• 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

DoctorMick said:
"I don't want to use it as an excuse..."

The club are desperately trying to salvage some credibility but managing to make the whole thing worse.

"The panel included David Winnie, a footballer-turned-lawyer who played one game for Middlesbrough on loan 33 years ago, and Lydia Banerjee, whose Littleton Chambers had previously represented Boro."

It's hardly comparable to Brooking is it?
Click to expand...
Aye canny mad tbh look close at them all I bet they’ve had some links to other clubs guess what football is a fairly small sport with people bouncing from club to club from different aspects of the sport. Surely they want football people making these calls and not just lawyers.
craigypants said:
If it's commonplace why hide behind a tree? He is talking bullshit. What a terrible excuse.
"Sorry officer but spying on the womens team in the showers is quite normal in my country" Proper garbage excuse.
Click to expand...
Aye if it’s common place why hide it?, why “force” interns to do it with no doubt their jobs hanging over their heads.
 
Last edited:

flusheding said:
I was going to give a devils advocate question of "what if they (owner and manager) basically just don't really think they've done anything wrong?" but then did a quick Google to see what country both come from to try and guess social attitudes to this sort of thing and the manager is now quoted as saying

"He pointed to the different culture of football in Europe, where spying on opponents is more commonplace and there are few rules to prevent it."

So it isn't even a devil's advocate question, they clearly just have different attitudes and don't see what the issue is with it, so why would you expect them to give a proper apology or sack people for it?
Click to expand...
Problem with him playing the 'i didnt know the rules' line. What about the 2 years at Barnsley before he went to Italy?

Also, if its the done thing abroad and he had no idea, why the disguises and hiding behind trees, wearing other teams tracksuits (Eastleigh)

they would have been better keeping quiet than those latest video's
 
old supporter said:
Yes I've read a lot of posts on there forum and most of them think they've been badly treated and they should have got a fine and allowed to play the final
Click to expand...

I understand the argument for this tbh, the decision to reinstate Middlesbrough was bizarre imo but Southampton couldn't progress and I'm guessing that just promoting hull wouldn't have been an option.

Judging by the evidence those two legs with Boro were probably two of the fairer games, and I just feel like Boro were comfortably beaten fairly over two legs. Probably worth saying it's largely down to Southampton being spooked mind. Agree with the decision to throw them out of the play offs but not sure it needed to go beyond that. I just don't see a world where they're the only ones at it.

I think he should walk but the young lad that got caught should be getting a hefty £££, his career is pretty much ruined.
 
Last edited:
MonkeyLove said:
I suspect that the decision to keep Eckart is going to be taken out of their hands. Precedent would suggest he is almost certainly going to get a similar 1 year ban to Priestman as can’t see the FA wanting to try and explain why different treatment then FIFA if they decide for weaker. The technique was different but the direction from and with the knowledge of the manager is the same.

Which makes it even more bizarre they haven’t sacked him as they had a chance to be proactive and try and rebuild some reputation and credibility. Will have looked like a free hit missed if he is banned anyway.
Click to expand...

Being cynical they probably want him to be formally banned or charged with something so when they sack him he can't ask for a payoff
 
woodlebert said:
You must be logged on to see media items
Click to expand...
Basically a load of weasely excuses dressed up as 'context' then saying he's not making excuses and putting on his best AI sad face :lol: . Also basically saying that the team 'deserved' to play the final. No shame.

He should take a leaf out of Jurgen's book (sorry, couldn't resist):

You must be logged on to see media items
 
Kris_Boro said:
Problem with him playing the 'i didnt know the rules' line. What about the 2 years at Barnsley before he went to Italy?

Also, if its the done thing abroad and he had no idea, why the disguises and hiding behind trees, wearing other teams tracksuits (Eastleigh)

they would have been better keeping quiet than those latest video's
Click to expand...

There's also the small matter of the media furore when he was an analyst for the German national team over their opponents claiming they were being spied on, and the intense discussions that must have taken place within football regarding spying after the bans handed out to staff in the Canada backroom staff.

Every time they (SFC) says something to smooth things over, it just creates more questions about their conduct, honesty and their integrity.
 
Cockney Mackem said:
Being cynical they probably want him to be formally banned or charged with something so when they sack him he can't ask for a payoff
Click to expand...

Probably. But you would think in the scheme of things it would have been at least a slightly more positive PR outcome. He is 33, first manager job, low profile so can’t imagine he is on huge wages.

I can’t see how he doesn’t get a year ban. There is very little precedent on these cases but the Canadian women’s team manager got a 12 month one. Essentially the same circumstances of breaching the rules with the managers direction/knowledge. The FA being a member of FIFA I assume they will look to that for consistency. And dare I say the fact that it was a female manager banned then, if they adopt a weaker sanction against a male manager in the game then they will open themselves up to an extra level of criticism/having to defend.
 
Cockney Mackem said:
Being cynical they probably want him to be formally banned or charged with something so when they sack him he can't ask for a payoff
Click to expand...
It's not for me to say whether he should resign or not, but a sincere apology requires contrition, not excuses or 'context', as well as a determination to behave differently in future.

That aside, surely he can't ask for a payoff if they sack him for breaking the rules. Unless they were all complicit (and he can prove it if needed) - perhaps that is the case and why the senior management there haven't acted yet. As you say, easier to sit it out and wait for the FA to decide (and hope it doesn't bring them down too). Then a quick backhander to TE to keep his trap shut.
 
CornerShop said:
I understand the argument for this tbh, the decision to reinstate Middlesbrough was bizarre imo but Southampton couldn't progress and I'm guessing that just promoting hull wouldn't have been an option.

Judging by the evidence those two legs with Boro were probably two of the fairer games, and I just feel like Boro were comfortably beaten fairly over two legs. Probably worth saying it's largely down to Southampton being spooked mind. Agree with the decision to throw them out of the play offs but not sure it needed to go beyond that. I just don't see a world where they're the only ones at it.

I think he should walk but the young lad that got caught should be getting a hefty £££, his career is pretty much ruined.
Click to expand...
Nothing bizzare about it. It's normal practice in a knock out competition to reinstate the losing team - EFL showed that in the EFL cup this year with Swindon and Luton.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top