The Spygate Saga

[HKsaint]

5 hours ago, do i not like fizzy pop said:

This is bloody hilarious! 🤣

So he is so desperate and trying every means to go PL, playing an extra game, fail in which abandoning his team… pathetic 

[CB Fry]

Er, I dont think this Helberg stuff is real lads.

[Dr Who?]

And it drags on! 

 

[Stud mark of doom]

From this week’s letters to The Economist. 

[Andy Hill]

Need to send this to the FA and the EFL ?!

[Dr Who?]

Are the FA actually doing anything about Tonda, is there an investigation going on? 

[Give it to Ron]

1 hour ago, Dr Who? said:

Are the FA actually doing anything about Tonda, is there an investigation going on? 

Yes I believe hearing soon maybe this week

[Badger]

1 hour ago, Dr Who? said:

Are the FA actually doing anything about Tonda, is there an investigation going on? 

Perhaps they’ll publish (sneak) the outcome to the media ahead of or just after the England game to ‘manage’ the publicity, whichever way it goes. 

[Window Cleaner]

15 hours ago, Dr Who? said:

Are the FA actually doing anything about Tonda, is there an investigation going on? 

Certainly, what was it that Blair said at some Middle East crisis or other, ah yes doing nothing is not an option. Even if he gets a token punishment they have to look into it.

[Mr X]

Any sign of knowing when will we actually find out if Tonda is officially managing us next season or an FA ban? When are we likely to find out? 

[TheAlehouseBrawlers]

Saw a reasonable theory on the UI about this, it was suggested that we've appointed top legal bods in an attempt to continually delay the proceedings, much as City and the like have done.

The thinking that by the time any sanctions against Tonda are filed, he may well have already moved on, be it that it was a successful season and headhunted or just contract up. 

[Holmes_and_Watson]

11 minutes ago, TheAlehouseBrawlers said:

Saw a reasonable theory on the UI about this, it was suggested that we've appointed top legal bods in an attempt to continually delay the proceedings, much as City and the like have done.

The thinking that by the time any sanctions against Tonda are filed, he may well have already moved on, be it that it was a successful season and headhunted or just contract up. 

We could back date Tonda's employment with us. Then link him to the City transfers of Edozie, Baz, Larios etc. The government will shut it all down, as not being in the national interest.

[trousers]

50 minutes ago, TheAlehouseBrawlers said:

Saw a reasonable theory on the UI about this, it was suggested that we've appointed top legal bods in an attempt to continually delay the proceedings, much as City and the like have done.

The thinking that by the time any sanctions against Tonda are filed, he may well have already moved on, be it that it was a successful season and headhunted or just contract up. 

In a parallel universe, we had these 'top legal bods' onboard at the outset and we're now preparing for life back in the Premier League having beaten Hull in the playoff final....

[Window Cleaner]

3 minutes ago, trousers said:

In a parallel universe, we had these 'top legal bods' onboard at the outset and we're now preparing for life back in the Premier League having beaten Hull in the playoff final....

If you say so. An EFL tribunal isn't a court of law. The EFL makes the rules, applies them according to their whim and hands out the sanctions. A top legal eagle might find some  disputable point or other but as we lied and then admitted it the outcome would be the same. As, or so I think,we are the first club actually caught breaking rule 127 they have established a precedent. Don't do it or don't get caught because the punishment will be severe.

[Secret Site Agent]

1 hour ago, TheAlehouseBrawlers said:

Saw a reasonable theory on the UI about this, it was suggested that we've appointed top legal bods in an attempt to continually delay the proceedings, much as City and the like have done.

The thinking that by the time any sanctions against Tonda are filed, he may well have already moved on, be it that it was a successful season and headhunted or just contract up. 

Or Retired from football?

[TheAlehouseBrawlers]

4 minutes ago, Secret Site Agent said:

Or Retired from football?

If delayed ala Man City, very possible 🤪  they were going on the average lifespan of a manager at one club being around 18 months 

[trousers]

54 minutes ago, Window Cleaner said:

If you say so. An EFL tribunal isn't a court of law. The EFL makes the rules, applies them according to their whim and hands out the sanctions. A top legal eagle might find some  disputable point or other but as we lied and then admitted it the outcome would be the same. As, or so I think,we are the first club actually caught breaking rule 127 they have established a precedent. Don't do it or don't get caught because the punishment will be severe.

Oops... Forgot to 'wink' at the end of my post... I keep forgetting people take stuff too seriously otherwise... 

#tongueincheek

Edited Tuesday at 14:26 by trousers

[obelisk]

I was in the pub this afternoon (sorry if you're working) and noticed on the telly that they were actually showing England training sessions. Not only that but there were people behind the fence - and trees! - who were also "spying". What on earth should the punishment be?

[Holmes_and_Watson]

1 hour ago, obelisk said:

I was in the pub this afternoon (sorry if you're working) and noticed on the telly that they were actually showing England training sessions. Not only that but there were people behind the fence - and trees! - who were also "spying". What on earth should the punishment be?

None, as that was our analyst team, getting some practice in on a post season trip.

[Dark Munster]

4 hours ago, Window Cleaner said:

If you say so. An EFL tribunal isn't a court of law. The EFL makes the rules, applies them according to their whim and hands out the sanctions. A top legal eagle might find some  disputable point or other but as we lied and then admitted it the outcome would be the same. As, or so I think,we are the first club actually caught breaking rule 127 they have established a precedent. Don't do it or don't get caught because the punishment will be severe.

Having top legal representation from the get go could have avoided that.

[spyinthesky]

13 minutes ago, Dark Munster said:

Having top legal representation from the get go could have avoided that.

Perleese!!!
Dont demean yourself by using American English.
Plenty of proper English such as 'from the beginning'. 'from the outset' etc etc😉

[S-Clarke]

I notice that Craig Hope, the guy so completely appalled by what we did, has leaked the supposed England team news ahead of tomorrow.

[Dark Munster]

5 hours ago, spyinthesky said:

Perleese!!!
Dont demean yourself by using American English.
Plenty of proper English such as 'from the beginning'. 'from the outset' etc etc😉

In my defence I've lived in San Diego for almost 40 years! I try to keep a stiff upper British lip but occasionally I demean myself and an Americanism sneaks in.

[rallyboy]

Unlike the EFL who had no legal precedent for that new law, the FA have previously dealt with a manager who has admitted to observing other clubs.

The legal precedent set by Bielsa's case of many more charges than Saints, is that he received NO personal ban at all, the club fine was deemed sufficient - while the media all laughed that off as a storm in a teacup.

So if the FA attempt to impose any personal ban it should be robustly challenged through their 'independent' system and then in a real court, where legal process is followed and former Middlesbrough players don't decide what's best for Middlesbrough.

Enough is enough.

[spyinthesky]

10 hours ago, Dark Munster said:

In my defence I've lived in San Diego for almost 40 years! I try to keep a stiff upper British lip but occasionally I demean myself and an Americanism sneaks in.

I remember seeing the Rolling Stones at the Chargers Stadium in the early 1980's during a visit to family in the area.
Really wanted to go to a George Benson show in the centre of the city but the Stones show was an experience.
Sat at the top of one of the open stands with an overpowering smell of cannabis.
Nice place to live, I imagine.

[VectisSaint]

3 hours ago, rallyboy said:

Unlike the EFL who had no legal precedent for that new law, the FA have previously dealt with a manager who has admitted to observing other clubs.

The legal precedent set by Bielsa's case of many more charges than Saints, is that he received NO personal ban at all, the club fine was deemed sufficient - while the media all laughed that off as a storm in a teacup.

So if the FA attempt to impose any personal ban it should be robustly challenged through their 'independent' system and then in a real court, where legal process is followed and former Middlesbrough players don't decide what's best for Middlesbrough.

Enough is enough.

I've said before, the FA will be more 'concerned' with the alleged 'bullying' than the spying itself. As far as I am aware there were no allegations of bullying in the Bielsa case, so there is no precedent there. Personally I think they will be hard pressed to make the bullying allegations stick, but who knows with the FA.

[hypochondriac]

Just now, VectisSaint said:

I've said before, the FA will be more 'concerned' with the alleged 'bullying' than the spying itself. As far as I am aware there were no allegations of bullying in the Bielsa case, so there is no precedent there. Personally I think they will be hard pressed to make the bullying allegations stick, but who knows with the FA.

Who has alleged bullying ?

[Stripey McStripe Shirt]

Assume Gibbo will be pleading for Boro to be promoted instead of Hull due to potential financial breaches.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/articles/czde31803e9o

[skintsaint]

33 minutes ago, Stripey McStripe Shirt said:

Assume Gibbo will be pleading for Boro to be promoted instead of Hull due to potential financial breaches.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/articles/czde31803e9o

4th time lucky...

Although in all seriousness, if Burnley won money from Everton for competitive gains from financial breaches, who's to stop sueing Hull for the same thing?

[Holmes_and_Watson]

36 minutes ago, skintsaint said:

4th time lucky...

Although in all seriousness, if Burnley won money from Everton for competitive gains from financial breaches, who's to stop sueing Hull for the same thing?

It's an overspend generated the moment they won the final. Right up until that moment, there was no overspend.

So, 'boro can't claim Hull had any competitive advantage from an overspend during the game. Not that they won't try, probably.

 

 

[obelisk]

Game's becoming a laughing stock.

[Turkish]

1 hour ago, Stripey McStripe Shirt said:

Assume Gibbo will be pleading for Boro to be promoted instead of Hull due to potential financial breaches.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/articles/czde31803e9o

yet Man City can bid 120m for a player.......

[S-Clarke]

1 hour ago, Stripey McStripe Shirt said:

Assume Gibbo will be pleading for Boro to be promoted instead of Hull due to potential financial breaches.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/articles/czde31803e9o

wtf? It just gets weirder and so unfair. Where is the sporting punishments on City, Chelsea and co?

It really makes the entire playoffs this year an absolute mess, you've got Boro getting to the final by losing the semi final, and Hull getting promoted - great achievement - and then facing almost immediate relegation due to a points deduction.

[Dark Munster]

5 hours ago, spyinthesky said:

I remember seeing the Rolling Stones at the Chargers Stadium in the early 1980's during a visit to family in the area.
Really wanted to go to a George Benson show in the centre of the city but the Stones show was an experience.
Sat at the top of one of the open stands with an overpowering smell of cannabis.
Nice place to live, I imagine.

I saw U2 there as well. It’s torn down now. Yes it’s a great place to live, although the Mango Mussolini and his fascist party are doing their best to ruin the country. Anyway, I digress. Back to spying….

[AlexLaw76]

Are Hull now a bunch of cheats ?

 

[badgerx16]

12 minutes ago, AlexLaw76 said:

Are Hull now a bunch of cheats ?

 

No. The overspend is because promotion bonuses paid to the team have pushed them £6M over the PSR limit. As long as they can raise £6M in transfer fees before the official start of the season they will be fine.

Once the new season officially starts they will be able to splurge as much dosh as they want.

Edited 17 hours ago by badgerx16

[EssEffCee]

1 minute ago, badgerx16 said:

No. The overspend is because promotion bonuses paid to the team have pushed them £6M over the PSR limit. As long as they can raise £6M in transfer fees before the official start of the season they will be fine.

Apparently the bonuses are tied into next year and they'd be on course to breach regardless.

They'll make the required sales anyway, though might have to take smaller offers now this is all out there.

[EssEffCee]

The ridiculous thing is given the recent Burnley/Everton case if they did end up breaching both Boro and Millwall would arguably have a casr for a financial settlement of sorts.

[badgerx16]

2 minutes ago, EssEffCee said:

Apparently the bonuses are tied into next year and they'd be on course to breach regardless.

They'll make the required sales anyway, though might have to take smaller offers now this is all out there.

According to the Beeb the payments count into the season promotion is achieved.

[Stripey McStripe Shirt]

2 minutes ago, EssEffCee said:

The ridiculous thing is given the recent Burnley/Everton case if they did end up breaching both Boro and Millwall would arguably have a casr for a financial settlement of sorts.

Why not us? 

[badgerx16]

7 minutes ago, EssEffCee said:

The ridiculous thing is given the recent Burnley/Everton case if they did end up breaching both Boro and Millwall would arguably have a casr for a financial settlement of sorts.

One comment on the BBC suggests Hull could sue M'boro because if Boro had won the final the promotion clauses would not have kicked in.

[EssEffCee]

9 minutes ago, badgerx16 said:

According to the Beeb the payments count into the season promotion is achieved.

They updated their original article to include this:

 

Quote

Initially it was believed the club's overspend had been caused by promotion bonuses which were triggered by the 1-0 victory over Boro in the Championship showdown at Wembley.

But it has since come to light that these payments are, in effect, ghosted in the accounts for the calculation in the season which the promotion happens.

Hull would have faced PSR challenges regardless of winning the play-off final.

 

[badgerx16]

18 minutes ago, EssEffCee said:

They updated their original article to include this:

 

 

It's a mess.

[johnnyboy]

Three of the five clubs in the 2022/23 Premier League relegation battle had PSR breaches (one of them allegedly). The two that had complied with PSR went down - Leeds and Southampton. 2022/23 represents a systemic failure of competitive integrity in which Leeds were the principal victim and, after Burnley's successful claim, they must be deep in discussion with their lawyers.

The Times

has reported that Leeds are considering legal action vs Leicester. I suspect they are considering more than that.

Start with the 2022/23 table:

 

 

Forest admitted a PSR breach of £34.5m above their £61m threshold in FY23. Their net transfer spend in summer 2022 alone was £142.8m. The Commission found that Forest "cannot claim that it had no sporting advantage" from that squad. Forest received a 4-point deduction but it was applied in 2023/24. In the season Leeds went down, Forest paid no regulatory price at all.

Everton had two concurrent problems. Their FY22 breach gave them a squad advantage that also carried directly into 2022/23. Their FY23 breach added a further £16.6m over the threshold in the same season as Leeds' relegation. The combined sanction, 6 points for FY22 and 2 points for FY23, was also applied in 2023/24. In 2022/23 itself, the season that determined Leeds' fate, Everton was fielding a squad built on two consecutive years of overspending, with zero points deducted.

The Premier League were satisfied that Leicester also breached PSR in 2022/23 by £19.5m. Due to some clever technical arguments, Leicester just about got away with a formal PSR breach due to a finding that the Premier League did not have jurisdiction. But the underlying sporting advantage could still end up being established in law. Either way, they finished 18th with 34 points and were relegated. So whilst they didn't fully enjoy the fruits of their overspend, Leicester paid no price at all, regulatory or financial. It could be argued they did receive an additional merit award above where they should have, worth around £2m.

What this means in competitive terms is striking. Every club in the bottom five of the 2022/23 Premier League, except Leeds and Southampton, had substantially exceeded the PSR in that season. All of them were fielding squads their financial position did not entitle them to field. None of them was penalised in the season the competition was decided and the clubs with the cleanest books finished 19th and 20th.

The head-to-head record makes the case stronger. In the six fixtures between Leeds and the three overspending clubs that season, Leeds took just 5 points from 18. Leicester and Everton took 4 points from the Leeds games alone. Forest took 3 points.

Nevertheless, Leeds' causation challenge (proving that this collection of overspending caused Leeds' relegation) is real. Leeds were 5 points from safety with an inferior goal difference. The expert counterfactual case Leeds would need to run is more complex than Burnley's and the gap is larger. But the true counterfactual, one in which all three clubs were compliant, potentially shifts the competitive arithmetic in Leeds' favour. Morally, it definitely does.

Forest spent £142.8m in a summer the PSR said it could not afford. Everton overspent for two consecutive years without a point deducted in either. Leicester overspent and paid nothing. Leeds had clean accounts and went down.

The 2022/23 relegation battle has now been seen to be a sham. Leeds spent two seasons in the Championship because of it whilst various Commissions heard cases about breaches by other clubs. Leeds are already said to have settled a small claim against Everton for 2021/22. The 2022/23 claim looks far bigger. They just need to work out who owes what.

[LiberalCommunist]

The can of worms they opened is about to stink the place out. Watch more come out the woodwork over the coming weeks. The greedy suits have created a new, lucrative battleground. 

[AlexLaw76]

3 hours ago, badgerx16 said:

It's a mess.

Whilst already on a transfer ban, they effectively cheated over an entire season (or at least since Jan)

And we are deemed Satan's club, ffs

[Ted Bates Statue]

2 hours ago, AlexLaw76 said:

Whilst already on a transfer ban, they effectively cheated over an entire season (or at least since Jan)

And we are deemed Satan's club, ffs

It's not though, providing they sell £6M worth of players before the end of month, which according to the owner won't be an issue.

[Saint86]

15 hours ago, EssEffCee said:

The ridiculous thing is given the recent Burnley/Everton case if they did end up breaching both Boro and Millwall would arguably have a casr for a financial settlement of sorts.

Imagine we could sue them as well. Lost to a financially "doped" (by the rules anyway) side twice and missed out on automatics as a result - Based on the burnley vs everton ruling, you'd imagine we'd actually have a very strong case for compensation. Football is all the worse for these rules and the amount of money involved, but that is where the game has got to now - the legal risk for cheating is so severe its worth more than any sporting sanction, its why it may actually have done us a favour to have been kicked out and avoided all the legal crap we'd have face from Boro and Hull had we got promoted.

Edited 1 hour ago by Saint86

[Saint86]

12 hours ago, johnnyboy said:

 

Three of the five clubs in the 2022/23 Premier League relegation battle had PSR breaches (one of them allegedly). The two that had complied with PSR went down - Leeds and Southampton. 2022/23 represents a systemic failure of competitive integrity in which Leeds were the principal victim and, after Burnley's successful claim, they must be deep in discussion with their lawyers.

The Times

has reported that Leeds are considering legal action vs Leicester. I suspect they are considering more than that.

Start with the 2022/23 table:

 

 

Forest admitted a PSR breach of £34.5m above their £61m threshold in FY23. Their net transfer spend in summer 2022 alone was £142.8m. The Commission found that Forest "cannot claim that it had no sporting advantage" from that squad. Forest received a 4-point deduction but it was applied in 2023/24. In the season Leeds went down, Forest paid no regulatory price at all.

Everton had two concurrent problems. Their FY22 breach gave them a squad advantage that also carried directly into 2022/23. Their FY23 breach added a further £16.6m over the threshold in the same season as Leeds' relegation. The combined sanction, 6 points for FY22 and 2 points for FY23, was also applied in 2023/24. In 2022/23 itself, the season that determined Leeds' fate, Everton was fielding a squad built on two consecutive years of overspending, with zero points deducted.

The Premier League were satisfied that Leicester also breached PSR in 2022/23 by £19.5m. Due to some clever technical arguments, Leicester just about got away with a formal PSR breach due to a finding that the Premier League did not have jurisdiction. But the underlying sporting advantage could still end up being established in law. Either way, they finished 18th with 34 points and were relegated. So whilst they didn't fully enjoy the fruits of their overspend, Leicester paid no price at all, regulatory or financial. It could be argued they did receive an additional merit award above where they should have, worth around £2m.

What this means in competitive terms is striking. Every club in the bottom five of the 2022/23 Premier League, except Leeds and Southampton, had substantially exceeded the PSR in that season. All of them were fielding squads their financial position did not entitle them to field. None of them was penalised in the season the competition was decided and the clubs with the cleanest books finished 19th and 20th.

The head-to-head record makes the case stronger. In the six fixtures between Leeds and the three overspending clubs that season, Leeds took just 5 points from 18. Leicester and Everton took 4 points from the Leeds games alone. Forest took 3 points.

Nevertheless, Leeds' causation challenge (proving that this collection of overspending caused Leeds' relegation) is real. Leeds were 5 points from safety with an inferior goal difference. The expert counterfactual case Leeds would need to run is more complex than Burnley's and the gap is larger. But the true counterfactual, one in which all three clubs were compliant, potentially shifts the competitive arithmetic in Leeds' favour. Morally, it definitely does.

Forest spent £142.8m in a summer the PSR said it could not afford. Everton overspent for two consecutive years without a point deducted in either. Leicester overspent and paid nothing. Leeds had clean accounts and went down.

The 2022/23 relegation battle has now been seen to be a sham. Leeds spent two seasons in the Championship because of it whilst various Commissions heard cases about breaches by other clubs. Leeds are already said to have settled a small claim against Everton for 2021/22. The 2022/23 claim looks far bigger. They just need to work out who owes what.

Always thought saints could lodge a challenge / claim on the grounds that the other clubs all broke the rules to raise the cost of survival / competing. I wonder if we will.