#Spygate

[benjii]

34 minutes ago, Whitey Grandad said:

I saw this and similar comments elsewhere:

How are Middlesbrough supposed to have obtained his name from a credit card transaction? The owner's name is never disclosed. 

Probably matched the transaction time to CCTV.

Yes, in terms of credit card data, they will have nothing other than a time, date and transaction ID Number. They can't identify any person from that at their end. The whole "he bought a coffee" thing is bollocks designed to create the impression that there will be a paper trail linking the chap to premises near other teams training grounds. It's desperate stuff.

[dsrdorset]

19 minutes ago, Midfield_General said:

Can't remember where I read it now, but someone said that Corden weighing in has the vibe of that person in the office who never watches football and knows nothing about it but who suddenly develops an extremely strong opinion on one particular issue. 

For the record, the obese waitress-abuser's proposal was that if Saints go up, we should have to give 50% of next season's TV money to Middlesbrough. Or to put it another way, a fine equating to approximately £75,000,000. 

I'm getting really pissed off with people at work who know next to nothing about football (Bournemouth 'fans') calling us cheats and can't wait for us to be kicked out. Never before have I wanted to win a game of football more than this final against Hull!! And then stick a big 2 fingers up to everyone, Corden, Deeney & Goldstein included!!!! Bring it on!!

[Saint_clark]

So is it right that the EFL are making a decision today? If so, do we know when it's likely to be announced?

[Stripey McStripe Shirt]

3 minutes ago, dsrdorset said:

I'm getting really pissed off with people at work who know next to nothing about football (Bournemouth 'fans') calling us cheats and can't wait for us to be kicked out. Never before have I wanted to win a game of football more than this final against Hull!! And then stick a big 2 fingers up to everyone, Corden, Deeney & Goldstein included!!!! Bring it on!!

Agree with the sentiment, but I'd struggle to name three people on Earth who's opinions I care about less. It's really not worth losing any sleep over them.

[Mt.B-Real]

The 'CCTV' they allegedly have is clearly no more than this guy buying a coffee in the clubhouse and this grainy picture of him stood by the tree with an iphone

 

Proves bugger all and makes them look rather stupid. The fact they have pursued us like this is an embarrassment and when they look back on this in the future they are going to feel very daft

Edited 1 hour ago by Mt.B-Real

[Saint_clark]

Just now, Mt.B-Real said:

The 'CCTV' they allegedly have is clearly no more than this guy buying a coffee in the clubhouse and this grainy picture of him stood by the tree with an iphone

 

Proves bugger all and makes them look rather stupid. The fact they have pursued us like this is an embarrassment and when they look back on this in the future they are going to feel very stupid

I doubt it, I have a feeling they'll remain convinced of their victim status for a long time to come and hold a grudge against us for it.

[Cabrone]

Looking at precedents and possible punishments (assuming Saints are found guilty) here are some yardsticks:

1) The EFL fined Leeds £200k for spying 7 years ago

2) The EFL recently docked Leicester 6 points for FFP breaches

IMO taking some photos is a much lesser offence than breaching FFP rules and I think the EFL would take that line (TBH no-one thinks it had the slightest impact on the game but there is a rule and I will accept that it's not the done thing).

So if the EFL are going to be consistent (if we are found guilty) we should get somewhere between a £200k fine and IMO something proportionally less than a 6 point deduction. Possibly 3 points docked at most.

Talk of throwing us out is a media storm caused by Boro fans throwing a tantrum and used to drive up ratings.

If we go up and stay up for some time this will be forgotten over time and If we don't....away days are going to have a lot more spice next season and Boro away will be particularly fun.

 

 

[coalman]

1 minute ago, Cabrone said:

Looking at precedents and possible punishments (assuming Saints are found guilty) here are some yardsticks:

1) The EFL fined Leeds £200k for spying 7 years ago

2) The EFL recently docked Leicester 6 points for FFP breaches

IMO taking some photos is a much lesser offence than breaching FFP rules and I think the EFL would take that line (TBH no-one thinks it had the slightest impact on the game but there is a rule and I will accept that it's not the done thing).

So if the EFL are going to be consistent (if we are found guilty) we should get somewhere between a £200k fine and IMO something proportionally less than a 6 point deduction. Possibly 3 points docked at most.

Talk of throwing us out is a media storm caused by Boro fans throwing a tantrum and used to drive up ratings.

If we go up and stay up for some time this will be forgotten over time and If we don't....away days are going to have a lot more spice next season and Boro away will be particularly fun.

You've clearly not been keeping up with the news. This is possibly the worst crime ever committed in any sporting context ever. 

[Whitey Grandad]

1 hour ago, Saint NL said:

Excited to see where this story goes today.

My prediction: someone finds Will Salt and we hear from him.

 

I can picture the scene now. Bald man with an eyepatch sitting in a chair and stroking a big white cat.

"Come in Mr. Salt. I've been expecting you."

[Toadhall Saint]

13 minutes ago, Saint_clark said:

So is it right that the EFL are making a decision today? If so, do we know when it's likely to be announced?

Not seen anything about a decision today.

[skintsaint]

3 minutes ago, Cabrone said:

Looking at precedents and possible punishments (assuming Saints are found guilty) here are some yardsticks:

1) The EFL fined Leeds £200k for spying 7 years ago

2) The EFL recently docked Leicester 6 points for FFP breaches

IMO taking some photos is a much lesser offence than breaching FFP rules and I think the EFL would take that line (TBH no-one thinks it had the slightest impact on the game but there is a rule and I will accept that it's not the done thing).

So if the EFL are going to be consistent (if we are found guilty) we should get somewhere between a £200k fine and IMO something proportionally less than a 6 point deduction. Possibly 3 points docked at most.

Talk of throwing us out is a media storm caused by Boro fans throwing a tantrum and used to drive up ratings.

If we go up and stay up for some time this will be forgotten over time and If we don't....away days are going to have a lot more spice next season and Boro away will be particularly fun.

 

 

Boro fans are even linking Swindons non promotion and demotion to this on their forums, as a factor on what might happen 😅

[LiberalCommunist]

No matter what punishment is dished out, one thing is for sure. No team will ever get caught spying within that 72 hr period again. They might do it, but they will never leave a trail after this slow embarrassing naked march through kings landing we have taken. We have changed the face of spying forever. 

[coalman]

Interestingly, Hull are quoted as saying on the BBC website that they'd be releasing ticketing information on Wednesday 13th of July so there does appear to be something in the idea that the EFL have asked both teams to hold back.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/clyp6r4rdkyo

The Boro forum are convinced that a decision is happening today.

I can't see the EFL taking the chance to make a decision without giving Saints the 14 days to respond as per their regulations. They'd open themselves up to all kinds of trouble. Unless, the decision was that the play off final is going ahead and any sanctions will happen afterwards. 

[MarkSFC]

19 hours 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.

Brilliant. Thanks for posting this. Ive been saying to my Saints pals that I cant imagine this will go very far as the potential legal wrangling could be very costly and lengthy, but that was just my gut instinct, and without any real legal knowledge or procedural knowledge. So your details are reassuring to tbe extent that we should not be worrying and actually may well come out on top after all is processed. 🙏

[Football Special]

18 minutes ago, dsrdorset said:

I'm getting really pissed off with people at work who know next to nothing about football (Bournemouth 'fans') calling us cheats and can't wait for us to be kicked out. Never before have I wanted to win a game of football more than this final against Hull!! And then stick a big 2 fingers up to everyone, Corden, Deeney & Goldstein included!!!! Bring it on!!

Would love that mate, win the final convincingly, then for the bantz let analyst Will Salt lead the team up the steps to the Royal Box and lift the trophy 

[The Wyvern]

8 minutes ago, Cabrone said:

Looking at precedents and possible punishments (assuming Saints are found guilty) here are some yardsticks:

1) The EFL fined Leeds £200k for spying 7 years ago

2) The EFL recently docked Leicester 6 points for FFP breaches

IMO taking some photos is a much lesser offence than breaching FFP rules and I think the EFL would take that line (TBH no-one thinks it had the slightest impact on the game but there is a rule and I will accept that it's not the done thing).

So if the EFL are going to be consistent (if we are found guilty) we should get somewhere between a £200k fine and IMO something proportionally less than a 6 point deduction. Possibly 3 points docked at most.

Talk of throwing us out is a media storm caused by Boro fans throwing a tantrum and used to drive up ratings.

If we go up and stay up for some time this will be forgotten over time and If we don't....away days are going to have a lot more spice next season and Boro away will be particularly fun.

 

 

Within the efl’s rules, could they have deducted points from Leeds if they’d wanted to? 

[Patrick Bateman]

21 minutes ago, dsrdorset said:

I'm getting really pissed off with people at work who know next to nothing about football (Bournemouth 'fans') calling us cheats and can't wait for us to be kicked out. Never before have I wanted to win a game of football more than this final against Hull!! And then stick a big 2 fingers up to everyone, Corden, Deeney & Goldstein included!!!! Bring it on!!

Best response as I've said before (and have done) is just to turn around and walk away while they continue to talk bollocks. Fans of Man Utd, Liverpool, Spurs, in fact a lot of teams who a) never go to a match and b) have never kicked a ball.

 

[Football Special]

5 minutes ago, coalman said:

Interestingly, Hull are quoted as saying on the BBC website that they'd be releasing ticketing information on Wednesday 13th of July so there does appear to be something in the idea that the EFL have asked both teams to hold back.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/clyp6r4rdkyo

The Boro forum are convinced that a decision is happening today.

I can't see the EFL taking the chance to make a decision without giving Saints the 14 days to respond as per their regulations. They'd open themselves up to all kinds of trouble. Unless, the decision was that the play off final is going ahead and any sanctions will happen afterwards. 

There's definitely something odd with delaying the tickets and confirmation of the kick off time 

[RedWillie]

5 minutes ago, coalman said:

Interestingly, Hull are quoted as saying on the BBC website that they'd be releasing ticketing information on Wednesday 13th of July so there does appear to be something in the idea that the EFL have asked both teams to hold back.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/clyp6r4rdkyo

The Boro forum are convinced that a decision is happening today.

I can't see the EFL taking the chance to make a decision without giving Saints the 14 days to respond as per their regulations. They'd open themselves up to all kinds of trouble. Unless, the decision was that the play off final is going ahead and any sanctions will happen afterwards. 

Id suggest this is cobblers as the 13th of July is a Monday !!

[Dman]

4 minutes ago, coalman said:

Interestingly, Hull are quoted as saying on the BBC website that they'd be releasing ticketing information on Wednesday 13th of July so there does appear to be something in the idea that the EFL have asked both teams to hold back.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/clyp6r4rdkyo

The Boro forum are convinced that a decision is happening today.

I can't see the EFL taking the chance to make a decision without giving Saints the 14 days to respond as per their regulations. They'd open themselves up to all kinds of trouble. Unless, the decision was that the play off final is going ahead and any sanctions will happen afterwards. 

Middlesbrough football clubs leaks like a sieve. Seemingly anyone who cares to listen have inside info from that club. 

[Mattio]

10 minutes ago, coalman said:

Interestingly, Hull are quoted as saying on the BBC website that they'd be releasing ticketing information on Wednesday 13th of July so there does appear to be something in the idea that the EFL have asked both teams to hold back.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/clyp6r4rdkyo

The Boro forum are convinced that a decision is happening today.

I can't see the EFL taking the chance to make a decision without giving Saints the 14 days to respond as per their regulations. They'd open themselves up to all kinds of trouble. Unless, the decision was that the play off final is going ahead and any sanctions will happen afterwards. 

How would this work as how would the team who go up have a few weeks to prep for the EPL

[Wade Garrett]

36 minutes ago, dsrdorset said:

I'm getting really pissed off with people at work who know next to nothing about football (Bournemouth 'fans') calling us cheats and can't wait for us to be kicked out. Never before have I wanted to win a game of football more than this final against Hull!! And then stick a big 2 fingers up to everyone, Corden, Deeney & Goldstein included!!!! Bring it on!!

FWIW, Goldstein said this morning that we should just get a fine.

[maxi_sopez]

Feel a bit too quiet this morning. 😬

[benjii]

16 minutes ago, Football Special said:

There's definitely something odd with delaying the tickets and confirmation of the kick off time 

https://www.wembleystadium.com/experiences/events/2026/EFL-Championship-play-off-final-2026

 

Wembley selling Hull and Southampton packages.

[sadoldgit]

29 minutes ago, Toadhall Saint said:

Not seen anything about a decision today.

Surely the EFL will not want any further distractions before the final? I can’t see any decision being made public until after the final.

I don’t think for one minute that the club will be disqualified from the competition.

Edited 42 minutes ago by sadoldgit

[Doctoroncall]

4 minutes ago, Mattio said:

How would this work as how would the team who go up have a few weeks to prep for the EPL

@coalman clearly made a mistake and meant  the month of May. 
 

However, I will start a campaign to get him banned from posting this misinformation which people took seriously and in good faith!

[Osvaldorama]

We won’t be kicked out. It’s just the delusional hopes of a desperate club. 
 

An intern with an iPhone does not deserve to be kicked out. The mere suggestion is ridiculous imo. 

[Give it to Ron]

4 minutes ago, Osvaldorama said:

We won’t be kicked out. It’s just the delusional hopes of a desperate club. 
 

An intern with an iPhone does not deserve to be kicked out. The mere suggestion is ridiculous imo. 

But but but they have 22 other clubs all with evidence of Salts coffee addiction 

[kwsaint]

2 minutes ago, Give it to Ron said:

But but but they have 22 other clubs all with evidence of Salts coffee addiction 

After this blows over, we should get MLT to interview Salt. Think that might make Boro blow up.

[Adman]

This may be why they are getting lawyers, if you believe he account in the Mail. 
 

 

On the assumed facts, the likely regulatory outcome is that the hotel would face the greatest immediate ICO risk, with the club also exposed if it knowingly received and used the information for its own purpose. The relevant infringements would likely include Article 5 principle breaches, possible Article 6 unlawfulness, Article 32 security failings, and breach-response failings if notification duties were missed. ICO enforcement tools include warnings, reprimands, assessment notices, enforcement notices and penalty notices; serious principle breaches can attract fines of up to £17.5 million or 4% of annual worldwide turnover, whichever is higher. The fining guidance emphasises gravity, intentionality, mitigation, the categories of data affected and the degree of responsibility. Intentional misuse of payment data would be an aggravating feature. 

The PCI/commercial outcome could be severe even if no criminal prosecution followed. PCI SSC guidance says suspected cardholder-data breaches may require independent forensic investigation and immediate coordination with acquirers and brands. Visa’s published materials require suspected or confirmed compromise events involving unauthorised access to payment data to be reported, and UK merchant-acquirer materials warn about non-compliance charges and card-scheme fines. In practice, merchants can face forensic costs, remediation obligations, higher fees, tighter oversight and, in extreme cases, the loss of card-acceptance privileges. 

For affected customers, the civil outlook is comparatively strong, especially if there is evidence of onward media leak, fraud risk, or publication. Unlike the representative-action model rejected in Lloyd, an individual claimant with their own distress, anxiety, financial exposure, replacement-card inconvenience, or actual fraudulent use of the card has a conventional claim. Privacy and confidence claims also become stronger as the dissemination becomes wider and the information more intimate or financially dangerous. 

 

 

[Sarnia Cherie]

1 hour ago, coalman said:

He has a World Cup football show with Rio Ferdinand coming up. He's trying to get attention so people think he has something to say about football.

Nobody else is offering him any other work at the moment, I wonder why? 😀

[Osvaldorama]

2 minutes ago, Adman said:

This may be why they are getting lawyers, if you believe he account in the Mail. 
 

 

 

On the assumed facts, the likely regulatory outcome is that the hotel would face the greatest immediate ICO risk, with the club also exposed if it knowingly received and used the information for its own purpose. The relevant infringements would likely include Article 5 principle breaches, possible Article 6 unlawfulness, Article 32 security failings, and breach-response failings if notification duties were missed. ICO enforcement tools include warnings, reprimands, assessment notices, enforcement notices and penalty notices; serious principle breaches can attract fines of up to £17.5 million or 4% of annual worldwide turnover, whichever is higher. The fining guidance emphasises gravity, intentionality, mitigation, the categories of data affected and the degree of responsibility. Intentional misuse of payment data would be an aggravating feature. 

The PCI/commercial outcome could be severe even if no criminal prosecution followed. PCI SSC guidance says suspected cardholder-data breaches may require independent forensic investigation and immediate coordination with acquirers and brands. Visa’s published materials require suspected or confirmed compromise events involving unauthorised access to payment data to be reported, and UK merchant-acquirer materials warn about non-compliance charges and card-scheme fines. In practice, merchants can face forensic costs, remediation obligations, higher fees, tighter oversight and, in extreme cases, the loss of card-acceptance privileges. 

For affected customers, the civil outlook is comparatively strong, especially if there is evidence of onward media leak, fraud risk, or publication. Unlike the representative-action model rejected in Lloyd, an individual claimant with their own distress, anxiety, financial exposure, replacement-card inconvenience, or actual fraudulent use of the card has a conventional claim. Privacy and confidence claims also become stronger as the dissemination becomes wider and the information more intimate or financially dangerous. 

 

 

Would laugh so much if Boro owner comes out of this with a hefty fine 

[trousers]

59 minutes ago, Stripey McStripe Shirt said:

Agree with the sentiment, but I'd struggle to name three people on Earth who's opinions I care about less. It's really not worth losing any sleep over them.

Bungle off Rainbow?

[skintsaint]

5 minutes ago, Adman said:

For affected customers, the civil outlook is comparatively strong, especially if there is evidence of onward media leak, fraud risk, or publication. Unlike the representative-action model rejected in Lloyd, an individual claimant with their own distress, anxiety, financial exposure, replacement-card inconvenience, or actual fraudulent use of the card has a conventional claim. Privacy and confidence claims also become stronger as the dissemination becomes wider and the information more intimate or financially dangerous. 

Go nuts Mr Salt!

[Zorba]

1 hour ago, benjii said:

I really hope he was wearing Saints gear on his walkabout.

At least, the new Wembley training gear..

[saintstowin]

2 minutes ago, trousers said:

Bungle off Rainbow?

Bungle is quite insightful, bit of an over thinker possibly, but I trust his views as well thought through and mature.

[revolution saint]

3 minutes ago, trousers said:

Bungle off Rainbow?

59,000 posts of sitting on the fence and you break cover over Bungle from Rainbow? What did that bear do to you?

[Sheaf Saint]

1 minute ago, revolution saint said:

59,000 posts of sitting on the fence and you break cover over Bungle from Rainbow? What did that bear do to you?

I really don't want to know, but I'm guessing it had something to do with getting his twanger out.

[Whitey Grandad]

2 minutes ago, revolution saint said:

59,000 posts of sitting on the fence and you break cover over Bungle from Rainbow? What did that bear do to you?

Trousers is Bungle. There is no other explanation. 

[trousers]

1 minute ago, Sheaf Saint said:

I really don't want to know, but I'm guessing it had something to do with getting his twanger out.

😂

 

[Whitey Grandad]

4 minutes ago, Zorba said:

At least, the new Wembley training gear..

That might catch on. Where can I buy one? (In my size of course)

[Ken Tone]

1 minute ago, Sheaf Saint said:

I really don't want to know, but I'm guessing it had something to do with getting his twanger out.

Think that was Zippy. 

[saintstowin]

The last bit sounds like Ryan Manning....

Bungle is known for being very inquisitive. This means he loves to ask questions and learn new things. However, he is also quite clumsy, which often leads to funny situations.

 

 

[Whitey Grandad]

Just now, trousers said:

😂

 

Is that for real?

[DT]

1 minute ago, Ken Tone said:

Think that was Zippy. 

Rod Jane and Freddy DEFINITELY had something going on

[Willo of Whiteley]

7 hours ago, SaintJackoInHurworth said:

I haven't been on SaintsWeb for ages, but felt it might be time for me to weigh in due to my particular insight into this story...

You see, as my username will tell you, I live in the village of Hurworth-on-Tees... which is significant because the Rockliffe training ground is not in Middlesbrough, but is actually in Hurworth-on-Tees. I live right opposite the Rockliffe grounds including Hotel, Golf Club, training ground, cricket club and woods.

I can tell you that there is a lot of rubbish being shared about the story and some of the pictures. Here is my take:

1. The Middlesbrough FC First Team training pitch is on the opposite side of the MFC training centre from the Rockliffe Hotel and golf club.

2. The picture of a boy stood behind a tree filming does not, as far as I can see, tally with anywhere around the first team training pitch.

3. The other picture of a tree beside a gate with training pitches in the background DOES appear to be taken from the gate near to the Rockliffe Golf clubhouse.

4. However, the pitches in the background of that picture are supplementary training pitches and, as stated above, that is not the First Team Training pitch. Those pitches are mainly used by the academy sides and women's sides for their training. However, it is possible that some training could have taken place there, but I'm not convinced any spy would have been able to see significant tactical input in that area.

5. If I were to spy on MFC's first team training, instead of trying to get to the first team training pitch from the golf course, I would walk along the public footpath around the perimeter of Rockliffe and slip through the woods where it is possible to spy on the training pitch. From there you could also stay out of sight of CCTV cameras.

6. I have downloaded an aerial view of Rockliffe using Google and based on my local knowledge I have edited the image to show:

• Where a lot of the rumours about the spying seem to be suggesting the spy was caught
• Where the first team training pitch is
• Where the other training and exhibition pitches are
• The footpaths around the training ground.
• The location of the clubhouse and training centre.
• The rough area where I think any decent spy would have positioned themselves to film training.

Here is the image:

Finally, here is a photo that I took on Friday of the gate near the golf clubhouse where the reports seem to be suggesting the spying took place (with the tree shown!):

You may also be interested with the following video that I took from the lawn of Rockliffe Hotel, which shoots over the top of the grassy roof of the clubhouse and scans around to the training centre: 

 

Send that to the club 😀

[skintsaint]

Just now, Whitey Grandad said:

Is that for real?

Think it was made for the crew for some occasion from memory.

[Dman]

6 minutes ago, Zorba said:

At least, the new Wembley training gear..

Once our (minor) punishment is confirmed, the ultimate shithousery would be to knock out a few saints branded ghillie suits and packs of tissues. 

[beatlesaint]

4 minutes ago, DT said:

Rod Jane and Freddy DEFINITELY had something going on

Oh mate, it’s an interesting read about her, she shagged all of them bar Zippy 🤣

[Willo of Whiteley]

1 hour ago, dsrdorset said:

I'm getting really pissed off with people at work who know next to nothing about football (Bournemouth 'fans') calling us cheats and can't wait for us to be kicked out. Never before have I wanted to win a game of football more than this final against Hull!! And then stick a big 2 fingers up to everyone, Corden, Deeney & Goldstein included!!!! Bring it on!!

Agreed, parents in law called up last night and said “Great result for Saints, but looks like they’re going to be kicked out”

”Where have you seen that?”

”Sky are saying it”

🙄
I walked out the room baffled at how they taken Sky going for a walk on public land is verified information.