The Spygate Saga

[Saint86]

2 hours ago, saintant said:

Did Parsons actually say this at the fans forum? I'm not disputing it because I wasn't there but I've just watched it back and didn't hear this comment. Maybe it was edited out at the time or has been since but the version I've just watched on line didn't contain this comment from Parsons.

I paraphrased what he said / eluded to, but yes. I don't have the time to watch it back. But it was along the lines of:

• initial discussions with the efl indicating that it wasn't that serious and that we expulsion wasn't on the table,
• that we agreed to the accelerated timescale but it was very chaotic / everyone was travelling, so we got it wrong.
• Middlesbrough used the situation to get a pass to the play off final. Who can blame them, we'd have probably done similar in their shoes (which was a further shocking thing for him to have said).

If it has actually been cut from the recording, i would say that is very telling.

Edited 2 hours ago by Saint86

[CSA96]

Simon Jordan continues to talk sense on Spygate on today's talkSPORT slot

 

[MB]

Parsons needs to go asap. Clearly no contingency plan in place if they ban Tonda. His interview was clutching at straws at best. 

[Football Special]

1 hour ago, Saint86 said:

Well, the evidence for the supposition that matters is all behind closed doors unfortunately - but i'd suggest the above is just about the only way the timescales involved make sense (or at least the only version i have seen that is remotely credible), and they also marry up with what Parson's said at the fans forum more recently (even if that was incredibly unprofessional from him and poorly advised given the ongoing proceedings). 

Whistleblower:
https://www.transfermarkt.co.uk/jason-taylor/stationen/trainer/126892/plus/1

https://www.dailyecho.co.uk/sport/25807772.eckert-explains-plan-solve-southamptons-set-piece-problems/
 

I think it is also likely that Taylor was still in WhatsApp groups with other Saints analysts 

[Football Special]

58 minutes ago, saintant said:

I agree to a large extent but think it is still worth highlighting that Boro were not whiter than white in this whole affair yet nobody ever questioned them and, as far as I know, they were never asked to account for some of the valid points raised by many Saints fans. I get that they weren't accused of anything but it's hard to work out how they moved so quickly without some form of inside knowledge.

I believe Boro's whole approach was managed expertly by a PR expert, the media coverage was controlled by them from the start, certain journalists clearly briefed , the glaring hypocritical articles by Henry Winter leave you in no doubt he had received some form of payment. 

Crying Kim's propaganda press conference another PR masterstroke rubber stamping the victim narrative 

Then we had the Boro connections popping up within EFL and Sports Relations. 

A plot 1960s Soviets would be proud of. 

[saintant]

9 minutes ago, CSA96 said:

Simon Jordan continues to talk sense on Spygate on today's talkSPORT slot

 

A voice of common sense amid a wilderness of over reaction and vindictiveness. 

[Saint86]

7 minutes ago, Football Special said:

I think it is also likely that Taylor was still in WhatsApp groups with other Saints analysts 

Potentially, but if that was the case - why was there no further evidence of other spying offences - i.e., either he wasn't kept in those groups, or we didn't spy outside of the reported offences. It highlights actually the issue with personal whats-app messages and business use - as its likely that he retained historic messages as a minimum.

 

10 minutes ago, CSA96 said:

Simon Jordan continues to talk sense on Spygate on today's talkSPORT slot

 

5min 10sec on wards - Jordan eluding directly to Parson's behavior making the whole thing significantly worse 

Edited 4 hours ago by Saint86

[Saint Pete]

14 minutes ago, CSA96 said:

Simon Jordan continues to talk sense on Spygate on today's talkSPORT slot

 

He talks with a lot of common sense and knowledge. Do you think he fancies a job back in football as a CEO of a Championship club? I would certainly have felt a lot more confident about our response to what's happened if someone like him was driving it and putting our case. 

[saintant]

19 minutes ago, Saint86 said:

Potentially, but if that was the case - why was there no further evidence of other spying offences.

 

5min 10 onwards - Jordan eluding directly to Parson's behavior making the whole thing significantly worse 

Maybe there weren't any other offences. If there were and he had evidence I'm sure they would have been included on the original charge sheet.

[bangkoksaint]

We will have sounded out and have possible replacements ready to go. If we don’t then it’s a gross dereliction of duty on behalf of the Southampton SMT. That said with how Parsons has handled this, maybe we haven’t 

[Dark Munster]

51 minutes ago, The Kraken said:

Its also utterly irrelevant and trying to portray Saints as the victims.

Whatever one thinks of the severity of the punishment, its a simple fact that we broke some explicit rules and owned up to doing so on 3 occasions, including for an upcoming match.  Trying to claim we're the ones who got stitched up is laughable.

We’re victims of excessive punishment for a minor infraction. 

[Saint Pete]

8 minutes ago, Dark Munster said:

We’re victims of excessive punishment for a minor infraction. 

Yes, and that's what we should be focusing on in our media strategy and Tonda's defence, not blaming other clubs or whining about our legal costs etc. 

[Miltonaggro]

40 minutes ago, Saint Pete said:

He talks with a lot of common sense and knowledge. Do you think he fancies a job back in football as a CEO of a Championship club? I would certainly have felt a lot more confident about our response to what's happened if someone like him was driving it and putting our case. 

One thing for certain, he would have had the immediate measure of that cunt Gibson.

[benjii]

One thing that was odd was that the EFL panel decision contained precisely zero reasoning about whether it was appropriate to reinstate Middlesbrough, as I recall.

[benjii]

Also, a further thought on the ability to fight the outcome.

- The EFL decision was rushed. There was a play off final due in days. If we were to have applied for an emergency injunction to prevent the final from happening, we would have been on the hook for large costs if the injunction was subsequently shown to have been wrong. That's how the legal system works. You can potentially get urgent relief but you have to give an undertaking to cover costs. Lots of interested parties could have brought claims.

 

- The FA decision is different. There are no other parties impacted apart from Tonda and SFC and there is no pressing timeline or critical event to manage. So, if it is excessive then the prospect of fighting it and dragging it out as long as possible is much less risky.

[Saint Pete]

6 minutes ago, benjii said:

One thing that was odd was that the EFL panel decision contained precisely zero reasoning about whether it was appropriate to reinstate Middlesbrough, as I recall.

I wa surprised there wasn't more made of that in the press after we were expelled, especially from the Wrexham point of view as the 7th placed team. It was as if the EFL did not even acknowledge any other possibility than Middlesbrough taking our place in the final. Of course the EFL didn't want to delay the final, but I think Wrexham could have argued strongly that they should have at least considered the possible alternative of promoting them into the play-offs to take our place in some way. 

[Teamsaint1]

3 minutes ago, Saint Pete said:

I wa surprised there wasn't more made of that in the press after we were expelled, especially from the Wrexham point of view as the 7th placed team. It was as if the EFL did not even acknowledge any other possibility than Middlesbrough taking our place in the final. Of course the EFL didn't want to delay the final, but I think Wrexham could have argued strongly that they should have at least considered the possible alternative of promoting them into the play-offs to take our place in some way. 

They would effectively have had to given us a 10 point deduction for it to affect Wrexham positively  , though I agree it was odd they way the decision to reinstate boro went through apparently on the nod.And the actual games for which we were charged yielded us 1 point plus a mitigated 6 point penalty. 

[Saint86]

33 minutes ago, benjii said:

One thing that was odd was that the EFL panel decision contained precisely zero reasoning about whether it was appropriate to reinstate Middlesbrough, as I recall.

Because it absolutely wasn't appropriate and they were probably secretly delighted hull won 😅🤣

[Football Special]

44 minutes ago, benjii said:

One thing that was odd was that the EFL panel decision contained precisely zero reasoning about whether it was appropriate to reinstate Middlesbrough, as I recall.

I have it on good authority they weren’t going to, but once they saw little Kim in tears on the tele their hearts couldn't take anymore and they wanted to cheer him up 

[egg]

47 minutes ago, benjii said:

One thing that was odd was that the EFL panel decision contained precisely zero reasoning about whether it was appropriate to reinstate Middlesbrough, as I recall.

They sort of covered it by saying that the effect of their decision, including the finding that we'd cheated in our tie against Boro, was that they were reinstated. I think they could and should have squared it off better than they did. 

[Turkish]

1 hour ago, Dark Munster said:

We’re victims of excessive punishment for a minor infraction. 

Reminds me of the time i got a 3 point infraction on here for stamping on peoples dreams because i said we wouldn't make the champions league on our league one days. There's disproportionate and there's that.

[Football Special]

5 hours ago, EssEffCee said:

There was no data leak on a cash card.

Boro 100% briefed their press that the paper trail left by a coffee purchase at the golf club identified the suspect 

(They got carried away and couldn't help themselves try to sound like they'd uncovered the secret spy when of course they knew who it was already) 

[The Kraken]

34 minutes ago, Teamsaint1 said:

They would effectively have had to given us a 10 point deduction for it to affect Wrexham positively  , though I agree it was odd they way the decision to reinstate boro went through apparently on the nod.And the actual games for which we were charged yielded us 1 point plus a mitigated 6 point penalty. 

I don’t think it was particularly odd to explain why it happened. We were thrown out of the playoffs as it was deemed a separate knockout competition to the league campaign,  and we had admitted to breaking the rules in the build up to said knockout game with Boro. That punishment is similar to fielding an illegible player in a cup competition, the punishment is being ejected from that competition and the other team progresses instead.

Putting Wrexham into the final would have been absolutely mental. Simply no way can that have been allowed to happen. The closest you could get would have been to have been to dock Saints points 10 or 11 points from the league season, from which the only (right) outcome could have been that the semi final was restarted but between Boro and Wrexham. But we were docked 6 points reduced to 4 for the league transgressions, so Wrexham wouldn’t have made it with that punishment.

[egg]

5 minutes ago, The Kraken said:

I don’t think it was particularly odd to explain why it happened. We were thrown out of the playoffs as it was deemed a separate knockout competition to the league campaign,  and we had admitted to breaking the rules in the build up to said knockout game with Boro. That punishment is similar to fielding an illegible player in a cup competition, the punishment is being ejected from that competition and the other team progresses instead.

Putting Wrexham into the final would have been absolutely mental. Simply no way can that have been allowed to happen. The closest you could get would have been to have been to dock Saints points 10 or 11 points from the league season, from which the only (right) outcome could have been that the semi final was restarted but between Boro and Wrexham. But we were docked 6 points reduced to 4 for the league transgressions, so Wrexham wouldn’t have made it with that punishment.

Agree with that, and more to the point, what happened with the tournament after we were excluded had nothing to do with us. Boro being reinstated wasn't our punishment, us being excluded was (plus the points). 

[Saint_lambden]

RE: appeal. Stay of execution has to be granted by FA in case of appeal rather than an automatic right. 

”

Eckert would not necessarily have to miss Portsmouth on 11 October if he received a suspension on 24 September.

The FA’s procedures expressly allow an appellant to apply for a stay of the sanction pending the appeal. There are documented cases where the Judicial Panel Chair has granted such a stay following an application by the person sanctioned. For example, in David Standing v Sussex FA, the appellant received a one-match suspension, applied for a stay, and the Judicial Panel Chair stayed the sanction pending the appeal.

That creates a potentially very significant window:

24 Sep decision → immediate appeal/stay application → 10 Oct Portsmouth derby

The fact that the full appeal might not be heard by 11 October does not, by itself, prevent a stay from being granted before then.

If Eckert were given a suspension that would affect the Portsmouth match, the logical procedural route would be:

1. 24 September: obtain the written decision/reasons.
2. Immediately: decide whether there are grounds of appeal.
3. Before 1 October: formally notify the FA of intention to appeal.
4. At the same time: seek a stay of the suspension pending the appeal, rather than waiting for the full appeal.
5. If the stay is granted, Eckert could continue to participate while the appeal is pending.
6. The substantive Notice of Appeal would still need to be lodged by the applicable deadline (approximately 8 October on your assumed timetable).”

[EssEffCee]

32 minutes ago, Football Special said:

Boro 100% briefed their press that the paper trail left by a coffee purchase at the golf club identified the suspect 

(They got carried away and couldn't help themselves try to sound like they'd uncovered the secret spy when of course they knew who it was already) 

Yeah I remember it being in the media. Just saying it was always bollocks.

[Saint Pete]

22 minutes ago, The Kraken said:

I don’t think it was particularly odd to explain why it happened. We were thrown out of the playoffs as it was deemed a separate knockout competition to the league campaign,  and we had admitted to breaking the rules in the build up to said knockout game with Boro. That punishment is similar to fielding an illegible player in a cup competition, the punishment is being ejected from that competition and the other team progresses instead.

Putting Wrexham into the final would have been absolutely mental. Simply no way can that have been allowed to happen. The closest you could get would have been to have been to dock Saints points 10 or 11 points from the league season, from which the only (right) outcome could have been that the semi final was restarted but between Boro and Wrexham. But we were docked 6 points reduced to 4 for the league transgressions, so Wrexham wouldn’t have made it with that punishment.

Fair enough, can see the logic. Just thought it was odd that they made no acknowledgement that anything order than Boro being advanced to the final after losing was even discussed. As Egg just pointed out, it makes no difference to us anyway, the key decision was the punishment of expulsion. 

Edited 1 hour ago by Saint Pete

[saintant]

29 minutes ago, The Kraken said:

I don’t think it was particularly odd to explain why it happened. We were thrown out of the playoffs as it was deemed a separate knockout competition to the league campaign,  and we had admitted to breaking the rules in the build up to said knockout game with Boro. That punishment is similar to fielding an illegible player in a cup competition, the punishment is being ejected from that competition and the other team progresses instead.

Putting Wrexham into the final would have been absolutely mental. Simply no way can that have been allowed to happen. The closest you could get would have been to have been to dock Saints points 10 or 11 points from the league season, from which the only (right) outcome could have been that the semi final was restarted but between Boro and Wrexham. But we were docked 6 points reduced to 4 for the league transgressions, so Wrexham wouldn’t have made it with that punishment.

Not to mention the 4 point deduction applies to this season 🙂

[sadoldgit]

2 hours ago, MB said:

Parsons needs to go asap. Clearly no contingency plan in place if they ban Tonda. His interview was clutching at straws at best. 

Or perhaps he was just keeping his power dry? It is unfathomable to think that a multimillion pound business have not had discussions and put plans in place to deal with various outcomes. Would you expect him to come out and say yes we have a new manager lined up should Eckert face a long suspension, especially as they have said they are backing him fully?

[bpsaint]

2 hours ago, Saint86 said:

Potentially, but if that was the case - why was there no further evidence of other spying offences - i.e., either he wasn't kept in those groups, or we didn't spy outside of the reported offences. It highlights actually the issue with personal whats-app messages and business use - as its likely that he retained historic messages as a minimum.

 

5min 10sec on wards - Jordan eluding directly to Parson's behavior making the whole thing significantly worse 

Yep, we know that would have come directly from his mate Gibbo too. More incompetence from Parsons.

[LegalEagle]

3 hours ago, CSA96 said:

Simon Jordan continues to talk sense on Spygate on today's talkSPORT slot

 

Simon Jordan has a brain. So few people in football do. What is worse is that the people at the FA - look them up - think that they’re bright but they are as thick as pigshit. The most dangerous kind.

[The Kraken]

38 minutes ago, saintant said:

Not to mention the 4 point deduction applies to this season 🙂

For the same reason that we received minus ten in league one, and not when it happened. Receiving the points deduction the previous season would have been no punishment whatsoever. 

As I said before, one can argue all they like with the severity of punishment, that part is subjective. The method of punishment is very cut and dried in comparison.

[Sheaf Saint]

16 minutes ago, sadoldgit said:

Or perhaps he was just keeping his power dry? It is unfathomable to think that a multimillion pound business have not had discussions and put plans in place to deal with various outcomes. Would you expect him to come out and say yes we have a new manager lined up should Eckert face a long suspension, especially as they have said they are backing him fully?

I've said this many times before but it bears repeating...

Where SR are concerned, If you're wondering why they've been silent on something or have communicated in an odd way then you should always, always lean heavily towards incompetence as being the explanation. Every time.

In the run up to the hearing in May, I really wanted to believe that they were just keeping a dignified silence and didn't want to show their winning hand. But deep down I knew that was just wishful thinking.

They are a bunch of hopeless incompetent clowns, and I won't be the slightest bit surprised if it turns out they don't have a plan to replace Tonda when he inevitably gets royally shafted by the FA.

Parsons is a fucking muppet who should be absolutely nowhere near the boardroom of a multi-million pound business.

[SaintlyAnd]

14 minutes ago, Sheaf Saint said:

I've said this many times before but it bears repeating...

Where SR are concerned, If you're wondering why they've been silent on something or have communicated in an odd way then you should always, always lean heavily towards incompetence as being the explanation. Every time.

In the run up to the hearing in May, I really wanted to believe that they were just keeping a dignified silence and didn't want to show their winning hand. But deep down I knew that was just wishful thinking.

They are a bunch of hopeless incompetent clowns, and I won't be the slightest bit surprised if it turns out they don't have a plan to replace Tonda when he inevitably gets royally shafted by the FA.

Parsons is a fucking muppet who should be absolutely nowhere near the boardroom of a multi-million pound business.

It is either complete incompetence or pure arrogance by SR in so many things they do.

[johnnyboy]

16 minutes ago, Sheaf Saint said:

 

 

16 minutes ago, Sheaf Saint said:

Parsons is a fucking muppet who should be absolutely nowhere near the boardroom of a multi-million pound business.

I have just listened to the horror of the Parsons interview , in my humble opinion he should never be allowed to speak for our club again , at one point he said “we have been quite honest “ in our response to the charges, fucking quite , he opens us up to so much flack , how the hell does this keep happening it is so amateur 😳

[Whitey Grandad]

7 hours ago, SaintsLoyal said:

Did he not buy a drink in the golf club house and his details were checked ?

That's a cover story put out by Middlesbrough to try to explain what they already knew. Or maybe a journalist made a supposition. 

[LegalEagle]

Parsons should have been sacked after the debacle when we were expelled. The club and Dragan in particular have fucked up keeping him on but now made it worse by allowing him to continue to represent the club. Does Parsons hold some compromising pictures of Dragan with a goat? If Parsons had any honour and half a brain he would have fallen on his sword. He should be ashamed of himself.