• 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


SPUFF said:
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).
Click to expand...

I lived in Southampton for a few years back in the early 1970's, the era of Paine, Fisher, Mick Channon etc
They've always been my second team, but they should be slung out. It was absolutely pre- meditated and breaks the EFL rules.

Award first leg to Boro 3-0.

Southampton have no argument or defence, especially now there are photos of what happened, the ( alleged ) culprit's name and his photo next to the manager.

Wonder what Ross thinks about it 🤔???
 
Father Jack Hackett said:
Actually agree with James Corden just there on Talksport. He said whatever Southampton receive in TV revenue, if they go up, half should be made to be given to Boro at the start of the season. He also said stop calling it spygate and just refer to it as cheating.
Click to expand...
He was on this morning. Surprised me at how much I agree with him. He made some very good points tbf to him.
 
seahamstar said:
But then you could argue that the reason Boro didn't get to the final was because of the alleged cheating.

Also, on a similar note - didn't sunderland get 'awarded' a promotion when they were beaten in a play off final ?
Click to expand...
The Swindon irregularities case was known about for a long time before the play off Final, and they were relegated two divisions many weeks after the game, reduced to one on appeal. This is why I believe the Final will be played as is. They won't make a snap decision in a few days when it all has to be investigated to see how far it went and who was involved. If they do it in short order they will be accused of running a Kangaroo Court.

The legals will be making a small fortune.
 
Hot Since 82 said:
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.
Click to expand...
If true and it’s not a one off they’re definitely screwed like.
 
Watching the game last night and it didn’t look like Southampton needed to be spying on Boro.

Southampton looked poor, Boro looked worse.
 
Flavonoids said:
Which is immediately adjudicated on, and sometimes retrospectively. This would fall into the retrospective bucket 🤷‍♂️
Click to expand...
Yes and it normally takes time.... Its certainly not quick when it comes to this type of rule break. But they may decide to go that way. Its not the EFL who decide by the way, its the independent panel full of legal type.
 
I remember when Swindon beat us 1-0 in the play off final and they were kicked out due to financial irregularities after the fact, which resulted in us going up.

I'm really not sure what the EFL will do but if Southampton have been doing it and more than just Middlesbrough, a heavy punishment should be given. Personally I think it will be a slap on the wrist.
 
hoolio said:
Think the efl let the play offs take their course, then dish out the punishment Southampton are due, it’s what happened to Swindon all them years back
Click to expand...

They won’t want a repeat of that. This is a breach between Southampton and the EFL.
A fine will follow and should have been the same with Swindon.
 
Summary (together with his opinions) by a bod off of the Boro board, who may have a legal background

1. Bielsa/Leeds in 2019 led directly to the creation of Reg 127. Southampton are now charged under the very rule that exists because of Leeds, which sets the sanction floor higher than the £200,000 imposed back then.

2. Reg 127 is strict liability. Observing or attempting to observe inside the 72-hour window is the breach. The EFL doesn’t need to prove the spying changed any outcome. Their case quality of equipment is irrelevant.

3. The breach was timed for a play-off semi-final worth around £200m+ in promotion benefits. The most commercially sensitive fixture in the calendar.

4. Liability is barely contested. Per the Telegraph, Southampton aren’t disputing the charge. Their case at best seems to be “lone wolf analyst” mitigation only. That isn’t credible.

5. Consciousness of guilt is on the record. The individual fled when confronted, changed clothes in a bathroom, appeared to delete content from his phone, and refused to identify himself.

6. At least two other Championship clubs reportedly have evidence Southampton spied on them earlier in the season. CCTV reviews are underway across the division. The “lone wolf” line collapses if that pattern lands.

7. Reg 3.4 (utmost good faith) is charged alongside Reg 127. That gives the IDC scope to sanction season-long misconduct against multiple clubs.

8. Boro have instructed Nick De Marco KC. Don’t underestimate how big a move this is. This guy is by a distance the top sporting silk in the country & extremely well known to the EFL. Top legal artillery and a clear signal Boro are litigating, not just complaining.

9. Boro have openly stated they are pushing for sporting sanction over a financial penalty.

10. Surrounding conduct is poor. Eckert walks out of two press conferences. The club spokesperson tells a journalist asking about cheating to “show some respect”. Bottles thrown at the Boro team bus. Harwood-Bellis is under FA review for mocking Ayling’s stammer. Cumulatively that reads on Reg 3.4 well beyond the spying itself.

11. The EFL itself fast-tracked the case and asked the IDC to shorten the response window. The regulator is signalling severity.

12. Appeal route is bounded. Southampton can appeal to the EFL board but not to the Court of Arbitration for Sport. The IDC decision becomes substantively final faster than people assume.

13. A compensation track is likely to run in parallel. De Marco has form on this from the Everton case. Boro can claim damages for lost play-off place and Premier League revenue, and other affected clubs may join in.

14. The IDC’s sanctioning powers are deliberately wide: fines, points deductions, embargoes, withdrawal of benefit, expulsion from competition. The architecture for a severe sanction is in place.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top