• The first stage of the forum upgrades has now been completed but they remain in a degraded state with some features missing, normal posting/reading should now be possible.
    Please read this thread for more details.
    New user registrations are currently disabled.
    Some other features of the forum are also currently disabled.

Southampton spying compendium thread

seahamstar said:
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).
Click to expand...
I guess it gives the independent board a choice or get out 😂 based on the severity of the charge. I guess if they’ve submitted more cases from other clubs too it could sway to the harsher penalty.
 

Banks said:
Boro created plenty of chances. It was boros poor play why they didnt score.

Now if Sputhampton had shut boro out and they barely created youd have a point, but thats not what happened
Click to expand...
They’ve had that issue a fair bit towards the end of the season. They create a shit ton but don’t finish them. If they had Loch Ness up front they probably go up automatically.
 
SAFC11 said:
If Tommy Conway wasnt rubbish they'd have been about 3 goals up
Click to expand...

He's a very good championship footballer right up to the point he needs to make a decision in the box then in variably he makes the wrong one. The lad they replaced him with (Castledine) when he went off injured against Southampton was utterly shite at everything
 
seahamstar said:
For all the cries of 'we don't care about little old Boro', there's a lot of people on here showing their true colours and displaying a lot of bitterness.
Click to expand...
No bitterness here you were poor from about March. On merit on performance don’t deserve to go up.

On integrity Southampton don’t deserve to either.

So two choices let you in final (which is a tough one)
Or promote hull (they deserve it)

Either way Southampton shouldn’t have a crack at the money at all and boro for me should get some form of compensation.
 
Safc1987 said:
He tried Suing a club when they were at their lowest ebb, which could of made the whole club cease at that time, again claiming it cost him promotion which to be Frank is laughable
Your fans showed zero sympathy to derby and its supporters now its craving it from anywhere and everywhere
Click to expand...
I thought I asked for actual facts .
For instance - WHY did he 'try to sue them'?
Did Derby not do anything wrong?
Do you know this for a definite, undisputed fact?
Did Gibson try to sue a club just for the hell.of it, with no foundation whatsoever?
 
Morny said:
I'm sorry like, people here criticising Boro for fighting their own corner are being very one-eyed.

We had threads on here, last week, about the corruption of the PL because we didn't get a penalty decision in a end of season dead-rubber, but Boro are whining fannies because they're upset a club *cheated* in a game which impacts their ability to play in the most lucarative game in football? :lol::lol:

If the shoe was on the other foot, this place would be in absolute uproar and insisting that a) the game should be awarded to us and b) that RLB/KLB both come out and kick off in the strongest terms.

Christ, we still all hate Coventry for something they done 49 years ago :lol:
Click to expand...
I'm flabbergasted at how so many don't see the bigger picture here.

It doesn't matter which club was targeted, doesn't matter whether you think one team was better than the other once the fixture was played.

This is trying to gain a competitive advantage illegally (if SFC are found guilty). Spying on a team within 72 hours of a fixture is against EFL rules (however nebulous those are). Failure by the authorities to hand out a severe punishment (again, if they are found guilty) would mean that it becomes open season for other clubs to be the victim of it.

Including SAFC.
 
North Yorks Mackem said:
The way boro have acted has been a disgrace imo. Trying to intimidate the EFL at every step of the way to get a decision that suits them. Leaking what is basically confidential evidence to the press. Demanding they be involved in the hearing that they have no right to be involved in. Not getting their way there and then trying more intimidatory tactics with this press release.
Click to expand...
Why was the evidence confidential?

Surely if they have evidence to add to the hearing then they should be involved. If it's a proper inquiry then they need to speak to the witnesses who saw the guy in the bushes, what they saw on his phone, what he said, did they see him delete anything, was he on a video call.....
It's absolute basics for Boro to present their evidence. They are involved. If they aren't allowed to present their evidence bush man say whatever he likes unopposed.
 
seahamstar said:
I thought I asked for actual facts .
For instance - WHY did he 'try to sue them'?
Did Derby not do anything wrong?
Do you know this for a definite, undisputed fact?
Did Gibson try to sue a club just for the hell.of it, with no foundation whatsoever?
Click to expand...

Why would boro be the benefactors? Because you finished 7th?

What about the team in 8th? How many points did Derby take from boro and the teams around them?

I dont see why derby ffp eqials boro victims?
 
This along with Swindon & Luton in the EFL Trophy proves that the leagues should publish a list of punishments for each rule breach.

Every time something like this happens there’s always a “as per rule 15.4 in the league handbook” but no definitive action that will be taken if a club breaks said rule. If it stated “any club found spying on an opponent will receive a points deduction/ elimination from cup or play off pending investigation” it would bypass all the speculation and potential corruption
 
JC70 said:
Why was the evidence confidential?

Surely if they have evidence to add to the hearing then they should be involved. If it's a proper inquiry then they need to speak to the witnesses who saw the guy in the bushes, what they saw on his phone, what he said, did they see him delete anything, was he on a video call.....
It's absolute basics for Boro to present their evidence. They are involved. If they aren't allowed to present their evidence bush man say whatever he likes unopposed.
Click to expand...
Im pretty sure they shouldnt have been leaking stuff about credit card payments to the press. Not that im an expert or anything. Either way dont like the way they've acted. Clear as day what they're trying to do by leaking so much to the press, and that statement just released.

Also with the hearing they can only provide written evidence. They arent permitted to attend in person. But they are demanding they are. Which of course is intimidatory tactic no doubt aimed throwing threats of potential action around. It may work, but not a fan of it at all.
 
seahamstar said:
I thought I asked for actual facts .
For instance - WHY did he 'try to sue them'?
Did Derby not do anything wrong?
Do you know this for a definite, undisputed fact?
Did Gibson try to sue a club just for the hell.of it, with no foundation whatsoever?
Click to expand...
Nobody else took that action with Derby why is that?
 
Bamber said:
This along with Swindon & Luton in the EFL Trophy proves that the leagues should publish a list of punishments for each rule breach.

Every time something like this happens there’s always a “as per rule 15.4 in the league handbook” but no definitive action that will be taken if a club breaks said rule. If it stated “any club found spying on an opponent will receive a points deduction/ elimination from cup or play off pending investigation” it would bypass all the speculation and potential corruption
Click to expand...
As I said to another post, its because the rule isn't as black and white as financial limits. That is unless we want the same punishment for minor breaks to major ones, for instance rule 15.4 is you cant allow people into safe standing areas without the correct ticket, if the punishment was £1000 fine it would be harsh if the club only allowed 1 person but a bit weak if they allowed 1000. That rule probably isn't the best case to use but its what AI told me was the rule that you mentioned. I'd want a bigger punishment if they had a full team dealing with the spying situation with 1 guy filming it all with audio for hours and a team back at base analysing it and passing it onto the manager over if it was just some lad who wanted to try and look good for his boss and gave him a video from 500 metres away the next day with no audio.
 
North Yorks Mackem said:
Im pretty sure they shouldnt have been leaking stuff about credit card payments to the press. Not that im an expert or anything. Either way dont like the way they've acted. Clear as day what they're trying to do by leaking so much to the press, and that statement just released.

Also with the hearing they can only provide written evidence. They arent permitted to attend in person. But they are demanding they are. Which of course is intimidatory tactic no doubt aimed throwing threats of potential action around. It may work, but not a fan of it at all.
Click to expand...
What if one of the inquiry panel has a question about their evidence?
It’s also only fair that southamptons advocate has the opportunity to challenge Boro’s evidence through questioning. It’s basic principles of justice. Are they just accepting everything boro say at face value?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top