• 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

Disco_Pants93 said:
Should be banned for the final anyway. Complete ****
Click to expand...
But was a precedent not set with us in 1990 ? Swinon were under investigation for making illegal payments, well before the final. The decision to promote us instead wasn't taken until a couple of weeks later. I remember Newcastle trying to make a case, but in the end we got the nod. So could well be Southampton who win, but Hull wh go up.
 

Hot Since 82 said:
Yes, I dont know why you are saying that to me. You need to read the posts around my reply. How might they be guilty if they declined the info and told him to behave himself.
Click to expand...
The idea that an intern would go off, of their own accord, on a working day and do some spying. Then go back to his club, and offer ideas but pretend they were just off the top of his head (i.e. "maybe we should prepare for a random set piece routine i've just guessed tehy may do, there's no reason i've thought of them".

It seems unlikely. If an intern is going to do that, they've been told to.
 
maghater said:
But was a precedent not set with us in 1990 ? Swinon were under investigation for making illegal payments, well before the final. The decision to promote us instead wasn't taken until a couple of weeks later. I remember Newcastle trying to make a case, but in the end we got the nod. So could well be Southampton who win, but Hull wh go up.
Click to expand...
It was 1990 tbf and entirely different circumstances. Can't imagine they've even considered what happened back then
 
maghater said:
But was a precedent not set with us in 1990 ? Swinon were under investigation for making illegal payments, well before the final. The decision to promote us instead wasn't taken until a couple of weeks later. I remember Newcastle trying to make a case, but in the end we got the nod. So could well be Southampton who win, but Hull wh go up.
Click to expand...
^ what will likely happen
 
Hot Since 82 said:
Yes, I dont know why you are saying that to me. You need to read the posts around my reply. How might they be guilty if they declined the info and told him to behave himself.
Click to expand...
If they didn't sack him on the spot for gross misconduct in that scenario, they'd be guilty, knowing that he couldn't and wouldn't delete the knowledge gained from his memory. I'd say. I don't know if they'd also have a duty to report such a thing to the league.
 
Morny said:
The idea that an intern would go off, of their own accord, on a working day and do some spying. Then go back to his club, and offer ideas but pretend they were just off the top of his head (i.e. "maybe we should prepare for a random set piece routine i've just guessed tehy may do, there's no reason i've thought of them".

It seems unlikely. If an intern is going to do that, they've been told to.
Click to expand...
Yeah I agree with that likelihood 100%. I am not suggesting anything different.

BUT, another poster said EVEN IF the intern acted entirely alone then the CLUB are still responsible for his actions. This is an entirely hypothetical debate. Say you run your own business and you employ an intern. That intern decides entirely on their own to go and break into your major competitor's premises and downloads their network folders onto a data stick. Are you responsible for that?
 
Hot Since 82 said:
Yeah I agree with that likelihood 100%. I am not suggesting anything different.

BUT, another poster said EVEN IF the intern acted entirely alone then the CLUB are still responsible for his actions. This is an entirely hypothetical debate. Say you run your own business and you employ an intern. That intern decides entirely on their own to go and break into your major competitor's premises and downloads their network folders onto a data stick. Are you responsible for that?
Click to expand...
That'll be me :)

I thought it'd be quite interesting to put your question into the old Google and see what a AI text scraper made of it ... it seems to come back to vicarious liability as there's a very close correlation to the offence and his duties. I know the EFL isn't a court of law, but I'd imagine they try to follow those principles;

Based on UK legal principles regarding vicarious liability and data protection, it is unlikely you would be held responsible for the criminal actions of an intern who acts entirely on their own initiative to commit corporate espionage. [
You must be logged on to see external links
,
You must be logged on to see external links
]
While employers are often responsible for actions carried out "in the course of employment," courts have established that a "close connection" must exist between the employee's authorized duties and the wrongful act. [
You must be logged on to see external links
, ]
Click to expand...
 
Flavonoids said:
If they didn't sack him on the spot for gross misconduct in that scenario, they'd be guilty, knowing that he couldn't and wouldn't delete the knowledge gained from his memory. I'd say. I don't know if they'd also have a duty to report such a thing to the league.
Click to expand...
Maybe he has been suspended whilst the club carry out its own investigation, before any disciplinary action is taken (need to cover their arses) however events have passed them as Boro reported the matter right away.
 
maghater said:
But was a precedent not set with us in 1990 ? Swinon were under investigation for making illegal payments, well before the final. The decision to promote us instead wasn't taken until a couple of weeks later. I remember Newcastle trying to make a case, but in the end we got the nod. So could well be Southampton who win, but Hull wh go up.
Click to expand...
This is different, because it is Boro that have been directly disadvantaged by the cheating.
 
Flavonoids said:
That'll be me :)

I thought it'd be quite interesting to put your question into the old Google and see what a AI text scraper made of it ... it seems to come back to vicarious liability as there's a very close correlation to the offence and his duties. I know the EFL isn't a court of law, but I'd imagine they try to follow those principles;
Click to expand...
Seems an outrageous proposition that he might be a lone wolf, in any event. But yeah would be pretty tough on Southampton if he truly was and they got fucked over due to it.
 
Hot Since 82 said:
Maybe he has been suspended whilst the club carry out its own investigation, before any disciplinary action is taken (need to cover their arses) however events have passed them as Boro reported the matter right away.
Click to expand...
Maybe ... but if he'd come to them with the information gleaned that they then refused to utilise and told him to pack it in, as in your scenario, then they don't need to investigate, he volunteered his guilt.
Hot Since 82 said:
Seems an outrageous proposition that he might be a lone wolf, in any event. But yeah would be pretty tough on Southampton if he truly was and they got fucked over due to it.
Click to expand...
It does seem a stretch ... but that's the only defence they can really employ, so I'm sure that's what they'll try to argue - true or not.
 
Last edited:
Flavonoids said:
Maybe ... but if he'd come to them with the information gleaned that they then refused to utilise and told him to pack it in, as in your scenario, then they don't need to investigate, he volunteered his guilt.
Click to expand...
Yeah it's apparent gross misconduct but HR have requested that the facts be verified and documented in support of the impending firing. To save future time and costs defending what might become a claim for unfair dismissal down the line.
 
Big Sharp Teeth said:
If the scenario is that the intern went off and watched the training, didn’t tell anyone, but then offered bits of advice to the management set-up based on this knowledge he secretly has hoping to make himself look good, then they would still be guilty wouldn’t they?

Might be different if it was the tea lady. But a first team analyst?
Click to expand...
Probably, but the extent of the club's knowledge/guilt would be relevant to the question of sanction.
 
Hot Since 82 said:
Never met a one I trusted, sincere apologies to the boards HR professionals.
Click to expand...
I'll be your representative in any board investigation into your HR demeaning conduct ... as long as I'm allowed to use Google to pretend I have any sort of knowledge, other than my very real and balanced sense of morality, fair play, right and wrong.

You're buggered!
 
Flavonoids said:
That'll be me :)

I thought it'd be quite interesting to put your question into the old Google and see what a AI text scraper made of it ... it seems to come back to vicarious liability as there's a very close correlation to the offence and his duties. I know the EFL isn't a court of law, but I'd imagine they try to follow those principles;
Click to expand...
Try employer's liability not vicarious liability ;). Although that's not quite relevant here (it's technical). However IMHO a club wouldn't get off by saying 'it was a rogue employee' although if a disciplinary commission was satisfied it was a rogue employee that would be relevant to sanction.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top