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
AlexLaw76

AlexLaw76

Posted
Posted

The sanction(s) we faced are to meet the following criteria... I think (again) we are toast, or at least we are if The EFL get their way entirely. 

 

Derby v EFL (SR/017/2020) (Derby), an EFL disciplinary commission set out four purposes a sanction must serve:

Punishment of the club for the breach

Vindication for other clubs not engaged in conduct that breached the rules

Deterrence from future rule breaches, whether by the breaching club or other clubs

Restoration and preservation of public confidence in the fairness of EFL competitions.

  • Sad 1
skintsaint

skintsaint

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, AlexLaw76 said:

Some legal bod on the Boro forum giving his opinion and interpretation of what is known (not the noise) believes we will not be expelled but there is risk for Saints of the first game being awarded 3-0 to Boro, as there is precedent between Celtic and Legia Warsaw which resulted in the same thing, plus a nod to the Swindon situation.

 

Both those instances involve players not registered to play, which are different scenarios.

Matthew Le God

Matthew Le God

Posted
Posted (edited)
3 minutes ago, AlexLaw76 said:

Some legal bod on the Boro forum giving his opinion and interpretation of what is known (not the noise) believes we will not be expelled but there is risk for Saints of the first game being awarded 3-0 to Boro, as there is precedent between Celtic and Legia Warsaw which resulted in the same thing, plus a nod to the Swindon situation.

That isn't precedent as it is a different governing body. Plus it would be contested as unfair (two wrongs don't make a right) as Saints would have approached the 2nd leg differently if they already knew they were 3-0 down. Plus playing ineligible players is not a precedent for Southampton/Middlesbrough situation, it is a different offence.

Edited by Matthew Le God
  • Like 5
Hussar Saint

Hussar Saint

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, danjosaint said:

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 

What well respected journalist? Got a link? Or are you just trolling?

 

 

AlexLaw76

AlexLaw76

Posted
Posted
Just now, skintsaint said:

Both those instances involve players not registered to play, which are different scenarios.

Hopefully, sporting advantaged and the desire to 'cheat' can be separated from those scenarios.

hypochondriac

hypochondriac

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, AlexLaw76 said:

Some legal bod on the Boro forum giving his opinion and interpretation of what is known (not the noise) believes we will not be expelled but there is risk for Saints of the first game being awarded 3-0 to Boro, as there is precedent between Celtic and Legia Warsaw which resulted in the same thing, plus a nod to the Swindon situation.

 

If that happens then we would be expelled so it amounts to the same thing. It also discredit the second game because that result wasn't known prior to the game and it would have been played very differently in those circumstances. 

  • Like 1
AlexLaw76

AlexLaw76

Posted
Posted
Just now, rallyboy said:

You can't alter the score of a first leg after a second leg has been played, that would be ridiculous.

true, and sure we would go all-in on this point.

Full on expulsion from a competition, no matter how short it is, is just OTT. 

  • Like 1
hypochondriac

hypochondriac

Posted
Posted
5 minutes ago, AlexLaw76 said:

Some legal bod on the Boro forum giving his opinion and interpretation of what is known (not the noise) believes we will not be expelled but there is risk for Saints of the first game being awarded 3-0 to Boro, as there is precedent between Celtic and Legia Warsaw which resulted in the same thing, plus a nod to the Swindon situation.

 

If the argument is that we ruined the first leg due to our cheating then that sanction would also ruin the second leg and make it a pointless endeavour. No one is going to do that after the game has been played. 

LegalEagle

LegalEagle

Posted
Posted
6 minutes ago, AlexLaw76 said:

Some legal bod on the Boro forum giving his opinion and interpretation of what is known (not the noise) believes we will not be expelled but there is risk for Saints of the first game being awarded 3-0 to Boro, as there is precedent between Celtic and Legia Warsaw which resulted in the same thing, plus a nod to the Swindon situation.

 

Hasn’t got a clue what he’s talking about. Just spouting crap to suit their side of the story

Sheaf Saint

Sheaf Saint

Posted
Posted
31 minutes ago, Badger said:

Does there need to be an advantage ?

The charge is breaching a regulation re spying on an opponent. Are we guilty of that, yes, or no ? Perhaps some “context” as we phrased it to be taken into account.

But it doesn’t seem  it’s a two stage test, a)did we do it ? b) what advantage was gained ?  The tribunal may reflect on that, but doesn’t seem to me that they need to. 

True, but I was just disputing the claim that his very presence there proves we gained an advantage. It clearly doesn't.

  • Like 2
hypochondriac

hypochondriac

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, Andy Hill said:

The final has to be on the 23rd to avoid any impact on Hull (who are innocent in all of this). 

If its decided that what we have done warrants expulsion, they aren't going to refuse to carry that out just because they don't want to have to move the final. 

AlexLaw76

AlexLaw76

Posted
Posted

On another point, given that spurious voice recording Friday and the shift in the papers that we face a -6 points penalty with a huge fine, maybe this was set out and both sides have a few days to contest it (which led Boro go full mental with their statement)

skintsaint

skintsaint

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, AlexLaw76 said:

On another note, albeit years ago. Boro go what was it -3 for 'breaking the rules' when they did not bother turning up for a fixture?

Yeah cost them their place in the top flight, even if they would have stuck out a youth team for the fixture they would have stayed up*.

*Appreciate that a butterfly effect would occur, maybe.

BotleySaint

BotleySaint

Posted
Posted

Honestly, any advantage we may have gained from the alleged incident is mythological at this stage and is apparent to anyone who watched the match. This should come down to the simple matter of our timing. We watched their training outside the limited window. We don't even know for how long, probably a few mins at most from which they are claiming we gained advantage enough to beat them?

Awarding a 3 nil win is just the same as removing us from the playoffs unless they plan to then reschedule the second leg to be played again.

AlexLaw76

AlexLaw76

Posted
Posted
Just now, Willo of Whiteley said:

Have I missed anything since 9am this morning.

Seemingly not I’m guessing, apart from Middlesbrough drip feeding another non-story to the Telegraph.

Anything else?

Nope, just more pundits saying Tonda/Saints should be banned. 

Badger

Badger

Posted
Posted
6 minutes ago, AlexLaw76 said:

Full on expulsion from a competition, no matter how short it is, is just OTT. 

It is probably the ‘easiest’ option (and possibly cleanest cut the can make). Others, points deductions, fines are open to how many, how much debates. 

saintant

saintant

Posted
Posted
11 minutes ago, AlexLaw76 said:

Some legal bod on the Boro forum giving his opinion and interpretation of what is known (not the noise) believes we will not be expelled but there is risk for Saints of the first game being awarded 3-0 to Boro, as there is precedent between Celtic and Legia Warsaw which resulted in the same thing, plus a nod to the Swindon situation.

 

So this 'legal bod' doesn't believe we'll be expelled but thinks Boro might be awarded the first game 3-0 🙂

skintsaint

skintsaint

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, Badger said:

It is probably the ‘easiest’ option (and possibly cleanest cut the can make).

Nah, we would appeal, and that would take a decent amount of time.

pingpong

pingpong

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, Badger said:

It is probably the ‘easiest’ option (and possibly cleanest cut the can make). Others, points deductions, fines are open to how many, how much debates. 

6 points, 2 mill.

Seems pretty easy to me.

Sheaf Saint

Sheaf Saint

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, AlexLaw76 said:

On another point, given that spurious voice recording Friday and the shift in the papers that we face a -6 points penalty with a huge fine, maybe this was set out and both sides have a few days to contest it (which led Boro go full mental with their statement)

Pretty sure it doesn't work like that. That would suggest this is  a case of Saints v Boro. It's not, it's Saints v the EFL. 

BotleySaint

BotleySaint

Posted
Posted

Surely our lawyers will be making the point that this is a minor rule breach and no advantage was gained as per the evidence of the first leg.

If we had destroyed them 3 or 4 nil in the first match the argument might hold more weight.. 

  • Like 1
AlexLaw76

AlexLaw76

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, saintant said:

So this 'legal bod' doesn't believe we'll be expelled but thinks Boro might be awarded the first game 3-0 🙂

Yes, which are 2 different things. It ensure the precedent sets is not straight out expulsion from a competition.

It is just one person giving their opinion with not a lot of info to play with

Badger

Badger

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, skintsaint said:

Nah, we would appeal, and that would take a decent amount of time.

Would we ? I’d hope so but no idea of the spirit for a fight in the boardroom. By reputation Cortese would have taken up the fight, and relished it. We don’t know about Parsons, or Dragan. 

danjosaint

danjosaint

Posted
Posted
14 minutes ago, Hussar Saint said:

What well respected journalist? Got a link? Or are you just trolling?

 

 

No im not trolling, if u read the thread you would see someone else mentioned it was Martin Ziegler

Matthew Le God

Matthew Le God

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, Badger said:

Would we ? I’d hope so but no idea of the spirit for a fight in the boardroom. By reputation Cortese would have taken up the fight, and relished it. We don’t know about Parsons, or Dragan. 

You don't become as rich as Dragan Solak is if you don't fight for your cause. 

  • Like 1
LGTL

LGTL

Posted
Posted
5 minutes ago, Willo of Whiteley said:

Have I missed anything since 9am this morning.

Seemingly not I’m guessing, apart from Middlesbrough drip feeding another non-story to the Telegraph.

Anything else?

Latest reports from Jason Burt actually suggesting Boro have no evidence of us doing this to any other team. Which can only be good news. 

  • Like 1
Ex Lion Tamer

Ex Lion Tamer

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, Matthew Le God said:

You don't become as rich as Dragan Solak is if you don't fight for your cause. 

Way too much at stake for any owner not to appeal 

  • Like 1
Harry_SFC

Harry_SFC

Posted
Posted
5 minutes ago, Badger said:

Would we ? I’d hope so but no idea of the spirit for a fight in the boardroom. By reputation Cortese would have taken up the fight, and relished it. We don’t know about Parsons, or Dragan. 

I'm sure we'd appeal even if the case isn't massively strong.

I'd hope we would anyway. Just to piss the EFL off so they have to move the final. 

Harry_SFC

Harry_SFC

Posted
Posted
4 minutes ago, LGTL said:

Latest reports from Jason Burt actually suggesting Boro have no evidence of us doing this to any other team. Which can only be good news. 

Because other teams don't give a fuck. And as I said earlier, most of them have probably done their own spying in one way or another before.

Or we just haven't actually done this before...

  • Like 1
Saint_clark

Saint_clark

Posted
Posted
5 hours ago, sfc4prem said:

Hmmmm. I wonder if they could ban us from using data analysts for an entire season? That's a pretty fucking big sporting sanction right there.

Almost certainly not. I'm also not entirely sure why you would think that would be better than a 6 point deduction. 

sfc4prem

sfc4prem

Posted
Posted
4 minutes ago, Saint_clark said:

Almost certainly not. I'm also not entirely sure why you would think that would be better than a 6 point deduction. 

I'm not sure how you managed to infer that interpretation from my post? I was merely proferring potential punishments.

StrangelyBrown

StrangelyBrown

Posted
Posted
16 minutes ago, AlexLaw76 said:

Nope, just more pundits saying Tonda/Saints should be banned. 

It's amazing how many pundits have come out against us in this... I do wonder if this was about Liverpool if there would be the same hysteria

OttawaSaint

OttawaSaint

Posted
Posted (edited)
34 minutes ago, BotleySaint said:

Honestly, any advantage we may have gained from the alleged incident is mythological at this stage and is apparent to anyone who watched the match. This should come down to the simple matter of our timing. We watched their training outside the limited window. We don't even know for how long, probably a few mins at most from which they are claiming we gained advantage enough to beat them?

Not sure if it works that way. If someone gets nabbed trying to look in a woman's bedroom window they don't adjust the charged based on just how much bush and tits he saw.

Edited by OttawaSaint
  • Haha 1
EssEffCee

EssEffCee

Posted
Posted
53 minutes ago, Badger said:

No idea how this will work, but won’t the panel make findings or recommendation on whether ‘guilty’ or otherwise ?
Any sanctions might then be at the discretion of the EFL as governing body.

No the IDC will decide the sanction too, with the EFL having the right to appeal.

  • Like 1
egg

egg

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, EssEffCee said:

No the IDC will decide the sanction too, with the EFL having the right to appeal.

Correct. 

Willo of Whiteley

Willo of Whiteley

Posted
Posted
7 minutes ago, DellBlockH said:

So, nothing new then. I haven't scrolled through the whole 99 pages but will leave this here in case nobody else has mentioned it:

https://www.theguardian.com/football/2026/may/16/southampton-middlesbrough-spygate-championship?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other

I'm not sure why their manager being in tears should have any bearing on the situation. 

Anyway, hoping this is the post that takes us onto page 100.

I’d be in tears if I managed a team from second to fifth and picked up only two wins in the last eleven.

That is the reason they aren’t going up this season. Not because of Saints.

  • Like 4
RedArmy

RedArmy

Posted
Posted
29 minutes ago, LGTL said:

Latest reports from Jason Burt actually suggesting Boro have no evidence of us doing this to any other team. Which can only be good news. 

Probably why they threw their toys out of the pram on Friday at not being allowed access to the hearing because all they’ve got is the ability to say “x,y and x club told us they think saints spied on them” 

 

 

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...