The Spygate Saga

[egg]

2 minutes ago, benjii said:

I dunno, surely they would have thrown everything they had at it. This was their chance.

Agreed. Boro threw the kitchen sink at this. There's undoubtedly been more though, and what's unclear is whether the EFL asked us whether there was more. If they did, and we denied there was, but more comes it, it'll get messy. 

[AlexLaw76]

1 minute ago, LegalEagle said:

 

The bigger risk is that the FA enquiry reveals more which they then pass on to the EFL.

Got to be and be amazed if not.

Edited 5 hours ago by AlexLaw76

[AlexLaw76]

1 minute ago, egg said:

Agreed. Boro threw the kitchen sink at this. There's undoubtedly been more though, and what's unclear is whether the EFL asked us whether there was more. If they did, and we denied there was, but more comes it, it'll get messy. 

We could start the season on a points total that beat going into Administration. 

[egg]

2 minutes ago, LegalEagle said:

Not bonkers but highly unlikely in my view. Their sole objective over the past 10 days was to get us out of the final. They would have used everything they could to get us expelled. There is also no advantage in holding any back with the risk that the EFL would close the book on the episode. They knew that Oxford and Ipswich was going to get a points deduction. Why not chuck in another five at that point and get a 14 point deduction there and then? 

The bigger risk is that the FA enquiry reveals more which they then pass on to the EFL. Hence why Saints haven’t sacked anyone yet. They want to keep those people including Tonda onside and in the camp rather than turn them into bitter snitches. Better in the tent pissing out than outside the tent pissing in.

When Dragan turned up this week, if I’d been in his shoes the first thing I would have asked is whether there were any other clubs we spied on. Tonda probably coughed and Dragan thought we need to keep him in the tent,

I see the Tonda thing differently. Us not ditching him took away a wee bit of mitigation, and keeping him won't help with some sponsors. He's staring down the barrel of a ban, and that'll only get worse for him if he's done more. Sure, he knows where the skeletons are buried, but his problem is that he ordered the killing. 

[trousers]

11 minutes ago, benjii said:

I dunno, surely they would have thrown everything they had at it. This was their chance.

Yeah, I guess that trumps my hunch... It's just that the events of the last few weeks have started to make me view everything through a pessimistic "FFS, what next?" prism!

Edited 5 hours ago by trousers

[egg]

4 minutes ago, AlexLaw76 said:

We could start the season on a points total that beat going into Administration. 

The EFL could / should make it clear that a line has been drawn under all our 25/26 spying activities, and that the league and it's members now need to move forwards. 

[AlexLaw76]

Just now, egg said:

The EFL could / should make it clear that a line has been drawn under all our 25/26 spying activities, and that the league and it's members now need to move forwards. 

True, but their silence (if it is intentional) is telling.

Our statement, if any, should include this demand, but then there is no doubt lots of shuffling the decks going on as this has probably been prolific in 2026

[trousers]

11 minutes ago, pingpong said:

I think the public (us) can get involved here.

There is nothing in the rules that says a member of the public can't go and stream training sessions, if they are not trespassing (which you can do at Boro, Oxford etc)

We could stream all of Middlesbrough's training in the days leading up to our game with them (or all of their games, for that matter) and show them on YouTube.

Then it becomes impossible to prove if a member of saints staff views the YouTube videos.

And eventually sanity will prevail and they'll either remove the rule or clubs will stop training in public.

Ha... Nice idea

[trousers]

11 minutes ago, LegalEagle said:

Not bonkers but highly unlikely in my view. Their sole objective over the past 10 days was to get us out of the final. They would have used everything they could to get us expelled. There is also no advantage in holding any back with the risk that the EFL would close the book on the episode. They knew that Oxford and Ipswich was going to get a points deduction. Why not chuck in another five at that point and get a 14 point deduction there and then? 

The bigger risk is that the FA enquiry reveals more which they then pass on to the EFL. Hence why Saints haven’t sacked anyone yet. They want to keep those people including Tonda onside and in the camp rather than turn them into bitter snitches. Better in the tent pissing out than outside the tent pissing in.

When Dragan turned up this week, if I’d been in his shoes the first thing I would have asked is whether there were any other clubs we spied on. Tonda probably coughed and Dragan thought we need to keep him in the tent,

👍🏻

[egg]

4 minutes ago, AlexLaw76 said:

True, but their silence (if it is intentional) is telling.

Our statement, if any, should include this demand, but then there is no doubt lots of shuffling the decks going on as this has probably been prolific in 2026

We ain't in a position to make any demands. They hold the cards here...and the gun. 

[ChristopheVAFC]

This is a scenario that might be imagined, but it's plausible. What do you think?

Unlike Staplewood, Boro's training center is open to the public, with a hotel attached, making it difficult to work discreetly.

1 - On the day of the session, Boro may have spotted and recognized WS shortly before it began (perhaps WS had booked a room at the hotel, as it seems he was planning to stay for two days).

2 - Boro's communications team informed the coaching staff of this person's presence near the pitch, hidden behind the tree.

3 - Having anticipated this possibility, Boro may have set up a "fake tactical setup," filmed by WS (this fake setup would have been intended to throw everyone off the scent).

4 - Boro then took a photo of WS and used his whistleblower to bring the matter to light and accuse Southampton of cheating (which turned out to be true after the investigation).

5 - Boro then portrayed themselves as the "victim" and took our club's place on the pitch, given that they hadn't managed to beat us fairly.

6 - After their scheme, our team was sanctioned, and Boro was given another chance on the pitch. But, once again, they failed.

[egg]

Just now, ChristopheVAFC said:

This is a scenario that might be imagined, but it's plausible. What do you think?

Unlike Staplewood, Boro's training center is open to the public, with a hotel attached, making it difficult to work discreetly.

1 - On the day of the session, Boro may have spotted and recognized WS shortly before it began (perhaps WS had booked a room at the hotel, as it seems he was planning to stay for two days).

2 - Boro's communications team informed the coaching staff of this person's presence near the pitch, hidden behind the tree.

3 - Having anticipated this possibility, Boro may have set up a "fake tactical setup," filmed by WS (this fake setup would have been intended to throw everyone off the scent).

4 - Boro then took a photo of WS and used his whistleblower to bring the matter to light and accuse Southampton of cheating (which turned out to be true after the investigation).

5 - Boro then portrayed themselves as the "victim" and took our club's place on the pitch, given that they hadn't managed to beat us fairly.

6 - After their scheme, our team was sanctioned, and Boro was given another chance on the pitch. But, once again, they failed.

These theories are utterly pointless. We sent a bloke up there to watch them train. That's it. 

[Mk1J]

10 hours ago, sockeye said:

Imagine a world where everyone had dirt on everyone, the Championship becomes full spygate wars with point deductions everywhere, and the title winner for 2026/27 finishes on 25 points.  

With the skates going up as champions because their fishy fingers can’t hold binoculars. 

[LegalEagle]

3 minutes ago, ChristopheVAFC said:

This is a scenario that might be imagined, but it's plausible. What do you think?

Unlike Staplewood, Boro's training center is open to the public, with a hotel attached, making it difficult to work discreetly.

1 - On the day of the session, Boro may have spotted and recognized WS shortly before it began (perhaps WS had booked a room at the hotel, as it seems he was planning to stay for two days).

2 - Boro's communications team informed the coaching staff of this person's presence near the pitch, hidden behind the tree.

3 - Having anticipated this possibility, Boro may have set up a "fake tactical setup," filmed by WS (this fake setup would have been intended to throw everyone off the scent).

4 - Boro then took a photo of WS and used his whistleblower to bring the matter to light and accuse Southampton of cheating (which turned out to be true after the investigation).

5 - Boro then portrayed themselves as the "victim" and took our club's place on the pitch, given that they hadn't managed to beat us fairly.

6 - After their scheme, our team was sanctioned, and Boro was given another chance on the pitch. But, once again, they failed.

And Diana and Dodi are living in Paraguay, Shergar is running free on the South Downs and Lord Lucan is living in a two up two down in Brentford. He went up there, was stupid and arrogant and got caught.

[Fabrice29]

On 15/05/2026 at 00:30, LeG said:

Will say more when it’s done and give context. I’d be moronic to do that now on a public forum. No order from the top though. 
 

 

It’s time.

[S-Clarke]

6 minutes ago, ChristopheVAFC said:

This is a scenario that might be imagined, but it's plausible. What do you think?

Unlike Staplewood, Boro's training center is open to the public, with a hotel attached, making it difficult to work discreetly.

1 - On the day of the session, Boro may have spotted and recognized WS shortly before it began (perhaps WS had booked a room at the hotel, as it seems he was planning to stay for two days).

2 - Boro's communications team informed the coaching staff of this person's presence near the pitch, hidden behind the tree.

3 - Having anticipated this possibility, Boro may have set up a "fake tactical setup," filmed by WS (this fake setup would have been intended to throw everyone off the scent).

4 - Boro then took a photo of WS and used his whistleblower to bring the matter to light and accuse Southampton of cheating (which turned out to be true after the investigation).

5 - Boro then portrayed themselves as the "victim" and took our club's place on the pitch, given that they hadn't managed to beat us fairly.

6 - After their scheme, our team was sanctioned, and Boro was given another chance on the pitch. But, once again, they failed.

I mean we can dig and dig and dig if we want to, but like others have said - at the end of the day, we still made the decision internally. If Boro set a honeytrap, which I do believe they did, it's still our fault we fell into it. We didn't need to fall into it.

Boro's actions were equally as murky as ours, and the media onslaught is something worth investigating as I do feel it influenced the EFL's decision. But the end story is that we still did this, we still gave the EFL the bullet to fire at us. We still made this decision. Boro didn't hold a gun to our head and tell us to fall into their trap.

[Whitey Grandad]

Middlesbrough can only file a complaint over actions that involve themselves. They can't file a complaint on behalf of others. 

These other two examples were only revealed because Taylor submitted his evidence to the EFL. 

[Whitey Grandad]

1 minute ago, S-Clarke said:

I mean we can dig and dig and dig if we want to, but like others have said - at the end of the day, we still made the decision internally. If Boro set a honeytrap, which I do believe they did, it's still our fault we fell into it. We didn't need to fall into it.

Boro's actions were equally as murky as ours, and the media onslaught is something worth investigating as I do feel it influenced the EFL's decision. But the end story is that we still did this, we still gave the EFL the bullet to fire at us. We still made this decision. Boro didn't hold a gun to our head and tell us to fall into their trap.

Indeed so. But do their actions constitute "utmost good faith"?

[Osvaldorama]

31 minutes ago, pingpong said:

I think the public (us) can get involved here.

There is nothing in the rules that says a member of the public can't go and stream training sessions, if they are not trespassing (which you can do at Boro, Oxford etc)

We could stream all of Middlesbrough's training in the days leading up to our game with them (or all of their games, for that matter) and show them on YouTube.

Then it becomes impossible to prove if a member of saints staff views the YouTube videos.

And eventually sanity will prevail and they'll either remove the rule or clubs will stop training in public.

Anyone retired or off work for a lengthy period with a bit of time on their hands?

 

Please go and do this. Would love to see what happens. Do you think Boro’s manager would cry again if it was a YouTuber instead of the club?

[S-Clarke]

3 minutes ago, Whitey Grandad said:

Indeed so. But do their actions constitute "utmost good faith"?

Absolutley not, and two wrongs certainly don't make a right. Their response and pressure was awful, and a stronger response from the club would have pushed back on that.

But even so, we still did what we did - even if it's small in the grand scheme of things - we were still stupid enough to try it, get caught, and then fail to defend it.

[trousers]

3 minutes ago, Osvaldorama said:

Anyone retired or off work for a lengthy period with a bit of time on their hands?

 

Please go and do this. Would love to see what happens. Do you think Boro’s manager would cry again if it was a YouTuber instead of the club?

Maybe one or two of those YouTube 'auditors' should go up there next season too....

[sfc4prem]

It's all just going round in circles on here now, isn't it. Guess it will do until additional ITK information gets out, we respond, and the FA report is released. Boring as fuck, got to tell you.

[leesaint88]

2 hours ago, BH_Saint said:

How about Bristol City and Norwich? They were also rumoured to have been spied on by Saints.

Bristol does have a golf club next door….but it also separated well and the nearest point to the pitches is the driving range, and Norwich, unless he’s standing on the edge of the bypass you can’t see or get in. 
 

Personally I think the level of spying is being over reported. Most training grounds particularly at this level are secure. 

[trousers]

1 minute ago, sfc4prem said:

It's all just going round in circles on here now, isn't it. Guess it will do until additional ITK information gets out, we respond, and the FA report is released. Boring as fuck, got to tell you.

Indeed.... If only there was a way of refraining from clicking on this thread so we didn't have to read it...

[Lord Duckhunter]

I thought I was head over heart on this, wanting Middlesbrough to win as I think they’ll be better than Hull next season. However that soon changed when I heard the actual result, was actually more pleased than I thought I’d be. We’ve gone away for a few days & I was drinking with some northerners last night, mainly Liverpudlians of both persuasion and a random Blackpool supporter. Every one of them was pleased it was Hull, but what surprised me was how little they knew about it, apart from one Evertonian the rest really hadn’t paid any attention to the whole thing. 
 

The bloke who had paid attention was a bit of an anorak, he seemed to know every Saints Everton game going back to the 70’s. Anyway he made a point I thought was worth sharing. Whilst the Premier League don’t have a spying rule, they do have the “utmost good faith” catch all rule. He said if we’d been doing it in the Preimer League, they would have had us on this. As he pointed out, just because there isn’t a specific rule, doesn’t mean clubs can fly drones or any other sneaky ways to watch training. He made the point that this rule gives both sides a bit of wiggle room around punishment which the EFL one doesn’t. You have either broke the rule or you haven’t , there’s no grey area the “good faith” rule gives you 

Edited 4 hours ago by Lord Duckhunter

[Dr Who?]

6 minutes ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

I thought I was head over heart on this, wanting Middlesbrough to win as I think they’ll be better than Hull next season. However that soon changed when I heard the actual result, was actually more pleased than I thought I’d be. We’ve gone away for a few days & I was drinking with some northerners last night, mainly Liverpudlians of both persuasion and a random Blackpool supporter. Every one of them was pleased it was Hull, but what surprised me was how little they knew about it, apart from one Evertonian the rest really hadn’t paid any attention to the whole thing. 
 

The bloke who had paid attention was a bit of an anorak, he seemed to know every Saints Everton game going back to the 70’s. Anyway he made a point I thought was worth sharing. Whilst the Premier League don’t have a spying rule, they do have the “utmost good faith” catch all rule. He said if we’d been doing it in the Preimer League, they would have had us on this. As he pointed out, just because there isn’t a specific rule, doesn’t mean clubs can fly drones or any other sneaky ways to watch training. He made the point that this rule gives both sides a bit of wiggle room around punishment which the EFL one doesn’t. 

Neighbour is a Villa fan, had very little idea of what was going on as he was out in Turkey on the build up to their final. I think it is mainly those involved. One of my best mates is a Brum fan and until we were thrown out he had not heard of spygate. He came back about 20 minutes later with “oh my god, I have just read about it, did not know” 😧 

[Graffito]

16 minutes ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

I thought I was head over heart on this, wanting Middlesbrough to win as I think they’ll be better than Hull next season. However that soon changed when I heard the actual result, was actually more pleased than I thought I’d be. We’ve gone away for a few days & I was drinking with some northerners last night, mainly Liverpudlians of both persuasion and a random Blackpool supporter. Every one of them was pleased it was Hull, but what surprised me was how little they knew about it, apart from one Evertonian the rest really hadn’t paid any attention to the whole thing. 
 

The bloke who had paid attention was a bit of an anorak, he seemed to know every Saints Everton game going back to the 70’s. Anyway he made a point I thought was worth sharing. Whilst the Premier League don’t have a spying rule, they do have the “utmost good faith” catch all rule. He said if we’d been doing it in the Preimer League, they would have had us on this. As he pointed out, just because there isn’t a specific rule, doesn’t mean clubs can fly drones or any other sneaky ways to watch training. He made the point that this rule gives both sides a bit of wiggle room around punishment which the EFL one doesn’t. You have either broke the rule or you haven’t , there’s no grey area the “good faith” rule gives you 

Absolutely. It’s a poor and inflexible rule. Add to that the fact that no penalties were introduced with the rule, the process issues, and the way in which the panel applied the rule (vis apparently treating the play offs as a separate competition from the league) and you get the mess we find ourselves in. They could have just beefed up the penalties for the existing good faith rule, added them to the rule book after Leeds and left it at that.

[swedish dave]

1 hour ago, ChristopheVAFC said:

This is a scenario that might be imagined, but it's plausible. What do you think?

Unlike Staplewood, Boro's training center is open to the public, with a hotel attached, making it difficult to work discreetly.

1 - On the day of the session, Boro may have spotted and recognized WS shortly before it began (perhaps WS had booked a room at the hotel, as it seems he was planning to stay for two days).

2 - Boro's communications team informed the coaching staff of this person's presence near the pitch, hidden behind the tree.

3 - Having anticipated this possibility, Boro may have set up a "fake tactical setup," filmed by WS (this fake setup would have been intended to throw everyone off the scent).

4 - Boro then took a photo of WS and used his whistleblower to bring the matter to light and accuse Southampton of cheating (which turned out to be true after the investigation).

5 - Boro then portrayed themselves as the "victim" and took our club's place on the pitch, given that they hadn't managed to beat us fairly.

6 - After their scheme, our team was sanctioned, and Boro was given another chance on the pitch. But, once again, they failed.

whilst we are " nit-picking " over the whole affair, it's interesting to note that one of the bar staff at Boro's golf club

named our " spy" (WS) to the club, and /or the media, after WS had bought a drink in their bar.  Naming a person 

who has made a purchase on a credit card  IS  a criminal offence, as it breaks the law on several counts, and such 

actions are.." technically-speaking" - a breach of personal integrity attached to credit card purchases. 

[James G]

I think time has added some context to the whole Spygate drama

First, there's been some articles about 'spying' in Germany where it's not a thing. Analysts are actively encouraged to watch opponents train, so it's very different over there. So some of this has been down to cultural differences. I think we've picked up that this goes on here, but it's under the radar and overlooked. Tonda maybe knew of the cultural differences but maybe not the laws of the game

I think releasing the picture of Will Salt was in very bad taste given Tonda was behind it all. It has publicly shamed a man who was sent to do a job that he wasn't quite sure about

The spying law itself will never sit right. Because they look at the act and not the damage, it sits in an uncomfortable place. I would rather either go like Germany and let analysts in, or make clubs build fences. 

I think the law of two semi final winners should have been adhered to. Maybe bring Wrexham in, that needs looked at. 

There are so many things about Spygate that will never sit right, and I think the EFL made this difficult for themselves not giving more guidelines 

[East Kent Saint]

Administration of the Prem and EFL is hopeless , their job is difficult against foreign ownership of clubs with multibillion resources.  The rules are back of a fag packet style . Clubs are well aware of spying and don't care so a total rewrite of rules is needed to prevent any more self I tested spy accusations. 

[Saint Fan CaM]

1 hour ago, S-Clarke said:

Absolutley not, and two wrongs certainly don't make a right. Their response and pressure was awful, and a stronger response from the club would have pushed back on that.

But even so, we still did what we did - even if it's small in the grand scheme of things - we were still stupid enough to try it, get caught, and then fail to defend it.

Yes that is undoubtedly true, however let’s assume that other clubs also ‘scout’/‘spy’ too and previously a blind-eye was turned to it all. That diminishes the argument that Stills presence was a complete and utter surprise to the footballing community. Basically Gibbo pressed the nuclear button because he was desperate to get his grubby hands on £200m come what may, assuming that it would be a formality once he’d got rid of his biggest threat. 

The lack of other clubs coming forward is highly telling…they collectively shrunk for good reason and I’m sure that there were big intakes of breath within EFL boardrooms around the country when our punishment was announced. I am convinced Boro completely fabricated the entire scenario - played a blinder - knowing full well that there was no defence…a check-mate move. I do hope that a competent journo finds out the truth to expose their corruption one day and more than that, I hope Boro are financially crippled going forwards.

[Holmes_and_Watson]

2 hours ago, ChristopheVAFC said:

This is a scenario that might be imagined, but it's plausible. What do you think?

Unlike Staplewood, Boro's training center is open to the public, with a hotel attached, making it difficult to work discreetly.

1 - On the day of the session, Boro may have spotted and recognized WS shortly before it began (perhaps WS had booked a room at the hotel, as it seems he was planning to stay for two days).

2 - Boro's communications team informed the coaching staff of this person's presence near the pitch, hidden behind the tree.

3 - Having anticipated this possibility, Boro may have set up a "fake tactical setup," filmed by WS (this fake setup would have been intended to throw everyone off the scent).

4 - Boro then took a photo of WS and used his whistleblower to bring the matter to light and accuse Southampton of cheating (which turned out to be true after the investigation).

5 - Boro then portrayed themselves as the "victim" and took our club's place on the pitch, given that they hadn't managed to beat us fairly.

6 - After their scheme, our team was sanctioned, and Boro was given another chance on the pitch. But, once again, they failed.

I like this.

I'm also looking forward to reading

John Le Carre's

Intern, Analyst, Manager, Spy

[Midfield_General]

Oh bless them, they want to be our rivals now:

https://fmttmboro.com/index.php?threads/is-boro-v-southampton-the-longest‑distance-rivalry-in-england-now.82081/ 

[Whitey Grandad]

Just now, Midfield_General said:

Oh bless them, they want to be our rivals now:

https://fmttmboro.com/index.php?threads/is-boro-v-southampton-the-longest‑distance-rivalry-in-england-now.82081/ 

They're not fit to be our rivals. 

(Do you see what I did there?)

[Bob60]

On the prospect of other clubs coming forward, I thought the commission treated the playoffs as a separate comp, hence the exclusion for spying on Boro

Therefore were the four points for our other spying which I thought was because they found it to be a endemic part of our club and the four points was for that, so other cases would be covered by that punishment already?

[AlexLaw76]

Just now, Bob60 said:

On the prospect of other clubs coming forward, I thought the commission treated the playoffs as a separate comp, hence the exclusion for spying on Boro

Therefore were the four points for our other spying which I thought was because they found it to be a endemic part of our club and the four points was for that, so other cases would be covered by that punishment already?

the 6 points (reduced to 4) was for proven and accepted guilt with spying against Oxford and Ipswich.

There is nearly 5 months between those games. Huge problem potentially coming over the hill, hence why everything has gone quiet.

[Harry_SFC]

1 minute ago, AlexLaw76 said:

the 6 points (reduced to 4) was for proven and accepted guilt with spying against Oxford and Ipswich.

There is nearly 5 months between those games. Huge problem potentially coming over the hill, hence why everything has gone quiet.

I can't see it. I'm almost certain other teams don't really give a fuck because most of them do it themselves.

As someone else explained. There's only one reason that Boro brought this to light. Because they fucked their chance to go up automatically and knew we were the better side. 

[AlexLaw76]

1 minute ago, Harry_SFC said:

I can't see it. I'm almost certain other teams don't really give a fuck because most of them do it themselves.

As someone else explained. There's only one reason that Boro brought this to light. Because they fucked their chance to go up automatically and knew we were the better side. 

Depends on what the FA investigation earths up. 

Edited 1 hour ago by AlexLaw76

[Midfield_General]

9 minutes ago, Whitey Grandad said:

They're not fit to be our rivals. 

(Do you see what I did there?)

Yes, yes I did

[Harry_SFC]

Just now, AlexLaw76 said:

Depends on what the FA investigation earths up. 

Yeah it depends how deep they try and go. 

Although former FA chairman David Bernstein didn't think much of it. Let's hope the current lot take a similar view. 

[benjii]

We must think it's relatively widespread, if anything is read into the section of Parsons' statement about creating a working group to ensure the rule is properly understood and implemented (or words to that effect).

If that is the case, it seems unlikely there would be a proactive attempt to unearth other instances unless evidence is provided by a third party, as it could open a massive can of worms.

[Barry the Badger]

19 minutes ago, benjii said:

We must think it's relatively widespread, if anything is read into the section of Parsons' statement about creating a working group to ensure the rule is properly understood and implemented (or words to that effect).

If that is the case, it seems unlikely there would be a proactive attempt to unearth other instances unless evidence is provided by a third party, as it could open a massive can of worms.

I wouldn't read anything into what he says. He's also the one that said "I know the character of our people" which led many to think there was more to our side of the story, when there wasn't, we were guilty. 

[Bob60]

1 hour ago, AlexLaw76 said:

the 6 points (reduced to 4) was for proven and accepted guilt with spying against Oxford and Ipswich.

There is nearly 5 months between those games. Huge problem potentially coming over the hill, hence why everything has gone quiet.

Not the way I read it but one of us will be right and one wrong.

[tdmickey3]

9 minutes ago, Bob60 said:

Not the way I read it but one of us will be right and one wrong.

Indeed but it’s standard form from Alex, always looks on the negative side and hope to right