The Spygate Saga

[Cuddles]

19 minutes ago, JohnnyShearer2.0 said:

Wow, cretins. Didn't Helborg himself say they're preparing for the final straight after losing to Saints anyway. 

I dont some fans and how they think.

This is why I stay away from Twitter, it's absolutely rammed full of total wankers. A cesspit of wankiness.

[qwertyell]

3 hours ago, hypochondriac said:

Imagine doing all this and then he gets banned and consequently sacked next week.

Less concerned about that than what the FA investigation might turn up, to be honest.

If he admits that we spied on more than the three reported occasions - or the FA happen upon that information - then surely that gets passed back to the EFL and we get more sanctions.

[hypochondriac]

6 hours ago, qwertyell said:

Less concerned about that than what the FA investigation might turn up, to be honest.

If he admits that we spied on more than the three reported occasions - or the FA happen upon that information - then surely that gets passed back to the EFL and we get more sanctions.

Parsons reckons it was just the three times. I think at this point if it was more then the disciplinary panel would have known about it. 

Edited 5 hours ago by hypochondriac

[qwertyell]

12 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

Parsons reckons it was just the three times. I think at this point if it was more then the disciplinary panel would have known about it. 

He's floated a number of different versions of events over the last few weeks. I wouldn't take anything as his final answer just yet. He's still got a phone a friend and a 50-50. 

It really would be remarkable for us to have spied only three times and been caught bang to rights on each occasion. 

I hope there isn't more damaging stuff to come, but thought it was notable in his video the manager omitted to say the three spying missions were the only times we've done it - just the times we were charged for. 

 

[Sheaf Saint]

27 minutes ago, qwertyell said:

He's floated a number of different versions of events over the last few weeks. I wouldn't take anything as his final answer just yet. He's still got a phone a friend and a 50-50. 

It really would be remarkable for us to have spied only three times and been caught bang to rights on each occasion. 

I hope there isn't more damaging stuff to come, but thought it was notable in his video the manager omitted to say the three spying missions were the only times we've done it - just the times we were charged for. 

 

Yeah wasn't there some talk recently (forget from who) about other Champ clubs being well aware of us doing it and running dummy drills / formations to mitigate it? If that's the case, I would be astounded if it really was just the three occasions.

[hypochondriac]

32 minutes ago, qwertyell said:

He's floated a number of different versions of events over the last few weeks. I wouldn't take anything as his final answer just yet. He's still got a phone a friend and a 50-50. 

It really would be remarkable for us to have spied only three times and been caught bang to rights on each occasion. 

I hope there isn't more damaging stuff to come, but thought it was notable in his video the manager omitted to say the three spying missions were the only times we've done it - just the times we were charged for. 

 

Not really. Firstly because some clubs would be impossible to spy on and secondly because if it involved the two analysts in question they would have all the evidence. I also know someone who has spoken to Parsons and he said it is just the three.

[Katalinic]

https://www.insideworldfootball.com/2026/06/03/arbitrator-in-saints-spygate-appeal-linked-to-efls-legal-team/

Hmm

[badgerx16]

3 minutes ago, Katalinic said:

https://www.insideworldfootball.com/2026/06/03/arbitrator-in-saints-spygate-appeal-linked-to-efls-legal-team/

Hmm

"Despite a somewhat hysterical national press ....". 

 

"Somewhat" is a bit of sn understatement.

[obelisk]

18 minutes ago, Katalinic said:

https://www.insideworldfootball.com/2026/06/03/arbitrator-in-saints-spygate-appeal-linked-to-efls-legal-team/

Hmm

The stench is now overwhelming.

[Lighthouse]

53 minutes ago, Sheaf Saint said:

Yeah wasn't there some talk recently (forget from who) about other Champ clubs being well aware of us doing it and running dummy drills / formations to mitigate it? If that's the case, I would be astounded if it really was just the three occasions.

Between Tonda being appointed and the end of the season we played every team in the league, many of them twice. I could believe that it was just Ipswich and Boro, they were two vital games against very good teams. What I can't believe is that we sent someone to spy on relegation fighting Oxford United, then didn't deem it necessary to spy on anyone else for the next five months.

[Whitey Grandad]

1 hour ago, qwertyell said:

He's floated a number of different versions of events over the last few weeks. I wouldn't take anything as his final answer just yet. He's still got a phone a friend and a 50-50. 

It really would be remarkable for us to have spied only three times and been caught bang to rights on each occasion. 

I hope there isn't more damaging stuff to come, but thought it was notable in his video the manager omitted to say the three spying missions were the only times we've done it - just the times we were charged for. 

 

We weren't caught on the other two occasions, we were grassed up. Neither Ipswich nor Oxford were aware of anything until the EFL hearing.

[Tamesaint]

1 hour ago, hypochondriac said:

Not really. Firstly because some clubs would be impossible to spy on and secondly because if it involved the two analysts in question they would have all the evidence. I also know someone who has spoken to Parsons and he said it is just the three.

Were we caught 3 times? I thought that we volunteered the Oxford and Ipswich events. 

[tdmickey3]

When the snivelling bottle job clubs supporters  from the Wearside slums visit we should put one of these on their seats.

 

[Verbal]

42 minutes ago, Lighthouse said:

Between Tonda being appointed and the end of the season we played every team in the league, many of them twice. I could believe that it was just Ipswich and Boro, they were two vital games against very good teams. What I can't believe is that we sent someone to spy on relegation fighting Oxford United, then didn't deem it necessary to spy on anyone else for the next five months.

If we were as serious about spying as you suspect, then I can't believe the club just sent an ill-equipped intern to do it - someone least likely to get what was wanted. But that's exactly what they did.

[Whitey Grandad]

40 minutes ago, Tamesaint said:

Were we caught 3 times? I thought that we volunteered the Oxford and Ipswich events. 

I think we had to own up to them because they were mentioned in the WhatsApp records.

[Window Cleaner]

21 minutes ago, tdmickey3 said:

When the snivelling bottle job clubs supporters  from the Wearside slums visit we should put one of these on their seats.

 

Teeside slums. No doubt there are slums on Wearside as well...

[Doctoroncall]

56 minutes ago, Window Cleaner said:

Teeside slums. No doubt there are slums on Wearside as well...

Teesside slums if you’re going to the bother of a correction 😜

[Doctoroncall]

1 hour ago, Whitey Grandad said:

I think we had to own up to them because they were mentioned in the WhatsApp records.

It was also the club’s duty to mention all breaches being a member of the EFL.

[Yozzman]

2 hours ago, Lighthouse said:

Between Tonda being appointed and the end of the season we played every team in the league, many of them twice. I could believe that it was just Ipswich and Boro, they were two vital games against very good teams. What I can't believe is that we sent someone to spy on relegation fighting Oxford United, then didn't deem it necessary to spy on anyone else for the next five months.

The reason for spying on Oxford was because they had just sacked their manager and Craig Short might have changed formation.

[trousers]

24 minutes ago, Yozzman said:

The reason for spying on Oxford was because they had just sacked their manager and Craig Short might have changed formation.

Yep. If we're to believe Tonda's explanation to the context behind each of the three disclosed occasions (I personally see no reason to doubt him), there was a specific snippet of info they were seeking to gain each time, rather than it being something they simply did routinely on the off-chance they might stumble across some info. That, to me, is a reasonable explanation as to why there were no other incidents between December April, and why there are only 3 cases of 'spying'...

Edited 38 minutes ago by trousers

[Chez]

5 minutes ago, trousers said:

Yep. If we're to believe Tonda's explanation to the context behind each of the three disclosed occasions (I personally see no reason to doubt him), there was a specific snippet of info they were seeking to gain each time, rather than it being something they simply did routinely on the off-chance they might stumble across some info. That, to me, is a reasonable explanation as to why there were no other incidents between December April, and why there are only 3 cases of 'spying'...

I find it hard to believe there wasn't any info we wanted for any of the other 40 odd games.

Did we admit to spying on Oxford and Ipswich because evidence had been presented about both, so we couldn't really deny it, or did we give that information voluntarily? 

[RedArmy]

4 hours ago, Sheaf Saint said:

Yeah wasn't there some talk recently (forget from who) about other Champ clubs being well aware of us doing it and running dummy drills / formations to mitigate it? If that's the case, I would be astounded if it really was just the three occasions.

If that were true you’d also have to assume that we weren’t the only club doing it. Otherwise why go to all that trouble instead of just reporting us? 

[trousers]

3 minutes ago, Chez said:

I find it hard to believe there wasn't any info we wanted for any of the other 40 odd games.

Did we admit to spying on Oxford and Ipswich because evidence had been presented about both, so we couldn't really deny it, or did we give that information voluntarily? 

I've no idea... personally, I'm not ruling out it being more than 3 occasions but I'm equally not ruling out it was only 3 occasions. But, to me, doing it rarely, for a specific targeted reason seems "more Tonda" than doing it willy nilly.

What would surprise me more is if we're the only club to have 'observed' opponents training sessions since the new rule was brought in, especially outside of the 72 hour exclusion period. 

 

[Sheaf Saint]

Just now, trousers said:

I'm not ruling out it being more than 3 occasions but I'm equally not ruling out it was only 3 occasions. 

So unlike you to take such a firm position on something trousers.

[Whitey Grandad]

36 minutes ago, trousers said:

Yep. If we're to believe Tonda's explanation to the context behind each of the three disclosed occasions (I personally see no reason to doubt him), there was a specific snippet of info they were seeking to gain each time, rather than it being something they simply did routinely on the off-chance they might stumble across some info. That, to me, is a reasonable explanation as to why there were no other incidents between December April, and why there are only 3 cases of 'spying'...

Strange... If all you need is a snippet then that needs binoculars or enquiries rather than a distant phone. Just standing innocently watching with your hands in your pockets might be enough.