#Spygate

[SambaMaverick]

Boro are like a busted tap that won't stop leaking... Salty salty tears

How many papers have they briefed in the last week? How many flip flops have they done? They are trying to keep the Twitter mongs poisoned against us for their own benefit

Fine us the couple million quid, we'll say sorry, maybe a few points off next time we're in the Championship - but that's got to be the end of it

It's a spotty analyst with an iPhone recording from miles away for christ sake

[Whitey Grandad]

2 hours ago, Toadhall Saint said:

Behind a tree apparently 

If that were me hiding behind that tree I'd stick out in five places.

[OldNick]

23 minutes ago, beatlesaint said:

We are in serious trouble, James Corden has been on Talkshite and has called us cheats.

I mean WTF 🤦🏻

Perhaps he should campaign for Sheff Utd to be given compensation for WHU cheating 20 or so years ago. It would mount to hundreds of milloions on his scheme

[Holmes_and_Watson]

Just now, Whitey Grandad said:

If that were me hiding behind that tree I'd stick out in five places.

Saying 4 would be fine. The 5th is just bragging. 🙂

[Midfield_General]

If that is genuinely the incident that Boro are banking on as grounds for expulsion, then they will be laughed out of the panel. 

That's the 'professional recording equipment' is it? 

Absolutely comical. Just give us the fine and let those poor Boro players go on holiday, they looked tired enough after 60 minutes as it was 

[Miltonaggro]

8 minutes ago, sockeye said:

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.

Regarding the financial transaction, if Gibson has said that he has breached GDPR / DPA, common law expectation of privacy and added to the defamation fuel, and his Hotel are in serious breach of common law confidentiality, possible criminal offences (unlikely but heigh ho), and clear breach of FCA rules.  This is very serious in terms of possible penalties.

Legally MFC are a palpable Turkey shoot!

   

[Dman]

1 minute ago, Miltonaggro said:

Regarding the financial transaction, if Gibson has said that he has breached GDPR / DPA, common law expectation of privacy and added to the defamation fuel, and his Hotel are in serious breach of common law confidentiality, possible criminal offences (unlikely but heigh ho), and clear breach of FCA rules.  This is very serious in terms of possible penalties.

Legally MFC are a palpable Turkey shoot!

   

This is another thing that crossed my mind. Surely, they aren't allowed to just share CCTV or bank details with anyone 😃

Edited 1 hour ago by Dman

[Stripey McStripe Shirt]

16 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.

.

Appreciate not the main issue here, but genuine question, is it legal to disclose this information about someone's spending habits publicly?

[Whitey Grandad]

1 hour ago, benjii said:

I dunno about that. If you have a law that specifically prohibits something within certain boundaries, it's then a bit of a stretch to claim that some other catch-all prohibits the same activity without those boundaries.

Different legal maximum apply in different legal environments.  Basically I believe ours is:

"Ubi lex voluit dixit, ubi noluit tacuit"

In other words,  "Unless the law says you can't, you can"

Otheres have "Unless the law says you can, you can't "

[Matthew Le God]

Should Saints be punished for breaking the rules? 

YES

However....

 A Middlesbrough claim of viewing their training allowed a significant advantage is flawed!

Viewable by any member of the public to see. They have made no effort to block views. Public could film and put on YouTube for the world (and opponents) to see and it wouldn't break a rule.

Edited 1 hour ago by Matthew Le God

[Miltonaggro]

19 minutes ago, sockeye said:

This one in hi-res just released from the hotel lobby:

[egg]

44 minutes ago, bpsaint said:

What if a self employed analyst does it?

Then it's about the connection, and whether he acted as our agent. If it was a frolic of his own, whether any information found it's way to us. At this stage we haven't got a clue what, if anything happened, but what we don't have is a denial from the club, just mention of context. 

[Whitey Grandad]

1 hour ago, Midfield_General said:

True, but the point of the enquiry isn't a black or white 'did you do it or didn't you?'. We've already said we're not contesting the charges which is us saying 'yes, we had someone there, we're not denying that'.

The crux of it is all in the detail — what exactly happened, who it was, what their role was, whether they were they acting alone or briefed to do it by senior management, when exactly it took place, whether it was a one-off or systematic, what they actually got, how much effort they went to to obtain it, how useful what they got was, whether it materially influenced results, if so how many and which ones, etc etc. 

Their side are using the media to try to paint a picture of large-scale, systematic, cynical cheating. Our side will be trying to play it down as 'oh come on, it's really easy to do and everyone does it — it was just an overzealous kid taking advantage of the fact that anyone can see straight onto their training pitch from the road'. Personally, I think clips like the Sky one are far more supportive of the latter, and judging from the comments under the video it seems that most people who have watched it, many of whom are neutral, feel the same. 

Small details become very important in cases like this which aren't 'did it happen' but are instead 'what exactly happened and how bad was it'. 

Personally, I suspect the reality is somewhere in the middle, but as with all legal cases like this it's not what anyone thinks happened, it's what can be proved, and then it's down to the panel to decide how egregious or otherwise they think that behaviour was and what a fitting punishment should be. Small details really matter in that scenario. 

I've not seen that anywhere.

[Miltonaggro]

16 minutes ago, St Chalet said:

From the BBC article:

In 2021, Boro launched legal proceedings against Derby County. They claimed the Rams' financial breaches had cost them a play-off place in 2018-19.

The two parties eventually reached a "resolution", which BBC Sport believes resulted in Boro being paid £2m.

Interesting.

[Challenger]

8 minutes ago, Midfield_General said:

If that is genuinely the incident that Boro are banking on as grounds for expulsion, then they will be laughed out of the panel. 

That's the 'professional recording equipment' is it? 

Absolutely comical. Just give us the fine and let those poor Boro players go on holiday, they looked tired enough after 60 minutes as it was 

Apparently Ayling has got a caravan holiday booked.

[beatlesaint]

Sorry but I think by leaking that photo Middlesbrough have shot themselves in the foot. They’d have been better off sitting on that and sticking with the professional recording equipment line.

[James G]

1 minute ago, beatlesaint said:

Sorry but I think by leaking that photo Middlesbrough have shot themselves in the foot. They’d have been better off sitting on that and sticking with the professional recording equipment line.

Are they allowed to release information that is being used in an investigation

[Whitey Grandad]

1 hour 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?

Interesting...

If SFC has not paid, suggested or encouraged you to do so then my view is that they should be in the clear. If you recorded this before the 72 hour embargo then could they watch it after the embargo started?

[markr27]

25 minutes ago, sockeye said:

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.

Hmmm. Believe this was because Matty T wouldn't accept the spare ball that the "ballboy" (or whomever it was from the Academy) took from one of the tees dotted around the touchline.
He demanded he go and fetch the original ball that had rolled some distance away, which is why the subs got involved.

[Whitey Grandad]

1 hour ago, trousers said:

 

If Middlesbrough are still attempting to pervert the course of justice and/or unduly influence the independent panel (as reported in this article) then why no announcement from the EFL that they are launching an investigation into their obviously breach of the 'acting in good faith' regulation...?

Indeed. And if Middlesbrough introduce new 'evidence' after the EFL charges have been made, does that extend the 14 day response window?

[Midfield_General]

3 minutes ago, Whitey Grandad said:

I've not seen that anywhere.

Alfie House reported that we are unlikely to, and with his links to the club I would think that he's getting fairly strong intel if not being briefed directly:

https://www.dailyecho.co.uk/sport/26093665.southampton-unlikely-deny-efl-charge-spying-disciplinary/

But you are right - on a re-read it is 'not expected to', rather than 'have confirmed'. Fair dos. 

[kwsaint]

32 minutes ago, sockeye said:

 

[egg]

11 minutes ago, Matthew Le God said:

Should Saints be punished for breaking the rules? 

YES

However....

 A Middlesbrough claim of viewing their training allowed a significant advantage is flawed!

Viewable by any member of the public to see. They have made no effort to block views. Public could film and put on YouTube for the world (and opponents) to see and it wouldn't break a rule.

Correct. 

But that's not the point, or what's alleged to have happened. 

[Turkish]

29 minutes ago, sockeye said:

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.

Paper trail 😂😂😂😂😂

This is beyond ridiculous 😂😂

[Whitey Grandad]

1 hour ago, trousers said:

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...?

But does it though? If so, why us there a further mention of "within 72 hours"? 

Or is it a matter of "You're not allowed to do it, but if you do, don't do it within 72 hours of a match between the pair of you".

 

[saintant]

11 minutes ago, Miltonaggro said:

Regarding the financial transaction, if Gibson has said that he has breached GDPR / DPA, common law expectation of privacy and added to the defamation fuel, and his Hotel are in serious breach of common law confidentiality, possible criminal offences (unlikely but heigh ho), and clear breach of FCA rules.  This is very serious in terms of possible penalties.

Legally MFC are a palpable Turkey shoot!

   

So can we push for them to receive a multi-million pound fine and points deduction for them exposing that our 'spy' bought a cup of coffee in Gibbo's hotel? 🙂

[Saint_clark]

1 hour ago, Doctoroncall said:

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!

If we spend £200million cash on players then it becomes £200million of assets. The value of the club increases by £200million, that's the point. 

[beatlesaint]

5 minutes ago, James G said:

Are they allowed to release information that is being used in an investigation

They seem to do what they like to keep this rumbling on. I’m not sure this however has done them a lot of good, the morale high ground has become a bit shaky. It’s a fkin mobile phone !!

[Whitey Grandad]

1 hour ago, Midfield_General said:

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

What, the intern who is no longer an employee and hasn't been since at least two days before the first leg and who can't be located or contacted and was last rumoured to be backpacking in the Andes?

Or it might have been sailing single-handedly across the Atlantic? (reports differ)

[bpsaint]

7 minutes ago, James G said:

Are they allowed to release information that is being used in an investigation

I would suspect Boro are in some pretty dodgy territory with some of these leaks. Hopefully Solak has got his lawyers on the case.

[Saint NL]

 

Apparently the spy used his bank card to buy a coffee, so they are looking for other transactions around opponents training grounds before matches now 

 

[badgerx16]

3 minutes ago, Whitey Grandad said:

But does it though? If so, why us there a further mention of "within 72 hours"? 

Or is it a matter of "You're not allowed to do it, but if you do, don't do it within 72 hours of a match between the pair of you".

 

Within 72 hours is the rule. The other rule we are charged against is EFL Regulation 3.4, which requires clubs to act towards each other with the utmost good faith. This was the rule Leeds were charged under.

[DellBlockH]

1 hour 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.

Great summary. But could you also cover the alternative scenario that the management (if not the actual board) did know that the analyst was there?

[Patrick Bateman]

If this is the extent of being "covert" whoever this is gets, then you would argue he's not experienced at it and I'm sure a career in covert operations is not going to suit him ... 

[Miltonaggro]

1 minute ago, saintant said:

So can we push for them to receive a multi-million pound fine and points deduction for them exposing that our 'spy' bought a cup of coffee in Gibbo's hotel? 🙂

Complaint would have to come from the individual in these circumstances, rather than the club.  But it would be valid, and actionable.

I would assume at this point that MFC are being advised by someone who has not explained the consequences of failing to stop digging when you are below sea level. 

 

[pingpong]

1 minute ago, Saint NL said:

 

Apparently the spy used his bank card to buy a coffee, so they are looking for other transactions around opponents training grounds before matches now 

 

Who is they, and is that legal?

[badgerx16]

1 minute ago, Saint NL said:

 

Apparently the spy used his bank card to buy a coffee, so they are looking for other transactions around opponents training grounds before matches now 

 

Breach of GDPR, they have no authority to do this.

[egg]

2 minutes ago, Whitey Grandad said:

But does it though? If so, why us there a further mention of "within 72 hours"? 

Or is it a matter of "You're not allowed to do it, but if you do, don't do it within 72 hours of a match between the pair of you".

 

The rule is clear:

"no Club shall directly or indirectly observe (or attempt to observe) another Club's training session in the period of 72 hours prior to any match".

That's it. No intent is needed. I read it as a strict liability offence, ie, the ingredients in the rule are either present or they're not. 

It's a bit like, for example, possession of cannabis. You're either in possession or cannabis or you're not. Why, how, doesn't matter. 

[Saint_clark]

21 minutes ago, Matthew Le God said:

Should Saints be punished for breaking the rules? 

YES

However....

 A Middlesbrough claim of viewing their training allowed a significant advantage is flawed!

Viewable by any member of the public to see. They have made no effort to block views. Public could film and put on YouTube for the world (and opponents) to see and it wouldn't break a rule.

People need to stop bringing this up as if it matters. He wasn't a member of the public, he was a member of the Saints staff.

[saintant]

41 minutes ago, sockeye said:

To paraphrase the words of OJ Simpson's lawyer Johnnie Cochrane, 'If the cell-phone is shit you must acquit'

[Holmes_and_Watson]

18 minutes ago, Dman said:

This is another thing that crossed my mind. Surely, they aren't allowed to just share CCTV or bank details with anyone 😃

They don't seem to have shared bank details. Only that Napoleon Solo was in their establishment, and used a bank card.

If they explicitly state that the name on the card matched a Saints intern, then that would be different.

As for the banking trail, they can contact the police or the NCA. Even alerting the bank used on the card. Then armed with the information that there are no suspicions transactions in a fraud or money laundering sense, any of those organisations can get a good laugh at boro's expense.

[Dman]

2 minutes ago, Miltonaggro said:

Complaint would have to come from the individual in these circumstances, rather than the club.  But it would be valid, and actionable.

I would assume at this point that MFC are being advised by someone who has not explained the consequences of failing to stop digging when you are below sea level. 

 

I'm sure they have some smart people on the case, but its honestly mind-blowing how they think this can be a sensible strategy. 

[EssEffCee]

25 minutes ago, Miltonaggro said:

Regarding the financial transaction, if Gibson has said that he has breached GDPR / DPA, common law expectation of privacy and added to the defamation fuel, and his Hotel are in serious breach of common law confidentiality, possible criminal offences (unlikely but heigh ho), and clear breach of FCA rules.  This is very serious in terms of possible penalties.

Legally MFC are a palpable Turkey shoot!

   

Must admit this was the first thought that crossed my mind when reading that part. Surely can't be providing the Mail that info.

[Whitey Grandad]

1 hour ago, bpsaint said:

What if a self employed analyst does it?

Exactly.  This whole regulation has not been thought through. 

What if said 'analyst', and let's be honest everyone on this forum is some sort of analyst,  does not charge for his opinions and reports?

[Miltonaggro]

1 minute ago, DellBlockH said:

Great summary. But could you also cover the alternative scenario that the management (if not the actual board) did know that the analyst was there?

Yep, a proportionate fine as per Leeds (2019), which the club pays without drama and buggers on.  In that case Bielsa admitted to spying on all his opponents over the season.  

[Toadhall Saint]

41 minutes ago, beatlesaint said:

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

 

 

 

Who took the picture?

[Suhari]

43 minutes ago, sockeye said:

Not exactly Jason Bourne style is it?

It's a fella with a phone. Get over it Boro FFS.

[Saint_clark]

4 minutes ago, pingpong said:

Who is they, and is that legal?

Not even slightly. 

[USaintA]

"Salt also used his cash card to buy a pair of toy binoculars, a fake moustache/glasses combo, and a Kodak instant camera."

[beatlesaint]

1 minute ago, Toadhall Saint said:

Who took the picture?

A Boro employee presumably