#Spygate

[hypochondriac]

2 minutes ago, trousers said:

As @Lord Duckhunter says, if it really is a simple case of us sending someone up to spy in the knowledge we were breaking the rules, can we guess why Parsons came out with the following in his statement: 

"We understand the discussion and speculation that has followed over recent days, but we also believe it is important that the full context is established before conclusions are drawn."

If it was as clear cut a breach as people are saying it must be, then there's no "context" to establish, there? 

To me, "establishing context" implies it isn't as straightforward as sending someone up there to break the rules, but I guess it might just be a case of: "well, he would say that, wouldn't he?"...?

Even if we sent someone we would still need time to establish a time line and who was aware of what and when. I'd suggest that's really a holding statement rather than a suggestion of anything deeper. 

[CylonKing]

Isn't this over yet?

[aintforever]

44 minutes ago, The very right reverend said:

Who was the person who took the photograph of the "spy"?

What camera was that taken with?

Are there any other photos?

I read somewhere that it was the club photographer who was taking pics of the training session. Like anything read online it could be made up though.

[Lord Duckhunter]

11 minutes ago, sadoldgit said:

Players cheat all of the time to gain advantage in games. Ayling nobbled Scienza. Should Leo sue him if we get thrown out of the final?  

What a load of old pony.

The referee decides what is and isn’t cheating, there is absolutely no comparison between what happened here with anything that happens on the pitch. These ridiculous posts make our supporters look a right bunch of numpties…

[egg]

8 minutes ago, Roger said:

Listening to the journalists on Sunday supplement they all think we should get kicked out not looking good now. 

That's not the tribunal mate.

[sadoldgit]

Just now, Sergei Gotsmanov said:

How then should the FA right the wrong done to Boro? 

Has the inquiry come to its conclusion yet? If Boro have been “wronged” then it is a matter for the EFL, not me or us. As many have said, the punishment needs to be proportionate. As many have also said, expulsion from the competition is not proportionate. Fines and point deductions are usually the way to go. I don’t think anybody believes that Middlesbrough lost because a bloke with an iPhone behind a tree looked at a training session from a distance so the amount that they have actually been “wronged” is debatable.

Remind me again, how were all of the clubs who were “wronged” by Leeds reimbursed by the EFL directly for the wrong doing?

[Appy]

9 minutes ago, Roger said:

Listening to the journalists on Sunday supplement they all think we should get kicked out not looking good now. 

They’re not on the independent panel. 
 

Well, I assume it’s not them. 

[aintforever]

8 minutes ago, Roger said:

Listening to the journalists on Sunday supplement they all think we should get kicked out not looking good now. 

The media always hype it up, it's their job to make stuff sound more exciting than it really is. I would pay little attention to what those muppets say.

[sadoldgit]

2 minutes ago, aintforever said:

I read somewhere that it was the club photographer who was taking pics of the training session. Like anything read online it could be made up though.

That was a bit risky of him wasn’t it? Taking pictures of a training session within 72 hours of the game? Leaves himself open to all kinds of accusations!

[Sheaf Saint]

4 minutes ago, saintant said:

Also, I think it's relevant to remember that Tonda has continually maintained that he is desperate to have a say on this. I don't know the guy personally but he doesn't strike me as someone who would say this if the info he wants to make public isn't significant. He would more likely just say he can't comment. 

Just playing devil's advocate here... I wonder if that was actually just a 'lost in translation' effect, and he was simply trying to say that he will only comment on the matter after the investigation is concluded and the EFL have issued their ruling.

[Zorba]

5 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

Even if we sent someone we would still need time to establish a time line and who was aware of what and when. I'd suggest that's really a holding statement rather than a suggestion of anything deeper. 

This. He’s just placating the EFL/media while he finds out how much evidence they have. He can then either hold his hands up or tell them it’s a load of old bollocks.

[sadoldgit]

5 minutes ago, aintforever said:

The media always hype it up, it's their job to make stuff sound more exciting than it really is. I would pay little attention to what those muppets say.

Gibbo and the manager have also played a blinder (which is more than their team managed) by fuelling the whole hard done by victims story.

[Lord Duckhunter]

Just now, sadoldgit said:

 

Remind me again, how were all of the clubs who were “wronged” by Leeds reimbursed by the EFL directly for the wrong doing?

Once and for all, for the hard of thinking. There was no fucking rule against it when Leeds were caught. FFS…. 

[John B]

8 minutes ago, sadoldgit said:

Has the inquiry come to its conclusion yet? If Boro have been “wronged” then it is a matter for the EFL, not me or us. As many have said, the punishment needs to be proportionate. As many have also said, expulsion from the competition is not proportionate. Fines and point deductions are usually the way to go. I don’t think anybody believes that Middlesbrough lost because a bloke with an iPhone behind a tree looked at a training session from a distance so the amount that they have actually been “wronged” is debatable.

Remind me again, how were all of the clubs who were “wronged” by Leeds reimbursed by the EFL directly for the wrong doing?

It is nothing to do with Middleboro being wronged it is do with whether the rules were broken and what should be the penalty if they were

[Zorba]

1 minute ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

Once and for all, for the hard of thinking. There was no fucking rule against it when Leeds were caught. FFS…. 

Does that mean there should not have been a punishment then? 

[egg]

1 minute ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

Once and for all, for the hard of thinking. There was no fucking rule against it when Leeds were caught. FFS…. 

And the league proper is essentially a different tournament to the playoffs. 

People are comparing a kebab with a carrot. 

[sadoldgit]

7 minutes ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

Once and for all, for the hard of thinking. There was no fucking rule against it when Leeds were caught. FFS…. 

So why did Leeds have to pay a fucking penalty?

They were found to have breached the good faith regulations which we also have been charged with.

 

FFS

 

 

 

Edited 1 hour ago by sadoldgit
Added text

[AlexLaw76]

5 minutes ago, sadoldgit said:

So why did Leeds have to pay a fucking penalty?

 

FFS

 

 

 

For admitting to not acting in good faith. 

[Sergei Gotsmanov]

16 minutes ago, sadoldgit said:

Has the inquiry come to its conclusion yet? If Boro have been “wronged” then it is a matter for the EFL, not me or us. As many have said, the punishment needs to be proportionate. As many have also said, expulsion from the competition is not proportionate. Fines and point deductions are usually the way to go. I don’t think anybody believes that Middlesbrough lost because a bloke with an iPhone behind a tree looked at a training session from a distance so the amount that they have actually been “wronged” is debatable.

Remind me again, how were all of the clubs who were “wronged” by Leeds reimbursed by the EFL directly for the wrong doing?

If a player is fouled however minor then the opposing team is awarded a free kick. The wrong is corrected.

They were punished for not entering in the spirits of the game. That is different now. 

[Hawkswood]

28 minutes ago, Roger said:

Listening to the journalists on Sunday supplement they all think we should get kicked out not looking good now. 

Yeah but its really not up to them

[Sheaf Saint]

16 minutes ago, CylonKing said:

Isn't this over yet?

I wish it was. I'm very easily distracted and I need this to all be done with one way or the other so I can stop checking my phone for updates every 5 minutes.

[Sergei Gotsmanov]

8 minutes ago, John B said:

It is nothing to do with Middleboro being wronged it is do with whether the rules were broken and what should be the penalty if they were

Of course it is because sadly we are seen to have gained an unfair advantage by breaking the rules.....

[LegalEagle]

1 minute ago, AlexLaw76 said:

For admitting to not acting in good faith. 

The level of gross incompetence by the EFL at that time is staggering. There is a full investigation, they bring in at least one new rule as a result of it (i.e. the 72 hour rule) but it never occurred to anyone that laying down some sanctions for a future breach might be a good idea. The guys in charge at that time if any of them are still in charge now should be sacked immediately.

[Hawkswood]

3 minutes ago, Sheaf Saint said:

I wish it was. I'm very easily distracted and I need this to all be done with one way or the other so I can stop checking my phone for updates every 5 minutes.

With you dude 

[Pip]

1 minute ago, LegalEagle said:

The level of gross incompetence by the EFL at that time is staggering. There is a full investigation, they bring in at least one new rule as a result of it (i.e. the 72 hour rule) but it never occurred to anyone that laying down some sanctions for a future breach might be a good idea. The guys in charge at that time if any of them are still in charge now should be sacked immediately.

This is the niggling worry in the back of my mind. The lunatics are still running the asylum…

[egg]

6 minutes ago, LegalEagle said:

The level of gross incompetence by the EFL at that time is staggering. There is a full investigation, they bring in at least one new rule as a result of it (i.e. the 72 hour rule) but it never occurred to anyone that laying down some sanctions for a future breach might be a good idea. The guys in charge at that time if any of them are still in charge now should be sacked immediately.

The regs set out sanctions, albeit not charge specific. I don't have an issue with that tbh, and for us it's a twin edged sword, but crucially gives appeal wriggle room if the penalty is harsh. 

[sadoldgit]

6 minutes ago, LegalEagle said:

The level of gross incompetence by the EFL at that time is staggering. There is a full investigation, they bring in at least one new rule as a result of it (i.e. the 72 hour rule) but it never occurred to anyone that laying down some sanctions for a future breach might be a good idea. The guys in charge at that time if any of them are still in charge now should be sacked immediately.

Has anyone actually established why, if this is such a heinous crime (I’ve seen it described as “disgusting” on here) the Premier League doesn’t have a rule against it?

[Jimmy_D]

37 minutes ago, Sergei Gotsmanov said:

How then should the FA right the wrong done to Boro? 

Sometimes there’s just the deterrent, for example, a retrospective ban for a player or a fine for failing to control players/staff. Boro don’t necessarily have to be given an unprecedented and undeserved free ride to a playoff final for a minor indiscretion.

[bender]

Does anyone know for how long he was there and filming ?  It's kinda crucial for me.  If he turned up, filmed for a couple of minutes then got chased out, then that's attempting to cheat not actual cheating.

[Bobsmith]

I think the starting point is pretty simple. If Southampton broke the rule, we should be punished. I don’t think many Saints fans would seriously argue otherwise. But the punishment has to be proportionate to what actually happened, how much advantage was gained, and how serious the breach was in the wider context.

From what I understand, observing training is only specifically banned in the 72 hours before a game. So observing a training session in itself is not automatically “spying” under the rules. The issue is the timing, because the argument is that in those final 72 hours teams are doing their actual match prep.

Even then, if the EFL are going to hand out a sporting punishment, surely they need to show that Southampton gained a sporting advantage. That feels very difficult to prove. Middlesbrough apparently made the guy delete the footage, and Boro then battered us in the first half at the Riverside. We didn’t win because we had some secret tactical insight. We won because we had better squad depth, more fitness late in the game, and ultimately stronger players off the bench.

The Bielsa point is also worth framing properly. That case happened before this specific rule was introduced, so it’s not a direct precedent for punishment under the current rule. But it does explain why the rule exists. The EFL clearly wanted to draw a line after that controversy but that doesn’t mean every breaching the rule should lead to a major sporting sanction. 

That’s where proportionality matters. Financial breaches usually involve a club gaining an advantage across a full 46 game season, and even then we’re often talking about points deductions in the 2 to 6 point range. This alleged breach relates to one game, where there’s no clear evidence it changed the result or gave us any meaningful advantage.

So for me, a fine feels like the fair outcome. If the EFL want to create a deterrent, I can understand them adding a small points deduction. But anything over 2 points feels massively disproportionate. My guess is they start higher to satisfy Boro and the media noise, then it gets reduced to 1 or 2 on appeal.

The fair outcome should be punish the breach, but don’t pretend this is the same as sustained financial cheating or anything that materially distorted the competition.

Edited 55 minutes ago by Bobsmith

[obelisk]

I'm sick of all this but at least the nervous tension and worry has helped me lose a couple of pounds. 

I'd look at precedence when it comes to punishment for the alleged offence. That seems to be £200k plus a slap on the wrist for something that was previously admitted over a whole bunch of games. Much more than that for Saints and I'd hope for the entertainment of seeing the EFL dragged through the courts for months. But what the hell do I know? Or anyone else for that matter.

[Sergei Gotsmanov]

1 minute ago, Bobsmith said:

I think the starting point is pretty simple. If Southampton broke the rule, we should be punished. I don’t think many Saints fans would seriously argue otherwise. But the punishment has to be proportionate to what actually happened, how much advantage was gained, and how serious the breach was in the wider context.

From what I understand, observing training is only specifically banned in the 72 hours before a game. So observing a training session in itself is not automatically “spying” under the rules. The issue is the timing, because the argument is that in those final 72 hours teams are doing their actual match prep.

Even then, if the EFL are going to hand out a sporting punishment, surely they need to show that Southampton gained a sporting advantage. That feels very difficult to prove. Middlesbrough apparently made the guy delete the footage, and Boro then battered us in the first half at the Riverside. We didn’t win because we had some secret tactical insight. We won because we had better squad depth, more fitness late in the game, and ultimately stronger players off the bench.

The Bielsa point is also worth framing properly. That case happened before this specific rule was introduced, so it’s not a direct precedent for punishment under the current rule. But it does explain why the rule exists. The EFL clearly wanted to draw a line after that controversy, which is fair enough. But that still doesn’t mean every breach of the rule should automatically lead to a major sporting sanction. 

That’s where proportionality matters. Financial breaches usually involve a club gaining an advantage across a full 46-game season, and even then we’re often talking about points deductions in the 2 to 6 point range. This alleged breach relates to one game, where there’s no clear evidence it changed the result or gave us any meaningful advantage.

So for me, a fine feels like the fair outcome. If the EFL want to create a deterrent, I can understand them adding a small points deduction. But anything over 2 points feels massively disproportionate. My worry is they start higher to satisfy Boro and the media noise, then it gets reduced to 1 or 2 on appeal.

The fair outcome should be punish the breach, but don’t pretend this is the same as sustained financial cheating or anything that materially distorted the competition.

But how do Boro reimbursed for their supposed disadvantage? This is what they will be arguing for understandably. They have 'won' the free kick....

[Saint NL]

Hopefully we get some answers tomorrow afternoon. No point going round and round with the same discussion points on a Sunday because nothing of note will happen today.

[Harry_SFC]

[Lord Duckhunter]

2 minutes ago, bender said:

Does anyone know for how long he was there and filming ?  It's kinda crucial for me.  If he turned up, filmed for a couple of minutes then got chased out, then that's attempting to cheat not actual cheating.

It’s the same thing. 
 

Do you really think the tribunal are going to judge that Boro would have been reinstated, but because they caught him, they’re not going to be. I imagine any ruling based on impact will be made on the basis of what advantages we would have gained if he hadn’t been caught. 

[Sheaf Saint]

1 minute ago, Saint NL said:

Hopefully we get some answers tomorrow afternoon. No point going round and round with the same discussion points on a Sunday because nothing of note will happen today.

Indeed

[Jimmy_D]

1 minute ago, Sergei Gotsmanov said:

But how do Boro reimbursed for their supposed disadvantage? This is what they will be arguing for understandably. They have 'won' the free kick....

When VvD was tapped up, what was done to restore us having the best defender in the world on a five year contract and willing to play for us?

[Pamplemousse]

2 minutes ago, Bobsmith said:

I think the starting point is pretty simple. If Southampton broke the rule, we should be punished. I don’t think many Saints fans would seriously argue otherwise. But the punishment has to be proportionate to what actually happened, how much advantage was gained, and how serious the breach was in the wider context.

From what I understand, observing training is only specifically banned in the 72 hours before a game. So observing a training session in itself is not automatically “spying” under the rules. The issue is the timing, because the argument is that in those final 72 hours teams are doing their actual match prep.

Even then, if the EFL are going to hand out a sporting punishment, surely they need to show that Southampton gained a sporting advantage. That feels very difficult to prove. Middlesbrough apparently made the guy delete the footage, and Boro then battered us in the first half at the Riverside. We didn’t win because we had some secret tactical insight. We won because we had better squad depth, more fitness late in the game, and ultimately stronger players off the bench.

The Bielsa point is also worth framing properly. That case happened before this specific rule was introduced, so it’s not a direct precedent for punishment under the current rule. But it does explain why the rule exists. The EFL clearly wanted to draw a line after that controversy, which is fair enough. But that still doesn’t mean every breach of the rule should automatically lead to a major sporting sanction. 

That’s where proportionality matters. Financial breaches usually involve a club gaining an advantage across a full 46-game season, and even then we’re often talking about points deductions in the 2 to 6 point range. This alleged breach relates to one game, where there’s no clear evidence it changed the result or gave us any meaningful advantage.

So for me, a fine feels like the fair outcome. If the EFL want to create a deterrent, I can understand them adding a small points deduction. But anything over 2 points feels massively disproportionate. My worry is they start higher to satisfy Boro and the media noise, then it gets reduced to 1 or 2 on appeal.

The fair outcome should be punish the breach, but don’t pretend this is the same as sustained financial cheating or anything that materially distorted the competition.

Easy to prove that a team gained a sporting advantage if for example you play someone who wasn't registered or should've been banned. Less so in this instance. Unless the EFL decide that the intent to gain a sporting advantage is sufficient for them go throw the book at us.

[Sergei Gotsmanov]

5 minutes ago, Jimmy_D said:

Sometimes there’s just the deterrent, for example, a retrospective ban for a player or a fine for failing to control players/staff. Boro don’t necessarily have to be given an unprecedented and undeserved free ride to a playoff final for a minor indiscretion.

I hope you are right but if I were Boro I would be arguing that we had gained an unfair advantage by breaking the rules. This has been proven. How can it be corrected other than throwing us out?

[Bobsmith]

2 minutes ago, Sergei Gotsmanov said:

But how do Boro reimbursed for their supposed disadvantage? This is what they will be arguing for understandably. They have 'won' the free kick....

Sure, if they can prove there was disadvantage, but based on the available information this will be very hard for them to do. 

[Roger]

If we are punished could the club sue tonda if he ordered it? 

[Dr Who?]

47 minutes ago, Roger said:

Listening to the journalists on Sunday supplement they all think we should get kicked out not looking good now. 

Also if you have not heard, so do Middlesbrough. Of course the media circus 🤡 want blood, they will love the worse case for anyone as it sales! 

[Sergei Gotsmanov]

2 minutes ago, Jimmy_D said:

When VvD was tapped up, what was done to restore us having the best defender in the world on a five year contract and willing to play for us?

I think you are comparing apples with pears.

[saintant]

47 minutes ago, Roger said:

Listening to the journalists on Sunday supplement they all think we should get kicked out not looking good now. 

I didn't watch it but assume they covered the FA Cup Final and went into chapter and verse concerning the rule breaking of the two participating clubs. But then again they'll be more likely to have carried on kissing their arses. Double standards me thinks.

[Bobsmith]

1 minute ago, Pamplemousse said:

Easy to prove that a team gained a sporting advantage if for example you play someone who wasn't registered or should've been banned. Less so in this instance. Unless the EFL decide that the intent to gain a sporting advantage is sufficient for them go throw the book at us.

I agree they could do it based on intent, but that puts them on much weaker footing if we appeal due to the disproportionate punishement and they need this wrapped up quickly as much as we do. 

[Sergei Gotsmanov]

2 minutes ago, Bobsmith said:

Sure, if they can prove there was disadvantage, but based on the available information this will be very hard for them to do. 

The picture of our Intern does that. 

[bender]

Starting to feel quite happy that you can now finish 8th and still get in the playoffs.  Will be useful to us if we do get points deductions in future EFL seasons

[Sheaf Saint]

1 minute ago, Sergei Gotsmanov said:

I hope you are right but if I were Boro I would be arguing that we had gained an unfair advantage by breaking the rules. This has been proven. How can it be corrected other than throwing us out?

Well, for starters it hasn't been proved that we gained any unfair advantage. Quite the opposite I would say.

Secondly, Boro can argue all they like but they are not part of the proceedings. That's why they released that crybaby statement on Friday, whinging that the EFL (rightly) wouldn't allow them to be judge, jury and executioner.

[2Morrow]

3 minutes ago, Sergei Gotsmanov said:

I hope you are right but if I were Boro I would be arguing that we had gained an unfair advantage by breaking the rules. This has been proven. How can it be corrected other than throwing us out?

The charge is the EFL vs Southampton. Its a shame for Middlesbrough, but punishments punish the offending party, not reward the transgressed. Retrospectively flynn downes red against Swansea for example did nothing for them, but punished us in subsequent fixtures.

[Bobsmith]

1 minute ago, Sergei Gotsmanov said:

The picture of our Intern does that. 

The picture of our intern doesn't prove sporting advantage at all. It proves that someone who may have been employed at the club was there