#Spygate

[Holmes_and_Watson]

7 minutes ago, Whitey Grandad said:

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)

I'd heard ballooning across the Atlantic. But you're right, as we know where all the balloons currently are. 🙂

[Whitey Grandad]

59 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.

Prejudicial to say the least. Why would there have to be a denial? There are different degrees of transgression. What if, for example, we sent someone up there on the Tuesday to do an analysis but he then got carried away and forgot what day it was?

[Midfield_General]

1 minute ago, badgerx16 said:

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

Also, regarding a 'paper trail', me being in the city of Wrexham and buying a coffee doesn't in any way prove I spied on the Wrexham football team while I was there, regardless of anything I may or may not have done elsewhere. 

All it proves is that I bought a coffee. 

Unless I bought it in the cafe at the Wrexham training ground while I was hiding there illegally, anything else is purely circumstantial and means absolutely nothing 

[hypochondriac]

What happened to that Derby uni link that said that Salt no longer interned at saints?

[egg]

1 minute ago, Whitey Grandad said:

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?

You're overcomplicating something simple. The law will assume that the "club" means a representative, employee or agent of the club. Someone self employed, if sufficiently close to the club, could be deemed to be an agent. If the club disputed someone was an agent, the tribunal will have to determine whether they think that person is in fact an agent. It seems to be a straightforward test for the tribunal, but much depends on the evidence. 

[bpsaint]

I don’t know how this would stand up in court, but….

Now we know that the “specialist recording equipment” is just an iPhone, then surely it’s down to Boro to prove that either a) he was recording on it or b) he was live streaming. Because legally, there’s no way to prove he’s not just playing a game on his phone.

Then they have to prove that if he did indeed film anything, then whatever footage was gained was detrimental to their result in the games. Now given how they dominated the game Saturday I don’t know how they’d have a leg to stand on and claim that we gained any advantage over them.

[saintant]

2 minutes ago, beatlesaint said:

A Boro employee presumably 

Did Salt give him authority to upload a photo of him taken without his permission into the public domain?

[Doctoroncall]

9 minutes ago, Saint_clark said:

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. 

Doh!  Of course… brain fart!

[egg]

2 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

What happened to that Derby uni link that said that Salt no longer interned at saints?

Is Salt the lad who's LinkedIn said a few days ago that he was at Saints? 

[hypochondriac]

1 minute ago, bpsaint said:

I don’t know how this would stand up in court, but….

Now we know that the “specialist recording equipment” is just an iPhone, then surely it’s down to Boro to prove that either a) he was recording on it or b) he was live streaming. Because legally, there’s no way to prove he’s not just playing a game on his phone.

Then they have to prove that if he did indeed film anything, then whatever footage was gained was detrimental to their result in the games. Now given how they dominated the game Saturday I don’t know how they’d have a leg to stand on and claim that we gained any advantage over them.

That's a bit of a silly post. He was presumably an employee of the club and had travelled to Middlesbrough and is stood there pointing a phone at the training session. He's not playing a game.

[hypochondriac]

1 minute ago, egg said:

Is Salt the lad who's LinkedIn said a few days ago that he was at Saints? 

Yes. He took it down about an hour after I took this screenshot.

[SW5 SAINT]

Seeing as cheating occurs in practically every match that is played, I think even a Middlesbrough player dived in the Saints penalty area last night, I can see a lot of matches in the future being declared void. It could lead to all sorts of litigation procedures deciding the out come of matches if a precedent is set by the EFL in banning Saints….

[Whitey Grandad]

1 hour ago, Dman said:

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.  

Would that be a degree of William Salt? From what I know he hasn't graduated yet.

[Willo of Whiteley]

Poor sod’s career is done then.

Imagine having you face and anctions all over tabloid press. Must be pretty hounding for him and his family.

[egg]

2 minutes ago, bpsaint said:

I don’t know how this would stand up in court, but….

Now we know that the “specialist recording equipment” is just an iPhone, then surely it’s down to Boro to prove that either a) he was recording on it or b) he was live streaming. Because legally, there’s no way to prove he’s not just playing a game on his phone.

Then they have to prove that if he did indeed film anything, then whatever footage was gained was detrimental to their result in the games. Now given how they dominated the game Saturday I don’t know how they’d have a leg to stand on and claim that we gained any advantage over them.

The allegation is that we've observed training. Not recorded it, nor streamed it, nor gained an advantage, just observed it.

I don't see that his phone has any relevance to the offence being made out.

If he was representing Saints, and observed them training within 72 hours of kick off, the offence is made out. 

[saintant]

1 minute ago, hypochondriac said:

That's a bit of a silly post. He was presumably an employee of the club and had travelled to Middlesbrough and is stood there pointing a phone at the training session. He's not playing a game.

How do we know he's got his phone pointing at the training session? Maybe this guy is an ardent bird watcher taking pictures of our feathered friends 🙂

[hypochondriac]

7 minutes ago, Midfield_General said:

Also, regarding a 'paper trail', me being in the city of Wrexham and buying a coffee doesn't in any way prove I spied on the Wrexham football team while I was there, regardless of anything I may or may not have done elsewhere. 

All it proves is that I bought a coffee. 

Unless I bought it in the cafe at the Wrexham training ground while I was hiding there illegally, anything else is purely circumstantial and means absolutely nothing 

This isn't a court of law. They probably won't but if they had a load of transactions in different locations close to training grounds from Mr salt prior to games then it would suggest a pattern.

[Whitey Grandad]

39 minutes ago, Holmes_and_Watson said:

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

You haven't seen my nose 😉

[EssEffCee]

5 minutes ago, bpsaint said:

I don’t know how this would stand up in court, but….

Now we know that the “specialist recording equipment” is just an iPhone, then surely it’s down to Boro to prove that either a) he was recording on it or b) he was live streaming. Because legally, there’s no way to prove he’s not just playing a game on his phone.

Then they have to prove that if he did indeed film anything, then whatever footage was gained was detrimental to their result in the games. Now given how they dominated the game Saturday I don’t know how they’d have a leg to stand on and claim that we gained any advantage over them.

I mean that's not true at all. This isn't a criminal case where the bar is 'beyond reasonable doubt'. It just has to be on the balance of probability.

[Toadhall Saint]

6 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

That's a bit of a silly post. He was presumably an employee of the club and had travelled to Middlesbrough and is stood there pointing a phone at the training session. He's not playing a game.

No proof he is recording either. No need to answer just seen the observation post above.

Edited 53 minutes ago by Toadhall Saint

[EssEffCee]

2 minutes ago, Willo of Whiteley said:

Poor sod’s career is done then.

Imagine having you face and anctions all over tabloid press. Must be pretty hounding for him and his family.

Hope the club are looking after him. He probably never thought it'd come to this when doing it.

[egg]

1 minute ago, hypochondriac said:

This isn't a court of law. They probably won't but if they had a load of transactions in different locations close to training grounds from Mr salt prior to games then it would suggest a pattern.

Indeed, and the tribunal only has to be satisfied on the balance of probabilities. If they think it's more likely than not that the ingredients of the offence are made out, the case goes against us. 

[Costa del Solent]

Am I the only one who’s wondering why he wouldn’t just use smart-glasses??
I mean… shitty spy really 

[benjii]

3 minutes ago, egg said:

The allegation is that we've observed training. Not recorded it, nor streamed it, nor gained an advantage, just observed it.

I don't see that his phone has any relevance to the offence being made out.

If he was representing Saints, and observed them training within 72 hours of kick off, the offence is made out. 

Sure, but it clearly goes to the severity of the offence and also makes the reporting of "high tech equipment" with a "microphone and device for live streaming" somewhat farcical.

[LGTL]

The case is clearly open/shut. But I honestly can’t believe that’s it 😂😂

Big fine and points deduction, potentially suspended, on its way. Talk of anything more is ludicrous. 

[hypochondriac]

Just now, egg said:

Indeed, and the tribunal only has to be satisfied on the balance of probabilities. If they think it's more likely than not that the ingredients of the offence are made out, the case goes against us. 

I wonder where they would land if we'd done it a few times at open training grounds, admitted it but said it was this intern and maybe his direct superior and that the others weren't aware of their actions and both are sacked.

[badgerx16]

3 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

This isn't a court of law. They probably won't but if they had a load of transactions in different locations close to training grounds from Mr salt prior to games then it would suggest a pattern.

But how would they find out, they do not have the authority to do this, and the outlets in which the transactions took place have no right to release the information.

[Whitey Grandad]

22 minutes ago, Saint_clark said:

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. 

That depends on where the cash comes from. If it's already in your bank account then the value hasn't increased.

[Maggie May]

7 minutes ago, saintant said:

Did Salt give him authority to upload a photo of him taken without his permission into the public domain?

Publishing this actually could help prove this was a public space.  If it was closed off and private, there’s an argument he’d be given a reasonable expectation of privacy. 

[SotonianWill]

Is that it?? Where’s the top class recording equipment and sound tech. He’s using a bloody iphone. 

 

From that far away there is no way he’s hearing tactics or anything worthwhile. It was all to see what Boro players were fit, surely? No in game advantage. 
 

Even more positive now that this is overblown b*llocks. 

[Patrick Bateman]

6 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

Yes. He took it down about an hour after I took this screenshot.

That was just Will "liking" this (https://www.linkedin.com/posts/malicolloredo_after-five-rewarding-years-my-time-to-move-activity-7454563540025176065-fnsb/) post by Mali Colloredo 

[benjii]

In terms of historical paper trails etc. they are of zero relevance to this incident so unless there is a prima facie case for us to be charged with respect to another match, we can just ignore that.

[coalman]

Just now, badgerx16 said:

But how would they find out, they do not have the authority to do this, and the outlets in which the transactions took place have no right to release the information.

They'd ask for Saints / the intern to provide details of transactions on the dates in questions. We/he would be under no obligation to provide them but that would factor into balance of probabilities. And, if we had information showing that wasn't the case we'd be foolish not to use it.

Then again, if you were doing this you'd leave the intern's card with a colleague at Staplewood and get them to buy a coffee on the days in question.

[egg]

Just now, benjii said:

Sure, but it clearly goes to the severity of the offence and also makes the reporting of "high tech equipment" with a "microphone and device for live streaming" somewhat farcical.

That's relevant in two ways for me.

It serves as evidence of how the observation took place.  High tech gear, eyes, a phone, it's all the same from the perspective of observing and making our the offence. 

If the offence is made out, it then goes to the penalty. Rolling up with high tech gear, if that's happened, shows a level of planning that may strengthen the penalty. 

[Maggie May]

15 minutes ago, Whitey Grandad said:

Prejudicial to say the least. Why would there have to be a denial? There are different degrees of transgression. What if, for example, we sent someone up there on the Tuesday to do an analysis but he then got carried away and forgot what day it was?

Prejudicial to what? This isn’t involving a jury. 

[Dman]

10 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

That's a bit of a silly post. He was presumably an employee of the club and had travelled to Middlesbrough and is stood there pointing a phone at the training session. He's not playing a game.

you'd also assume that the act of watching is enough anyway. 

[CanadaSaint]

1 hour ago, Miltonaggro said:

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).

Thanks so much for this excellent post. I have a question about the quoted part because I'm not sure that just a fine for a well-funded club is going to be seen as an adequate punishment.

This has turned into a very widely publicized topic, and it now arguably has a larger context than just Boro and Saints. This could move it beyond just the EFL ("Deviation from Established League Precedent") and into the wider football governance arena. As I understand it, the EFL is under the broader jurisdiction of the FA, which itself is under the overall jurisdiction of FIFA. It was FIFA that imposed the one-year ban on Bev Priestman, the Canadian women's team head coach.

What are your thoughts on the position that Saints could take in the event that the disciplinary committee seeks to invoke that precedent? It seems to me that Saints definitely need to have their arguments ready for such an eventuality.

[Dman]

3 minutes ago, LGTL said:

The case is clearly open/shut. But I honestly can’t believe that’s it 😂😂

Big fine and points deduction, potentially suspended, on its way. Talk of anything more is ludicrous. 

yeah, we'll 100% get found guilty. Its a case of mitigation now though. 

I don't think I've seen anything o suggest that this is anywhere near as serious as they are pushing for. 

I also think they have walked a very tight rope and we have a number of cases we could potentially persue against them. 

This whole GDPR breach from the hotel feels like a bit of a smoking gun. 

[AlexLaw76]

I guess we all carry high tech surveillance equipment these days 

[bpsaint]

Can’t Rasmus just come out and say he sent him up there to scout for Goztepe.

Edited 46 minutes ago by bpsaint

[Whitey Grandad]

3 minutes ago, Costa del Solent said:

Am I the only one who’s wondering why he wouldn’t just use smart-glasses??
I mean… shitty spy really 

Indeed. There is a plethora of monitoring equipment that could be fixed to a tree, for example, or some other convenient goalpost. Such equipment can be remotely monitored and recorded. Virtually untraceable and untrackable.

[badgerx16]

3 minutes ago, coalman said:

They'd ask for Saints / the intern to provide details of transactions on the dates in questions. We/he would be under no obligation to provide them but that would factor into balance of probabilities. And, if we had information showing that wasn't the case we'd be foolish not to use it.

Then again, if you were doing this you'd leave the intern's card with a colleague at Staplewood and get them to buy a coffee on the days in question.

But in the case of other clubs, how do Saints prove it didn't happen ? I don't think there is much doubt that somebody was at Gibson's hotel, even so the inquiry does not have a legal right to personal data.

[Matthew Le God]

23 minutes ago, Saint_clark said:

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.

You missed the point I was making. 

Yes, it happened. Yes, we should be punished.

But if any member of the public is able to livestream a tactical training session it highlights rhe flaw in the defence of saying vital info could be seen. It can't be deemed vital if it is on public show with no fences!

[Whitey Grandad]

5 minutes ago, Maggie May said:

Prejudicial to what? This isn’t involving a jury. 

The independent hearing. 

[egg]

3 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

I wonder where they would land if we'd done it a few times at open training grounds, admitted it but said it was this intern and maybe his direct superior and that the others weren't aware of their actions and both are sacked.

If this has been donee by someone who's gone rogue, especially if it's part of a series, then our best mitigation is to deal with those responsible strongly. Our internal investigation needs to be done quickly, and ideally any wrongdoer dealt with before the club come before the tribunal. If any wrongdoer is self employed, that's a blessing in that we can bin them off without a dragged out disciplinary process. 

[saintant]

1 minute ago, Whitey Grandad said:

Indeed. There is a plethora of monitoring equipment that could be fixed to a tree, for example, or some other convenient goalpost. Such equipment can be remotely monitored and recorded. Virtually untraceable and untrackable.

What you mean something like 'football training cam' Leave it there for a few days then collect it and see what you've managed to film. Sounds a better idea.

[Sheaf Saint]

15 minutes ago, saintant said:

Did Salt give him authority to upload a photo of him taken without his permission into the public domain?

Indeed. If the party taking the photo of an identifiable person is a business, then that photo is classed as personal data. Sharing that personal data without the subject's consent would then be a breach of UK GDPR.

[Farmer Saint]

9 minutes ago, egg said:

Indeed, and the tribunal only has to be satisfied on the balance of probabilities. If they think it's more likely than not that the ingredients of the offence are made out, the case goes against us. 

I don't know why people aren't getting this.

What makes the difference is whether the punishment for this is proportional to the offence. Being thrown out of the playoffs probably isn't as (a) the analyst was found before the game and (b) with that in mind Boro shouldn't use those tactics as there may be an advantage to Soton and (c) they still had 48 > 72 hours to change said tactics.

[Turkish]

31 minutes 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 

 

Surely companies won’t reveal credit card details of previous customers just because Middlesbrough ask for them?

[saintant]

2 minutes ago, Matthew Le God said:

You missed the point I was making. 

Yes, it happened. Yes, we should be punished.

But if any member of the public is able to livestream a tactical training session it highlights rhe flaw in the defence of saying vital info could be seen. It can't be deemed vital if it is on public show with no fences!

'The Defence rests Your Honour'