#Spygate

[AlexLaw76]

2 minutes ago, sadoldgit said:

Sacking him would be ridiculous and isn’t going to happen.

He may get suspended for, say 3-6 months

 No chance we will go into pre season, in what ever league, with Ben Garner as the coach with the attention that would come with a returning Tonda

Edited 1 hour ago by AlexLaw76

[Fabrice29]

9 minutes ago, DellBlockH said:

 If, and it's a big if, Tonda had knowledge of the alleged spy, or even sent him, there could be mitigating factors such as genuinely not knowing it is against the rules. Or it could be a deliberate act, despite knowing the rules. He should, perhaps, be reprimanded and warned not to do it again. But to sack the most successful manager we've had in years, with the huge potential he has, would be way over the top. As Dman says below, despite the huge press backlash, the offence itself is no worse than diving, feigning injury or fouling an attacker clean through on goal. The last of these attracts a red card and a three match ban. Are you really saying Tonda should be treated more harshly?

That would not be a mitigating factor that would wash with anyone of substance. Also, if Tonda is proven to be involved we won’t need to sack him, he’ll be banned and there is absolutely precedent for that.

[skintsaint]

And it starts....

 

[Whitey Grandad]

1 minute ago, skintsaint said:

And it starts....

 

Yeah, you tell 'em.

[Dman]

1 minute ago, sadoldgit said:

Sacking him would be ridiculous and isn’t going to happen.

*** Risk of becoming that meme where Kirk from Corrie lookalike is handing his season ticket back ***

I honestly think If the club sack anyone* off the back of this, they will lose me as a fan. I will not put a penny more into the club. 

*Other than the intern if he needs to be the fall guy. He deserves it for

1. being absolutley useless at hiding himself. 

2. Not being more savvy when caught to play down the issue as a memeber of the public. 

3. He'll be alright, he'll get a decent pay out.

[Willo of Whiteley]

5 minutes ago, skintsaint said:

And it starts....

 

They are desperate.

They know it’s not going to happen so it’s almost a “let’s unnerve them before the final”.

They are a pathetic club. I keep saying for all our alleged stuff it isn’t a great look, but Middlesbrough will come out no better.

The club who leaked to the media.

The club who riled their fan base up.

The club that spread misinformation.

The club that lost fairly and still couldn’t take it.

The club that still tried to influence an independent panel.

The club now trying to undermine and ruin another clubs big day.

[aintforever]

The ironic thing is, the longer the EFL drag this out the more of an advantage we or Boro have over Hull because they still don't know for sure who to prepare for.   

[Dman]

9 minutes ago, AlexLaw76 said:

He may get suspended for, say 3-6 months

 No chance we will go into pre season, in what ever league, with Ben Garner as the coach with the attention that would come with a returning Tonda

I can't see how a ban would be feasible if we are promoted.

Who would apply the ban? How can you ban someone who hasn't breached any of your rules? i.e the FA or PL? 

[JohnnyShearer2.0]

27 minutes ago, Dman said:

Perhaps I have less intregrity than you, but I really do not think this is a big deal at all. 

I acknowledge its breaking the rules and therefore constitutes to 'cheating' by definition, but I am putting this in the same level of cheating as diving, wasting time etc. 

The fact this is only a rule in the EFL and nowehere else in the world demonstrates the level of (or shall I say lack of) seriousness around the issue. 

Talk of sacking the manager is ludicrous. 

Agreed. 

Why should Saints die on thier sword. All sorts shady shot goes on everywhere else. If Tonda instigated, he should have known better or been advised of the rules. 

Touchline ban and a lesson learned.

 

[sadoldgit]

1 hour ago, Sarcoidevo said:

Sorry but what kind backwoods shiteful club has a training ground that has open public accessible views? 

Do they stop and accost every Tom Dick & Harry that might wander by and take photos or film?

 

Millwall had one. I think they have moved out now but up until recently they had a training ground just outside Bromley that used to be Oxo’s sport club. There is a public playing field next to it and it adjoins the old Times sports club where I used to play football. There are woods along the boundary where anyone could wonder in and watch training without being obvious. The Times sports club was sold when Murdoch took over and was eventually knocked down and there is just a field there now where locals walk their dogs. There was nothing stopping you walking through the woods and watching Millwall train.

[Sarcoidevo]

29 minutes ago, Arjen Robben said:

It's very publicly accessible , its a hotel and golf course , Where Salt is alledgedly standing is next to a car park.

 

Again .. do they stop and question all people who may watch, take photos, film from these public vantage points? 

If the Smogheads are so worried about keeping their Training practices private maybe they should find somewhere more private to train ... especially when promotion is at stake .... they deserve to be filmed 

[sadoldgit]

15 minutes ago, Fabrice29 said:

That would not be a mitigating factor that would wash with anyone of substance. Also, if Tonda is proven to be involved we won’t need to sack him, he’ll be banned and there is absolutely precedent for that.

Banned? If there is any banning it will be for a short period and from the touchline I imagine. Proportionality, remember? This really isn’t a major crime.

[Fabrice29]

1 minute ago, Sarcoidevo said:

Again .. do they stop and question all people who may watch, take photos, film from these public vantage points? 

If the Smogheads are so worried about keeping their Training practices private maybe they should find somewhere more private to train ... especially when promotion is at stake .... they deserve to be filmed 

Again, I think what they do to protect themselves from being spied on by the opposition is check the rules that say the opposition can’t spy on you. It’s not on them to border up their training ground to stop people from Southampton watching them. It’s on Southampton. 

[FootballMartin]

52 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

Hmm. Football Martin on the second tier podcast this morning saying that "let's be honest Tonda will have known and him and Spors will lose their jobs." Seems odd to be so definitive about it. 

I was asked if he’s found guilty and knew about it, his job would come under massive scrutiny. Either way, if he is guilty, he’d likely end up being banned anyway.

[Whitey Grandad]

8 minutes ago, JohnnyShearer2.0 said:

Agreed. 

Why should Saints die on thier sword. All sorts shady shot goes on everywhere else. If Tonda instigated, he should have known better or been advised of the rules. 

Touchline ban and a lesson learned.

 

And a suspended one at that.

[FootballMartin]

53 minutes ago, 23rdSaint said:

Since when are we treating Football Martin as a credible source?

I’m just a fan who goes on shows and gives opinions. I’m not there to be a credible source, I’m there to share my views like any other supporter.

[Arjen Robben]

8 minutes ago, Fabrice29 said:

Again, I think what they do to protect themselves from being spied on by the opposition is check the rules that say the opposition can’t spy on you. It’s not on them to border up their training ground to stop people from Southampton watching them. It’s on Southampton. 

 

 

Edited 1 hour ago by Arjen Robben
rethought reply

[Whitey Grandad]

3 minutes ago, Fabrice29 said:

Again, I think what they do to protect themselves from being spied on by the opposition is check the rules that say the opposition can’t spy on you. It’s not on them to border up their training ground to stop people from Southampton watching them. It’s on Southampton. 

True, in principle. But if any Tom Dick or Karen can stop and watch them your secrets are not going to stay secret very long. The cost of a fence doesn't even come close to the cost of an intern's phone bill.

[AlexLaw76]

1 minute ago, Arjen Robben said:

If you stood visibly naked in front of your window, and someone saw you and complained. Who would be in trouble you for indecent exposure or the person who saw you for not averting their gaze ?

 

Boro were just going about their normal business, not playing naked football

what next, ask why a girl was wearing a shorts skirt the night she was groped?

[Whitey Grandad]

2 minutes ago, Arjen Robben said:

If you stood visibly naked in front of your window, and someone saw you and complained. Who would be in trouble you for indecent exposure or the person who saw you for not averting their gaze ?

 

Is it illegal to stare at a flasher?

(Asking for a friend)

[Fabrice29]

3 minutes ago, sadoldgit said:

Banned? If there is any banning it will be for a short period and from the touchline I imagine. Proportionality, remember? This really isn’t a major crime.

There are differences but also precedence 

https://www.espn.co.uk/football/story/_/id/42351579/canada-soccer-bev-priestman-olympics-coach-drone-spy-scandal
 

Anyway, I’m imagining the proving he was involved but is probably quite difficult so it’s a mute conversation but this was one of my concerns about the lack of narrative control via local media. It would be very easy and not a big deal to just set the record straight that he wasn’t involved via House/Blackmore if he wasn’t involved…

[sadoldgit]

Update - apparently Millwall are still using the site near Bromley for 1st team training. Will Salt would have his pick of hundreds of trees to hide behind.

Edited 1 hour ago by sadoldgit
Typo

[saintant]

48 minutes ago, Stud mark of doom said:

Just a thought - is there a possibility that those at the club didn’t know there was a rule against this (seemingly unique EFL and arbitrary time limit). 
 

The senior guys are from overseas. We were in the prem (where it’s fine) when the rule came in, and for most of the time since). Also sounds as if it might be standard practice to ignore it for other clubs.

Ignorance of the rules would not be seen as any excuse or mitigating factor. 

[FootballMartin]

34 minutes ago, Harry_SFC said:

Football Martin is an absolute weapon, wouldn't listen to anything he says. 

Calling someone a weapon because you don’t agree with their opinion says more about you than it does me. I put my face to my views publicly every single day, while people like you throw insults. 

You don’t have to agree with me but don’t be nasty. You do not know me so don’t be so vile. 

[hypochondriac]

10 minutes ago, FootballMartin said:

I was asked if he’s found guilty and knew about it, his job would come under massive scrutiny. Either way, if he is guilty, he’d likely end up being banned anyway.

No you weren't. He asked you how you would feel if Saints were kicked out of the playoffs and you gave one answer and then said:

"If Eckert had anything to do with it which lets be honest he will have done. He's had a say in this he knows exactly what is going on." 

"He will lose his job and Johannes Spors will lose his job"

I generally like your stuff so ignore the stupid insults for no reason but I'm just quoting what you said. 

Edited 1 hour ago by hypochondriac

[AlexLaw76]

Just now, hypochondriac said:

No you weren't. He asked you how you would feel if Saints were kicked out of the playoffs and you gave one answer and then said:

"If Eckert had anything to do with it which lets be honest he will have done. He's had a say in this he knows exactly what is going on." 

"He will lose his job"

So what if he said that?

[saintant]

42 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

It's about 15 minutes into the podcast so not sure it's said for clicks. I'm just not sure why someone who is a fan would make such definitive statements. Bit bizarre to be honest. 

It wasn't definitive otherwise he would be saying they are getting sacked as a fact.

[sadoldgit]

6 minutes ago, Fabrice29 said:

There are differences but also precedence 

https://www.espn.co.uk/football/story/_/id/42351579/canada-soccer-bev-priestman-olympics-coach-drone-spy-scandal
 

Anyway, I’m imagining the proving he was involved but is probably quite difficult so it’s a mute conversation but this was one of my concerns about the lack of narrative control via local media. It would be very easy and not a big deal to just set the record straight that he wasn’t involved via House/Blackmore if he wasn’t involved…

You are not supposed to comment once an inquiry is under way and quite rightly so. Something we have adhered to but Middlesbrough have not. They are more leaky than Donald Trump’s diaper.

Edited 1 hour ago by sadoldgit
Added text

[Dman]

3 minutes ago, sadoldgit said:

Update - apparently Millwall are still using the site near Bromley for 1st team training. Will Salt would have his pick of hundreds of trees to hide behind.

They are. I had a look when it came out they might be one of the clubs we were looking at. 

Honestly, even more accessible than Boro's. You could easily look through the fence from the public pavement out the front. 

[Fabrice29]

2 minutes ago, sadoldgit said:

You are not supposed to comment once an inquiry is under way and quite rightly so. Something we have adhered to but Middlesbrough have not.

That’s the whole point of using the media to do it via. Sources say etc. And by the way we’ve already commented like this by telling them we have accepted the charges. 

Edited 1 hour ago by Fabrice29

[Toadhall Saint]

39 minutes ago, Stud mark of doom said:

Just a thought - is there a possibility that those at the club didn’t know there was a rule against this (seemingly unique EFL and arbitrary time limit). 
 

The senior guys are from overseas. We were in the prem (where it’s fine) when the rule came in, and for most of the time since). Also sounds as if it might be standard practice to ignore it for other clubs.

So I have tried to find who is responsible for Regulatory Compliance. There seems to be two roles neither of which are currently filled and from as far as I can see they have been vacant since around the new year.

my reason for looking is that it would be those roles that would come under scrutiny in this. In effect the buck stops with them not the head coach. It is these roles that need to ensure compliance to the regulations.

if Saints can evidence that they have processes/ training in place that deals with the regulations (this can be as easy as taking a multiple choice test at the end of relevant training) and potentially the individuals in effect agree to abiding by said regulations then although not off Scot free that would be genuine mitigation for rule 172. Unfortunately or fortunately that puts the onus firmly on the individual ie Mr Salt.

the only reason I mention the above is that most of my working life I have been working in heavily regulated industries where regulatory compliance or not complying has huge implications.

some of this has already been highlighted earlier in this thread by A N Other.

[Turkish]

5 minutes ago, Fabrice29 said:

There are differences but also precedence 

https://www.espn.co.uk/football/story/_/id/42351579/canada-soccer-bev-priestman-olympics-coach-drone-spy-scandal
 

Anyway, I’m imagining the proving he was involved but is probably quite difficult so it’s a mute conversation but this was one of my concerns about the lack of narrative control via local media. It would be very easy and not a big deal to just set the record straight that he wasn’t involved via House/Blackmore if he wasn’t involved…

Russell Martin isn't coming back, get over him.

[Dman]

Just now, Fabrice29 said:

That’s the whole point of using the media to do it via. Sources say etc. 

yeah... apart from their manager said it to Sky Sports and they have released a statement through their offical channels. 

[hypochondriac]

 

2 minutes ago, saintant said:

It wasn't definitive otherwise he would be saying they are getting sacked as a fact.

That is what he said. He said he will have known about this let's be honest and that he will be sacked. 

[Fabrice29]

2 minutes ago, Turkish said:

Russell Martin isn't coming back, get over him.

Are you over proper football man Chris Wilder yet?

Also this idea I’m anti Tonda when I was one of the very few who was happily taking stick on here for daring to suggest he might be a decent appointment and we shouldn’t sack him a few weeks later is incredible

Edited 1 hour ago by Fabrice29

[James]

Here comes the last heave ho from the Boro press. I suspect they know decision will come today and we won’t be getting kicked out, hence more desperate and hysterical articles. Hopefully this is all over soon. 

[kitch]

1 hour ago, hypochondriac said:

Who said I was? I just think it's an odd thing for him to say. 

He says a lot of odd things tbf.

[hypochondriac]

10 minutes ago, Fabrice29 said:

There are differences but also precedence 

https://www.espn.co.uk/football/story/_/id/42351579/canada-soccer-bev-priestman-olympics-coach-drone-spy-scandal
 

Anyway, I’m imagining the proving he was involved but is probably quite difficult so it’s a mute conversation but this was one of my concerns about the lack of narrative control via local media. It would be very easy and not a big deal to just set the record straight that he wasn’t involved via House/Blackmore if he wasn’t involved…

I wish it was a mute conversation. Then I wouldn't have to listen to it. 

Edited 1 hour ago by hypochondriac

[saintant]

1 minute ago, hypochondriac said:

 

That is what he said. He said he will have known about this let's be honest and that he will be sacked. 

But there is absolutely no way he can be certain of that so what he said can only be taken as his opinion. It can't be taken as definitive which, by definition, means something that is certain to happen.

[Fabrice29]

2 minutes ago, Dman said:

yeah... apart from their manager said it to Sky Sports and they have released a statement through their offical channels. 

And wont get in any trouble for doing so, so remind me why we aren’t saying something unofficial again? Is it the same reason that we sent out MLT at half time to tell everyone to stop singing about spying? 🤣

[hypochondriac]

1 minute ago, kitch said:

He says a lot of odd things tbf.

He's entitled to as any other fan is. To say that he definitely had something to do with it and that that means he will be sacked is undoubtedly a strange thing to say. 

[hypochondriac]

2 minutes ago, saintant said:

But there is absolutely no way he can be certain of that so what he said can only be taken as his opinion. It can't be taken as definitive which, by definition, means something that is certain to happen.

Sigh. He is presenting it as definitive. That is why it's an odd thing to say. Not difficult to grasp. 

[Dman]

2 minutes ago, Fabrice29 said:

And wont get in any trouble for doing so, so remind me why we aren’t saying something unofficial again? Is it the same reason that we sent out MLT at half time to tell everyone to stop singing about spying? 🤣

your point to counter the claim that you're not supposed to comment during an investigation was that they have used the press. 

I was demonstrating that not only have the used the press, they have also commented as well. 

[BH_Saint]

How well was this 72 hour rule known? Southampton were a PL club when the rule was brought in, did they even know about it?

How strictly have clubs followed the rule? I can't believe that over 7 years, no other team hasn't strayed into the 72 hours. 

Does it sometimes happen and the person viewing is just asked to leave? No big deal made of it.

[sadoldgit]

Like everyone on this site I have absolutely no idea what happened here so it is all just conjecture. Isn’t possible though that Eckert had no idea about the alleged spying mission? He could have asked the head of analysis for some recent footage of Boro’s free kick routines and let them get on with it. It is also entirely possible that he specifically asked for the latest so do it on Thursday but the fact is we have no idea just what the level his involvement was, so why assume that it is all down to him when we just don’t know at present?

[Fabrice29]

1 minute ago, Dman said:

your point to counter the claim that you're not supposed to comment during an investigation was that they have used the press. 

I was demonstrating that not only have the used the press, they have also commented as well. 

Presumably because they have little to be coy about and have also been moved aside from the investigation now. 

[Fabrice29]

1 minute ago, sadoldgit said:

Like everyone on this site I have absolutely no idea what happened here so it is all just conjecture. Isn’t possible though that Eckert had no idea about the alleged spying mission? He could have asked the head of analysis for some recent footage of Boro’s free kick routines and let them get on with it. It is also entirely possible that he specifically asked for the latest so do it on Thursday but the fact is we have no idea just what the level his involvement was, so why assume that it is all down to him when we just don’t know at present?

This is all possible and nobody is assuming anything. It’s just a hypothetical discussion. 

[Toussaint]

21 minutes ago, Whitey Grandad said:

Is it illegal to stare at a flasher?

(Asking for a friend)

Its not illegal, but you did make me feel uncomfortable as my flash was aimed at someone else, I certainly wasn't prepared for a return flash.  

[sadoldgit]

11 minutes ago, Fabrice29 said:

That’s the whole point of using the media to do it via. Sources say etc. And by the way we’ve already commented like this by telling them we have accepted the charges. 

Accepting the charges was a holding statement. Also it was not an admission of guilt. They made two holding statements which basically said we have received the charges, are looking in to it and will respond accordingly when we have established the facts.
Leaking stuff to the media is just as bad as publishing it yourself, in fact it is worse because it is trying to influence the hearing covertly. It could be construed as “cheating.” If you are facing a charge of cheating, what better way to deal with it than being entirely up front and playing by the rules?

[OldNick]

I must sayIthought we'd have had a decision by now!