although a different governing body.

Its difficult, with the media circus I think the punishment will be ‘harsher’ than that of Leeds, its going to need to satisfy to baying mob, to a degree

Do I think we’ll be expelled from the final ? Very unlikely… but I do think a significant fine and potentially a delayed points deduction, and maybe, if proven, sporting bans for any members of staff

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...