#Spygate

[Saint_clark]

1 minute ago, 23rdSaint said:

😂

Requesting to take part in the process...fuck me they're really over reaching aren't they? 

Although I'd argue they already are with a board member as part of the process.

[23rdSaint]

1 minute ago, Saint_clark said:

Requesting to take part in the process...fuck me they're really over reaching aren't they? 

Although I'd argue they already are with a board member as part of the process.

Read somewhere that he's stepping aside as conflict of interest, I think

[Smirking_Saint]

2 minutes ago, Saint_clark said:

Requesting to take part in the process...fuck me they're really over reaching aren't they? 

Although I'd argue they already are with a board member as part of the process.

He’s not part of the process

[trousers]

13 minutes ago, OurClau5 said:

I think part of the issue is probably the underhand nature of it in general. Or atleast in the case I know of. But I myself, and I know of a lot of other clubs that have done it, send people to hotels before games to check who is signing in etc, to find out whether players are fit or not. Spying in some form, goes on all the time. Just usually less blatant than an iphone behind a tree. Not sure that can be used as a defence mind!

Whilst it can't be used as a defence in a given case per se, surely the fact that "everyone else does it" is a huge mitigating factor in terms of the severity of punishment? I wonder if we might threaten to unleash a flood of counter-accusations against other clubs were we to receive a disproportionate punishment, given it must be relatively easy to gather evidence on such actively if it's always been rife across the board?

[benjii]

52 minutes ago, egg said:

I disagree. The arbitration clause is binding - it's trite law. 

Arbitration agreements don't usually stop urgent court relief and one that does may not be valid.

[hypochondriac]

6 minutes ago, Saint_clark said:

Wouldn't really be in his interest to do that though. It may be true but in that case he's shown himself to not be a particularly honest person. If it's not true, he'd need a pretty good reason to jump on the grenade.

It's not in his interest unless we make it in his interest. They mentioned he had some time off and is now back at the club. I'm sure we've had discussions. 

Edited 1 hour ago by hypochondriac

[trousers]

17 minutes ago, Wiggles31 said:

Whatever precedent the EFL sets, all clubs, including Saints will be looking for evidence of spying this season. So if it’s a points deduction and a fine, and we then go and find evidence of another club spying on us within the 72 hour window - then surely the same applies to them. Hence the cluster fuck this is for the EFL. 

Yep, this 👍🏻

[Zorba]

6 minutes ago, Turkish said:

ever seen Steve Gibson and orginal Lex Luther in the same room?

 

No, but he’s obviously a Robbin’ Joker.

[There when Franny scored]

17 minutes ago, egg said:

The BBC are correct, there's no right of appeal to CAS. The arbitration clause provides for the panel that are determining this charge, then any appeal. That's binding. 

The regulations are what matters. Link to them here:

https://images.gc.eflservices.co.uk/526ac020-67b3-11f0-9ba4-015464ec39cd.pdf

Sections 8 and 9 sets out the answer to your questions - pages 129 to 142. 

Very helpful, thank you. In particular, 91.6 

[Sheaf Saint]

5 minutes ago, Smirking_Saint said:

He’s not part of the process

I bet he doesn't love looking down either.

[trousers]

 

19 minutes ago, 23rdSaint said:

🚨🤓 Southampton Spygate personal view:
1. Expect the breaches will be straightforward to establish (ie liability) and almost certainly admitted to try and get some sanction credit/discount
2. Expect aggravating factors such as other examples of Soton spying this year to be raised
3. Fundamental question of how serious a breach of rule 127 and good faith is will be key. We know good faith alone was £200k in the Leeds case. The new rule makes it worse and spying obviously seeks a sporting advantage - why else do it? So that does point to sporting sanction of some sort
4. Being thrown out of the Play Offs appears excessive especially given Southampton finished 7 points clear of 6th and 9 clear of 7th
5. A 3-0 in the first leg would have been an option again excessive retrospectively unless 2nd leg re-playable (not feasible)
6. More likely sanction is points deduction next season in the Championship as much as that won't help Middlesboro
7. Unlikely that the PL will take a points deduction recommendation from the EFL (no fixed rule) - doubt EFL will push for it, so would apply in first season back in Championship (when and if)
8. My best guess is SIX EFL points in first season in EFL and £500k-£1m fine
9. Boro compensation claim can be dealt with separately subject to any claim brought by Boro - difficult claim to establish due to causation issues

Some well articulated thoughts, but what he's basically saying there is that this misdemeanor is as bad as Leicester cheating in plain sight for an entire season (or more)...

Edited 1 hour ago by trousers

[leesaint88]

1 minute ago, trousers said:

Maybe that's why clubs sometimes send injured players to away games (like Middlesbrough did with Hackney this week) so that 

 

Some well articulated thoughts, but what he's basically saying there is that this misdemeanor is as bad as Leicester cheating in plain sight for an entire season (or more)...

It'll be reduced on appeal if it's points. Personally I expect it to be two (eventually) like Sheff United got last season for deciding not to pay any remaining transfer fees they owe..

[offsidetrap]

56 minutes ago, SNSUN said:

If you wear a coat in the winter, you're a Southerner. That's how I work it out. 😆

[Doctoroncall]

30 minutes ago, Turkish said:

agree, sounds like a bit of a set up. Like i said earlier the picture is taken from the other side of the grounds from where the security guys were. Would be very interesting if it comes out that it was all a set up. Obviously they will say that we shouldn't have done it but also poor innocent wronged Middlesborough are actually devious cunts.

So there was some high tech gear used! 👀

[trousers]

17 minutes ago, Saint_clark said:

Wouldn't really be in his interest to do that though. It may be true but in that case he's shown himself to not be a particularly honest person. If it's not true, he'd need a pretty good reason to jump on the grenade.

How about this statement from Salt: 

"I'm sorry m'lud. It was technically my fault. You see, the club asked me to check their training sessions but not stray into the 72 hour embargo period. However, I got my days mixed up due to the Monday being a bank holiday, hence thinking the Thursday was Wednesday. Yeah, stupid I know but it was a genuine oversight on my part"

(Yeah, I know, I know.... I wasn't 'Clutching at Straws World Champion 2017' for no reason... )

[James G]

56 minutes ago, trousers said:

Which might also help explain why his LinkedIn profile was also taken down around the same time as Salt's (supposedly)...?

If both LinkedIn profiles were taken down at the same time, maybe the whole incident was the two of them. Salt was wanting to further his credentials, so he consulted the other guy who had worked at Boro who said come and watch from here, that's where everyone stands. Then further down the road, because Salt was caught and Boro have made a fuss, Salt has implicated the other guy who is now possibly defending himself by helping Boro

[skintsaint]

Just now, James G said:

If both LinkedIn profiles were taken down at the same time, maybe the whole incident was the two of them. Salt was wanting to further his credentials, so he consulted the other guy who had worked at Boro who said come and watch from here, that's where everyone stands. Then further down the road, because Salt was caught and Boro have made a fuss, Salt has implicated the other guy who is now possibly defending himself by helping Boro

Entrapment! Be funny if true 😅

[LGTL]

30 minutes ago, Turkish said:

Obviously a conspiracy theory but is it beyond the realms of possibiity that this happens

Disgruntled ex employee contacts Salt, a naive intern wanting to help his team. Tells him that there is a place you can see MIddlesborough training where no one will spot you not entering any private ground. Naively Salt thinks his old mate is helping him out. When actually he tips off 'Boro whats been planned then reports him to the club as a way of getting back at Saints. If you were going to stitch someone up you'd go for the most junior person wouldn't you, not anyone higher up who'd probably be more savy.

The picture is interesting for me, it's from the other side of the pitches from the security office where Sky said they guards came running from and was taken before that, someone knew he was there.

It sounds like something you used to get on Dream Team but truth is stranger than fiction these days. There are a few things that dont add up here.

That actually makes more sense than just about anything else in this saga. 

[Sheaf Saint]

2 minutes ago, trousers said:

How about this statement from Salt: 

"I'm sorry m'lud. It was technically my fault. You see, the club asked me to check their training sessions but not stray into the 72 hour embargo period. However, I got my days mixed up due to the Monday being a bank holiday, hence thinking the Thursday was Wednesday. Yeah, stupid I know but it was a genuine oversight on my part"

(Yeah, I know, I know.... I wasn't 'Clutching at Straws World Champion 2017' for no reason... )

You must have excellent balance. Clutching at straws while sitting on the fence must take a great deal of core strength.

[bolo]

41 minutes ago, saintant said:

The photo of Salt continues to baffle me. I'm sure Boro staff often spot people in and close to that place by the tree. Would they not just send someone to check them out and politely move them on. Surely they don't photograph everyone.

The photo of Salt looks as though it could only have been done with a zoom lens. So why did they seemingly decide the photo was needed before talking to him. Smacks of them knowing he would be there and who he was so possibly some sort of set up on their part.

It's entrapment. That's what it feels like to me....

[Dman]

Thought of the day. 

Does a witness statment (and lets assume some form of paperwork leading back to Spors) from an ex employee stating that we have asked them to scout opponents training, matter all that much if there is no evidence that we've actually done it before (within the 72 hour window)?

[trousers]

1 minute ago, LGTL said:

That actually makes more sense than just about anything else in this saga. 

That's the thing... In this case, the 'conspiracy theories' actually make more sense, and stack up more logically, compared to the reported 'reality'....

[hypochondriac]

Another thought is that if you wanted to make an argument that the spying had no material affect on the games in mitigation, you couldn't have asked for the games to have gone any better than for them to absolutely dominate us in the first half of the first game with numerous chances to score and then a fairly even second leg with superior fitness winning out. 

[Saint86]

2 hours ago, TestValley said:

Bottom line is rules are rules and Saints knowingly broke them to try to get an unfair advantage in a crucial tie. 

Overnight has turned the club into the most disliked in the country. 

I doubt it will happen but if the punishment is expulsion from the final, no one can complain. 

It won't happen, but if you think what amounts to a £200M+ fine is proportionate punishment for a young lad stood behind a fence with a mobile phone watching the u21s pitches, you've utterly lost the plot IMHO and have caved into this pure conjecture media shit storm that Boro have whipped up. Let alone the rumoured points deductions.

If we've done it, a sensible mid ground punishment would be somewhere in the ball park of a £200k-£500k fine and maybe a 2-3 points deducted next season in the EFL (to satisfy the wolves and make an example of us). The EFL should then use their brains and remove this stupid rule as no other major league has it and watching training is common place - but that won't happen because they are incapable of missing any opportunity to create problems with half arse rules.

This hasn't cost Boro their place at wembley, but we would have misbehaved enough to have caused a stink for the EFL..although I'd wager Boro's antics are pissing the elf off a fair amount as well tbh.

Edited 51 minutes ago by Saint86

[James G]

3 minutes ago, skintsaint said:

Entrapment! Be funny if true 😅

I know. But it's a very strange coincidence. 

Shutting down social media profiles would make sense for an investigation, so it surely must involve those two parties 

The clues we have are, Saints haven't denied it, they claim it to be a lone wolf thing, and these two had their profiles shut down at the same time, one of them is ex Middlesbrough so he would know where to stand

[egg]

39 minutes ago, 23rdSaint said:

🚨🤓 Southampton Spygate personal view:
1. Expect the breaches will be straightforward to establish (ie liability) and almost certainly admitted to try and get some sanction credit/discount
2. Expect aggravating factors such as other examples of Soton spying this year to be raised
3. Fundamental question of how serious a breach of rule 127 and good faith is will be key. We know good faith alone was £200k in the Leeds case. The new rule makes it worse and spying obviously seeks a sporting advantage - why else do it? So that does point to sporting sanction of some sort
4. Being thrown out of the Play Offs appears excessive especially given Southampton finished 7 points clear of 6th and 9 clear of 7th
5. A 3-0 in the first leg would have been an option again excessive retrospectively unless 2nd leg re-playable (not feasible)
6. More likely sanction is points deduction next season in the Championship as much as that won't help Middlesboro
7. Unlikely that the PL will take a points deduction recommendation from the EFL (no fixed rule) - doubt EFL will push for it, so would apply in first season back in Championship (when and if)
8. My best guess is SIX EFL points in first season in EFL and £500k-£1m fine
9. Boro compensation claim can be dealt with separately subject to any claim brought by Boro - difficult claim to establish due to causation issues

That's the most realistic thing I've read in this. Agreed. 

[kitch]

Like most of us, this has been in my head for the past few days and last night I started speculating: There is no 'spying' equipment in this situation. There's no mic; no analytical data stuff...it's a guy with a phone.

My take on it? He nipped inside the grounds to see if he could see who was training (HH being the main target). I know that's still against the 72hr rule, but it has to be taken into context when it comes to the world and his wife thinking we're some kind Putin-esque wrong'uns who've cheated their way to a nigh-on 20 game unbeaten run. Teams included in that have security and facilities well above Boro's (i.e Arsenal, Fulham, Leicester and so on).

Why the phone? Honestly, I reckon it's the easiest way of zooming in, and it can be recorded to be viewed back when you have time (and you're not somewhere you're not supposed to be). Binoculars look bloody obvious, and he's hardly going to whip out a telescope. A drone wouldn't be the most subtle of ways to work, either.

During the recent legends game, I was sat in the Itchen south. Couldn't figure out who was who half the time, so out came the phone...

Ah yes, there's SRL, Jos, Surman etc

Arsenal game, at the end. Fancied capturing the joy on the player's faces from Kingsland North...

Ipswich game the other night. Couldn't suss out who was with Prutton on the presenting team. Out comes the blower...

Zoom lenses on phones these days are ridiculous. I could climb a tree on the side of the A326 and zoom in over the fence at Staplewood to see who's training, too.

My take? I reckon there's a car outside on the grass verge with the hazards on, and he's literally decided off his own back to nip in, find out some key info (i.e. who's training) and dash back before anyone notices. He was already in the area prior to the 72hr window doing what all teams do, but then goes rogue (or possibly instructed) to swing by really quickly and see who's training.

He gets spotted, panics, runs into the shop to get a coffee to make it seem innocent but then overthinks it and changes his top, too. Mind you, all they've said was "Altered his appearance" so for all we know, it might be he put his driving glasses back on, or put a hat on.

I don't reckon Tonda or the club knew, I reckon the analytics side probably knew he was going to cheekily nip back in on his way back and see if he could grab a key bit of intel in a fit of youthful exuberance. Club is probably hopping mad from the top down and I imagine heads in the analytics dept will roll. If it was just Salt going rogue, he's a very silly boy, but I can't see it just being him. Coaching staff, no, but analytics depts will do EVERYTHING they can to get an advantage. "Boss, just found out Hackney's not training"...that's big news.

And now I'm pissed at myself for speculating and adding to this ongoing drama.

[Dman]

Wasn't there reports pretty early on that they suspected we were tipped off by someone who knew that they had reduced security...

No don't get carried away with this story. 

It would be absolute gold if it transpired to be the case... 

1 minute ago, James G said:

I know. But it's a very strange coincidence. 

Shutting down social media profiles would make sense for an investigation, so it surely must involve those two parties 

The clues we have are, Saints haven't denied it, they claim it to be a lone wolf thing, and these two had their profiles shut down at the same time, one of them is ex Middlesbrough so he would know where to stand

 

[egg]

5 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

Another thought is that if you wanted to make an argument that the spying had no material affect on the games in mitigation, you couldn't have asked for the games to have gone any better than for them to absolutely dominate us in the first half of the first game with numerous chances to score and then a fairly even second leg with superior fitness winning out. 

Ah, but, but, they'd have had even more chances in the first half and probably would have scored at least 3 if we hadn't had a peek at one training session. Or something. 

[Saint_lambden]

16 minutes ago, leesaint88 said:

It'll be reduced on appeal if it's points. Personally I expect it to be two (eventually) like Sheff United got last season for deciding not to pay any remaining transfer fees they owe..

I'd be surprised if we even appealed a points deduction (unless it was something ridiculous like 10+ points), especially a suspended one - purely out of the relief that we'd escaped being booted out the play-offs. Dragging this out unneccessarily will just make it worse for the club and act as a distraction to preparing for next season - whatever league we're in. 

 

[Dr. Kucho]

This for a thought, this analyst was spying on their tactics and formation but on one of their conditioning sessions. 

“Tell Tonda not to bother with the first half, we know they can’t finish but they also run out of steam after 60 minutes. Let them run round for the first hour, we’ll get them in the second half” 

[Dman]

2 minutes ago, kitch said:

Like most of us, this has been in my head for the past few days and last night I started speculating: There is no 'spying' equipment in this situation. There's no mic; no analytical data stuff...it's a guy with a phone.

My take on it? He nipped inside the grounds to see if he could see who was training (HH being the main target). I know that's still against the 72hr rule, but it has to be taken into context when it comes to the world and his wife thinking we're some kind Putin-esque wrong'uns who've cheated their way to a nigh-on 20 game unbeaten run. Teams included in that have security and facilities well above Boro's (i.e Arsenal, Fulham, Leicester and so on).

Why the phone? Honestly, I reckon it's the easiest way of zooming in, and it can be recorded to be viewed back when you have time (and you're not somewhere you're not supposed to be). Binoculars look bloody obvious, and he's hardly going to whip out a telescope. A drone wouldn't be the most subtle of ways to work, either.

During the recent legends game, I was sat in the Itchen south. Couldn't figure out who was who half the time, so out came the phone...

Ah yes, there's SRL, Jos, Surman etc

Arsenal game, at the end. Fancied capturing the joy on the player's faces from Kingsland North...

Ipswich game the other night. Couldn't suss out who was with Prutton on the presenting team. Out comes the blower...

Zoom lenses on phones these days are ridiculous. I could climb a tree on the side of the A326 and zoom in over the fence at Staplewood to see who's training, too.

My take? I reckon there's a car outside on the grass verge with the hazards on, and he's literally decided off his own back to nip in, find out some key info (i.e. who's training) and dash back before anyone notices. He was already in the area prior to the 72hr window doing what all teams do, but then goes rogue (or possibly instructed) to swing by really quickly and see who's training.

He gets spotted, panics, runs into the shop to get a coffee to make it seem innocent but then overthinks it and changes his top, too. Mind you, all they've said was "Altered his appearance" so for all we know, it might be he put his driving glasses back on, or put a hat on.

I don't reckon Tonda or the club knew, I reckon the analytics side probably knew he was going to cheekily nip back in on his way back and see if he could grab a key bit of intel in a fit of youthful exuberance. Club is probably hopping mad from the top down and I imagine heads in the analytics dept will roll. If it was just Salt going rogue, he's a very silly boy, but I can't see it just being him. Coaching staff, no, but analytics depts will do EVERYTHING they can to get an advantage. "Boss, just found out Hackney's not training"...that's big news.

And now I'm pissed at myself for speculating and adding to this ongoing drama.

This is not helping our case that it wasn't professional surveillance footage.... 😂

[kitch]

3 minutes ago, Dman said:

This is not helping our case that it wasn't professional surveillance footage.... 😂

You know what I mean though? It's just a phone. Mine's got a better zoom than most, but they can all do 20x these days. Couple of grainy stills, of who's where and when and back in the car and down the A1 again in time for tea. Jobbed.
 

[egg]

28 minutes ago, There when Franny scored said:

Very helpful, thank you. In particular, 91.6 

Indeed, s44 does not apply, so no prospect of a court injunction, and no s69 rules out a high court challenge, unless theres a serious irregularity or the panel go beyond their remit - I'd imagine giving party status to Boro may open those up. 

[trousers]

10 minutes ago, egg said:

That's the most realistic thing I've read in this. Agreed. 

You agree we should be penalised as heavily as Leicester were?

[egg]

43 minutes ago, benjii said:

Arbitration agreements don't usually stop urgent court relief and one that does may not be valid.

The agreement says s44 shall not apply. That provision removes the prospect of injunctive relief. 

Edited 37 minutes ago by egg

[Dman]

42 minutes ago, 23rdSaint said:

😂

Right, hear me out here....

Boro will be there as nothing more than a witness. Therefore, they can only present facts they personally observed and cannot speculate...

 

Therefore, does that make all of the 'evidence' they have gather useless (unless another clubs comes forward - which would result in anotehr EFL charge)?

[hypochondriac]

1 minute ago, Dman said:

Right, hear me out here....

Boro will be there as nothing more than a witness. Therefore, they can only present facts they personally observed and cannot speculate...

 

Therefore, does that make all of the 'evidence' they have gather useless (unless another clubs comes forward - which would result in anotehr EFL charge)?

Boro won't be there at all. As I understand it they submit their evidence then Southampton and the efl have a hearing with the independent panel. 

[egg]

1 minute ago, trousers said:

You agree we should be penalised as heavily as Leicester were?

That's an apples/oranges comparison. I agree that we shouldn't be excluded, that a fine is fair, and that an EFL only points deduction seems likely. What are you realistically expecting as the outcome? 

[Saint Fan CaM]

4 hours ago, egg said:

If you substitute repugnant with wrong, nobody could reasonably disagree with Blackmore. That other clubs allegedly do it in league games isn't great mitigation in itself, and misses the point that this wasn't a league game but a high stakes play off semi.

However you cut it, we were seeking an advantage that we were not entitled to seek, and the punishment will focus on that in the context of the stakes in that particular game.

On the face of it I would agree, but let’s say for arguments sake that the ‘spying’ started 72 hours and 10 minutes prior to the first semi starting and stopped 9 minutes later. That’s not cheating - that’s playing by the rules, irrespective of whether Boro might claim we’ve gained an advantage and its morally wrong.

What if the same scenario had happened but the ‘spying’ stopped 11 minutes later? It could be argued both ways that rules had still not been broken if the exact wording of said rules did not make it clear, again irrespective of the ‘morality’ of the action. That’s part of the context, along with a clear understanding of the employment status of the alleged ‘spy’. That’s what the tribunal needs to establish of course and my point was to observe that a simple ‘yes they spied’ or ‘no they didn’t’ just won’t cut it.

[trousers]

12 minutes ago, Saint_lambden said:

I'd be surprised if we even appealed a points deduction (unless it was something ridiculous like 10+ points), especially a suspended one - purely out of the relief that we'd escaped being booted out the play-offs. Dragging this out unneccessarily will just make it worse for the club and act as a distraction to preparing for next season - whatever league we're in. 

 

Yep, anything below 6 points deduction and a £1m fine and we'll let it slide I reckon 

[Saint_clark]

28 minutes ago, trousers said:

How about this statement from Salt: 

"I'm sorry m'lud. It was technically my fault. You see, the club asked me to check their training sessions but not stray into the 72 hour embargo period. However, I got my days mixed up due to the Monday being a bank holiday, hence thinking the Thursday was Wednesday. Yeah, stupid I know but it was a genuine oversight on my part"

(Yeah, I know, I know.... I wasn't 'Clutching at Straws World Champion 2017' for no reason... )

At this point it's clear that we're in the wrong to some extent, but I would fucking die from gut busting laughter if this independent panel came out and said there was no evidence of intentional wrongdoing and therefore no punishment required.

[Dman]

5 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

Boro won't be there at all. As I understand it they submit their evidence then Southampton and the efl have a hearing with the independent panel. 

So their case will be; 

"here is our evidence they spied upon us [inserts copious amounts of potentially illegally obtained evidence (CCTV / Bank details from a 3rd party company)] We beleive that this is premeditated and not their first rodeo [inserts a witness statement]"

again without sounding like a broken drum, none of that proves we have done it before. Might so intent to, but doesn't show that we've done it 

Edited 31 minutes ago by Dman

[SNSUN]

4 minutes ago, trousers said:

Yep, anything below 6 points deduction and a £1m fine and we'll let it slide I reckon 

Anything below 6 points and a £1million fine and I think the Middlesbrough Forums will crash, the North Eastern Media will revolt and Steve Gibson might purse his lips even more than he ever has.

[kwsaint]

I bet after all this we get drawn against them in the league cup next year.

[Barry the Badger]

It's a shame for the EFL that we didn't finish below Boro on GD. If we had they could've imposed a 3 or even 6 point penalty to this season and it wouldn't have affected the playoffs at all. They would've set a precedent without opening themselves to claims from Boro that it put them at a disadvantage and affected the playoff scheduling.

But now they can't do that as any points penalty applied to this season would put us below Boro, and Boro would argue they should've played at home second. 

The length of time it's all taken to get to this point has caused some of the issues they now have in deciding what to do.

Edited 24 minutes ago by Barry the Badger

[egg]

15 minutes ago, Saint Fan CaM said:

On the face of it I would agree, but let’s say for arguments sake that the ‘spying’ started 72 hours and 10 minutes prior to the first semi starting and stopped 9 minutes later. That’s not cheating - that’s playing by the rules, irrespective of whether Boro might claim we’ve gained an advantage and its morally wrong.

What if the same scenario had happened but the ‘spying’ stopped 11 minutes later? It could be argued both ways that rules had still not been broken if the exact wording of said rules did not make it clear, again irrespective of the ‘morality’ of the action. That’s part of the context, along with a clear understanding of the employment status of the alleged ‘spy’. That’s what the tribunal needs to establish of course and my point was to observe that a simple ‘yes they spied’ or ‘no they didn’t’ just won’t cut it.

I'm not getting into hypotheticals, it's pointless. Let's just hope the facts and evidence show that at most we've committed a slight technical breach, and that a lenient penalty is dished out. 

Edited 20 minutes ago by egg

[Wurzel]

As the issue is the "within 72 hours" I still think my argument that he was spying on them for the second leg not the 1st gets the case dismissed immediately 😂

[Disco Stu]

Are we finding out today if it's going to be played on the 23rd? I hope so as I've planned my calander around it.

[Toussaint]

I haven’t read the recent posts, so apologies if this had been covered, but the Echo are looking for a new Saints reporter?