The Spygate Saga

[Ted Bates Statue]

5 hours ago, West Dean FC Legend said:

Just popped on the Ugly Inside - I don't go very often because I'm not extreme-right-wing and angry - and somewhere is saying another EFL club has been accused of 'spying' this season? 

Anyone got any info' on this? If it is true - and with evidence - this is really going to stitch up the EFL, if they find out there is more than a couple alongside Saints what will they do?

They're talking about Steve Grant, the owner of some saints-related website, think it's called saintsnet or websaints.

Without wading through the podcast, he's apparently deduced that one of the clubs that Boro tried to whip up to pile on us declined to help because they too are guilty. But just because they can't be arsed, it doesn't mean there's necessarily anything there.

It would be great if Parsons actually had a reverse uno card to the rest of the division, which he alluded to in the creation of a 'working group' but I think it's safe to say we have absolutely no incriminating evidence that others spied, because even if we did, the idiots would have lost it.

As an aside, the Ugly's "Field bindweed cannot flower in May" conspiracy theory about the Will Salt photo has definitely been one of the more unexpected diversions to this fiasco.

[kwsaint]

Is there a way for this thread to be filed away somewhere for posterity? I would genuinely put it up there with the Pompey Takeover Saga thread and it must have broken some record for the number of posts in a given number of days.

[Cuddles]

Told you everyone's at it!

 

[Holmes_and_Watson]

4 hours ago, Cuddles said:

Told you everyone's at it!

 

The SFA found evidence at Thistle's training ground. But on inspection couldn't be sure if all the Tennant's Export cans belonged to a spy, the Thistle players or the local kids. 

[saintant]

Just read a very interesting article referenced by The Ugly Inside. It can be found on page 3 of the topic How About This!!!!!! It was written by Sir Nicholas Mostyn KC and, whilst he is a Saints fan, he undoubtedly knows more about legal matters than anyone else on this forum.  Suffice to say he is far from impressed with the handling/findings of the EFL and Commission who handed down the verdict and punishment nor is he satisfied with the handing and verdict of the appeal.

[benjii]

4 minutes ago, saintant said:

Just read a very interesting article referenced by The Ugly Inside. It can be found on page 3 of the topic How About This!!!!!! It was written by Sir Nicholas Mostyn KC and, whilst he is a Saints fan, he undoubtedly knows more about legal matters than anyone else on this forum.  Suffice to say he is far from impressed with the handling/findings of the EFL and Commission who handed down the verdict and punishment nor is he satisfied with the handing and verdict of the appeal.

https://www.insideworldfootball.com/2026/05/26/op-ed-sir-nicholas-mostyn-kc-soutampton-fc-admiral-byng-is-shot-again/

 

Here it is.

[leesaint88]

12 minutes ago, benjii said:

https://www.insideworldfootball.com/2026/05/26/op-ed-sir-nicholas-mostyn-kc-soutampton-fc-admiral-byng-is-shot-again/

 

Here it is.

Very interesting - bombshell statement here.

As the losing party, Southampton are entitled to know precisely what was the evidence that led to these damning findings. Yet the section on evidence says merely that the EFL relied on evidence from four witnesses, one of whom gave oral evidence, while Southampton relied on evidence from “several witnesses”, four of whom gave oral evidence. There is no mention of the written evidence, which must have been copious, and there is no attempt to explain how that evidence led to the findings mentioned above. On reading the judgment, Southampton could not know what evidence provided the proof for these findings. It could have a guess, but it is entitled to know, especially when so much was at stake, precisely what oral and written evidence was relied on to reach these conclusions. 

[It's There]

But where do we go from here? To the High Court?

I have no issue with being found guilty, but I DO with the process. The process followed stinks of being rushed and arguably unfair. There is a part of me that wants Saints FC to take EFL to High Court for their handling of the case.

 

[hippo]

Just now, It's There said:

But where do we go from here? To the High Court?

I have no issue with being found guilty, but I DO with the process. The process followed stinks of being rushed and arguably unfair. There is a part of me that wants Saints FC to take EFL to High Court for their handling of the case.

 

I do think there's a plausible route where we internally rectify the situation through our own investigation, and hand out appropriate punishments to individuals involved to show that systemic cheating is not what we accept at our club, whilst also making sure the EFL don't get away with their kangaroo court proceedings. 

[saintant]

4 minutes ago, hippo said:

I do think there's a plausible route where we internally rectify the situation through our own investigation, and hand out appropriate punishments to individuals involved to show that systemic cheating is not what we accept at our club, whilst also making sure the EFL don't get away with their kangaroo court proceedings. 

Not sure how we go about that eevn if I do agree it was akin to a kangaroo court.

[Whitey Grandad]

4 minutes ago, saintant said:

Not sure how we go about that eevn if I do agree it was akin to a kangaroo court.

The decision was made before the hearing. Or so it appears.

[Dirkdiggler]

13 minutes ago, Whitey Grandad said:

The decision was made before the hearing. Or so it appears.

Have to agree the punishment handed out was very much in keeping with Borro’s press release once they were told they couldn’t be part of the hearing. 

[M271]

What would the punishment have been if we had lost the semi final? Or would just not being in the playoff final have been enough specifically in relation to the Middlesbrough incident.

[Saint_clark]

1 hour ago, It's There said:

But where do we go from here? To the High Court?

I have no issue with being found guilty, but I DO with the process. The process followed stinks of being rushed and arguably unfair. There is a part of me that wants Saints FC to take EFL to High Court for their handling of the case.

 

I know the EFL have said we can't go to CAS but is it really up to them? 

[Sheaf Saint]

2 hours ago, M271 said:

What would the punishment have been if we had lost the semi final? Or would just not being in the playoff final have been enough specifically in relation to the Middlesbrough incident.

This is a very interesting point. They couldn't expel us from a competition that we had already been knocked out of, neither could they apply a points deduction based on their own insistence that the playoffs is a separate competition. So the only choice would have been a fine. 

The decision on our punishment shouldn't have rested on the result of a tie that, as everyone acknowledges, was not influenced by the rule breaking.

Edited 10 hours ago by Sheaf Saint

[Football Special]

3 hours ago, leesaint88 said:

Very interesting - bombshell statement here.

As the losing party, Southampton are entitled to know precisely what was the evidence that led to these damning findings. Yet the section on evidence says merely that the EFL relied on evidence from four witnesses, one of whom gave oral evidence, while Southampton relied on evidence from “several witnesses”, four of whom gave oral evidence. There is no mention of the written evidence, which must have been copious, and there is no attempt to explain how that evidence led to the findings mentioned above. On reading the judgment, Southampton could not know what evidence provided the proof for these findings. It could have a guess, but it is entitled to know, especially when so much was at stake, precisely what oral and written evidence was relied on to reach these conclusions. 

Saints should have had him in as an advisor thats for sure

 " Sir Nicolas Mostyn KC he's one of our own" 

Anyone know if he posts on here? 

[Matthew Le God]

4 minutes ago, Football Special said:

Saints should have had him in as an advisor thats for sure

 " Sir Nicolas Mostyn KC he's one of our own" 

Anyone know if he posts on here? 

I'm Sir Nicolas, and so's my wife.

[Pilchards]

Does anyone else think that the longer this goes on that SFC are planning something?

Maybe they are gathering evidence that could throw the whole case and that the EFL will need to review and act on it.

Personally I think they  are fighting to get the 4 points dropped plus maybe compensation.

Edited 9 hours ago by Pilchards

[Dman]

12 minutes ago, Pilchards said:

Does anyone else think that the longer this goes on that SFC are planning something?

Maybe they are gathering evidence that could throw the whole case and that the EFL will need to review and act on it.

Personally I think they  are fighting to get the 4 points dropped plus maybe compensation.

I have to admit, I thought the same (probably naively). 

Only thing that really explains the silence, unless the EFL have hit us with more charges. 

[Sheaf Saint]

18 minutes ago, Pilchards said:

Does anyone else think that the longer this goes on that SFC are planning something?

Maybe they are gathering evidence that could throw the whole case and that the EFL will need to review and act on it.

Personally I think they  are fighting to get the 4 points dropped plus maybe compensation.

I'd love to believe this, just like I really wanted to believe that they were keeping a dignified silence in the lead up to the hearing and had an ace up their sleeve to play. 

Sadly, as has been pointed out many times of the last few weeks, wherever SR are concerned you should always lean heavily towards incompetence as the explanation. Because it always turns out the be right one. 

Every. Single. Time.

[saintant]

27 minutes ago, Pilchards said:

Does anyone else think that the longer this goes on that SFC are planning something?

Maybe they are gathering evidence that could throw the whole case and that the EFL will need to review and act on it.

Personally I think they  are fighting to get the 4 points dropped plus maybe compensation.

I think any planning they're doing consists of how they can keep Tonda Eckert plus as many of the first team squad as possible and go hard for promotion next season. A replacement for Parson's might also be on their minds.

[hypochondriac]

35 minutes ago, Pilchards said:

Does anyone else think that the longer this goes on that SFC are planning something?

Maybe they are gathering evidence that could throw the whole case and that the EFL will need to review and act on it.

Personally I think they  are fighting to get the 4 points dropped plus maybe compensation.

Firstly how would they manage that? We admitted to the crime and lost the appeal. What evidence could there be that meant we were not guilty of the crime we admitted to?

[trousers]

33 minutes ago, Sheaf Saint said:

I'd love to believe this, just like I really wanted to believe that they were keeping a dignified silence in the lead up to the hearing and had an ace up their sleeve to play. 

Sadly, as has been pointed out many times of the last few weeks, wherever SR are concerned you should always lean heavily towards incompetence as the explanation. Because it always turns out the be right one. 

Every. Single. Time.

Alas, yep, this....

[Saint Fan CaM]

5 hours ago, benjii said:

https://www.insideworldfootball.com/2026/05/26/op-ed-sir-nicholas-mostyn-kc-soutampton-fc-admiral-byng-is-shot-again/

 

Here it is.

If only Sir Nicholas had been our council throughout the case. He has a very keen handle on the injustices.

[Saint Fan CaM]

30 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

Firstly how would they manage that? We admitted to the crime and lost the appeal. What evidence could there be that meant we were not guilty of the crime we admitted to?

Proceedings that were rushed through by the EFL (unprecedented), therefore further evidence might come have to light in what is less than the 14 days we were supposed to have. It’s called mitigating evidence, which is a valid form of defence even if you’ve admitted the basic charge. Read the Sir Nicholas exposè - he makes it quite clear how the club may have a case.

[Thripp87]

1 hour ago, Pilchards said:

Does anyone else think that the longer this goes on that SFC are planning something?

Maybe they are gathering evidence that could throw the whole case and that the EFL will need to review and act on it.

Personally I think they  are fighting to get the 4 points dropped plus maybe compensation.

Errrr no, have you seen Sports Republic’s track record over the last 4 years? 

[leesaint88]

59 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

Firstly how would they manage that? We admitted to the crime and lost the appeal. What evidence could there be that meant we were not guilty of the crime we admitted to?

It's not necessarily the lack of guilt or remorse but the level of evidence (or rather the validity) the EFL had especially as its deemed none of it was written. Oral evidence can be open to misunderstanding, or it's consistency can be questioned, which I'd hope the club are looking at right now. It just shows are quickly the EFL rushed it all through to save the Playoff final, in turn they may have left the door open for us to pick holes at what they brought to the table.  

[Holmes_and_Watson]

4 hours ago, M271 said:

What would the punishment have been if we had lost the semi final? Or would just not being in the playoff final have been enough specifically in relation to the Middlesbrough incident.

Probably fine us £200 million, as a deterrent. 🙂

It would probably have been some sort of fine. As they booted us out, they would have felt that potential loss was sufficient.

[Holmes_and_Watson]

1 hour ago, hypochondriac said:

Firstly how would they manage that? We admitted to the crime and lost the appeal. What evidence could there be that meant we were not guilty of the crime we admitted to?

Under the Will Salt mask...it's Gibson.

And under the Gibson mask...it's the Hull chairman.

And under that...it's Gibson again, and he's been running both clubs!

 

Come along Watson. This is too simple a case. Yes, you can bring that dog along with you, to the Mystery Machine.

[saintant]

24 minutes ago, leesaint88 said:

It's not necessarily the lack of guilt or remorse but the level of evidence (or rather the validity) the EFL had especially as its deemed none of it was written. Oral evidence can be open to misunderstanding, or it's consistency can be questioned, which I'd hope the club are looking at right now. It just shows are quickly the EFL rushed it all through to save the Playoff final, in turn they may have left the door open for us to pick holes at what they brought to the table.  

It's a possibility but, from what I've seen, nothing in the handling of this whole saga would lead me to think that SR and their lawyers might now be doing something in terms of going through the oral evidence with a fine toothed comb. Those in charge of the football club just don't strike me as savvy people. 

[Dman]

2 minutes ago, saintant said:

It's a possibility but, from what I've seen, nothing in the handling of this whole saga would lead me to think that SR and their lawyers might now be doing something in terms of going through the oral evidence with a fine toothed comb. Those in charge of the football club just don't strike me as savvy people. 

I would say it probably depends is Pannick is still involved. 

[CSA96]

5 minutes ago, Dman said:

I would say it probably depends is Pannick is still involved. 

Pannick suddenly getting involved at the 11th hour felt a bit like someone, somewhere internally at SFC got overruled by a superior who could authorise spending the sort of money that Lord Pannick would cost. Presumably Solak, so if he is trying to establish what went on, who knew and when was it truthfully communicated then yeah, very possible lawyers/investigators are combing through all sorts right now to establish the true version of events

Edited 7 hours ago by CSA96

[Whitey Grandad]

1 hour ago, hypochondriac said:

Firstly how would they manage that? We admitted to the crime and lost the appeal. What evidence could there be that meant we were not guilty of the crime we admitted to?

It would be about the procedure being unfair. Which it was.

[Dman]

Just now, CSA96 said:

Pannick suddenly getting involved at the 11th hour felt a bit like someone, somewhere internally at SFC got overruled by a superior who could authorise spending the sort of money that Lord Pannick would cost. Presumably Solak

To me it felt like we thought “it’s not that serious” until it was. 

[Holmes_and_Watson]

2 hours ago, Pilchards said:

Does anyone else think that the longer this goes on that SFC are planning something?

At best they're planning a light show, but have to wait until the evenings get darker before announcing it. 🙂

[Whitey Grandad]

16 minutes ago, Holmes_and_Watson said:

Under the Will Salt mask...it's Gibson.

And under the Gibson mask...it's the Hull chairman.

And under that...it's Gibson again, and he's been running both clubs!

 

Come along Watson. This is too simple a case. Yes, you can bring that dog along with you, to the Mystery Machine.

I'm confused now. So the photograph of Salt standing under a tree is actually one of Gibson wearing a mask. It all makes sense now.

[CSA96]

2 minutes ago, Dman said:

To me it felt like we thought “it’s not that serious” until it was. 

Yeah, my theory is that it was a combination of the two. Easy to imagine the SFC exec were assuring the owner 'not to worry, the club won't get thrown out of the fin... oh fuck! we have been thrown out' at which point Solak hit the Pannick button, figuratively and literally

[Sheaf Saint]

21 minutes ago, Whitey Grandad said:

I'm confused now. So the photograph of Salt standing under a tree is actually one of Gibson wearing a mask. It all makes sense now.

"And I'd have got away with it if it wasn't for you meddling Saintswebbers!"

[hypochondriac]

1 hour ago, leesaint88 said:

It's not necessarily the lack of guilt or remorse but the level of evidence (or rather the validity) the EFL had especially as its deemed none of it was written. Oral evidence can be open to misunderstanding, or it's consistency can be questioned, which I'd hope the club are looking at right now. It just shows are quickly the EFL rushed it all through to save the Playoff final, in turn they may have left the door open for us to pick holes at what they brought to the table.  

Isn't that the point of the appeal?

[saintant]

54 minutes ago, Dman said:

I would say it probably depends is Pannick is still involved. 

Agree on that. If we have someone top notch working on behalf of the goons he might unearth a nugget or two.

[BarberSaint]

6 hours ago, Whitey Grandad said:

The decision was made before the hearing. Or so it appears.

It clearly was as is any reading of a decision that is clearly in and of itself defective, as is the process and/or procedures surrounding it, given what should be in place for what is essentially at first a piece of investigation. Anyone who can read (too few) could clearly pick up on this but as the vast majority (see the morons on that podcast that's advertised here) have learned nothing but that they must be what they are and that repeating words is to promote a fact and/or facts (that are not).

 

I appreciate that's a bit abstruse but I cba to write a 200,000 word essay which is otherwise what's required.

[BarberSaint]

5 hours ago, Saint_clark said:

I know the EFL have said we can't go to CAS but is it really up to them? 

The High Court =/= CAS.

There should always be recourse to the law proper (i.e. not some jumped-up bunch of bandits taking cash for nothing and admiring their arses in the mirror).

[BarberSaint]

2 hours ago, hypochondriac said:

Firstly how would they manage that? We admitted to the crime and lost the appeal. What evidence could there be that meant we were not guilty of the crime we admitted to?

There was no 'crime'. 

 

There was an alleged breach (admitted) of a thing that has no real weight in law directly: Uberrima Fides and breach of a specific article, the terms surrounding which had not been drafted anywhere near well enough for them to not be subject to serious scrutiny and certainly watering-down were they ever tested robustly.

[Dman]

25 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

Isn't that the point of the appeal?

I can’t believe we agreed to allow an appeal process to take place about 24 hours after the initial verdict was given. 
 

Bonkers. 

[saintant]

4 minutes ago, BarberSaint said:

The High Court =/= CAS.

There should always be recourse to the law proper (i.e. not some jumped-up bunch of bandits taking cash for nothing and admiring their arses in the mirror).

Court of Arbitration for Sport. It is sometimes referred to as the Supreme Court of Sport. However, I thought the EFL stated there would be no recourse to CAS in this particular case. Have no idea whether they are entitled to stipulate this - seems a bit overbearing on their part.

[Sheaf Saint]

7 minutes ago, saintant said:

Court of Arbitration for Sport. It is sometimes referred to as the Supreme Court of Sport. However, I thought the EFL stated there would be no recourse to CAS in this particular case. Have no idea whether they are entitled to stipulate this - seems a bit overbearing on their part.

Surely that only relates to the sanction itself though, right? We're out and Hull got promoted, and there is not a chance in hell of that being overturned now. So it would be pointless anyway.

But if we've got a genuine grievance with the way this whole episode has been handled by the EFL, and it certainly appears that we do, then surely it is not for them to dictate to us if we can or cannot launch legal proceedings against them.

[Weston Super Saint]

1 minute ago, Sheaf Saint said:

Surely that only relates to the sanction itself though, right? We're out and Hull got promoted, and there is not a chance in hell of that being overturned now. So it would be pointless anyway.

 

Compensation innit

[hypochondriac]

27 minutes ago, BarberSaint said:

There was no 'crime'. 

 

There was an alleged breach (admitted) of a thing that has no real weight in law directly: Uberrima Fides and breach of a specific article, the terms surrounding which had not been drafted anywhere near well enough for them to not be subject to serious scrutiny and certainly watering-down were they ever tested robustly.

I'm well aware it wasn't a literal crime thanks. It was a figure of speech.

[Saint_clark]

31 minutes ago, saintant said:

Court of Arbitration for Sport. It is sometimes referred to as the Supreme Court of Sport. However, I thought the EFL stated there would be no recourse to CAS in this particular case. Have no idea whether they are entitled to stipulate this - seems a bit overbearing on their part.

This is my point, CAS exists to oversee perceived injustices in sport, I don't see how a governing body can dictate that we can't go to them about this.

[Sheaf Saint]

13 minutes ago, Weston Super Saint said:

Compensation innit

That's my point. We can't go to CAS to get the decision overturned. But I don't see how they can stop us from taking legal action to claim damages over their botched process.