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 5
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 2
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. 

  • Haha 1
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
  • Sad 1
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 9
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 3
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.

  • Like 1
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

AlexLaw76

AlexLaw76

Posted
Posted

Wonder what will be the thread of the next Boro-fed story in the press will be?

I see currently their players who were supposed to be training tomorrow are on extended weekend until Tuesday, where they will be back for a 'meeting'.

Bit weird considering they have a playoff final on Saturday.

  • Like 2
kwsaint

kwsaint

Posted
Posted

Perhaps we should just promote Millwall as the only party in the play offs not impacted by any of this. Would spare the Met having to police West Ham Millwall twice next year.

  • Haha 1
sadoldgit

sadoldgit

Posted
Posted
40 minutes ago, Sergei Gotsmanov said:

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

What difference does that make? We would have known that he was or was not playing an hour before kick off and could make any amendments to our tactics.

Dark Munster

Dark Munster

Posted
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, Saint_clark said:

Breaches of the rules with undefined punishments will always be looked at in isolation from other events. In short, what Leicester got is completely irrelevant.

Of course it's relevant. If I get a 30 year sentence for driving sober with a clean record but 10 mph over the limit and no accident, my solicitor would point out to the judge someone who got the same sentence for manslaughter. 

Edited by Dark Munster
Lord Duckhunter

Lord Duckhunter

Posted
Posted
9 minutes ago, Willo of Whiteley said:

Even if it’s over Middlesbrough and the national press will be doing everything to unsettle Saints ahead of Saturday.

Why on earth will the national press want to unsettle Saints, dear god, people go on about Middlesbrough supporters being weird. 

AlexLaw76

AlexLaw76

Posted
Posted
Just now, Lord Duckhunter said:

Why on earth will the national press want to unsettle Saints, dear god, people go on about Middlesbrough supporters being weird. 

It will soon be forgotten about by the masses, other than the odd talking point (and Saturday of course). 
Chelsea v Spurs and Bournemouth v City will be more important this week.

Lord Duckhunter

Lord Duckhunter

Posted
Posted (edited)
1 hour 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. 

Not if they say it was a knock out competition. If a team is  kicked out of the FA Cup their direct opponent will go through, they don’t need to compensate every team who entered the cup.  

Edited by Lord Duckhunter
  • Like 2
Pilchards

Pilchards

Posted
Posted

Does anyone know if the receiver from the iPhone can control the zoom etc.

Almost like use the iPhone as if it was a security camera? 
 

I just can’t get round how someone from Southampton would spy being 150 yards from the action.  Maybe Salt was a decoy while Taylor was in the bushes off the footpath which is right next to their pitch?

Salt was unlucky to get caught as he thought he was untouchable being so far from the action?

James G

James G

Posted
Posted
7 minutes ago, Maggie May said:

So why are there various reports of Boro suggesting so? 

Fake news. It's been part of some bigger strategy to make lots of noise

  • Like 2
Sergei Gotsmanov

Sergei Gotsmanov

Posted
Posted
24 minutes ago, sadoldgit said:

What difference does that make? We would have known that he was or was not playing an hour before kick off and could make any amendments to our tactics.

I think that it would have shaped how we prepared for the game in the days before......

Sergei Gotsmanov

Sergei Gotsmanov

Posted
Posted
43 minutes ago, James G said:

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

O think you underplay the significance of this and how it would have been harnessed.....

Turkish

Turkish

Posted
Posted

Boro fans still droning on about what our punishment should be. The best one I’ve see today says we should get 

kicked out of the plays off with Hull promoted 

and

a large points deduction next season 

and

pay Boro £40m as that’s what parachute payments we will get next season

they are mental 😂😂😂😂😂😂

 

  • Haha 2
BARCELONASAINT

BARCELONASAINT

Posted
Posted
1 hour 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?

wtf are you taking, how the hell have they been cheated out of a final???

They absolutely destroyed us at their place but couldn't hit a barn door with a banjo, absolutely nothing to do with Saints and if anything they played better than they have done in months in that game.

Second game they were on fire again first half but terrible coaching on their part meant they decided to sit on their one goal and let us back in and we were far fitter.

Saints gained bugger all

 

  • Like 2
Whitey Grandad

Whitey Grandad

Posted
Posted (edited)
9 minutes ago, Sergei Gotsmanov said:

O think you underplay the significance of this and how it would have been harnessed.....

Here's a novel idea. Why not have team that is confident enough to play its own way and doesn't give a toss about the opposition?

Let them worry about us.

Edited by Whitey Grandad
skintsaint

skintsaint

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, badgerx16 said:

They would have to demonstrate they suffered a financial loss.

I suppose the worst case is they missed out on a day out at Wembley, as they couldn't prove they would beat Hull in the final.

badgerx16

badgerx16

Posted
Posted
28 minutes ago, Maggie May said:

So why are there various reports of Boro suggesting so? 

Boro have been shit stirring to gain attention, and the media have been playing along.

  • Like 2
badgerx16

badgerx16

Posted
Posted (edited)
8 minutes ago, skintsaint said:

I suppose the worst case is they missed out on a day out at Wembley, as they couldn't prove they would beat Hull in the final.

They had 31 attempts on goal in the first leg and scored...........0.

That and they were blown after 60 minutes of each leg. That is why they missed out on the final.

The alleged spying had no effect on the matches.

Edited by badgerx16

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...