Southampton spying compendium thread

[Zak's Dad]

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.

The problem with the "this is how it's always been done" defence is it doesn't in any way factually address the charge:

Observing or attempting to observe training 72 hours before a match is specifically against the rules.

To do so is considered to be trying to gain an unfair sporting advantage - "cheating".

The rules for this were specifically brought in because the existing rules applied to Leeds weren't believed to be strong enough.

The sanctions placed upon Southampton have to - under the FA rules - be proportionate to stakes involved and uphold the integrity of the competition.

In this case promotion to the Premier League and a potential £200million prize.

A mild ticking off is the least likely outcome.

 

[Mackemansj1]

This makes me laugh
Why are all these Clubs conveniently coming out with ‘evidence’ now
Surely they report it at the time

For all we know they did?. If it’s not within the 72 hours of the game or the clubs it happened too won or they didn’t have enough evidence . Who know what the efl have on them etc. The huge up turn of their form looks well iffy now though.

 

[oriss]

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.

We made the complaint before the first match, so there was no clutching at straws with regards to the result of the games. they broke established rules ? that is the issue here not the result of two games.

 

[Definitely Maybe]

This makes me laugh
Why are all these Clubs conveniently coming out with ‘evidence’ now
Surely they report it at the time

We don't know what the evidence is. Presumably they've reviewed CCTV in light of what's happened but hadn't spotted it at the time. The story that was reported was that clubs were surprised at how quickly Southampton adjusted to tactical or personnel tweaks but hadn't suspected someone was hiding in a bush recording until the Boro incident prompted them to check.

 

[BoshItLikeBardo]

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.

Could do, but dishing out a harsh punishment on that basis alone is asking for legal trouble. I think they’ll be lenient tbh.

 

[stan the man]

We made the complaint before the first match, so there was no clutching at straws with regards to the result of the games. they broke established rules ? that is the issue here not the result of two games.

Even if Boro had won over the two legs, Southampton could still have received a sanction or penalty of points deduction next season.
Rule are rules

 

[Norton]

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.

You are wasting your time. 90% of people realise what you are saying is true but some seem incapable of understanding even the basics.

 

[Rammstein]

Just if it's he say she say then Southampton as suggested could just say he did it on his own initiative

And did what with the info he got?

No-one does a 600 mile round trip for nothing, arriving by coincidence at a training session of a club his team are about to play, and which he had no right to be anywhere near.

Or is Mr. Salt just the footballing version of a train spotter?

 

[Fleagle]

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.

I’m sure they can’t enforce access like a police investigation could. But I would assume they can ask, and presumably treat a refusal to give access as non-cooperation and part of the evidence.

 

[Rammstein]

For all we know they did?. If it’s not within the 72 hours of the game or the clubs it happened too won or they didn’t have enough evidence . Who know what the efl have on them etc. The huge up turn of their form looks well iffy now though.

WIN. %ages this season

Arteta. 66.6%
Guardiola. 63.3%
Lampard. 59.8%

Eckert. 62.5%

Top 3 are established managers.
Eckert was U21 manager for a few months and took over a struggling Saints team.

PSG, Barca and Real Madrid will be lining up for him..

 

[BoshItLikeBardo]

You’d think the FIFA Peace Prize winner would’ve flown in and had this sorted by now.

 

[Mackemansj1]

You’d think the FIFA Peace Prize winner would’ve flown in and had this sorted by now.

He’s ended 11 wars now man he’s on to starting more so he can claim he’s ended more

 

[Pantomime Mackem]

There's a rule (127) but no mention of possible sanctions.

Sanctions are elsewhere in the rulebook. There's a range of sanctions from slap on the wrist to expulsion from the league and everything in between. The independent disciplinary commission thus have a lot of leeway but they will look at sanctions for this and other offences and also mindful that if their sanction is too wacky, it will be appealable.

 

[Petesafc]

The problem with the "this is how it's always been done" defence is it doesn't in any way factually address the charge:

Observing or attempting to observe training 72 hours before a match is specifically against the rules.

To do so is considered to be trying to gain an unfair sporting advantage - "cheating".

The rules for this were specifically brought in because the existing rules applied to Leeds weren't believed to be strong enough.

The sanctions placed upon Southampton have to - under the FA rules - be proportionate to stakes involved and uphold the integrity of the competition.

In this case promotion to the Premier League and a potential £200million prize.

A mild ticking off is the least likely outcome.

Agree but I have a feeling a fine or a deferred points deduction, next time in Championship, will be the outcome

 

[Pantomime Mackem]

They've given it to a legal team to deal with, which is hardly surprising. They've also asked them to look at it as quickly as possible. Not sure how you expect to deal with this in just a couple of days without looking at everything and scrutinising it

It's not just hardly surprising, it's mandatory (if by legal team you mean independent disciplinary commission)

 

[woodlebert]

They've given it to a legal team to deal with, which is hardly surprising. They've also asked them to look at it as quickly as possible. Not sure how you expect to deal with this in just a couple of days without looking at everything and scrutinising it

No scenario is particularly straightforward or easy. Feel for the EFL, people expecting it be done in days are being unrealistic imo

 

[Smiler]

It's not just hardly surprising, it's mandatory (if by legal team you mean independent disciplinary commission)

The commission is made up of legal people

 

[Pantomime Mackem]

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.

They have that power

The commission is made up of legal people

We're in broad agreement mate, I'm not trying to pick daft points with you. But just to clarify for other posters. And at the risk of doing what I'm saying I don't want to do from memory it will have a legally qualified chair, and two other members who may or may not be legally qualified. (Posted for everyone's info)

 

[Fleagle]

They have that power

We're in broad agreement mate, I'm not trying to pick daft points with you. But just to clarify for other posters. And at the risk of doing what I'm saying I don't want to do from memory it will have a legally qualified chair, and two other members who may or may not be legally qualified. (Posted for everyone's info)

In the spirit of the clarity you mentioned in the second half of your post I’d say they don’t have the power. They can ask. And league rules would sanction non-compliance. But they don’t have RIPA powers to compel.

 

[Diallo]

Agree with this

You must be logged on to see media items