The Spygate Saga

[saintant]

2 hours ago, hypochondriac said:

Blackmore "overwhelming feeling we won't find anything until September until after the International break. Feeling the club think that too".

If true that's just plain ridiculous.

[hypochondriac]

5 minutes ago, Saint Pete said:

If that's true, it begs the question what on earth will the FA be doing between now and September in order to come to their judgement that they couldn't have done already in the last 2 and a half months?! It's nuts that they took 2 months just to charge him when most/all of the facts were already known in May! 

Sounds like that other bloke on here was right about now having a second hearing after the previous one which led to the charges. Either we are admitting the charges or contesting some and pleading mitigation maybe? Absurd really.

[Willo of Whiteley]

September, then December, then March, then we clinch the title with four games to go in April and the FA then come out and ban him and deduct us ten points for him being in charge.

[benjii]

I think a delay is good. We need to start the season strongly so let's kick it as far down the road as we can.

[hypochondriac]

1 hour ago, Willo of Whiteley said:

September, then December, then March, then we clinch the title with four games to go in April and the FA then come out and ban him and deduct us ten points for him being in charge.

Edit wrong thread

Edited August 5 by hypochondriac

[sfc4prem]

21 minutes ago, benjii said:

I think a delay is good. We need to start the season strongly so let's kick it as far down the road as we can.

Agreed. 

Then mount a fucking massive Manchester-on-Arabia esque legal challenge when they ban him for 10 matches.

20 years later, they'll give him the 10-match touchline ban.

[Fabrice29]

On 01/08/2026 at 02:03, MB said:

For all the haters out there, things change… Chelsea took centre stage with their punishment, we will hear imminently

choose what you what to believe I really don’t care! My track record has been pretty much on the money 

 

 

Haters gonna hate.

[Ted Bates Statue]

5 hours ago, westmidlandsaint said:

Makes you think though doesn't it how the EFL managed to investigate, disciplinary hearing and appeal so quickly yet the FA have had 3 months and still no decision!! 

I'm wondering when we were slapped with the initial decision, why didn't we ask to separate the appeal for the points deduction, for it to be heard at a later date in the very distant future. There was no need to get a 24-hour verdict on that particular aspect.

[egg]

12 hours ago, Saint Pete said:

If that's true, it begs the question what on earth will the FA be doing between now and September in order to come to their judgement that they couldn't have done already in the last 2 and a half months?! It's nuts that they took 2 months just to charge him when most/all of the facts were already known in May! 

I'm not sure all the facts were known. We admitted three specific episodes, and the tribunal made certain findings. Whether the FA are investigating whether Tonda did anything else, we don't know, but that's the only reason I can think of for the prolonged delay. 

[egg]

9 hours ago, Ted Bates Statue said:

I'm wondering when we were slapped with the initial decision, why didn't we ask to separate the appeal for the points deduction, for it to be heard at a later date in the very distant future. There was no need to get a 24-hour verdict on that particular aspect.

The punishment was a package, so any appeal would address all issues together. 

The timing point is being made out as an issue that it isn't. As the appellant, you want an urgent appeal, not a delay - you want a wrong rectified without delay. Same day or short delay appeals are common.

There shouldn't be a need to spend ages preparing for an appeal of that sort. Our case was that the panel got it wrong based on the evidence, the rules and any precedent. Any credible legal team should know how they say the panel got it wrong, and be able to take that into an urgent appeal. 

[EssEffCee]

16 minutes ago, egg said:

I'm not sure all the facts were known. We admitted three specific episodes, and the tribunal made certain findings. Whether the FA are investigating whether Tonda did anything else, we don't know, but that's the only reason I can think of for the prolonged delay. 

Surely the investigation part is done now he's been charged? They should have already done all of that looking into other instances.

[egg]

12 minutes ago, EssEffCee said:

Surely the investigation part is done now he's been charged? They should have already done all of that looking into other instances.

No idea mate, I'm just trying to think of a logical reason for the ridiculous delay. If they're proceeding based on the same incidents as the EFL, it should be quick and easy. All a bit odd. 

[beatlesaint]

I wish the club would stop sending me bloody pointless alerts like “Rockets from Range” etc.

Everytime I see the club badge come up on my phone I think “oh shit, here we go” 🙃

Edited Thursday at 11:07 by beatlesaint

[CSA96]

Parsons saying at the fan forum that the club is expecting from the FA a timeline for the remainder of the process, then a specific date for a hearing and then a follow-up period. Blackmore asks if September is more likely than August and Parsons said rumours are rumours. Once we get more information from the FA on the timeline we will be happy to share it more widely, right now we don't have a clear timeline but we want it dealt with and to get on with it

[Saint86]

6 hours ago, CSA96 said:

Parsons saying at the fan forum that the club is expecting from the FA a timeline for the remainder of the process, then a specific date for a hearing and then a follow-up period. Blackmore asks if September is more likely than August and Parsons said rumours are rumours. Once we get more information from the FA on the timeline we will be happy to share it more widely, right now we don't have a clear timeline but we want it dealt with and to get on with it

He also stated that our lawyers are involved in the process, which is good to hear.

[bpsaint]

Can’t wait for all the faux outrage from the media over this and the calls for Chelsea to be stripped of their title…

John Terry admits Jose Mourinho’s Chelsea once obtained training footage of Sam Allardyce’s BOLTON to boost title bid

https://www.thesun.co.uk/sport/40011538/jose-mourinho-chelsea-john-terry-netflix?utm_source=sharebar_app&utm_medium=sharebar_app&utm_campaign=sharebar_app_article

 

[coalman]

36 minutes ago, bpsaint said:

Can’t wait for all the faux outrage from the media over this and the calls for Chelsea to be stripped of their title…

John Terry admits Jose Mourinho’s Chelsea once obtained training footage of Sam Allardyce’s BOLTON to boost title bid

https://www.thesun.co.uk/sport/40011538/jose-mourinho-chelsea-john-terry-netflix?utm_source=sharebar_app&utm_medium=sharebar_app&utm_campaign=sharebar_app_article

 

Haven't Chelsea been punished enough by the FA? We don't want this turning into some kind of witch hunt. That'll just distract from going after the real perpetrators. 

[JohnnyShearer2.0]

2 hours ago, bpsaint said:

Can’t wait for all the faux outrage from the media over this and the calls for Chelsea to be stripped of their title…

John Terry admits Jose Mourinho’s Chelsea once obtained training footage of Sam Allardyce’s BOLTON to boost title bid

https://www.thesun.co.uk/sport/40011538/jose-mourinho-chelsea-john-terry-netflix?utm_source=sharebar_app&utm_medium=sharebar_app&utm_campaign=sharebar_app_article

 

Different competition with different rules so won't matter.

Plus it's clever ol Jose doing it. Wonder if Troy Deeny and others will be disgusted by it.

[coalman]

29 minutes ago, JohnnyShearer2.0 said:

Different competition with different rules so won't matter.

Plus it's clever ol Jose doing it. Wonder if Troy Deeny and others will be disgusted by it.

They're good buddies. Troy admires Jose's dry wit and was nearly signed as backup for Harry Kane by him.

[SouthWalesSaints]

Mourinho documentary - 16 mins in, laughing about obtaining training footage from Bolton and their plans to beat Chelsea. 
 

John Terry laughing about it, happens everywhere. Shambles how we’ve been treated. 

[Weston Super Saint]

8 hours ago, SouthWalesSaints said:

Mourinho documentary - 16 mins in, laughing about obtaining training footage from Bolton and their plans to beat Chelsea. 
 

John Terry laughing about it, happens everywhere. Shambles how we’ve been treated. 

There is no rule about spying in the Premier League, so, by default, they didn't break any rules.  There is a rule about spying in the EFL, which we broke.

It's staggering how people still don't understand this yet.

 

[obelisk]

15 minutes ago, Weston Super Saint said:

There is no rule about spying in the Premier League, so, by default, they didn't break any rules.  There is a rule about spying in the EFL, which we broke.

It's staggering how people still don't understand this yet.

 

The EFL rules allow it but only on certain days. It's a daft rule and the rest of the world laughs at the EFL for taking it so seriously. It's also daft to call it spying when watching something going on in public view.

[AlexLaw76]

2 minutes ago, obelisk said:

The EFL rules allow it but only on certain days. It's a daft rule and the rest of the world laughs at the EFL for taking it so seriously. It's also daft to call it spying when watching something going on in public view.

it may be a daft rule, but it is a rule that we/Tonda signed-up to.

we tried cheating Boro out of a game worth £200m. 

[obelisk]

1 minute ago, AlexLaw76 said:

it may be a daft rule, but it is a rule that we/Tonda signed-up to.

we tried cheating Boro out of a game worth £200m. 

Cheating? Get a grip!

[AlexLaw76]

Just now, obelisk said:

Cheating? Get a grip!

I do not need to, the club, and Tonda, agree with the ruling.

[Weston Super Saint]

Just now, obelisk said:

Cheating? Get a grip!

As you've already pointed out, the rule comes in to play for a specific time period.

What else do you consider breaking the rule to be if not 'cheating'?

[EssEffCee]

12 minutes ago, obelisk said:

Cheating? Get a grip!

Out of interest what else would you call deliberate rule breaking?

[obelisk]

10 minutes ago, Weston Super Saint said:

As you've already pointed out, the rule comes in to play for a specific time period.

What else do you consider breaking the rule to be if not 'cheating'?

We all see more cheating that has a real impact on results in public view during virtually every game. When that happens it's called taking one for the team. It happens. It's time for the breast beaters to get over it.

[AlexLaw76]

Just now, obelisk said:

We all see more cheating that has a real impact on results in public view during virtually every game. When that happens it's called taking one for the team. It happens. It's time for the breast beaters to get over it.

Maybe you should have been brought into the case instead of a Lord of the Realm. 

[badgerx16]

Why are you still arguing about ancient history ?

The new season starts in a few days, we start on -4 points. That cannot be changed, we just have to get on with it. Hopefully by the end of Septamber we will be in the playoff positions and this will no longer be relevant, other than us being the pantomime villians for the season as "Spygate" gets mentioned in every match commentary - at least it hopefully kills off talk of the 9-0s.

( And here's to dealing out 2 thrashings to grizzleboro ).

Edited 2 hours ago by badgerx16

[SouthWalesSaints]

1 hour ago, Weston Super Saint said:

There is no rule about spying in the Premier League, so, by default, they didn't break any rules.  There is a rule about spying in the EFL, which we broke.

It's staggering how people still don't understand this yet.

 

Understand it completely. It's the severity of the punishment I'm referring too. 

There are rules in France about driving 80MPH in England it's 70.  If I drove 80 in England I don't go to jail for 15 years.  Punishment has to meet the crime, how can you not understand this? 

[SouthWalesSaints]

40 minutes ago, AlexLaw76 said:

it may be a daft rule, but it is a rule that we/Tonda signed-up to.

we tried cheating Boro out of a game worth £200m. 

No we tried gaining an advantage, we didn't pay the referee.  

 

In poker if someone shows you their cards, you don't get kicked out for looking. 

[Fabrice29]

11 minutes ago, SouthWalesSaints said:

Understand it completely. It's the severity of the punishment I'm referring too. 

There are rules in France about driving 80MPH in England it's 70.  If I drove 80 in England I don't go to jail for 15 years.  Punishment has to meet the crime, how can you not understand this? 

Being kicked out of a cup competition you’ve broken the rules in before a ball is kicked is not severe. Take out the value of the game (which was bizarrely our public defence) and it’s pretty reasonable given docked points wouldn’t have been suitable for that instance. 

[Weston Super Saint]

16 minutes ago, SouthWalesSaints said:

Understand it completely. It's the severity of the punishment I'm referring too. 

There are rules in France about driving 80MPH in England it's 70.  If I drove 80 in England I don't go to jail for 15 years.  Punishment has to meet the crime, how can you not understand this? 

Utter nonsense.  We broke the rules, we were punished.  Pretty simple.  

Trting to draw some equivalence to a cup competition and speed limits is, well, pretty simple.

[trousers]

9 hours ago, SouthWalesSaints said:

Mourinho documentary - 16 mins in, laughing about obtaining training footage from Bolton and their plans to beat Chelsea. 
 

John Terry laughing about it, happens everywhere. Shambles how we’ve been treated. 

 

1 hour ago, Weston Super Saint said:

There is no rule about spying in the Premier League, so, by default, they didn't break any rules.  There is a rule about spying in the EFL, which we broke.

It's staggering how people still don't understand this yet.

 

Maybe @SouthWalesSaints was highlighting the moral inconsistencies rather than making a point about the rules, per se...?

[Weston Super Saint]

Just now, trousers said:

 

Maybe @SouthWalesSaints was highlighting the moral inconsistencies rather than making a point about the rules, per se...?

There is no 'moral inconsistency'.  We cheated in a cup competition, we were thrown out.  Swindon cheated in a cup competition, they were thrown out.  That seems pretty consistent.

I'm sure Bielsa something, something, something will be mentioned, but that did not happen in a cup competition.  That's before we get to the point about the rule not existing at the time. 

[trousers]

3 minutes ago, Weston Super Saint said:

Utter nonsense.  We broke the rules, we were punished.  Pretty simple.  

Trting to draw some equivalence to a cup competition and speed limits is, well, pretty simple.

He's highlighting the proportionality of the punishment, not arguing against the application of a punishment at all. It could be reasonably argued that awarding Middlesbrough a two goal head start in the second leg (for example) would have been a more proportionate punishment. 

[trousers]

2 minutes ago, Weston Super Saint said:

There is no 'moral inconsistency'.  We cheated in a cup competition, we were thrown out.  Swindon cheated in a cup competition, they were thrown out.  That seems pretty consistent.

I'm sure Bielsa something, something, something will be mentioned, but that did not happen in a cup competition.  That's before we get to the point about the rule not existing at the time. 

Fair points. Nothing wrong with different points of view (outside of the Saintsweb thought police of course... )

Edited 1 hour ago by trousers

[Fabrice29]

3 minutes ago, trousers said:

He's highlighting the proportionality of the punishment, not arguing against the application of a punishment at all. It could be reasonably argued that awarding Middlesbrough a two goal head start in the second leg (for example) would have been a more proportionate punishment. 

Thus knocking us out of the competition? Or are you implying that would have been put in place and crossed all legal barriers before the 2nd leg? I’m not sure that could be reasonably argued tbh, especially given there is probably zero precedent for that?

Edited 1 hour ago by Fabrice29

[Weston Super Saint]

5 minutes ago, trousers said:

He's highlighting the proportionality of the punishment, not arguing against the application of a punishment at all. It could be reasonably argued that awarding Middlesbrough a two goal head start in the second leg (for example) would have been a more proportionate punishment. 

That would have been entirely inconsistent with every other punishment ever handed out for confirmed cheating in a cup competition.  There really would have been a case of 'moral incosistency' had that happened.

[trousers]

Dang... Scuppered due to thinking out loud on a football forum yet again...

Saintsweb Intelligentsia 1 Trousers 0

Edited 1 hour ago by trousers

[Weston Super Saint]

1 minute ago, trousers said:

Dang... Scuppered due to thinking out loud on a football forum yet again...

Saintsweb Intelligentsia 1 Trousers 0

To be fair, it's way more than '1'  

[Whitey Grandad]

1 hour ago, AlexLaw76 said:

it may be a daft rule, but it is a rule that we/Tonda signed-up to.

we tried cheating Boro out of a game worth £200m. 

Don't be so melodramatic. Boro proved to everybody that they weren't good enough to get promoted so to talk about 'cheating' them out of a chance of £200m is risible. 

Any man and his dog could have stood on that footpath. 

[SouthWalesSaints]

So Chelsea getting a 10 million pound fine for "cheating" is ok?

I'm uncomfortable with how we've been treated.  I genuinely believe that had it not been a trial by media we'd have got much lighter. 

"He's highlighting the proportionality of the punishment, not arguing against the application of a punishment at all" CORRECT

I expected a fine, I expected a suspended punishment.  But more to the point i didn't expect us to be vilified in the press as much as we have based on numerous clubs doing the same and it being lauded like the example I gave.  The league ruling shouldn't change the opinion on what has been done. 

Edited 1 hour ago by SouthWalesSaints

[trousers]

14 minutes ago, Weston Super Saint said:

To be fair, it's way more than '1'  

I wasn't counting the other 384 times, just today (so far)...

[23rdSaint]

For me, it's the ongoing commentary from the media and the piousness/hypocrisy of opinion. "Cheat" is such an emotive word and doesn't feel like it's proportionally used – the example in the Mourinho documentary won't lead people to call Chelsea cheats (beyond any of their other antics) because, as people have stated, it's not against any specific rules in the Prem. It's comparable to (and arguably as egregious as) what we did in terms of benefits. We breached specific EFL rules with Spygate though, so we're being branded as cheats. 
 

So if breaking the rules = cheating, why aren't Everton, Forest and Leicester considered cheats for breaching PSR? 
 

If "cheating" means deliberately seeking an unfair sporting advantage through dishonest means (irrespective of whether there are specific rules in place or not), why aren't Leeds described as cheats?

[EssEffCee]

3 minutes ago, 23rdSaint said:

For me, it's the ongoing commentary from the media and the piousness/hypocrisy of opinion. "Cheat" is such an emotive word and doesn't feel like it's proportionally used – the example in the Mourinho documentary won't lead people to call Chelsea cheats (beyond any of their other antics) because, as people have stated, it's not against any specific rules in the Prem. It's comparable to (and arguably as egregious as) what we did in terms of benefits. We breached specific EFL rules with Spygate though, so we're being branded as cheats. 
 

So if breaking the rules = cheating, why aren't Everton, Forest and Leicester considered cheats for breaching PSR? 
 

If "cheating" means deliberately seeking an unfair sporting advantage through dishonest means (irrespective of whether there are specific rules in place or not), why aren't Leeds described as cheats?

All those clubs were called cheats by many people. Leicester in particular are constantly labelled as cheats on here.

I'm not saying I massively agree with the punishment or anything but I don't think anyone should get upset by the term 'cheat' as I don't see why that word isn't applicable to a club which deliberately broke rules.

[UpweySaint]

Cheating, rule breaking. Yhep, sure. Can’t argue - I find it odd people are trying to do otherwise. The general point about the sanctimonious bullshit around it that’s been pedalled is perhaps more relevant. We’ve been caught out and punished. I’m bored of people in the media spouting hypocritical hyperbolic nonsense as if the offence was akin to the Calciopoli scandal or something worse. Hopefully we can stick two fingers up to the lot of them and get promoted all the same. Minus four who gives a f*ck …

[trousers]

14 minutes ago, SouthWalesSaints said:

I expected a fine, I expected a suspended punishment.

Which tallies with the expectation of most on here at the time, if memory serves me correctly. I don't recall many of the 'wise after the event' brigade predicting that we'd be thrown out of the tournament before the EFL dished out their punishment, which is odd given it's now 'obviously the only punishment that the EFL could've realistically given'...

Edited 52 minutes ago by trousers

[23rdSaint]

5 minutes ago, EssEffCee said:

All those clubs were called cheats by many people. Leicester in particular are constantly labelled as cheats on here.

I'm not saying I massively agree with the punishment or anything but I don't think anyone should get upset by the term 'cheat' as I don't see why that word isn't applicable to a club which deliberately broke rules.

But I wasn't making a point about fans. It was specifically about media personalities and publications.