• The first stage of the forum upgrades has now been completed but they remain in a degraded state and are still being worked on. Normal posting/reading should now be possible.
    Please read this thread for more details.
    New user registrations are currently disabled.

Southampton spying compendium thread

EFL really wanted Boro to win last night, they now will really want Hull to win the final, Southampton don’t go up and they give them a fine and it all goes away. Southampton win and they’ve got a problem
 

roker beach said:
If they use the Swindon scenario as a guide (and don’t forget that Swindon’s irregularities disadvantaged every other team in the league, who followed the rules) - then Southampton could play in the final but, after the case is heard, Hull could go up (as we did).

If they kick out Southampton beforehand, then it gets tricky. Boro can say they were directly disadvantaged, Wrexham could argue they should have made the play-offs, and even Millwall, as the third team, could look for an angle.

Another option is not to have a final and award it to Hull, (or else they would also have a case if Boro were to beat them).
Click to expand...
I don't really see how Wrexham or anyone else can have a case unless they can prove similar cheating happened during the season. There's talk of other clubs making claims but if they felt they had evidence its odd that no complaints were made at the time.

If they're going down the sporting sanction route, treating the game they cheating in as being forfeited feels a lot fairer than giving the next round opponent as bye, when Hull have faced no disadvantage whatsoever.
 
seahamstar said:
Aye fair enough.
I too reckon that if Southampton get disqualified it will be Hull that benefit and not us.
Just saying I don't agree with it.
Click to expand...
I thought it was interesting that Boro have supposedly ‘presented evidence’ of Southampton spying on 2 other teams. That sounds like a bad move to me, if it’s true.
 
I think the fairest thing is to focus the punishment on the affected game. Points deductions are too late and it's unfair to suggest a scenario that benefits Hull but doesn't compensate Boro. Best remedy is to void the affected game and award Boro a 3-0 in the first leg.

Boro and Hull then have exactly the same amount of time to prepare for the final, so no knock on effect there.
 
Scotty 1978 said:
EFL really wanted Boro to win last night, they now will really want Hull to win the final, Southampton don’t go up and they give them a fine and it all goes away. Southampton win and they’ve got a problem
Click to expand...
It doesn't go away in that scenario either though, because then Boro have a legitimate argument that they should have been in the final instead and they sue.
 
old supporter said:
It's got to be decided before the the final your scenario will never come into play
Click to expand...
You would think so and hope so but do you really expect the EFL to expedite this in time or would you expect them to let this drag on?

They'll be shit scared about repercussions from both Boro and Soton right now. Don't kick Soton out and Boro will be apoplectic about them getting away with it or kick Soton out and they will claim there is nothing in the rule book that constitutes this level of punishment for the offence.

They are literally in a no win situation because they hadn't planned for anything like this and they might let it ride out and decide the consequences at a later date.
 
roker beach said:
If they use the Swindon scenario as a guide (and don’t forget that Swindon’s irregularities disadvantaged every other team in the league, who followed the rules) - then Southampton could play in the final but, after the case is heard, Hull could go up (as we did).

If they kick out Southampton beforehand, then it gets tricky. Boro can say they were directly disadvantaged, Wrexham could argue they should have made the play-offs, and even Millwall, as the third team, could look for an angle.

Another option is not to have a final and award it to Hull, (or else they would also have a case if Boro were to beat them).
Click to expand...
Too much money involved. Also their charges relate to the smoggies.
 
Sparing a thought for southampton fans.

Presuming most are decent folk.

Going through the jubilation of a semi n final win then waiting weeks to see if they stand is cruel. Like var lasting weeks 😂

Need to grow some bollocks n make a decision prior to final imo (wont happen).
 
Must be bored said:
I don't really see how Wrexham or anyone else can have a case unless they can prove similar cheating happened during the season. There's talk of other clubs making claims but if they felt they had evidence its odd that no complaints were made at the time.

If they're going down the sporting sanction route, treating the game they cheating in as being forfeited feels a lot fairer than giving the next round opponent as bye, when Hull have faced no disadvantage whatsoever.
Click to expand...
Mebbes they have subsequently reviewed CCTV etc. and identified the Southampton Pimpernel loitering.
 
Diamond Eyes said:
I thought it was interesting that Boro have supposedly ‘presented evidence’ of Southampton spying on 2 other teams. That sounds like a bad move to me, if it’s true.
Click to expand...
I can see why you would think that, although I don't necessarily agree.
I suppose though, if these clubs have come to Boro with this 'information', then Boro have no choice but to pass it on really.
If these other clubs have compelling evidence, then I'd presume they'd take it to the EFL themselves anyway.
 
To speed things up they could offer Southampton an ultimatum - admit the offence and take expulsion from the play offs as punishment, or hold an inquest in the summer with the punishment being retrospective expulsion and a points deduction if found guilty.
 
Someone off of the Boro Forum's summary of the Daily Mail Exclusive:

Daily Mail Sport can exclusively reveal the picture that proves the individual, who we have positively identified as Southampton intern William Salt

After investigating, we have found a picture of Salt on the shoulder of Saints manager Tonda Eckert celebrating his
You must be logged on to see external links
Manager of the Month prize for February. Salt, sources say, is a key part of Eckert's first-team operation and highly valued by the German head coach.

Interestingly, he was not present on the picture of Eckert and his backroom staff released last Thursday to mark April's Manager of the Month award. That was the same day he was pictured in the bushes at Middlesbrough's training base before being confronted by club staff and fleeing the area.

Eckert also won the prize for March and, again, Salt was not on the celebratory picture released to the media on April 9. Southampton beat play-off rivals
You must be logged on to see external links
2-1 two days later.
In another development, we understand he used his bank card on Thursday to buy a coffee at Rockliffe Hall
You must be logged on to see external links
- owned by Boro chairman Steve Gibson.
The apparent slip has given rise to the possibility of a paper trail across the country, with transactions close to the bases of other Championship clubs in the days prior to playing Southampton.

We understand that one Championship club believe they were spied on after changing manager prior to playing Eckert's side. CCTV is being reviewed. Since being appointed Saints boss in November, Eckert's team have the second-best record from set-pieces in the Championship.

Boro now suspect that last Thursday's episode was not the first time they have been the victim of such unsporting espionage.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top