Southampton spying compendium thread

[Grumpy Old Man]

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?

It's far from hypothetical. There's a legal construct called vicarious liability, under which an employer can be held responsible for the actions of an employee, even where the employee is doing something for the employer that either the employer hadn't askes them to do or using an unapproved method, so long as they were doing it in a working capacity.

 

[SAFC Wilks]

I think we all would like to see buwa up in the premier, but it's not going to happen this year unfortunately.

Not arsed tbf, but I’d prefer them in the final instead of cheats.

 

[Flavonoids]

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.

Sounds like you know what you're talking about ... I'm out!

 

[SAFC Wilks]

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.

That was for financial irregularities - EFL are shit hot on that as proven by the points deductions handed out to Sheff Wed, Leicester & West Brom.

This is something different. They probably don’t view it as serious.

 

[maghater]

This is different, because it is Boro that have been directly disadvantaged by the cheating.

not really, Swindon used illegal payments to attract players they would not normally have been able to sign. I dont know who Swindon beat in the semi, but you could certainly argue that they had as good a case as us to be promoted.

 

[ajthemackem]

If they didn't authorise the spying but still used the information without asking where it had come from..?

 

[Hot Since 82]

It's far from hypothetical. There's a legal construct called vicarious liability, under which an employer can be held responsible for the actions of an employee, even where the employee is doing something for the employer that either the employer hadn't askes them to do or using an unapproved method, so long as they were doing it in a working capacity.

It is if the employer is cleared of any wrongdoing.

 

[SAFC Wilks]

The press conference with the Southampton manager man. The journalist just straight up asking “Are you a cheat?”

Haway. There’s surely a more clever way to word that question.

 

[Disco_Pants93]

Rumours circulating now about the final being delayed now.

 

[Flavonoids]

The press conference with the Southampton manager man. The journalist just straight up asking “Are you a cheat?”

Haway. There’s surely a more clever way to word that question.

Anyway Tonda, cheat much?

 

[Grumpy Old Man]

It is if the employer is cleared of any wrongdoing.

It's not. Vicarious liability makes the employer liable for the wrongful actions of an employee even where the company has not made wrongful actions. That's literally what vicarious means.

 

[SAFC Wilks]

Anyway Tonda, cheat much?

The rest of the journalists were being coy and trying to get him to admit to something, they were getting close to it as well.

And then that div just goes “Are you a cheat?!” & ends the press conference there.

 

[Morny]

The press conference with the Southampton manager man. The journalist just straight up asking “Are you a cheat?”

Haway. There’s surely a more clever way to word that question.

Whilst I agree, cannot really win journalists.

If they tried being coy and clever, and gently probing, you'd have everyone go "what aren't the journos brave enough to just ask him outright? why are they pussyfooting around him"

 

[Flavonoids]

It's not. Vicarious liability makes the employer liable for the wrongful actions of an employee even where the company has not made wrongful actions. That's literally what vicarious means.

Hoo, HS82, GOM apparently posted this on my behalf, but I wasn't aware of it

 

[Barry Quizshow]

The rest of the journalists were being coy and trying to get him to admit to something, they were getting close to it as well.

And then that div just goes “Are you a cheat?!” & ends the press conference there.

Was the journo from Boro by any chance?

 

[joop]

Tricky. Rogue employee acting unilaterally and going totally off-piste on some wild mission, without his employer's knowledge.

It is a tricky one but the club are ultimately responsible for the actions and behaviors of their employees, just the same was as they are responsible for the behavior of their supporters.
It can be incredibly difficult to prevent individuals breaking the laws of the game, but that doesn’t give the club a defense.

 

[SAFC Wilks]

Was the journo from Boro by any chance?

It was Steve Gibson

Whilst I agree, cannot really win journalists.

If they tried being coy and clever, and gently probing, you'd have everyone go "what aren't the journos brave enough to just ask him outright? why are they pussyfooting around him"

There are some subjects where journalists should be upfront about, I agree. Tactics and injuries mostly.

With an ongoing EFL investigation though, you need to be less blunt.

 

[Hot Since 82]

It's not. Vicarious liability makes the employer liable for the wrongful actions of an employee even where the company has not made wrongful actions. That's literally what vicarious means.

Yes it can do but it literally would not have if the IDC upheld the view that the intern acted entirely alone and Southampton were absolved of any liability.

 

[Grumpy Old Man]

Yes it can do but it literally would not have if the IDC upheld the view that the intern acted entirely alone and Southampton were absolved of any liability.

You can guarantee that Steve Gibson will immediately launch a civil action if Southampton are cleared.

 

[Hot Since 82]

You can guarantee that Steve Gibson will immediately launch a civil action if Southampton are cleared.

I am absolutely certain he will. They (Boro) have already engaged Nick De Marco KC apparently.