#Spygate

[Matthew Le God]

4 minutes ago, Fabrice29 said:

Jesus Christ stop with this angle 😂

What about it is incorrect? I haven't said it wouldn't be spying or warrant punishment. 

Edited 1 hour ago by Matthew Le God

[obelisk]

25 minutes ago, Badger said:

If Saints were training on Southampton Common other teams are still prohibited from spying on us.

Any team training in public has to expect that their activities can be watched and recorded by any member of the public who are not subject to rules pertaining just to that team and its associates. Those members of the public can then do whatever they wish with the information gleaned and these days that involves telling the world. Would it be "cheating" if that team's rivals then had a quick peak at what had been made public?

[coalman]

22 minutes ago, st john moor said:

https://www.stewartslaw.com/news/spy-games-what-are-the-possible-repercussions-of-the-southampton-v-middlesbrough-play-off-spying-allegations/

 

A bit worrying when you read this.

Thanks, Karen.

[Matthew Le God]

Just now, obelisk said:

Any team training in public has to expect that their activities can be watched and recorded by any member of the public who are not subject to rules pertaining just to that team and its associates. Those members of the public can then do whatever they wish with the information gleaned and these days that involves telling the world. Would it be "cheating" if that team's rivals then had a quick peak at what had been made public?

Exactly!

[Badger]

7 minutes ago, Matthew Le God said:

It isn't irrelevant. Clubs would still be guilty of spying and warrant punishment for that. But it is relevant to the servity of the offence. Clubs that make no effort to enclose their training ground from public view can't then justify that the training sessions were highly secretive as any member of the public could view them and then publish them online (even if just in written notes rather than videos) for the world to see. 

The offence is spying, it makes no distinction between doing it with sophisticated equipment or drones, or peering over a fence.

 

Your arguments regarding this is akin to the “she was wearing a short skirt “ defence to a rape allegation. 

[Draino76]

37 minutes ago, AlexLaw76 said:

Nope, and the Sycophant Henry Winter thought a touch line ban was way too harsh at the time

 

[St Chalet]

Do we know if Boro trained yesterday? As they have no scheduled fixture in the next 72 hours anyone can go observe.

Too soon?

[coalman]

Just now, obelisk said:

Any team training in public has to expect that their activities can be watched and recorded by any member of the public who are not subject to rules pertaining just to that team and its associates. Those members of the public can then do whatever they wish with the information gleaned and these days that involves telling the world. Would it be "cheating" if that team's rivals then had a quick peak at what had been made public?

According to the regulations then probably not. Just because a rule may not be well thought out or, indeed, practical doesn't mean it isn't a rule.

[Fabrice29]

4 minutes ago, Matthew Le God said:

What about it is incorrect? I haven't said it wouldn't be spying or warrant punishment. 

The severity of the offence is spying. We’ve done that to gain an advantage, or we wouldn’t have done it. That’ll be all that matters. Doesn’t matter how much we saw, doesn’t matter if other members of the public saw it too and it doesn’t matter if all they trained was winding up ball boys. Someone at our club has gone to watch their training when they shouldn’t. 

[Matthew Le God]

6 minutes ago, Badger said:

The offence is spying, it makes no distinction between doing it with sophisticated equipment or drones, or peering over a fence.

Your arguments regarding this is akin to the “she was wearing a short skirt “ defence to a rape allegation. 

Nonsense.

I said repeatedly it would still be spying and still warrant punishment. 

My point was regarding things like the Middlesbrough manager claiming it was highly secretive information that could impact a match. If they viewed it as such they would prevent the public from seeing it. But they don't.

Your analogy doesn't work at all.

Edited 1 hour ago by Matthew Le God

[egg]

Just now, Matthew Le God said:

Nonsense.

I said repeatedly it would still be spying and still warrant punishment. 

My point was regarding things like the Middlesbrough manager claiming it was highly secretive information tht could impact a match. If they viewed it as such they would prevent the public from seeing it. But they don't.

Your analogy doesn't work at all.

You're still not getting it are you. 

[badgerx16]

I expect rule 127 to be revised before next season.

[coalman]

Just now, badgerx16 said:

I expect rule 127 to be revised before next season.

One would fucking hope so.

[Matthew Le God]

Just now, egg said:

You're still not getting it are you. 

You keep taking parts of what I said out of context. You aren't taking it as a whole. What did I say that is incorrect?

[Fabrice29]

3 minutes ago, Matthew Le God said:

Nonsense.

I said repeatedly it would still be spying and still warrant punishment. 

My point was regarding things like the Middlesbrough manager claiming it was highly secretive information that could impact a match. If they viewed it as such they would prevent the public from seeing it. But they don't.

Your analogy doesn't work at all.

They don’t need to prevent someone in the public from viewing it (albeit they probably should). All they need to do is prevent someone at Saints from viewing it, which the rule should do because the onus is on Saints not to watch it. 

Edited 1 hour ago by Fabrice29

[Matthew Le God]

Just now, Fabrice29 said:

They don’t need to prevent someone in the public from viewing it (albeit they probably should). All they need to do is prevent someone at Saints from viewing it, which the rule should do. 

Try reading my point as a whole, not taking one bit out of context.

[Holmes_and_Watson]

16 minutes ago, badgerx16 said:

I am sworn to secrecy. If I told you I would then be obliged to keeel you.

Well I certainly don't want to end up as a 

[coalman]

Just now, Fabrice29 said:

They don’t need to prevent someone in the public from viewing it (albeit they probably should). All they need to do is prevent someone at Saints from viewing it, which the rule should do. 

And bringing up the hypothetical case of a member of the public doing it is the kind whataboutery that would be harmful to our hearing if our lawyers brought it up.

[LegalEagle]

If we do happen to be kicked out of the playoffs, I’m assuming that when the final does take place we will still turn up in numbers for a bit of a sing song outside the stadium.

[Fabrice29]

5 minutes ago, Matthew Le God said:

Try reading my point as a whole, not taking one bit out of context.

I read your point as a whole. I’ve read it on the other outlets you’ve posted it on to. That’s why I specifically said you’re missing the point in my post.

I also listened almost word for word at the lawyer on talksport making the same point a few days ago. 

Edited 1 hour ago by Fabrice29

[egg]

Just now, Matthew Le God said:

You keep taking parts of what I said out of context. You aren't taking it as a whole. What did I say that is incorrect?

I haven't dissected what you've said. Others have, and they're correct.

The rule is that we're not allowed to observe what they're doing in training within 72 hours of the game. It's black and white. How easy they make it to breach, what we actually saw, what we did with that, how it impacted the game, anything, is wholly irrelevant. How people can't see the simplicity of that I don't know. 

[obelisk]

1 minute ago, Fabrice29 said:

All they need to do is prevent someone at Saints from viewing it, which the rule should do

What they'd have to do is catch someone from Saints actively viewing it.

[coalman]

1 minute ago, LegalEagle said:

If we do happen to be kicked out of the playoffs, I’m assuming that when the final does take place we will still turn up in numbers for a bit of a sing song outside the stadium.

I would imagine we'll just shrug and get on with our lives if that happens. We broke a rule for which there is no clear punishment defined and were found guilty. While we may or may not agree with whatever punishment is handed out it doesn't get much clearer than that.

[Doctoroncall]

1 hour ago, obelisk said:

Are there any other leagues where it is specifically against the rules? Apparently it goes on all the time but the trick is not to get caught, especially against teams that are run by bad losers with a grievance.

Maybe if EFL teams were so worried about it they'd stop doing it themselves and maybe invest in a fence.

No other European league has this rule. Only the fair play one Leeds breached. 

Also, just because Boro training is more open doesn’t excuse the fact it’s still a breach to do so. 

[Holmes_and_Watson]

5 minutes ago, egg said:

You're still not getting it are you. 

I heard that we've agreed to let Boro take part. But only so we can get @Matthew Le God to argue every point with them, until their brains come out their ears.

[Saint86]

42 minutes ago, st john moor said:

https://www.stewartslaw.com/news/spy-games-what-are-the-possible-repercussions-of-the-southampton-v-middlesbrough-play-off-spying-allegations/

 

A bit worrying when you read this.

You understand that that report has been specifically commissioned by Middlesbrough to represent their standpoint and released to try to prejudice the independent enquiry that they aren't a party to, right? It's not a reliable report, and it's also yet another example of Boro/Gibson putting information out there to feed to the media / EFL etc to help whip up a storm.

Edited 1 hour ago by Saint86

[coalman]

1 minute ago, Saint86 said:

You understand that that report has been specifically commissioned by Middlesbrough to represent their standpoint and released to try to prejudice the independent enquiry that they aren't a party to, right? It's not a reliable report, and it's also yet another example of Boro/Gibson putting information out there to feed to the media / EFL etc to help whip up a storm.

It looks like an innovative use of SEO to expand a law firm's domain authority to me. Rather than a robust legal opinion that the law firm in question would be able to defend in court.

[Matthew Le God]

5 minutes ago, Fabrice29 said:

I read your point as a whole. I’ve read it on the other outlets you’ve posted it on to. That’s why I specifically said you’re missing the point in my post.

 

5 minutes ago, egg said:

I haven't dissected what you've said. Others have, and they're correct.

The rule is that we're not allowed to observe what they're doing in training within 72 hours of the game. It's black and white. How easy they make it to breach, what we actually saw, what we did with that, how it impacted the game, anything, is wholly irrelevant. How people can't see the simplicity of that I don't know. 

My point was regarding claims by the Middlesbrough manager it was highly sensitive information on show. It cant be that sensitive if the view of it isnt blocked. Do you have frosted windows on your bathroom? I haven't disputed a rule has been broken and warrants punishment. That is what you have both missed with your strawman fallacy depiction of my post.

Edited 1 hour ago by Matthew Le God

[LegalEagle]

4 minutes ago, badgerx16 said:

I expect rule 127 to be revised before next season.

That’s the most predictable thing that will come out of this. The lack of sanctions here is the biggest problem for the EFL and Boro. Impose the gravest sanction and this is going to end up in a High Court battle for a long time to come. The EFL would be subject to the most intense criticism by the courts and I suspect they know this.

[Sheaf Saint]

9 minutes ago, egg said:

The article is credible, and highlights the issues correctly. Don't be seduced by Miltons piece. Our main issue is deterrent - a chunky fine, and points that don't impact us if we get promoted, don't serve as a deterrent. Leeds were doing it in the regular season, and before it was a specific offence, so it's a false comparison imo. There is no Swindon comparison. 

I still think a fine and deferred points is where we'll end up though, mainly due to our right of appeal, and timing. 

The way I see it is this... 

If we had lost the tie, there would be no talk of any kind of expulsion. We would get a fine and a possible points deduction next season, and literally nobody would be clamouring for anything more than that.

So for the EFL / independent panel to decide that a much harsher penalty than that is appropriate, surely they would have to prove beyond any reasonable doubt that we only won the tie because of any advantage we gained from the analyst's actions, which they obviously can't. He apparently deleted the footage on request, and there's some doubt about whether or not the first team training was even visible from his vantage point. We won the tie because of our superior fitness and squad depth over 210 minutes on the pitch, and the first half display in the away leg proves we had no tactical advantage whatsoever.

[Toadhall Saint]

5 minutes ago, obelisk said:

What they'd have to do is catch someone from Saints actively viewing it.

Which they have within the allotted timeframe.

[coalman]

Just now, Matthew Le God said:

My point was regarding claims by the Middlesbrough manger it was highly sensitive information on show. I haven't disputed a rule has been broken and warrants punishment. That is what you have both missed with your strawman fallacy depiction of my post.

That is one of the many things about this case that we don't know and is being speculated about that we may or may not find out later. Ironically, had the person in question not deleted their footage - it would make compelling evidence either way as to whether that was the case. People who live in strawmen shouldn't throw straw. Or something.

[sadoldgit]

3 minutes ago, Saint_clark said:

That article fails to acknowledge that in this case, this "knock out competition" follows a league phase and so a points deduction is entirely appropriate. 

 

But I do think a lot of people on here are burying their head in the sands a bit - it's pretty clear at this point that us being kicked out is a very real possibility.

Yes it is possible, but in no way would it be proportionate and leaves the EFL open to legal action in which, I believe, they would find the decision very hard to defend, given precedents for similar actions.

As for social media, that post was 100% spot on. Fox News may have been doing it for years, but not everyone had access to it. Anyone with a smart phone has access to Facebook, Instagram, TikTok etc. Social Media has a massive reach both nationally and internationally. As the old saying goes, a lie is halfway round the world before the truth has got its trousers on. In this case it is not a lie, but it is one version of events that does not currently have a context. Anyone watching the BBC News at 6pm and 10pm last night will have formed a view that not only did the club cheat, but that the cheating was responsible for Middlesbrough not making it through to the final. The basic story is that Southampton FC have been accused of spying in a very important football match. What came across is that we have already been found guilty and progressed to the final because of this “crime.” The narrative running across people’s phones is that the club are cheating bastards and should be thrown out of the competition. Context and nuance get swamped. Proportionality goes out of the window. Some people will take the time and effort to did into the story further and realise that it hadn’t been dealt with officially yet and is not possibly so black and white. Most people will run with the cheat headlines.

I’m sure, given what we know so far, that we will be found guilty of breaking the rules but that there will also be some mitigating circumstances. No one will be bothered about them. The easy takeaway will be Southampton are cheats and beat Middlesbrough by default because everything now is broken down to simplistic soundbites.

[egg]

Just now, Matthew Le God said:

 

My point was regarding claims by the Middlesbrough manger it was highly sensitive information on show. I haven't disputed a rule has been broken and warrants punishment. That is what you have both missed with your strawman fallacy depiction of my post.

I know.l, and the rule is based on the presumption that the material could be sensitive in the hands of the opposition. Hence the rule. Hence we're in the shit. It really is a simple concept.

[Toadhall Saint]

7 minutes ago, LegalEagle said:

That’s the most predictable thing that will come out of this. The lack of sanctions here is the biggest problem for the EFL and Boro. Impose the gravest sanction and this is going to end up in a High Court battle for a long time to come. The EFL would be subject to the most intense criticism by the courts and I suspect they know this.

They would be fools not to have done some kind of risk assessment based on potential outcomes of the disciplinary hearing you would have thought but this is the EFL.

Edited 1 hour ago by Toadhall Saint

[Matthew Le God]

7 minutes ago, egg said:

I know.l, and the rule is based on the presumption that the material could be sensitive in the hands of the opposition. Hence the rule. Hence we're in the shit. It really is a simple concept.

Middlesbrough weren't treating it as sensitive info until after the spying event. If they had they would block views. I could have gone to the hotel, made notes of the training and then DM'd them to one of the many Saints staff who follow me on X. I'm not governed by EFL rules. So complaints by Kim Hellberg it was highly sensitive and secretive are flawed.

Edited 57 minutes ago by Matthew Le God

[Zorba]

20 minutes ago, Fabrice29 said:

The severity of the offence is spying. We’ve done that to gain an advantage, or we wouldn’t have done it. That’ll be all that matters. Doesn’t matter how much we saw, doesn’t matter if other members of the public saw it too and it doesn’t matter if all they trained was winding up ball boys. Someone at our club has gone to watch their training when they shouldn’t. 

Allegedly.

[Fabrice29]

7 minutes ago, Matthew Le God said:

 

My point was regarding claims by the Middlesbrough manager it was highly sensitive information on show. It cant be that sensitive if the view of it isnt blocked. Do you have frosted windows on your bathroom? I haven't disputed a rule has been broken and warrants punishment. That is what you have both missed with your strawman fallacy depiction of my post.

The view of it is supposed to be blocked by the rule. That’s why he was upset, because someone has gone out of their way to disrespect him and gain an advantage they aren’t allowed to gain, however easy it is to gain. 

[Matthew Le God]

Just now, Fabrice29 said:

The view of it is supposed to be blocked by the rule. That’s why he was upset, because someone has gone out of their way to disrespect him and gain an advantage they aren’t allowed to gain, however easy it is to gain. 

Middlesbrough weren't treating it as sensitive info until after the spying event. If they had they would block views. I could have gone to the hotel, made notes of the training and then DM'd them to one of the many Saints staff who follow me on X. I'm not governed by EFL rules. So complaints by Kim Hellberg it was highly sensitive and secretive are flawed.

[St Chalet]

Their defence would be that league rules protected them being spied on. The offence is not ‘how much’ we observed, it is that we observed. It’s binary, yes / no. 
 

Whether we did it in a public place and to the extent we did it is irrelevant. 

[Fabrice29]

2 minutes ago, Zorba said:

Allegedly.

Eh?

1 minute ago, Matthew Le God said:

Middlesbrough weren't treating it as sensitive info until after the spying event. If they had they would block views. I could have gone to the hotel, made notes of the training and then DM'd them to one of the many Saints staff who follow me on X. I'm not governed by EFL rules. So complaints by Kim Hellberg it was highly sensitive and secretive are flawed.

Yeah or Saints could cut out the middle man and do it themselves…oh no wait…they couldn’t.

[egg]

2 minutes ago, Sheaf Saint said:

The way I see it is this... 

If we had lost the tie, there would be no talk of any kind of expulsion. We would get a fine and a possible points deduction next season, and literally nobody would be clamouring for anything more than that.

So for the EFL / independent panel to decide that a much harsher penalty than that is appropriate, surely they would have to prove beyond any reasonable doubt that we only won the tie because of any advantage we gained from the analyst's actions, which they obviously can't. He apparently deleted the footage on request, and there's some doubt about whether or not the first team training was even visible from his vantage point. We won the tie because of our superior fitness and squad depth over 210 minutes on the pitch, and the first half display in the away leg proves we had no tactical advantage whatsoever.

For me it's simpler than that. The issue is the intent to gain an advantage, and whether we did or didn't, doesn't particularly matter. The penalty goes to what was at stake. 3 points in a league match is a world away from a place in the play off final, and then possibly the PL. The penalty has to have regard to that. The article homes in on the fact that a fine is academic should we get the £200m if promoted, and points deduction will likely only bite if we stay down or when / if we come back down. Is that a penalty that actually impacts us, and serves as a deterrent? The answer must be no. 

Regarding penalty, there's been talk of injunctions, ultra vires acts by the tribunal, and high court relief. I'm not sure those posting that stuff have considered the regulations. They exclude s44 and s69 of the Arbitration Act, so no obvious access to an injunction or high court relief, and more importantly, rule 93.2.12 essentially allows the tribunal to impose any penalty it wants. 

[sadoldgit]

24 minutes ago, Sheaf Saint said:

The way I see it is this... 

If we had lost the tie, there would be no talk of any kind of expulsion. We would get a fine and a possible points deduction next season, and literally nobody would be clamouring for anything more than that.

So for the EFL / independent panel to decide that a much harsher penalty than that is appropriate, surely they would have to prove beyond any reasonable doubt that we only won the tie because of any advantage we gained from the analyst's actions, which they obviously can't. He apparently deleted the footage on request, and there's some doubt about whether or not the first team training was even visible from his vantage point. We won the tie because of our superior fitness and squad depth over 210 minutes on the pitch, and the first half display in the away leg proves we had no tactical advantage whatsoever.

The result is not important in the first instance. Did we break the rules, yes or no? If yes, are there any mitigating circumstances that need to be considered when deciding upon a sentence? This is where other things, like the overall performance, results etc come into play. This is why I find it hard to believe that people think that expulsion is a viable option. As someone said earlier, Middlesbrough are acting like a player has had a mild brush with another which has not in anyway affected the passage of play and is screaming at the referee for a red card.

Here’s another thought. If it had been a mid table match at the end of the season, no one would give a shit, least of all Middlesbrough. The outcome of the game, and the effect of the action of the cheat still the same, but all of a sudden the cheat becomes the crime of the century.

Edited 41 minutes ago by sadoldgit

[LegalEagle]

At the end of the day, especially where no sanctions are set out, the penalty has to be proportionate. There are a few legal precedents where this is stated - not necessarily in a sporting context but are still good law. This will then come down to exactly what went on here. One incident of someone taking some footage on an iPhone for even 30 minutes or so which was then deleted, expulsion in my opinion is not proportionate. Boro know this hence why they have been trying to find other examples of Saints doing this. Boro are scratching around because I suspect the facts in relation to Salt don’t go far enough. In my view this is the crux of the matter. 

[hypochondriac]

Just now, LegalEagle said:

At the end of the day, especially where no sanctions are set out, the penalty has to be proportionate. There are a few legal precedents where this is stated - not necessarily in a sporting context but are still good law. This will then come down to exactly what went on here. One incident of someone taking some footage on an iPhone for even 30 minutes or so which was then deleted, expulsion in my opinion is not proportionate. Boro know this hence why they have been trying to find other examples of Saints doing this. Boro are scratching around because I suspect the facts in relation to Salt don’t go far enough. In my view this is the crux of the matter. 

Agreed but the written statement from the ex analyst (and the betting guy on here who said he knows we've done it before) does rather suggest this isn't the first time 

[egg]

1 minute ago, LegalEagle said:

At the end of the day, especially where no sanctions are set out, the penalty has to be proportionate. There are a few legal precedents where this is stated - not necessarily in a sporting context but are still good law. This will then come down to exactly what went on here. One incident of someone taking some footage on an iPhone for even 30 minutes or so which was then deleted, expulsion in my opinion is not proportionate. Boro know this hence why they have been trying to find other examples of Saints doing this. Boro are scratching around because I suspect the facts in relation to Salt don’t go far enough. In my view this is the crux of the matter. 

Yep, agreed. The panel won't want to be appealed, the EFL won't want satellite litigation over any TV rights breach re cancellation, potential for 3rd party clubs seeking relief from any impact on them, etc, etc. Those issues, and timing, still lead me to a fine and EFL points. 

[Zorba]

7 minutes ago, Fabrice29 said:

Eh?

Allegedly

[Matthew Le God]

2 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

Agreed but the written statement from the ex analyst (and the betting guy on here who said he knows we've done it before) does rather suggest this isn't the first time 

Then becomes his word vs the club. Why should they favour his word unless he had stronger evidence than his statement?

[LegalEagle]

1 minute ago, egg said:

Yep, agreed. The panel won't want to be appealed, the EFL won't want satellite litigation over any TV rights breach re cancellation, potential for 3rd party clubs seeking relief from any impact on them, etc, etc. Those issues, and timing, still lead me to a fine and EFL points. 

Totally agree. I think that’s where this will end up. 

[Saint_clark]

22 minutes ago, sadoldgit said:

Yes it is possible, but in no way would it be proportionate and leaves the EFL open to legal action in which, I believe, they would find the decision very hard to defend, given precedents for similar actions.

I completely agree and I honestly think in a civil court we'd win if we went that far, but that would be retrospective compensation and wouldn't affect the outcome here and now. 

Just to be clear I'm not saying I think it WILL happen, but some people are acting like kicking us out is not even up for consideration when it clearly is.