Jump to content

#Spygate

St Chalet

By St Chalet
in The Saints

 Share

Recommended Posts

Recommended

Posted by Miltonaggro,

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

What a well thought out post. Thank you

Recommended by St Chalet

  • Like

111 reactions

Go to this post
sadoldgit

sadoldgit

Posted
Posted
9 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.

I think the primary issue is intent. If he was stopped just as he started to “spy” the intent is there. If found guilty, the mitigation case will be based on how much information was actually obtained and passed on and you would expect that the reflect in any punishment passed on.

Jimmy_D

Jimmy_D

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, Sergei Gotsmanov said:

I think you are comparing apples with pears.

You’re right, we faced far more lasting long term demonstrable disadvantage on the pitch.

  • Like 1
bender

bender

Posted
Posted

Get the guy who filmed it to come out and say it was all me and TE had no input.  Maybe he can throw in a few tears Kimmy style.  Throw him half a mil under the table in the process 👍

saintant

saintant

Posted
Posted
38 minutes ago, Sheaf Saint said:

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.

Don't thinks so. I've heard him say it more than once so my take is that he knows something significant and is waiting for the appropriate time to go public with it. We're all speculating at this stage, it's all reading between the lines stuff.

  • Like 1
Dr Who?

Dr Who?

Posted
Posted

I still reiterate that Middlesborough are not the victim here. They have allegedly caught wrong doing and reported it, end of. The fact they they have said that any media was deleted will mean we did not gain an advantage for the game up at Boro. The second leg is fair game. The fact they should have beaten us easily in that game also backs up any idea that we gained any kind of advantage. So IF the worst comes out of this then Middlesbrough should not replace us, that just does not make any sense. 

Sergei Gotsmanov

Sergei Gotsmanov

Posted
Posted
Just now, Sheaf Saint said:

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.

How on earth can you prove that we did not gain an advantage. We have been caught cheating. 

  • Like 1
  • Confused 1
John B

John B

Posted
Posted
24 minutes ago, Sergei Gotsmanov said:

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

Well what is the point of breaking the rules unless you gain an advantage of some sort

Dr Who?

Dr Who?

Posted
Posted (edited)
1 minute ago, Sergei Gotsmanov said:

How on earth can you prove that we did not gain an advantage. We have been caught cheating. 

Everything was deleted from the phone, so no advantage was gained, not any that can be proven in a court of law. But we have broken the rules, if proven. 

Edited by Dr Who?
saintant

saintant

Posted
Posted
38 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 if there was no rule against it what is it they were caught doing FFS..... 🙂

Dr Who?

Dr Who?

Posted
Posted
Just now, saintant said:

So if there was no rule against it what is it they were caught doing FFS..... 🙂

Oh the vagaries 😂 

Bobsmith

Bobsmith

Posted
Posted
Just now, Sergei Gotsmanov said:

How on earth can you prove that we did not gain an advantage. We have been caught cheating. 

 

4 minutes ago, Sergei Gotsmanov said:

How on earth can you prove that we did not gain an advantage. We have been caught cheating. 

This guy just seems like a massive troll. If it wasn't for the 3k posts I'd assume he was a middlesborough fan

  • Like 5
Sergei Gotsmanov

Sergei Gotsmanov

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, Jimmy_D said:

You’re right, we faced far more lasting long term demonstrable disadvantage on the pitch.

and of course it was Liverpool. 

In this instance it is a very straight forward case of us cheating to gain an advantage in one game. What should have happened is we should have been docked a goal. That might have seemed harsh but nothing like as harsh as I fear it will be on Tuesday. I just cannot see how the Football league can get out of this one....

  • Haha 2
Dr Who?

Dr Who?

Posted
Posted
15 minutes 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.

Quite right, I should think they met on Friday and will be all getting back in a room tomorrow morning. Let’s hope something is announced tomorrow PM but if not it will be the Tuesday. I’m waiting to book my parking but not paying until announcement is made. 

trousers

trousers

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, Sergei Gotsmanov said:

How on earth can you prove that we did not gain an advantage.

Doesn't that depend on whether or not the information that Salt gained ended up in front of Tonda and/or his coaching team? Maybe, Salt phoned the club straight afterwards to say he'd been caught and the club's first reaction was: "Shit... Well, at least refrain from telling us what you gleaned so we can at least use that in our defence"...?

Sergei Gotsmanov

Sergei Gotsmanov

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, Dr Who? said:

Everything was deleted from the phone, so no advantage was gained, not any that can be proven in a court of law. But we have broken the rules, if proven. 

We don't know what he was looking for and what information he reported back.

Paul_B

Paul_B

Posted
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Sergei Gotsmanov said:

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

Are you Gibbo in disguise??? "Wrong done to Boro"??! Get a grip! It's some nipper with a fucking phone. Not some massive fucking MI6 operation. We tried to give them the game in the first leg and they still failed! They can get fucked! If we have done what is alleged, fine us! The end. 

This whole thing is becoming a joke, even our own 'supporters' losing their minds!

Oh, and it's nothing to do with the FA!

Edited by Paul_B
  • Like 8
Sergei Gotsmanov

Sergei Gotsmanov

Posted
Posted
Just now, trousers said:

Doesn't that depend on whether or not the information that Salt gained ended up in front of Tonda and/or his coaching team? Maybe, Salt phoned the club straight afterwards to say he'd been caught and the club's first reaction was: "Shit... Well, at least refrain from telling us what you gleaned so we can at least use that in our defence"...?

Maybe they should have instantly suspended him and banned him from the club but even then it is unlikely the panel will believe that he did not pass on some information.

sadoldgit

sadoldgit

Posted
Posted
26 minutes ago, Sergei Gotsmanov said:

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. 

This is a completely different situation. We are being charged with breaking two rules made by the EFL. The issue is between us and the EFL. The punishment is there to act as a deterrent and to bring sanctions against a guilty party. That doesn’t mean that the club bringing the action automatically gets something back as recompense. I assume their way forward would be to bring some kind of legal action themselves either against us or the EFL but what chance do you think they would have proving that we gained an unfair advantage against them when looking at both games?

They didn’t lose because of any possible law breaking on our part. Why should they get anything out of it?

badgerx16

badgerx16

Posted
Posted (edited)
33 minutes ago, Sergei Gotsmanov said:

How on earth can you prove that we did not gain an advantage. . 

Did you watch the first leg ? That's all the evidence needed.

If they had to change their tactics at the last minute, we did them a favour judging by the chances created. The "spying" was not to blame for them firing blanks.

Edited by badgerx16
  • Like 3
LegalEagle

LegalEagle

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, Sergei Gotsmanov said:

and of course it was Liverpool. 

In this instance it is a very straight forward case of us cheating to gain an advantage in one game. What should have happened is we should have been docked a goal. That might have seemed harsh but nothing like as harsh as I fear it will be on Tuesday. I just cannot see how the Football league can get out of this one....

They are not kicking us out and cancelling the biggest game in the EFL calendar only 96 hours before kick off. Won’t happen. It needed to be done this weekend at the very latest for that to happen. The amount of money the EFL will lose by doing that will be staggering. It’s also too late only 96 hours before to expect Boro or whoever to step in. It would be hugely prejudicial to Hull as well. They’re preparing this weekend to play Saints. Not Boro.

  • Like 2
saintant

saintant

Posted
Posted
20 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.

Think he was there for a fortnight. Boro say they found a tent, camping gear, enough provisions for an army, a sophisticated generator to give him light and power, a book called Spying for Dummies, a microlight aircraft, a horse named Shergar as an alternative means of escape plus Elvis and John Lennon. It was quite a sophisticated operation so a surprise he managed to get caught in full view while posing for someone to take his photo.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 12
Dr Who?

Dr Who?

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, Sergei Gotsmanov said:

We don't know what he was looking for and what information he reported back.

If it was deleted no one will. This is not a police investigation. So if it cannot be proved we cannot be found guilty on lack of evidence. 

Nolan

Nolan

Posted
Posted (edited)
21 minutes ago, Harry_SFC said:

Screenshot_20260517-113720_X~2.jpg

from an Boro fan of both Football and Acrostics'

Busted at Rockliffe with camera in hand, clear as day

Every Boro fan knows Saints sent their spy our way

Lurking by a tree, filming sessions before the game

Integrity thrown out, they cheated to gain an edge, no shame

EFL must kick them out, it's the only fair reply

Victory was tainted, we all see through the lie

Every Middlesbrough supporter believes — Saints bloody cheated!

Edited by Nolan
Toadhall Saint

Toadhall Saint

Posted
Posted
7 minutes ago, Bobsmith said:

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

Which is what the charge relates to. Observing not gaining an advantage. Gaining an advantage (or not) is very subjective whereas Observing with the 72 hours is objective - it’s a yes or no. 


With everything that’s out there we have broken the rule end of. Anything we put forward as mitigation may or may not lessen whatever the decision is but it will not change the fact that we broke the rule.

  • Like 2
LegalEagle

LegalEagle

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, LegalEagle said:

They are not kicking us out and cancelling the biggest game in the EFL calendar only 96 hours before kick off. Won’t happen. It needed to be done this weekend at the very latest for that to happen. The amount of money the EFL will lose by doing that will be staggering. It’s also too late only 96 hours before to expect Boro or whoever to step in. It would be hugely prejudicial to Hull as well. They’re preparing this weekend to play Saints. Not Boro.

The easiest route for the EFL is to fine us and possibly dock points. Boro will sue us not the EFL if that happens.

Dr Who?

Dr Who?

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, Toadhall Saint said:

Which is what the charge relates to. Observing not gaining an advantage. Gaining an advantage (or not) is very subjective whereas Observing with the 72 hours is objective - it’s a yes or no. 


With everything that’s out there we have broken the rule end of. Anything we put forward as mitigation may or may not lessen whatever the decision is but it will not change the fact that we broke the rule.

If sent by the club, or if acting alone. Some are saying he is not employed by SFC as others are saying he is back. Is it him, probably. Oh well we will find out in the next 48 hours. 

badgerx16

badgerx16

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, LegalEagle said:

The easiest route for the EFL is to fine us and possibly dock points. Boro will sue us not the EFL if that happens.

What for, causing their forwards to be impotent ?

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Sergei Gotsmanov

Sergei Gotsmanov

Posted
Posted
5 minutes ago, LegalEagle said:

They are not kicking us out and cancelling the biggest game in the EFL calendar only 96 hours before kick off. Won’t happen. It needed to be done this weekend at the very latest for that to happen. The amount of money the EFL will lose by doing that will be staggering. It’s also too late only 96 hours before to expect Boro or whoever to step in. It would be hugely prejudicial to Hull as well. They’re preparing this weekend to play Saints. Not Boro.

God I hope you are right. They have teed it up so that they can throw us out...maybe they had to be seen to do this.

LegalEagle

LegalEagle

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, badgerx16 said:

What for, causing their forwards to be impotent ?

Remember. Gibson’s aim here is to get some money out of this. He has history.

  • Like 4
trousers

trousers

Posted
Posted
12 minutes ago, Sergei Gotsmanov said:

Maybe they should have instantly suspended him and banned him from the club but even then it is unlikely the panel will believe that he did not pass on some information.

Maybe they did...?

  • Like 1
Toadhall Saint

Toadhall Saint

Posted
Posted
16 minutes ago, Sergei Gotsmanov said:

How on earth can you prove that we did not gain an advantage. We have been caught cheating. 

How on earth could it be proved that we did gain and advantage ( not what we are charged with but hey ho)

  • Like 1
trousers

trousers

Posted
Posted
13 minutes ago, Sergei Gotsmanov said:

Maybe they should have instantly suspended him and banned him from the club but even then it is unlikely the panel will believe that he did not pass on some information.

Is it for us to prove he didn't or the panel to prove he did...? 

Sergei Gotsmanov

Sergei Gotsmanov

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, Toadhall Saint said:

How on earth could it be proved that we did gain and advantage ( not what we are charged with but hey ho)

They don't need to prove it we have been caught.

saintant

saintant

Posted
Posted
6 minutes ago, sadoldgit said:

One day we will look back on all of this nonsense and laugh.

 

🤞

With some of the rubbish and contradictions coming from Boro I've had tears of laughter in my eyes most days since the news first broke. The photo of Will Salt has me in stitches every time I see it.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Sir Ralph

Sir Ralph

Posted
Posted
13 hours ago, SNSUN said:

Points can be transferable between the Leagues but only if the Premier League accept it. Otherwise it'd be suspended until we got relegated again. Of course if Hull win it'd be next season anyway and we'd have to beat Boro twice to make up for it.  😝

Why would the PL accept a point deduction makes their league less competitive 

Nolan

Nolan

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, AlexLaw76 said:

they don't "believe"...they have cast iron proof, right?

In this context "believe" and "have no proof" are pretty synonymous.

Nolan

Nolan

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, trousers said:

Anyone got any ideas on how to celebrate the upcoming 100 page mark? 

Adjust settings for more posts per page?

  • Haha 3
trousers

trousers

Posted
Posted (edited)
4 minutes ago, Toadhall Saint said:

Been caught observing. Which breaks the rules.

Did we break the rules? Yes, almost certainly 

What level of sporting advantage did we gain from breaking the rules? Debatable

Is the level of punishment determined on what level of advantage we gained? Probably?

Edited by trousers
Saint NL

Saint NL

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, trousers said:

Anyone got any ideas on how to celebrate the upcoming 100 page mark? 

A nice round of golf.

I know a place without a fence 👀

badgerx16

badgerx16

Posted
Posted
7 minutes ago, LegalEagle said:

Remember. Gibson’s aim here is to get some money out of this. He has history.

They aren't getting money because they aren't getting promoted, and that is all on them. They spent 217 days in the automatic promotion places, yet finished fifth. In the middle of January they were 18 points ahead of us, yet finished below us. They failed to score a single goal despite creating nearly 30 chances in the first leg. Lack of ability to score, and lack of ability to run around for more than 60 minutes has left them where they are, lashing out and blaming everybody but the ones that deserve it - themselves.

  • Like 2
saintant

saintant

Posted
Posted

Latest news 'Tommy Conway will not be fit to play in the final Boro have not qualified for and, if they had qualified for it, he wouldn't have been fit to play in the final Boro did qualify for so a bit of a blessing for Tommy that Boro did not qualify for the final'

Hope that's clear.

  • Haha 1
danjosaint

danjosaint

Posted
Posted

It's just been suggested by a well respected journalist that Tonda could face a lengthy ban , wonder if its just click bait or there other things out there but not made there way into the public 

CylonKing

CylonKing

Posted
Posted

Just reread the club statements and I think it's important to note that the club have only acknowledged the charges. Not accepted them, not said we're guilty, nada!

Someone was caught observing and filming something but it is not established whether the club knew, ordered it or how high in the club, if that is where the order came from. Everyone assuming the club are guilty are jumping the gun a little.

I personally think someone in the club ordered it but doubt it has anything to do with the management team. Just not worth the risk.

  • Like 1

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...