• 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

Zak's Dad said:
The advantage may have been in "not scoring".

30 - 40% of goals in the championship come from set pieces.

Watching Boro practice set pieces would give them all they needed to know to help negate them.

Also Boro famously are crap at scoring from open play, so you stop the set pieces you probably stop them scoring.

(It could be after the fact bollocks - but there's been talk after this broke that a number of teams were surprised at how well Southampton negated their set pieces this season)

And again - the issue isn't "how did they benefit?"
The issue is they broke clear rules to try to gain a benefit - that's enough.
Click to expand...
26.84%
 

Flavonoids said:
Its like saying manslaughter is stupid and forgivable because Ian Huntley.

No headloss from what I can see, just people wanting the rules to mean something and seeing them applied meaningfully. That it's 'boro that might benefit is irrelevant.
Click to expand...
Aye its exactly like saying that :lol:

I agree its irrelevant its Boro...I'd think its a big fuss about nowt whoever was the spied on team
AC Mack said:
The rule change was brought in specifically because of the Leeds incident.
Click to expand...
Where are the sanctions outlined for those falling foul over it ?

The rule itself is about 5 lines
 
Last edited:
Cee Jay said:
Aye its exactly like saying that :lol:

I agree its irrelevant its Boro...I'd think its a big fuss about nowt whoever was the spied on team.
Click to expand...
At last, agreement.

If it's a big fuss about nothing, do you think a club that were allowed to observe every other clubs training sessions throughout the season, prior to their matches would fare better than if they weren't, given they'll be better than some, very similar to other and not as good as the rest (they're the parameters).

If you don't think it would benefit them at all then I'll allow your position, but if you do then you can come around to the correct way of thinking :p
 
Beau Peep said:
They can ask, but they've got no powers to do this. They're not the police, they're a kangaroo court of a private company. Unless he bought a pin badge at every club shop, they won't have any way of obtaining this information. Even then they probably can't trace a card number or partial card transaction down to an individual transaction.
Click to expand...
They do have powers, this has been covered. Every club is obliged to produce docs at the request of the EFL. It’s in their regulations which all member clubs agree to be bound by.
 
Flavonoids said:
At last, agreement.

If it's a big fuss about nothing, do you think a club that were allowed to observe every other clubs training sessions throughout the season, prior to their matches would fare better than if they weren't, given they'll be better than some, very similar to other and not as good as the rest (they're the parameters).

If you don't think it would benefit them at all then I'll allow your position, but if you do then you can come around to the correct way of thinking :p
Click to expand...
I’m not convinced with the amount of analysis that goes on these days that a bloke watching from behind a tree would give that much more, if any benefit.

So no I don’t think it would benefit them, heard players and managers over the week saying any benefit would be minute, if it existed at all.
 
123SunTan said:
There's no downside for the EFL to postpone the final. Just the added global publicity and uptick in TV revenues would be worth it for the league.
Click to expand...
There’s loads of downside.
1. Finding an alternative date/venue
2. Hull supporters who’ve booked travel /hotels
3. Commitments in broadcasting contracts (subject to the detail of them)
4. Delaying starting work on next season’s fixture list
 
MonkeyLove said:
Bit of a ridiculous process with the EFL prosecuting the case for a final in their showpiece competition. You could conceivably have an outcome that both they and Southampton think is overly punitive and want to appeal.

The only appropriate sanction is to kick them out. Cut through all the noise and what they tried to do, whether successful or not, was gain a sporting advantage. The punishment for that should only ever be a sporting one. A deferred points deduction, which it can ever only be assumed to be being the ruling is before knowing what league they could be in next season, 1) Doesn’t punish the offence in terms of trying to gain an advantage to get promotion this season 2) may never be implemented if Southampton remain in the prem for decades (Unlikely but possible).

You could also say that with a possible 200 million windfall neither a fine nor a 6 point deduction next time they are in the championship is equal to the value of gaining promotion via an unfair advantage as even if they come back down the fine would be pocket change and they will likely have a team that is far in advance of any competitive points deduction.

Shouldn’t be complicated in my opinion. Kick them out just like they would be if they tried to gain an advantage through naming an ineligible player, or not giving a penalty if a player tries to dive to win one.
Click to expand...
Great post.
 
AC Mack said:
The rule change was brought in specifically because of the Leeds incident.
Click to expand...
And? Do you honestly think that if they imposed a harsher penalty which potentially cost them £100mil+ that it wouldn’t end up in arbitration, with the Leeds incident and penalty cited?
 
Cee Jay said:
I’m not convinced with the amount of analysis that goes on these days that a bloke watching from behind a tree would give that much more, if any benefit.

So no I don’t think it would benefit them, heard players and managers over the week saying any benefit would be minute, if it existed at all.
Click to expand...
You've dug in, fair enough ... I'm not in the business of trying to change anyone's mind. I think you're wrong though, and have tried to minimise the offence by invoking the 'bloke watching from behind a tree' manoeuvre.
 
MonkeyLove said:
Bit of a ridiculous process with the EFL prosecuting the case for a final in their showpiece competition. You could conceivably have an outcome that both they and Southampton think is overly punitive and want to appeal.

The only appropriate sanction is to kick them out. Cut through all the noise and what they tried to do, whether successful or not, was gain a sporting advantage. The punishment for that should only ever be a sporting one. A deferred points deduction, which it can ever only be assumed to be being the ruling is before knowing what league they could be in next season, 1) Doesn’t punish the offence in terms of trying to gain an advantage to get promotion this season 2) may never be implemented if Southampton remain in the prem for decades (Unlikely but possible).

You could also say that with a possible 200 million windfall neither a fine nor a 6 point deduction next time they are in the championship is equal to the value of gaining promotion via an unfair advantage as even if they come back down the fine would be pocket change and they will likely have a team that is far in advance of any competitive points deduction.

Shouldn’t be complicated in my opinion. Kick them out just like they would be if they tried to gain an advantage through naming an ineligible player, or not giving a penalty if a player tries to dive to win one.
Click to expand...
That isn’t the only appropriate sanction though, is it?

For anyone who has a basic comprehension of justice, it wouldn’t even be considered an appropriate sanction.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top