• 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


HearMeRoar said:
Personally I hope it goes against Boro. Their fans have always been ***** to us and more friendly with the mags so fuck em
Click to expand...
100% this.

I don’t even get ‘itll be good for the north east’ craic, I’d rather we were more main stayers in the prem than them, I know we are already miles bigger than them but that catchment area could be crucial for us for us to grow as a fanbase even more.

They hate us, hope they rot me.
 
You must be logged on to see external links

Great article here by a law firm. Basically saying deliberate spying can be nothing other than intending to gain a sporting advantage. Also that precedent dictates that in knock out situation the EFL argues that points deductions are not fitting penalties and expulsion is the only option. Precedent they mention is Swindon in the EFL trophy this year.
 
Flea Market Trader said:
Would the investigation include access to the actual phone, messages etc and if there was a live stream active might make things interesting. I mean it would be key evidence ce o would have thought.
Click to expand...
Can’t imagine the disciplinary committee would have the power to get access to phones etc. They’ll just have whatever evidence the two clubs offer up.
 
Flea Market Trader said:
Just if it's he say she say then Southampton as suggested could just say he did it on his own initiative
Click to expand...
For time immemorium club scouts have watched rival teams, either to check out a potential signing or to see what a future opponent is up to.

Boro lose, make use of fact to clutch at straws. So the scout got careless and was easily identified.

This is farce.

This will be chucked out with at most a mild telling off for Southampton.

Yawn.

We had a stronger case kicked out over Jimmy Hill and the scoreboard in 1977.

Next, the dinosaurs appeal that the Chixilahub meteor was actually offside and they shouldn't have been made extinct.
 
Last edited:
Bob96 said:
I don't post / if ever...

But the Boro / Southampton thing is a mess.

If Southampton have done it, which it looks like they have, how much they have done it doesn't matter they have taken the opportunity to gain an advantage before a semi final playoff with the opportunity to gain 150m/200m and then won the semi finally playoff. Therefore they should be removed and replaced by Boro.

But if they have been doing this for a while then all the teams that could have been in the playoffs would want to complain / sue for a place in the playoffs. This then creates a really big mess as is you take all of Southampton's points from the table for all teams. Hull don't even qualify as they beat Southampton home and away. Anyone with a chance to put their hands on all that cash will be lining up solicitors and barristers!

There is no time left to replay the semi's/final and the World Cup kicks off in a few weeks and all the players will be away.
Click to expand...
yep , i think because of this they will go for huge fine and 3-6pts deduction if promoted
 
MadMackem10 said:
You must be logged on to see external links

Great article here by a law firm. Basically saying deliberate spying can be nothing other than intending to gain a sporting advantage. Also that precedent dictates that in knock out situation the EFL argues that points deductions are not fitting penalties and expulsion is the only option. Precedent they mention is Swindon in the EFL trophy this year.
Click to expand...
I think they've just copied what I said days ago, but with more legalish language ... it seems obvious, and I'm just a barroom barrister (disbarred).
Roker SOL said:
For time immemorium club scouts have watched rival teams, either to check out a potential signing or to see what a future opponent is up to.

Boro lose, make use of fact to clutch at straws. So the scout got careless and was easily identified.

This is farce.

This will be chucked out with at most a mild telling off for Southampton.

Yawn.

We had a stronger case kicked out over Jimmy Hill and the scoreboard in 1977.

Next, the dinosaurs appeal that the Chixilahub meteor was actually offside and they shouldn't have been made extinct.
Click to expand...
It's a stance I suppose.
 
Last edited:
Roker SOL said:
For time immemorium club scouts have watched rival teams, either to check out a potential signing or to see what a future opponent is up to.

Boro lose, make use of fact to clutch at straws. So the scout got careless and was easily identified.

This is farce.

This will be chucked out with at most a mild telling off for Southampton.

Yawn.

We had a stronger case kicked out over Jimmy Hill and the scoreboard in 1977.

Next, the dinosaurs appeal that the Chixilahub meteor was actually offside and they shouldn't have been made extinct.
Click to expand...
Scouting is carried out at live matches with public access or by invitation, this case is covert spying and completely different.

The point about Jimmy Hill and his shenanigans is irrelevant as it was a lifetime ago with a very different level of governance. Jimmy Hill had a cosy relationship with the FA/FL upper echelons which was probably run more like the Masons at the time, hence the outcome where Coventry got away with it.

There is a stronger similarity with Swindon and their punishment.
 
Roker SOL said:
For time immemorium club scouts have watched rival teams, either to check out a potential signing or to see what a future opponent is up to.

Boro lose, make use of fact to clutch at straws. So the scout got careless and was easily identified.

This is farce.

This will be chucked out with at most a mild telling off for Southampton.

Yawn.

We had a stronger case kicked out over Jimmy Hill and the scoreboard in 1977.

Next, the dinosaurs appeal that the Chixilahub meteor was actually offside and they shouldn't have been made extinct.
Click to expand...
It’s not scouting in a public game or watching publicly available footage from games, it’s spying a private session specifically aimed at this game only. They’re not remotely the same thing.
 
joop said:
They can ask for them and if refused, that could be considered to be not fully cooperating with the investigation.
Click to expand...
Aye, but it’s not going to a jury. They’d still need evidence to say the club were complicit. Southampton lads could easily wipe the phones anyway.

If it was a criminal investigation, the police would’ve done a raid, got to the phones and laptops before anything could be deleted and used their specialist software to analyse all the data. None of that’s happened here because we’re talking about a bloke getting caught standing next to a tree.
 
Roker SOL said:
For time immemorium club scouts have watched rival teams, either to check out a potential signing or to see what a future opponent is up to.

Boro lose, make use of fact to clutch at straws. So the scout got careless and was easily identified.

This is farce.

This will be chucked out with at most a mild telling off for Southampton.

Yawn.

We had a stronger case kicked out over Jimmy Hill and the scoreboard in 1977.

Next, the dinosaurs appeal that the Chixilahub meteor was actually offside and they shouldn't have been made extinct.
Click to expand...
It's explicitly against the rules of the competition. So you are wrong, it is not a farce and doesn't compare in any way to 1977.
 
All of a sudden:
. Raced up Championship Table
. Got to semi finals of FA Cup

Ha’way man, a blind man on a galloping hos can see it’s been going on all over the training grounds GET THEM OUT!
 
BoshItLikeBardo said:
Aye, but it’s not going to a jury. They’d still need evidence to say the club were complicit. Southampton lads could easily wipe the phones anyway.

If it was a criminal investigation, the police would’ve done a raid, got to the phones and laptops before anything could be deleted and used their specialist software to analyse all the data. None of that’s happened here because we’re talking about a bloke getting caught standing next to a tree.
Click to expand...
Like you say, it isn’t a criminal court so they can rule on the balance of probability. If Southampton refuse to hand over evidence that backs up their defense they were not complicit, that could go against them.
 
joop said:
Like you say, it isn’t a criminal court so they can rule on the balance of probability. If Southampton refuse to hand over evidence that backs up their defense they were not complicit, that could go against them.
Click to expand...
Especially when the prosecutions case has a photograph of one of Southamptons scouts recording the training session.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top