• 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


One thing on this is the EFL (And FA etc…) will be absolutely dreading if the rumours are true that this is more common place then known as some analysts, scouts etc… were claiming.

If it turns out there are more clubs doing it, particularly if they are in the same league, then they might have a lot to unravel
 
The chairman backing the manager to the hilt. You’d think the reputational damage from keeping the manager in place (particularly for commercial deals) outweighs the potential for him being some ‘generational’ coach for them.

I reckon they’ll u-turn and end up sacking him before too long. Unless the chairman was in on it and is frightened the manager will out him.
 
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...

Southampton didn't beat Middlesbrough. They cheated before those games, so the games are null and void.

I'd assume that's the way it's been done on paper.
 
LambethMackem said:
The chairman backing the manager to the hilt. You’d think the reputational damage from keeping the manager in place (particularly for commercial deals) outweighs the potential for him being some ‘generational’ coach for them.

I reckon they’ll u-turn and end up sacking him before too long. Unless the chairman was in on it and is frightened the manager will out him.
Click to expand...

That was my initial thought - rather than the club distance itself from him, they've gone the other way.

It's inexplicable that an individual can potentially cost the club £200m plus the damage to it's reputation, and back him for another go.
 
LambethMackem said:
The chairman backing the manager to the hilt. You’d think the reputational damage from keeping the manager in place (particularly for commercial deals) outweighs the potential for him being some ‘generational’ coach for them.

I reckon they’ll u-turn and end up sacking him before too long. Unless the chairman was in on it and is frightened the manager will out him.
Click to expand...
could be something in your closing words.
 
David Brent said:
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.
Click to expand...
Circumstantially in the final of a play off competition it is fairly bizarre. If Hull hadn't of won the legal challenge would have been impossible to defend and would have cost a considerable amount to settle.
 
LambethMackem said:
The chairman backing the manager to the hilt. You’d think the reputational damage from keeping the manager in place (particularly for commercial deals) outweighs the potential for him being some ‘generational’ coach for them.

I reckon they’ll u-turn and end up sacking him before too long. Unless the chairman was in on it and is frightened the manager will out him.
Click to expand...

They even lied when they were caught. Why believe they only did it three times. The FA should do a spot search of the away dressing room for bugs.

The players taking the club to court is just a smokescreen imo. They had to be in on to be able to make use of the data.

I hope the are given hell at every away ground next year and fail to make the top 6.
 
The chairman comes across as a complete joke. If the intern has gone when he was told it would have been before the 72 hour cutoff - so it's the interns fault. However also says the manager didn't know it wa illegal, so why only do it 3 times and wear a disguise. Complete liar.
 
ivanthereasonable said:
Agree with that. But that is only dealing with the EFL or possibly also the FA.

But disadvantaged clubs may still take it further, once football authorities are done.
Click to expand...

Agreed, they could find themselves in more hot water down the line, but damage limitation is all they have now and the hope it stops here. It would serve them right if the investigation showed that clubs were disadvantaged by the spying and the EFL gives them a points deduction for next season equal to the points they gained from seeing their opponent's game plan and injury news.

The tricky bit would be if a club got relegated by a small margin and could demonstrate they missed out on points that could have kept them up
 
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 is a middle ground though between "I didn't know the rules" and "the rules are broken all over the place, so I was just doing the same"

I legit think both the owner and the manager don't think its a big deal, even if they aren't so bold to just walk onto the opposition training pitch with a notepad and pen to ask the opposite coaches what they'll be doing on Saturday.
 
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...

The likely lawsuits just keep piling up. This could drag Southampton down for a decade.
 
Gloucester said:
The players taking the club to court is just a smokescreen imo. They had to be in on to be able to make use of the data.
Click to expand...

I disagree on this mind.

Manager comes in
"Lads, weve watched hours of footage and at free kicks and corners, Boro target X, Y or sometimes Z"

"On Boros message boards, talk is that player Y is recovering from an injury and hardly trained"

Players wouldnt question that
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top