• The forums will be unavailable for a few hours on Saturday 6th June, when they do return they will initially be in a degraded state with some features missing, but normal posting/reading will be possible. The main website will not be affected by these updates.
    New user registrations are currently disabled.
    Some other features of the forum are also currently disabled.

Southampton spying compendium thread

Big Bellyingham said:
Theoretical conundrum if Boro re instated and date changed .( I think Boro should go through btw )
Hackney plays because he’s had extra time to recover/train -arguably the best player in the division -so Hull “ suffer” again ? ( Boro rightly so would love that -I would if I was them ) but is it fair in the one team who has won through already ?
Someone made a good point -when they made the rule around “ spying “they should have attached what the punishment was
Click to expand...
There's no way to take anything like that into account, these are just circumstantial impacts. Hull may also have players who benefit from a bit of extra time off. You could also take the view that the disruption would have a bigger impact on Boro who have no idea if they're in the final or not.
 

Big Bellyingham said:
Someone made a good point -when they made the rule around “ spying “they should have attached what the punishment was
Click to expand...
This is hitting the nail well and truly in the middle of the head.
So blatantly obvious - when Leeds did it they were then forced to make a specific rule about 'spying'.
Logical thing was then to outline the EXACT punishment, then there'd be no come backs at all.

Break the 'no spying' rules in a knock out competition and you forfeit the right to proceed further.
Also stipulate whether or not it would be the club that were spied on that takes their place.
 
So the date of the disciplinary hearing is next Tuesday? They've known about the offence for nearly two weeks but are delaying the hearing for another 4 days. It's amateur hour and the fans are the ones to suffer. If they shift it what about all the Hull fans who have book travel and hotels etc. Why on earth couldn't they have the hearing this week?
 
Elmers said:
It’s all ifs and buts though. I seriously doubt they changed anything from watching the match. Usual run like cheetahs to close them down tactic. Look it was definitely unethical, not disputing that, punish Soton 100%, however I don’t want borough to profiteer, they weren’t good enough. Award it to Hull, dock Southampton points next season no promotion to the premier this season is more than ample. If borough had won, it would have been cheats don’t prosper. Borough would have won on merit, they didn’t though. Of course you can award Hull promotion, nothing stopping it. Whatever decision they deem acceptable will be debatable. Would you be so pro boro get the tie if it was us who were the alleged culprits?
Click to expand...
Yes, it's piss poor.
Grimes said:
Yes I feel bad for the players especially the ones doing the binoculars celebration

Fuck em
Click to expand...
Exactly.
JL1985 said:
You must be logged on to see media items

Monkey fingers has spoken.
Click to expand...
That makes me even more pro binning Southampton off.
 
Last edited:
seahamstar said:
This is hitting the nail well and truly in the middle of the head.
So blatantly obvious - when Leeds did it they were then forced to make a specific rule about 'spying'.
Logical thing was then to outline the EXACT punishment, then there'd be no come backs at all.

Break the 'no spying' rules in a knock out competition and you forfeit the right to proceed further.
Also stipulate whether or not it would be the club that were spied on that takes their place.
Click to expand...
Aye, heard this same argument on TalkSport earlier today. When a club goes into administration it’s an instant point deduction. For this though, when they made the ‘no spying’ rule, they should’ve also created a punishment for breaking it. Now we’re in this no man’s land of nobody knowing what the punishment could be. It’s poor from the EFL if I’m being honest.
 
seahamstar said:
This is hitting the nail well and truly in the middle of the head.
So blatantly obvious - when Leeds did it they were then forced to make a specific rule about 'spying'.
Logical thing was then to outline the EXACT punishment, then there'd be no come backs at all.

Break the 'no spying' rules in a knock out competition and you forfeit the right to proceed further.
Also stipulate whether or not it would be the club that were spied on that takes their place.
Click to expand...
They have haven’t they? Thought it could be a fine, points or expulsion the way it’s worded in the rule book, someone posted it earlier in the thread.
 
10 Gary Rowells said:
So the date of the disciplinary hearing is next Tuesday? They've known about the offence for nearly two weeks but are delaying the hearing for another 4 days. It's amateur hour and the fans are the ones to suffer. If they shift it what about all the Hull fans who have book travel and hotels etc. Why on earth couldn't they have the hearing this week?
Click to expand...

I’d guess the EFL will have had their heads in the sand up until Tuesday night, praying that Middlesbrough would win and they could deal with it later.
 
old supporter said:
He's an idiot it's nothing to do with getting an advantage it makes no difference one way or the other. They broke the rules on spying on a team within 72 hours of the match
Click to expand...

Its sad how people just lack basic morals nowadays.

Ah its ok Richard lets set a prescedant its ok to cheat
 
Mackemansj1 said:
They have haven’t they? Thought it could be a fine, points or expulsion the way it’s worded in the rule book, someone posted it earlier in the thread.
Click to expand...
Yes, as far as I'm aware that's true.
But instead of 3? Options , surely it would make more sense if they just settled on one punishment - then all clubs know the rules (and consequences).
 
jarrowdiamond said:
You must be logged on to see media items

These Southampton fans are hilarious.10mins onwards.

First bloke reckons the spy works for villa and was just having a round of golf and Boro should be charged with bringing the game into disrepute😂😂😂
Click to expand...

Seeing he was at least 100 yards from the course and had no clubs with him …..
 
Been going on for years, from google

Stan Ternent and Neil Warnock had one of football's most bitter management feuds, peaking around 2001–2003 when Ternent (Burnley) and Warnock (Sheffield United) were Championship rivals. Their hostility included accusations of spying, public insults, and a reported physical confrontation in the tunnel.
The Guardian +3
Key Elements of the Rivalry:
  • The 2001 Incident: Following a Burnley-Sheffield United game, Ternent accused Warnock of sending someone to listen to his half-time team talk.
  • Physical Confrontation: Reports suggested a violent clash occurred in the tunnel area between the managers and staff.
  • Mutual Dislike: Ternent described Warnock as a "prat I can't abide" and "arch enemy" in his autobiography.
  • Public Feud: Warnock notoriously declared that he "wouldn't p**s on" Ternent, listing him alongside Gary Megson as managers he strongly disliked.
  • Accusations: In their respective autobiographies, both sides accused the other of unprofessional and "deranged" behavior.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top