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

26 reactions

Go to this post
trousers

trousers

Posted
Posted (edited)
5 minutes ago, SaintBobby said:

Surely the fact that you can view and film Boro’s training sessions from public land is relevant. I could have gone there myself, filmed it and put it up on YouTube.

Are all Saints employees then prohibited from watching my video?

As others have pointed out, the league rule says: "You're not allowed to do it. Full stop"... The rule doesn't say: "You're not allowed to do it, unless you're on public land"... i.e. it doesn't matter what the legal entitlement is, the league rules trump that, don't they...?

Edited by trousers
  • Like 6
Midfield_General

Midfield_General

Posted
Posted
9 minutes ago, Miltonaggro said:

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 your head around it is to think about intervention via the regulator in any other lucrative industry away from the emotion attached to sports.  If a rule imposed by the regulator is wildly out of proportion to any complaint of unfair advantage, the business or individual still has full recourse to law.  Be aware that in any field, a regulatory rule or penalty cannot trump or bypass the law.  My practice area doesn’t extend to sports law, but there is some allied knowledge of commercial litigation, which is what will commence if the EFL act rashly. 

This lunchtime I managed to have a chat with an old friend who does work in sports / commercial law and we agreed on what would likely happen in the event of the EFL overstepping.  I had a spare hour after this (might write a casenote on if it ever goes to law), so thought I would post this on here to put fellow Saints fans minds at rest.  This is only a reflective opinion, and you can never guarantee outcome of course – its complicated as they say - but it’s a measured / informed opinion at least:

Assuming Saints reasonable position is that a junior analyst did record half an hour of MFC’s training, without the Board’s knowledge, and the club are currently undertaking a review of this. 

Let’s say the EFL announce that they will fine and ban SFC from the Play off final, causing the club to miss out on promotion to the EPL.  Reacting to the white noise of the past week.

1. Targets for litigation by SFC

Should the EFL Independent Disciplinary Commission rule to expel Southampton FC from the Championship Play-off Final against Hull City on 23 May, Southampton should immediately file a claim in the King's Bench Division of the High Court naming two distinct parties:

A) Primary Defendant: The English Football League (EFL)

Cause of Action: Breach of Contract, Arbitrary Exercise of Disciplinary Power, and Procedural Unfairness.

Basis: The EFL Regulations form a binding contract between member clubs and the league. Southampton will challenge any expedited expulsion as an ultra vires (meaning beyond their powers) abuse of power that violates the league's own regulatory framework.

B) Secondary Defendant / Interested Party: Middlesbrough FC

Procedural Joinder: Middlesbrough must be formally joined to the High Court action as an Interested Party under Civil Procedure Rules (CPR), as it is likely that they are actively preparing to take Southampton's place at Wembley.

Tort Claims: Direct counterclaims for Injurious Falsehood and Defamation regarding public statements made by Middlesbrough personnel (e.g., Hellberg publicly labelling Southampton "cheats"), which have severely damaged the club's corporate reputation and stock value before a formal verdict has been rendered.

2. Legal position and precedent

Southampton's legal counsel will likely use four distinct arguments to block an expulsion from the play-offs, these are to use the Leeds 2019 case, employment law isolation, breach of natural justice, and the good old American Cyanamid principles.

i) Deviation from Established League Precedent (Leeds United Spygate 2019) In 2019, Marcelo Bielsa admitted to spying on Derby County and every other Championship opponent. The EFL established a clear, binding precedent by issuing a £200,000 fine and a formal reprimand. Escalating the penalty to total competition expulsion for a first-time alleged offense by an analyst is a gross violation of contractual consistency and proportionality under English sports law (Bradley v Jockey Club).

ii) The Rogue Agent Defense: Southampton's executive board will likely submit immediate formal statements confirming they never authorised, funded, or evaluated any illicitly filmed footage. Under standard employment principles, a club cannot face strict liability capital sporting punishment (expulsion) for an individual first-team analyst acting independently outside his explicit operational mandate – their must be a chain of command / causation in terms of proof.

iii) Breach of Natural Justice via Compressed Timelines: The EFL's decision to bypass the standard 14-day response period to force a hearing before 23 May actively denies Southampton its right to a fair trial (McInnes v Onslow-Fane). Depriving a club of adequate time to conduct a comprehensive internal review while Middlesbrough introduces unverified third-party "CCTV history" constitutes a fatal procedural flaw.

iv) Irreparable Harm Threshold (American Cyanamid Co). Southampton easily satisfies the High Court test for an Urgent Interim Injunction (this is absolutely key). The financial upside of reaching the Premier League is universally valued at around £200 million. If the EFL removes Southampton from the final illegally, no monetary damages paid by the league months later can adequately compensate for the permanent loss of global prestige, TV broadcasting distributions, and elite sporting merit. Essentially, were the court to find for SFC, Saints could effectively bankrupt the EFL and Middlesbrough FC.

3. Potential damages and remedies

If the EFL Independent Disciplinary Commission issues a sporting expulsion or points deduction before the weekend of the play-off final, Southampton must seek the following cumulative judicial remedies:

A) Pre-Match Urgent Remedies (Wembley Focus):

Urgent Interim High Court Injunction: An emergency judicial order freezing the Championship Play-off Final scheduled for 23 May, or alternatively ordering the EFL to permit Southampton to play Hull City as scheduled, until a full commercial court trial evaluates the legality of the charge.

Final Judicial Declaration: A formal court order declaring that the EFL Independent Disciplinary Commission's penalty is null, void, contractually invalid, and ultra vires.

Injunction Against Disparagement (Middlesbrough): An injunction ordering Middlesbrough executives and coaching staff to immediately cease public character assassinations and "cheating" accusations online and in press conferences until the formal legal channel has concluded.

B) Post-Match Monetary Damages (speculative as I don’t think EFL are that stupid)

£200 Million Promotion Expectation Damages (From the EFL): If the High Court denies the injunction but later finds the EFL breached its contract by expelling the club, the EFL will be liable for the full, audited £200 million loss representing missing out on the Premier League's central broadcasting revenue, parachute payments, and global commercial rights.

Reliance and Operational Damages (From the EFL): Full recovery of lost ticket sales for Wembley, pre-booked corporate travel packages, stadium concession refunds, and pre-negotiated club sponsorship bonuses tied to reaching the final.

Tortious Special Damages (From Middlesbrough FC): Punitive financial damages if Southampton can prove that Middlesbrough’s public agitating directly caused major commercial sponsors or e.g. shirt partners to execute ‘morality clauses’ and pull funding out of the club.

4. Advice to SFC on taking action if the EFL goes nuclear (I would imagine that all of this is already well in motion)

Club solicitors Paris Smith LLP to instruct specialist sports KC in terms of retention for the action.

Submit Response of Non-Authorization: Issue the club’s formal observations to the EFL, officially isolating the analyst's actions from board knowledge.

Prepare the High Court Application Papers: Pre- draft the American Cyanamid skeleton argument to ensure that if the Independent Commission rules against the club court injunction papers can be served within two hours.

So that’s my legal tuppence in terms of shutting out the white-noise, hope it helps in terms of perspective.  Much sharper people that I will already be on board, and SFC seem to be acting with extreme professionalism and strategic edge.  Short advice to the Boro brains trust would be to move on, or be careful what you wish for.

So in summary: pin it on the intern and we're golden 👍

  • Haha 2
RedArmy

RedArmy

Posted
Posted

Never really liked Max Rushden on socceram but he’s got his head screwed firmly on this afternoon on talksport. Repeatedly asking the question is spying really worse than breaching PSR where you get the advantage for the entire season. 
 

And the answer is NO. 

  • Like 9
St Chalet

St Chalet

Posted
  • Author
Posted
3 minutes ago, Willo of Whiteley said:

What has the bellend said now

He's basically said that the EFL won't kick us out and Boro should do a private deal for compensation.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Miltonaggro

Miltonaggro

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, Midfield_General said:

So in summary: pin it on the intern and we're golden 👍

For now. Keep record of any statement made by Middlesbrough FC employees / and for that matter journalists.  Undertake a review within the stated timescale set by your professional regulator.  React swiftly to any early onset of action by the EFL (still think that they are not that stupid / badly briefed).

  • Like 3
markr27

markr27

Posted
Posted

I can't see how they could throw the Saints out of the final.... 
If they had top secret info, it was obviously put to god use based on their performances in both games during the 1st half when the team was being ripped to pieces. Southampton's team beat theirs over the two legs, due to better fitness and performance.

I can't see how they can legally back-date a 3-0 deficit either meaning a 2-4 win on aggregate for Boro either.
Had the game finished at 90 mins last night maybe that would give a thread of creditability to this scenario, but nowhere near enough.

This doesn't detract from any offence that may or may not have been committed.... if it is proven then sufficient punishment should be handed out. 

Doctoroncall

Doctoroncall

Posted
Posted (edited)

Good article about the rules being inadequate. 
 

not sure if posted. It’s from Mr Samuel at The Times. 
 

One point that keeps getting raised is this £200m benefit. I don’t see how, since most if not all will be spent on new players, current player bonuses and new contracts.

To add to Boro’s media hype, they have got James Cordon to speak about it!

Edited by Doctoroncall
Boro media machine in overdrive
Miltonaggro

Miltonaggro

Posted
Posted
4 minutes ago, St Chalet said:

He's basically said that the EFL won't kick us out and Boro should do a private deal for compensation.

Love to know his basis for this other than wishy thinking via Gibbo on speed dial.

Osvaldorama

Osvaldorama

Posted
Posted
31 minutes ago, saints1988 said:

Trying to put myself in their shoes.

Just me or would you not really give a rats if this was the other way round? 

What massive advantage can be gained - maybe early info that Hackney was not fit…..

yeah it’s literally mental. 
 

We’ve played them twice already this season. Whole thing is farcical. They’re trying to pretend like it’s the worst crime in the history of football 

  • Like 1
Sheaf Saint

Sheaf Saint

Posted
Posted (edited)
10 minutes ago, St Chalet said:

He's basically said that the EFL won't kick us out and Boro should do a private deal for compensation.

Compensation for what exactly? Unless Gibbo can prove that they definitely would have got promoted, or at the very least reached the final, had the spygate thing not happened (which he obviously can't), then he can go fuck himself.

Edited by Sheaf Saint
  • Like 4
  • Haha 1
SotonianWill

SotonianWill

Posted
Posted

The comments are starting to turn. The latest Telegraph post has many fans calling Boro sore losers. The longer this goes on the more stupid the idea one alleged training session had such a large effect on 200+ mins of 11v11 football has become. 

  • Like 1
kwsaint

kwsaint

Posted
Posted

Genuine question. If tickets go on sale and Southampton fans buy them, can they be declared null and void? If the game still goes ahead, surely tickets can’t be withdrawn after purchased?

egg

egg

Posted
Posted
21 minutes ago, SaintBobby said:

Surely the fact that you can view and film Boro’s training sessions from public land is relevant. I could have gone there myself, filmed it and put it up on YouTube.

Are all Saints employees then prohibited from watching my video?

There's a rule that a club doesn't observe, or try to, the other teams training within 72 hours of the game. It's crystal clear - you observe, it's a breach. If Dave from Middlesbrough caught a glimpse of training when walking his dog, that's completely irrelevant - he's not Southampton FC. 

Midfield_General

Midfield_General

Posted
Posted
10 minutes ago, Miltonaggro said:

For now. Keep record of any statement made by Middlesbrough FC employees / and for that matter journalists.  Undertake a review within the stated timescale set by your professional regulator.  React swiftly to any early onset of action by the EFL (still think that they are not that stupid / badly briefed).

Joking aside, great post. Thanks for going to the effort of reasoning it out and sharing it. 

  • Like 3
LegalEagle

LegalEagle

Posted
Posted

The £200 million figure is a complete red herring. That’s just them trying to exaggerate the size of their potential loss. More relevant is what kind of profits would Saints make by being promoted taking into account transfer fees etc. The EFL might try and look at that for the size of any financial penalty but even that is nonsensical and would be a ground for any appeal. You have to look at the facts here and what actually happened and to what extent. That is all that matters. Spying several times and many hours at a time is significantly different to half an hour on an iPhone on public space with no trespass or criminal activity haven taken place.

  • Like 1
bpsaint

bpsaint

Posted
Posted
13 minutes ago, egg said:

There's a rule that a club doesn't observe, or try to, the other teams training within 72 hours of the game. It's crystal clear - you observe, it's a breach. If Dave from Middlesbrough caught a glimpse of training when walking his dog, that's completely irrelevant - he's not Southampton FC. 

What if a self employed analyst does it?

Dman

Dman

Posted
Posted
24 minutes ago, Miltonaggro said:

For now. Keep record of any statement made by Middlesbrough FC employees / and for that matter journalists.  Undertake a review within the stated timescale set by your professional regulator.  React swiftly to any early onset of action by the EFL (still think that they are not that stupid / badly briefed).

Its always struck me that them opening their mouths as they have done is a risky game that I think will bite them on the arse. 

You could possibly hide it through press releases, but when they manager has pubically said "they sent someone up here" (to cheat essentially), whilst the investigaton is ongoing, is touching on libel I'd say. 

The very right reverend

The very right reverend

Posted
Posted (edited)

I think the right to appeal will stop any consideration of us being thrown out, the appeal would take months, EFL fine us and behind closed doors we cut a deal with Middlesbrough without admitting anything.

Also due to the fact this was on private land and Middlesbrough had no fences around their site at Rockcliffe Hall could some Philidelphia lawyer find caveats and holes in the rules?

Doesn't detract from the alleged charges of course, but merely giving the best defence against said charges.

Edited by The very right reverend
Lighthouse

Lighthouse

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, Dman said:

Its always struck me that them opening their mouths as they have done is a risky game that I think will bite them on the arse. 

You could possibly hide it through press releases, but when they manager has pubically said "they sent someone up here" (to cheat essentially), whilst the investigaton is ongoing, is touching on libel I'd say. 

It's only libel if it's not true. There seems to be no denial on our part for this, so I don't see how it would be libelous.

There when Franny scored

There when Franny scored

Posted
Posted
Just now, The very right reverend said:

I think the right to appeal will stop any consideration of us being thrown out, the appeal would take months, EFL fine us and behind closed doors we cut a deal with Middlesbrough without admitting anything.

Also due to the fact this was on private land and Middlesbrough had no fences around their site in Rockcliffe could some Philidelphia lawyer find caveats and holes in the rules?

Doesn't detract from the alleged charges of course, but merely giving the best defence against said charges.

Apparently no right to appeal to CAS - https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/articles/c052eznrvvdo?xtor=AL-71-[partner]-[BBC+England]-[headline]-[news]-[bizdev]-[isapi]&at_link_type=web_link&at_bbc_team=editorial&at_link_origin=BBC_Hampshire&at_campaign=Social_Flow&at_campaign_type=owned&at_ptr_name=twitter&at_format=link&at_link_id=D7C1D82C-4ED4-11F1-B95F-FA3C12A9A6B4&at_medium=social

Miltonaggro

Miltonaggro

Posted
Posted
4 minutes ago, Dman said:

Its always struck me that them opening their mouths as they have done is a risky game that I think will bite them on the arse. 

You could possibly hide it through press releases, but when they manager has pubically said "they sent someone up here" (to cheat essentially), whilst the investigaton is ongoing, is touching on libel I'd say. 

Yes, the Napoleon adage - never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake.  They have acted appallingly - great news for SFC!

  • Like 2
tisspahars

tisspahars

Posted
Posted
3 hours ago, tisspahars said:

As ever, it's the betting angle from me.......Betfair have no option but to keep their promotion market open. You can currently back Middlesbrough at 10/1 to go up. May be of some interest as to what sort of chance there is of us being chucked out and also of interest to people who think "there is literally zero chance" of that happening as you can of course lay them.....

Out to 14/1....

Holmes_and_Watson

Holmes_and_Watson

Posted
Posted
Just now, Miltonaggro said:

Yes, the Napoleon adage - never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake.  They have acted appallingly - great news for SFC!

Just noticed you have a "recommended post" in what I think is either a new feature or sponsored by saints legal team over Spygate. 🙂

We have done the correct thing by keeping quiet and supporting the investigation.

Rather than brief hacks and presenters to try and influence the outcome.

  • Haha 1
Dman

Dman

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, Lighthouse said:

It's only libel if it's not true. There seems to be no denial on our part for this, so I don't see how it would be libelous.

From what I have seen (obviously needs a degree of salt), we have claimed it was a lone wofl with no knowledge from the club.

If it cannot be proven it was a conspiracy that came from the manager and/or someone else at the club, he has insinuated that it is "they sent someone". 

That for me, is libelous - or at least arguably is.  

  • Like 1
badgerx16

badgerx16

Posted
Posted (edited)

How did our alleged breach of rule 127 stop them scoring in the first leg ? All they had to do was win that game, and we certainly did our best to help them in the first half.

Edited by badgerx16
Dr Who?

Dr Who?

Posted
Posted (edited)

The thing that gets me here is that Middlesbrough caught us spying and got us to delete the material. If this is the case then no advantage was gained by Southampton for the semi final games, and Middlesbrough are not the victim. If we are punished at that ridiculous level it should now be after the final and Hull take our place in premier league, if we were to win the final. The punishment should be for Southampton Football Club and there is no compensation for Middlesbrough in this case. 

Edited by Dr Who?
Holmes_and_Watson

Holmes_and_Watson

Posted
Posted
Just now, Dr Who? said:

The thing that gets me here is that Middlesbrough caught us spying and got us to delete the material. If this is the case then no advantage was gained by Southampton in this case, and Middlesbrough are not the victim. If we punished at that ridiculous level it should now be after the final and Hull take our place in premier league if we were to win the final. The punishment should be for Southampton Football Club and there is no compensation for Middlesbrough in this case. 

There was a suggestion it was being livestreamed to Southampton.

The imminent Scotland yard raid on our data analytics servers will reveal more.

Will they also uncover the secrets of The Black Box?

Farmer Saint

Farmer Saint

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, RedArmy said:

There’s a photo leaked. 
 

it’s just a fucking iPhone :lol::lol:

Not even got an telescopic lens then? Wouldn't be able to make our the fucking players with the zoom he'd need.

I thought he'd at least have a fucking drone.

There when Franny scored

There when Franny scored

Posted
Posted
54 minutes ago, Miltonaggro said:

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 your head around it is to think about intervention via the regulator in any other lucrative industry away from the emotion attached to sports.  If a rule imposed by the regulator is wildly out of proportion to any complaint of unfair advantage, the business or individual still has full recourse to law.  Be aware that in any field, a regulatory rule or penalty cannot trump or bypass the law.  My practice area doesn’t extend to sports law, but there is some allied knowledge of commercial litigation, which is what will commence if the EFL act rashly. 

This lunchtime I managed to have a chat with an old friend who does work in sports / commercial law and we agreed on what would likely happen in the event of the EFL overstepping.  I had a spare hour after this (might write a casenote on if it ever goes to law), so thought I would post this on here to put fellow Saints fans minds at rest.  This is only a reflective opinion, and you can never guarantee outcome of course – its complicated as they say - but it’s a measured / informed opinion at least:

Assuming Saints reasonable position is that a junior analyst did record half an hour of MFC’s training, without the Board’s knowledge, and the club are currently undertaking a review of this. 

Let’s say the EFL announce that they will fine and ban SFC from the Play off final, causing the club to miss out on promotion to the EPL.  Reacting to the white noise of the past week.

1. Targets for litigation by SFC

Should the EFL Independent Disciplinary Commission rule to expel Southampton FC from the Championship Play-off Final against Hull City on 23 May, Southampton should immediately file a claim in the King's Bench Division of the High Court naming two distinct parties:

A) Primary Defendant: The English Football League (EFL)

Cause of Action: Breach of Contract, Arbitrary Exercise of Disciplinary Power, and Procedural Unfairness.

Basis: The EFL Regulations form a binding contract between member clubs and the league. Southampton will challenge any expedited expulsion as an ultra vires (meaning beyond their powers) abuse of power that violates the league's own regulatory framework.

B) Secondary Defendant / Interested Party: Middlesbrough FC

Procedural Joinder: Middlesbrough must be formally joined to the High Court action as an Interested Party under Civil Procedure Rules (CPR), as it is likely that they are actively preparing to take Southampton's place at Wembley (as stated in recent MFC communications).

Tort Claims: Direct counterclaims for Injurious Falsehood and Defamation regarding public statements made by Middlesbrough personnel (e.g., Hellberg publicly labelling Southampton "cheats"), which have severely damaged the club's corporate reputation and stock value before a formal verdict has been rendered.

2. Legal position and precedent

Southampton's legal counsel will likely use four distinct arguments to block an expulsion from the play-offs, these are to use the Leeds 2019 case, employment law isolation, breach of natural justice, and the good old American Cyanamid principles.

i) Deviation from Established League Precedent (Leeds United Spygate 2019) In 2019, Marcelo Bielsa admitted to spying on Derby County and every other Championship opponent. The EFL established a clear, binding precedent by issuing a £200,000 fine and a formal reprimand. Escalating the penalty to total competition expulsion for a first-time alleged offense by an analyst is a gross violation of contractual consistency and proportionality under English sports law (Bradley v Jockey Club).

ii) The Rogue Agent Defence: Southampton's executive board will likely submit immediate formal statements confirming they never authorised, funded, or evaluated any illicitly filmed footage. Under standard employment principles, a club cannot face strict liability capital sporting punishment (expulsion) for an individual first-team analyst acting independently outside his explicit operational mandate – their must be a chain of command / causation in terms of proof.

iii) Breach of Natural Justice via Compressed Timelines: The EFL's decision to bypass the standard 14-day response period to force a hearing before 23 May actively denies Southampton its right to a fair trial (McInnes v Onslow-Fane). Depriving a club of adequate time to conduct a comprehensive internal review while Middlesbrough introduces unverified third-party "CCTV history" constitutes a fatal procedural flaw.

iv) Irreparable Harm Threshold (American Cyanamid Co). Southampton easily satisfies the High Court test for an Urgent Interim Injunction (this is absolutely key). The financial upside of reaching the Premier League is universally valued at around £200 million (ballpark extreme financial losses). If the EFL removes Southampton from the final illegally, no monetary damages paid by the league months later can adequately compensate for the permanent loss of global prestige, TV broadcasting distributions, and elite sporting merit. Essentially, were the court to find for SFC, Saints could effectively bankrupt the EFL and Middlesbrough FC.

3. Potential damages and remedies

If the EFL Independent Disciplinary Commission issues a sporting expulsion or points deduction before the weekend of the play-off final, Southampton must seek the following cumulative judicial remedies:

A) Pre-Match Urgent Remedies (Wembley Focus):

Urgent Interim High Court Injunction: An emergency judicial order freezing the Championship Play-off Final scheduled for 23 May, or alternatively ordering the EFL to permit Southampton to play Hull City as scheduled, until a full commercial court trial evaluates the legality of the charge.

Final Judicial Declaration: A formal court order declaring that the EFL Independent Disciplinary Commission's penalty is null, void, contractually invalid, and ultra vires.

Injunction Against Disparagement (Middlesbrough): An injunction ordering Middlesbrough executives and coaching staff to immediately cease public character assassinations and "cheating" accusations online and in press conferences until the formal legal channel has concluded.

B) Post-Match Monetary Damages (speculative as I don’t think EFL are that stupid)

£200 Million Promotion Expectation Damages (From the EFL): If the High Court denies the injunction but later finds the EFL breached its contract by expelling the club, the EFL will be liable for the full, audited £200 million loss representing missing out on the Premier League's central broadcasting revenue, parachute payments, and global commercial rights.

Reliance and Operational Damages (From the EFL): Full recovery of lost ticket sales for Wembley, pre-booked corporate travel packages, stadium concession refunds, and pre-negotiated club sponsorship bonuses tied to reaching the final.

Tortious Special Damages (From Middlesbrough FC): Punitive financial damages if Southampton can prove that Middlesbrough’s public agitating directly caused major commercial sponsors or e.g. shirt partners to execute ‘morality clauses’ and pull funding out of the club.

4. Advice to SFC on taking action if the EFL goes nuclear (I would imagine that all of this is already well in motion)

Club solicitors Paris Smith LLP to instruct specialist sports KC in terms of retention for the action.

Submit Response of Non-Authorisation: Issue the club’s formal observations to the EFL, officially isolating the analyst's actions from board knowledge.

Prepare the High Court Application Papers: Pre- draft the American Cyanamid skeleton argument to ensure that if the Independent Commission rules against the club court injunction papers can be served within two hours.

So that’s my legal tuppence in terms of shutting out the white-noise, hope it helps in terms of perspective.  Much sharper people that I will already be on board, and SFC seem to be acting with extreme professionalism and strategic edge.  Short advice to the Boro brains trust would be to move on, or be careful what you wish for.

Thanks for this, very informative. 
 

Other requirements for an emergency injunction that would worry me slightly are the likelihood of success, the full and frank disclosure obligation, and the requirement to provide a cross-undertaking in damages.


For an emergency injunction, the “rouge intern” theory would need to be absolutely watertight for both the purposes of the likelihood of success requirement and full and frank disclosure.

I’ve been involved in several high court injunction applications, including ex-parte, you can’t risk falling foul of full and frank disclosure in particular. 

  • Like 1
Holmes_and_Watson

Holmes_and_Watson

Posted
Posted
Just now, Farmer Saint said:

Not even got an telescopic lens then? Wouldn't be able to make our the fucking players with the zoom he'd need.

I thought he'd at least have a fucking drone.

I believe you've just launched a new adult service for Amazon deliveries to provide. 🙂

 

LGTL

LGTL

Posted
Posted

The picture is absolutely hilarious!

’Professional recording equipment’ is a fucking IPhone 😂😂😂😂

  • Haha 1
sockeye

sockeye

Posted
Posted

This is the sensational image that shows a Southampton analyst hiding behind a tree and using his mobile phone to spy on Middlesbrough's training session.

Daily Mail Sport can exclusively reveal the picture that proves the individual, who we have positively identified as Southampton intern William Salt, was overlooking Boro's tactical drills in the 72 hours before their Championship play-off semi-final first leg on Saturday.

After investigating, we have found a picture of Salt on the shoulder of Saints manager Tonda Eckert celebrating his Sky Bet Championship Manager of the Month prize for February. Salt, sources say, is a key part of Eckert's first-team operation and highly valued by the German head coach.

Interestingly, he was not present on the picture of Eckert and his backroom staff released last Thursday to mark April's Manager of the Month award. That was the same day he was pictured in the bushes at Middlesbrough's training base before being confronted by club staff and fleeing the area.

Eckert also won the prize for March and, again, Salt was not on the celebratory picture released to the media on April 9. Southampton beat play-off rivals Derby County 2-1 two days later.

In another development, we understand he used his bank card on Thursday to buy a coffee at Rockliffe Hall Golf Club - owned by Boro chairman Steve Gibson.

The apparent slip has given rise to the possibility of a paper trail across the country, with transactions close to the bases of other Championship clubs in the days prior to playing Southampton. We understand that one Championship club believe they were spied on after changing manager prior to playing Eckert's side. CCTV is being reviewed. Since being appointed Saints boss in November, Eckert's team have the second-best record from set-pieces in the Championship.

Boro now suspect that last Thursday's episode was not the first time they have been the victim of such unsporting espionage.

That is why their legal team are pushing for Southampton and the individual accused of spying to provide all relevant documents and records linked to the case, which will be heard by an independent disciplinary commission.

Boro were beaten 2-1 by Southampton on Tuesday night in their semi-final second leg but the hearing could yet determine that Saints cheated by spying on training and remove them from the competition. The viewing of opposition training in the 72 hours prior to a game is a breach of EFL rules, introduced after the Spygate furore involving Leeds United in 2019.

Kim Hellberg's Boro squad will not go on holiday until there is a resolution to the case. The play-off final takes place at Wembley a week on Saturday.

Tuesday night's second leg was fraught with a number of flashpoints. Hellberg and Eckert, the two managers, had to be physically separated after Luke Ayling accused Taylor Harwood-Bellis - who is engaged to Roy Keane's daughter Leah - of using 'words of a discriminatory nature'. Boro assistant Adi Viveash was held back by the fourth official.

Middlesbrough midfielder Aidan Morris confronted a ballboy, who refused to cough it up to team-mate Matt Targett late on, and was soon surrounded by furious Saints substitutes.

beatlesaint

beatlesaint

Posted
Posted

So that photo has been leaked by Boro then has it? They’ve done that while a full and proper investigation is being conducted.

umm…..double standards here lads ffs

 

 

 

  • Like 1
Miltonaggro

Miltonaggro

Posted
Posted (edited)
21 minutes ago, Lighthouse said:

It's only libel if it's not true. There seems to be no denial on our part for this, so I don't see how it would be libelous.

I only think defamation will come into play if the EFL act rashly, as Saints may as well go all in at that point.  In terms of SFC as a corporate entity (employing 800 people) it's about knowledge of the wrongdoing - how far does / did the chain of command / rot go?  If a person in a position of authority (say a football manager or chairman) repeatedly makes public statements that 'Southampton FC are cheats' or 'Southampton FC is corrupt' (all 800?) and elements of the public react to these statements - the club can show reputational / financial damage - you have the basis of a case.

Edited by Miltonaggro
skintsaint

skintsaint

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, sockeye said:

In another development, we understand he used his bank card on Thursday to buy a coffee at Rockliffe Hall Golf Club - owned by Boro chairman Steve Gibson.

So means he was entitled to be in the car park and not trespassing...behind the keep out sign. 😅

Saint NL

Saint NL

Posted
Posted

So the story goes that it was someone with professional recording equipment in a hedge.

I'm beginning to think that Gibbo might not be the legal expert we thought he was

obelisk

obelisk

Posted
Posted
53 minutes ago, St Chalet said:

He's basically said that the EFL won't kick us out and Boro should do a private deal for compensation.

Just agree to buy them a fence.

  • Haha 1

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...