Forum | Now the dust has settled and I’ve calmed down let’s re-visit Spygate by MattFinish

Forum index | Previous Thread | Next thread

Now the dust has settled and I’ve calmed down let’s re-visit Spygate 22:59 - May 28 with 13732 views

We all know what Saints did was wrong but as clarified by virtually everyone in the game with half a brain and everyone outside of Portsmouth and Middlesbrough, Saints punishment was so disproportionately severe and the way that Middlesbrough were reinstated in the competition having been knocked out over two legs raises a lot of questions that I feel still need answering.

Firstly, Saints were reported for spying by Middlesbrough. The EFL had regulations in place specifically Regulation 3.4, which imposes a general duty of good faith and Regulation 127 which prohibits observation of training sessions.

The only similar case in the EFL was that of Leeds United who were caught spying on a Derby training session mid way through the 2018/19 season. Leeds admitted to and were found guilty of spying on every team’s training sessions up to that point, i.e. on 26 other teams. Saints were found guilty of spying on 3 teams. All Leeds got as punishment was a £200k fine, no points deductions and no staff bans. They were not kicked out of the FA Cup which they competed in after being found guilty and they were allowed to play in the playoff semi finals at the end of the season.

This judgement on Leeds set a precedent for future spying transgressions. The EFL put a specific regulation in place (Reg 127) but that came under the umbrella of Regulation 3.4, which already existed.

In legal terms setting a precedent means a court has made a legal decision that establishes a new principle or rule. This decision acts as an authoritative model or guideline for judges to follow in all future cases that involve similar facts or legal issues.

When our punishment was given the EFL claimed that this was a new rule but in fact Regulation 3.4 existed then and exists now, regulation 127 just details spying which was already covered under Reg 3.4 or how else did the EFL charge Leeds?

To make matters worse the EFL had a rule in place which covered spying on training sessions and other breaches but then decided to add specific mention of observing other teams training sessions (Reg 127). But then they confused the matter by making it acceptable to spy on other teams training sessions up to 72 hours before a game. This completely contradicts regulation 3.4. So in effect the EFL had a rule in place to punish any form of spying and then brought in a new rule which partially allowed it. In addition in the seven years since the EFL brought in regulation 127 they have failed to clarify what the penalty would be for breaking this regulation.

So having been accused of spying an Independent Disciplinary Commission found us guilty and decided to expel Saints from the Playoffs and deduct them 4 points next season, thus allowing Middlesbrough who had already been knocked out of the competition to be reinstated. I've read through the EFL regulations and I can't find anywhere that allows for a team to be reinstated from a knockout competition after they been eliminated.

Similarly, there is a rule in the EFL regulations which states that “the Proposed Respondents shall have two options: 86.4.1 to accept the Proposed Sanction within 14 days of receipt; or 86.4.2 to reject the Proposed Sanction, in which case the matter shall be referred to the Disciplinary Commission in accordance with this Section 8. In the event that no response is received within 14 days the matter shall be referred to the Disciplinary Commission for determination in the manner set out in this Section 8.”

I have read through the EFL Regulations and can’t find anywhere that states that the EFL can foreshorten the 14 day period that Saints should have been allowed to make a response. If the EFL had stuck to their regulations and allowed Saints 14 days to respond they would have had no option but to allow Southampton to play Hull in the final which would have meant that Middlesbrough would have been out.

According to the written reasons of the Independent Disciplinary Commission who expelled Saints, the independent panel consisted of three solicitors, two of whom have links to Middlesbrough football club however tenuous they may be. One was employed by a firm that have represented Middlesbrough on at least two occasions and one who played football for them. I know following a previous post that I made, the two people in question claim they were accused of bias and maintained they were not acting with bias to Middlesbrough. That may well be the case but there's no way of proving that one way or the other. I want to make it crystal clear that at no point did I accuse anyone of bias I just pointed out the links and asked for transparency.

Out of 176,000 practising solicitors in the UK the EFL chose to appoint two to sit on the Independent Disciplinary Commission who had links to Middlesbrough, whereas they managed to find 2 solicitors with no links to Southampton.

In addition I pointed out that Neil Bausor the CEO of Middlesbrough Football Club sits on the board of the EFL which surely, whether as he says he stepped back from this situation, opens up the question of impartiality. The EFL board is a relatively small group of people who I'm sure get on well together and meet fairly regularly. As such I'm sure that Neil Bauser is friends with people on the board. Personally I'd be surprised if he wasn't but that's just my opinion.

The other thing that has not been made public by the EFL is, who sat on the panel of the independent arbitration panel who dismissed Saints appeal? Surely for reasons of transparency, we should be told who these independent people were.

In my opinion, it appeared to me and many others that there was a push from within the EFL for Middlesbrough to progress through to the playoff final. The match between Saints and Middlesbrough was allowed to take place and I feel that the EFL were hoping that Middlesbrough would beat Saints and the problem would be solved. However when Southampton won, the EFL made the decision to expel them from the competition. At that point the final should have been awarded to Hull City but that would have robbed the EFL of their very lucrative final. Personally and I know a lot of other people not just Saints fans think this stinks.

The biggest monetary fine in English football was when Chelsea were fined £10.75 million for serious financial transgressions over a period spanning 8 years. This enabled them to buy top quality players who gave them an actual advantage on the pitch every game of the season for eight years, enabling them in that period to win 3 Premier League titles; 3 FA cups; 2 Champions League titles; 2 Europa League titles; 1 UEFA Conference league title; 1 UEFA Super cup title and 2 FIFA world cup titles.

For spying on three clubs we have been denied the opportunity to play in the richest game in world football and denied the chance of a £200 million windfall. It has been said that we have not lost £200 million because we still had to win the final but even without that we have in effect been fined £9m. This is because by the EFL keeping us in the championship we will lose £9m in parachute payments next season.

We still await an FA investigation into the incident with rumours of Tonda Eckert receiving a two year ban. This would be grossly unfair as Bielsa was not banned when Leeds were caught and the following season was able to guide them to promotion to the premiership.

What we did was unlikely to gain us any advantage at all, and in fact if you look at the three games that we were found guilty of we drew two and lost one so clearly there was no advantage. However if you look at Chelsea, Manchester City and Leicester City they were all guilty of severe and continual financial misconduct over a large number of years where they were able to buy the quality of players that other teams couldn't afford which gave them a huge advantage over the competition in every single game. Yet between the three of them they have received a six point deduction and a £10.75m fine.

The football authorities can argue all they want that Southampton's punishment fits the crime but we all know and they know this is not the case.

Shame on the EFL!

Now the dust has settled and I’ve calmed down let’s re-visit Spygate on 23:33 - May 29 with 3100 views

MattFinish

Reading through the EFL Written Reasons of the Disciplinary Commission document again, a few other things have caught my attention.

The EFL maintain that the expulsion from the Playoffs was because it was an entirely separate competition to the league. Well, that makes the expulsion of Saints even more disproportionate.

For spying on Oxford and Ipswich we get a 4 point deduction. For spying against Middlesbrough, we get expelled from the most lucrative competition in football. How is that proportionate.

The EFL requested that the 14 day rule be dispensed with because the final was scheduled for 23 May. So, our legal rights were dispensed with so that the EFL could make money. They could have put the playoffs on hold before the two semi finals began. If Wembley was booked up after the 23 May, then the playoff final could have been rescheduled to a neutral venue like Villa Park. That would have allowed us the 14 day period such a hefty charge required.

The Independent Disciplinary Commission (IDC) argued that the Leeds incident that Saints placed reliance on was a sanction imposed in a pre- Regulation 127 case and therefore did not represent an appropriate benchmark.

Instead, when considering the penalty to be imposed on Saints the IDC referred to The EFL v Derby July 2020 where the EFL found Derby guilty of valuing their stadium (Pride Park) and methods of amortising player registrations because it did not comply with financial regulations, causing them to breach P&S loss thresholds.

The IDC also referred to Everton v The PL Appeal Board where Everton admitted to exceeding the £105 million loss threshold by £19.5 million for the period ending with the 2021/22 season.

The IDC also referred to EFL v Swindon where Swindon were found guilty of playing a cup game with two un-registered players.

So, the three breaches the EFL used in applying our sanction, had nothing to do with spying on training sessions and had nothing to do with Regulation 127 unlike the Leeds case which we placed reliance on. So how could the IDC say that the Derby, Everton and Swindon cases represent an appropriate benchmark and use them to determine our sanction.

The deeper you dive into this the more questionable it becomes.

[Post edited 29 May 23:35]

Now the dust has settled and I’ve calmed down let’s re-visit Spygate on 09:25 - May 30 with 2966 views

benalisbroom

Now the dust has settled and I’ve calmed down let’s re-visit Spygate on 23:57 - May 28 by MattFinish

Hi Benalisbrrom, I didn't find any further links to Lydia Banerjee although Littleton Chambershave definately represented Middlesbrough FC on two high profile cases and maybe more. As you say she may well have represented them but we don't know.

Suerly it's down to the EFL to ensure that whoever they appoint is not at risk of being in conflict through association. As I said they had 176,000 solicitors to chose from and picked two who had Middlesbrough links.

I was surprised that there was seemingly a response from Winnie and Banerjee to the posts on this board to deny any bias. But we have absolutely no way of knowing whether that is true. Let me reiterate, I am not accusing them of bias, I'm just saying that in my opinion there could be a conflict of interests that the EFL could have avoided.

I think there is enough general condemnation of our punishment from prominent people in football like Simon Jordan, Karen Brady and Stefan Borson (who is an experienced and award-winning General Counsel, adviser and CEO working as head of sport at McCarthy Denning who are a full service City law firm) for serious questions to be asked.

Like you I'm disappointed that our legal representation appears to have rolled over

Matt,
I can’t find anything about the denial issued by Lydia Banerjee and/or her employer Littleton Chambers. Where can I find this?

Now the dust has settled and I’ve calmed down let’s re-visit Spygate on 09:34 - May 30 with 2959 views

MattFinish

It was in Alfie House's piece in the Echo I think

Now the dust has settled and I’ve calmed down let’s re-visit Spygate on 09:37 - May 30 with 2954 views

MattFinish

https://www.dailyecho.co.uk/sp

This is the article but there appears to be no denial from Banerjee, but certainly Littleton Chambers who she works for have represented Middlesbrough

Now the dust has settled and I’ve calmed down let’s re-visit Spygate on 11:50 - May 30 with 2801 views

Bridders2

David Winnie joined Middlesbrough on loan on 24th March 1994, presumably till the end of the season so had several weeks of employment by Middlesbrough football club. Plenty of time to make friends, connections and build an empathy for the club.

No matter how small the connection his appointment to the panel should never have been allowed.

	Dorsaint
Poll:	Should Tonda be sacked?

Now the dust has settled and I’ve calmed down let’s re-visit Spygate on 08:10 - May 31 with 2606 views

benalisbroom

Now the dust has settled and I’ve calmed down let’s re-visit Spygate on 09:37 - May 30 by MattFinish
https://www.dailyecho.co.uk/sp This is the article but there appears to be no denial from Banerjee, but certainly Littleton Chambers who she works for have represented Middlesbrough

….or indeed highly unlikely that they haven’t represented other parts of Steve Gibson’s business empire over the years.

Now the dust has settled and I’ve calmed down let’s re-visit Spygate on 12:11 - May 31 with 2481 views

DorsetIan

Now the dust has settled and I’ve calmed down let’s re-visit Spygate on 11:50 - May 30 by Bridders2
David Winnie joined Middlesbrough on loan on 24th March 1994, presumably till the end of the season so had several weeks of employment by Middlesbrough football club. Plenty of time to make friends, connections and build an empathy for the club. No matter how small the connection his appointment to the panel should never have been allowed.

This is a really good point.

It's very easy to assume/simplify WInnie's relationship with Boro i.e. '1 game 30 years ago' but, as you say, that final game of that season was 8 May and there were 11 games from 24 March to 8 May while, we presume, Winnie was there.

At that time Winnie had spent his entire professional career in Scotland, having spent 8 years at St Mirren and (then) 3 at Aberdeen.

His time at Aberdeen was coming to an end but after Boro, he then spent another 3 years playing in Scotland.

Although he later played in Iceland and Australia, Boro was the ONLY English Club he ever played for.

And it was an exciting time at Boro. That season they were still hopeful of a playoff place when he joined, and the following season Brian Robson took over as manager and they were promoted. The season after that they moved to the Riverside, so I'm guessing that work on that was in progress when Winnie joined.

And, perhaps most importantly, Steve Gibson was by then already a big part of the Club. He took over as Chairman at the end of the season when Winnie was there but had been accumulating shares and power in the lead up to that.

Perhaps Winnie went there hoping to be a longer term part of a Club on the up. Whatever the position, he would have been attached to Boro and interested in their success for those 11 games at least. And it's possible that he got to know Gibson.

It's because it's possible to speculate like this and that noone apart from Winnie can truly know the depth of his allegiance to Boro, that he should never have been on the committee.

Poll:

Would you welcome Oriol Romeu back?

Now the dust has settled and I’ve calmed down let’s re-visit Spygate on 12:31 - May 31 with 2467 views

DorsetIan

Now the dust has settled and I’ve calmed down let’s re-visit Spygate on 08:10 - May 31 by benalisbroom
….or indeed highly unlikely that they haven’t represented other parts of Steve Gibson’s business empire over the years.

Got to be a bit careful with barristers because there are all technically self-employed within a set of Chambers, so unless Lydia Banerjee actually herself represented Boro, she would, I am sure, claim independence from any work anyone else in the Chambers might have done.

That said, within Littleton Chambers they have a Sport Law Group/Team which she is a part of and Littleton Chambers does list Boro as a Club that the team has represented.

"Recent instructions have involved, amongst others, the following football clubs – Liverpool, Manchester City, Leicester City, Chelsea, Tottenham, Newcastle, Sunderland, QPR, West Ham, Wigan, Leeds, Cardiff, Middlesbrough, Crystal Palace and Sheffield Wednesday."

My guess would be that her professional body would not consider her as conflicted because of this. A disclosure that others in her 'team' but not her had acted for Boro would, however, again have avoided all the speculation around her.

Poll:

Would you welcome Oriol Romeu back?

Now the dust has settled and I’ve calmed down let’s re-visit Spygate on 20:46 - May 31 with 2284 views

MattFinish

Well David Winnie says he was not biased so that must prove it beyond doubt?

Now the dust has settled and I’ve calmed down let’s re-visit Spygate on 21:29 - May 31 with 2251 views

DorsetIan

Now the dust has settled and I’ve calmed down let’s re-visit Spygate on 20:46 - May 31 by MattFinish
Well David Winnie says he was not biased so that must prove it beyond doubt?

What was it Mandy Rice Davis said about Lord Astor ?

Poll:

Would you welcome Oriol Romeu back?

Now the dust has settled and I’ve calmed down let’s re-visit Spygate on 20:03 - Jun 1 with 1964 views

MattFinish

The EFL have still not released the League Arbitration Panel report giving the names of the panel members yet.

Bearing in mind they were criticised for having people on the Disciplinary Committe with links to Middlesbrough, could the reason be more people with links to Boro?

Who's in charge of releasing the report? Pam Bondi??

Now the dust has settled and I’ve calmed down let’s re-visit Spygate on 21:46 - Jun 1 with 1858 views

grumpy

Doesn't this country just love inquiries?,
They go on and on and on.

Now the dust has settled and I’ve calmed down let’s re-visit Spygate on 21:52 - Jun 1 with 1847 views

DorsetIan

Now the dust has settled and I’ve calmed down let’s re-visit Spygate on 20:03 - Jun 1 by MattFinish
The EFL have still not released the League Arbitration Panel report giving the names of the panel members yet. Bearing in mind they were criticised for having people on the Disciplinary Committe with links to Middlesbrough, could the reason be more people with links to Boro? Who's in charge of releasing the report? Pam Bondi??

They have. You can find it here.

https://www.efl.com/governance

under 'League Arbitration Panel's Decision, or something like that.

There was no panel, just one judge deciding our fate: The Rt Hon Sir Gary Hickinbottom (Chair).

He said. "Given the urgent need to determine the appeal in relation to the sanction imposed in respect of Charges 1 and 2 because of the imminent Championship Play-Off Final, an expedited appeal hearing was arranged for 20 May 2026 before me as sole arbitrator."

Not sure whether they would usually have three.

Poll:

Would you welcome Oriol Romeu back?

Now the dust has settled and I’ve calmed down let’s re-visit Spygate on 10:06 - Jun 2 with 1694 views

MattFinish

Now the dust has settled and I’ve calmed down let’s re-visit Spygate on 21:52 - Jun 1 by DorsetIan

In other words Dorsetlan they put one person on the panel so that there’s no disagreement and the EFL can get its big cash cow played at Wembley
What was it Jobi MacAnuff said? “Our game is built on honesty and integrity “ 🤣🤣🤣🤣

Now the dust has settled and I’ve calmed down let’s re-visit Spygate on 12:04 - Jun 2 with 1653 views

PaleRider

I think that now is the time to post and I have to say, Matt, your piece is excellent - thanks.

First things first. The delayed statements have probably been delayed for a reason - either legal or managerial. The owners and board would have needed time to consider their reaction rather than just posting some drivel in the heat of the moment. I am more than happy with the statements from Solak and Eckert, which seemed to have the right balance of contrition and strength.

It is abundantly clear that Saints have transgressed - according to the EFL's rules, which appear to be different to those across other countries. You would have thought that if this is important enough then this would be covered by FIFA, UEFA and the FA.

It is also clear that Saints' CEO seems to have completely messed up the approach to the issue and the subsequent process. I wonder if he was offered some inkling around the severity of the punishment if the adjudication was brought forward? If so, I hope that this was in writing and verifiable. If not, why on earth was the 14 day period shortened?

However, the punishment and manner of determining it seem dodgy to say the least. There are still questions that are still unanswered:
1) Why was the punishment so disproportionate? Especially for the players, staff (unconnected with Spygate) and the supporters. Although it seems over the top, I think that punishing the innocent does not equate to principles of natural justice and this concept has not been applied in this instance.
2) How can the punishment be judged as independent? The links to Middlesborough in the EFL and the initial panel are apparently so clear that they need further explanation. It would be reasonable for Saints to ask for details of any e-mails, WhatsApp's, texts etc. that passed between any one involved from the EFL side and Middlesborough in the days before, during and after the decision was made. I think it can be questioned whether the punishment was applied in good faith and how future questions of cheating and bullying will be handled going forward.
3) Why was the second leg of the semi final even played? It must have been clear to the EFL that expulsion of Saints was a highly possible outcome and this should have rendered the game unplayable.
4) Following on from 3 - why did the EFL allow Saints to sell tickets for the final and, therefore, also cause many Saints fans to make travel arrangements?

In short, I think that the EFL have massively mishandled the whole incident and whether this is down to incompetence of corruption, who knows?

Having read various Saints forums, looked on Instagram and looked at HYS on BBC Sport, I have to say that I despair of the attitude of many "followers" of the game. It's not just Middlesborough supports who are cry babies - Saints have a fair few as does the general public.

It's abundantly clear that many people who are getting all wound up have no experience of elite sport. Elite sport is brutal - cheating happens all the time - we see it in every football game played with simulation, managers with selective vision etc. Secondly, my experience of elite sport is that there is a level of ruthlessness that many would consider bullying - but to be honest, if you don't like it, don't do it. People commenting have been treating the interns like they are children - they're not! They are full grown adults with minds of their own.

Saints supporters need to move on from the desire to be everyone's favourite second team to being more like Millwall. What does it matter that someone else likes our club?

So overall, it's now time to move on and get behind Saints. There are some things that can be done:
1) Reward season ticket holders - particularly those who also travel the length and breadth of the country to support Saints.
2) A bit extreme but I would ban media such as the BBC from St Marys. Their attitude has contributed to the furore.
3) I think we need some new songs! I leave you to think up some imaginative lyrics!
4) If supporters are still not happy and can't get behind the club, then maybe watch another team or even do as Man Utd supporters did and set up a new grass roots club.

Now the dust has settled and I’ve calmed down let’s re-visit Spygate on 12:45 - Jun 2 with 1584 views

dirk_doone

Now the dust has settled and I’ve calmed down let’s re-visit Spygate on 21:52 - Jun 1 by DorsetIan

Gary Hickinbottom is used by the FA too, so our paths may cross again. He's from Walsall so no obvious Middlesbrough connection.

"A significant amount of his work as a judge was sport-orientated with a wide range of subjects, including the funding football club, the development of football and other sports grounds, and liability for injuries suffered whilst playing sport. He now sits on commercial arbitrations arising from the world of sport. He is particularly experienced in sitting on sports disciplinary and safeguarding panels, regularly chairing hearings relating to a wide variety of sports. He is currently the Chair of the Judicial Panels for the Premier League, the Lawn Tennis Association and British Wrestling, the Chair of the International Tennis Federation Safeguarding Panel, the President of the National Safeguarding Panel, and a member of the Appeal Board of the British Horseracing Judicial Panel, the National Anti-Doping Panel, the FA Judicial Panel, the FA Safeguarding Review Panel, and the Sport Resolutions Arbitrators’ Panel."

He seems to be more of a hanging judge than a lenient one. The last case he was on the appeal board for, he dismissed Leicester City's appeal against their points deduction:

https://www.39essex.com/our-th

[Post edited 2 Jun 13:12]

Poll:

How many Pompey fans post on here, pretending to be Saints fans?

Now the dust has settled and I’ve calmed down let’s re-visit Spygate on 15:09 - Jun 2 with 1506 views

DorsetIan

Now the dust has settled and I’ve calmed down let’s re-visit Spygate on 10:06 - Jun 2 by MattFinish
In other words Dorsetlan they put one person on the panel so that there’s no disagreement and the EFL can get its big cash cow played at Wembley What was it Jobi MacAnuff said? “Our game is built on honesty and integrity “ 🤣🤣🤣🤣

Yes, no disagreement and tbh got to be unlikely that one judge is going to overturn the original verdict of three unless there was some really obvious error.

No, the case was lost when there were three. That was the point when a different punishment might have possible but those three had other ideas.

Poll:

Would you welcome Oriol Romeu back?

Now the dust has settled and I’ve calmed down let’s re-visit Spygate on 19:48 - Jun 2 with 1388 views

benalisbroom

Now the dust has settled and I’ve calmed down let’s re-visit Spygate on 12:04 - Jun 2 by PaleRider

A great post, PaleRider - I agree with every word. Two more things:
(1) Someone needs to write to Felicity Schneider, who is Littleton Chambers’ Governance Partner, to confirm that they have indeed only once acted for Middlesbrough in any capacity (I am not totally convinced by the ‘AI feedback loophole’ argument about Lydia Banerjee’s biography but I am no AI expert).
(2) Let’s have a great season following the Saints. I haven’t had a proper beer for many years now (long story) but when that Middlesborough FC bus pulls into SMS next season there’s a pint of Heineken Zero headed it’s way with my name on it!!😁
COYR!!!!!

Now the dust has settled and I’ve calmed down let’s re-visit Spygate on 09:09 - Jun 3 with 1281 views

MattFinish

Now the dust has settled and I’ve calmed down let’s re-visit Spygate on 15:09 - Jun 2 by DorsetIan
Yes, no disagreement and tbh got to be unlikely that one judge is going to overturn the original verdict of three unless there was some really obvious error. No, the case was lost when there were three. That was the point when a different punishment might have possible but those three had other ideas.

I've only had time to glance through the League Arbitration Panel hearing. This shows the arbitration panel consisted of one person The Rt Hon Sir Gary Hickinbottom. The EFL claim that because the playoff final was only days away, the appeal was heard by a sole arbitrator to resolve the matter in time.

There was a span of 12 days between Middlesbrough formally reporting Southampton and the independent disciplinary committee hearing on 19 May. Any appeal hearing was booked for the following day ie 20 May to ensure time to arrive at a decision before the playoff final.

As the EFL knew that this was the case from the point that it was decided to charge Southampton why didn't they have a three person arbitration panel already allocated, as they’d managed, in the same time period to appoint a three person disciplinary panel?

This just stinks and when I get time I'm going to have a deep dive into this

Now the dust has settled and I’ve calmed down let’s re-visit Spygate on 09:21 - Jun 3 with 1250 views

MattFinish

Now the dust has settled and I’ve calmed down let’s re-visit Spygate on 12:04 - Jun 2 by PaleRider

Excellent points PaleRider.

I particularly like your suggestion that the club should ask for details of any e-mails, WhatsApp's, texts etc. that passed between any one involved from the EFL side and Middlesborough in the days before, during and after the decision was made.

I really don't think the club should take this lying down. I think there are enough EFL/Middlesbrough links and the way that the semi-final was allowed to take place suggests to me the EFL were hoping Saints would get knocked out.

I think that the EFL releasing extra tickets to us on the day that the Arbitration Panel, sorry person, sat indicates some last minute change of stance from the EFL.

Now the dust has settled and I’ve calmed down let’s re-visit Spygate on 12:15 - Jun 3 with 1180 views

dirk_doone

Now the dust has settled and I’ve calmed down let’s re-visit Spygate on 09:21 - Jun 3 by MattFinish

Was the Middlesbrough analyst who effectively spied on Southampton, the one who reported that he was "bullied"? I wonder if those words were placed in his mouth by his boss at Middlesbrough? Their internal communications should be made as transparent as Southampton's have been. The source of the constant media links, often embellished with lies, throughout the disciplinary process also needs to be exposed.

Poll:

How many Pompey fans post on here, pretending to be Saints fans?

Now the dust has settled and I’ve calmed down let’s re-visit Spygate on 13:12 - Jun 3 with 1157 views

UTS1885

If we had been expelled from the final just for the Boro spying, then I would have felt aggrieved. But all that went out the window when we admitted to spying elsewhere and the calculated manner in which it was done. This whole Boro-links-on-the-commission-panel argument is total bobbins. One bloke played one game for Boro 35 years ago, and the other lady worked on a case for Boro. She's probably done the reverse a number of times as well and simply goes by the evidence put in front of her.

Its embarrassing and terribly arrogant playing the 'victim' when its those responsible for the spying that have brought all of this on to the club.

Now the dust has settled and I’ve calmed down let’s re-visit Spygate on 13:23 - Jun 3 with 1144 views

DorsetIan

Now the dust has settled and I’ve calmed down let’s re-visit Spygate on 13:12 - Jun 3 by UTS1885

We were expelled from the play-offs for the Boro incident alone.

We were given points deductions because of the Oxford and Ipswich ones.

And the fact that there was a Boro player on the Tribunal is serious (the KC confirmed that) and would, if the matter were to be pursued, be likely to have the decision thrown out.

That would be on the basis of possible bias. We will likely never know the actual attachment of David Winnie to Boro or Steve Gibson, and it should never have been allowed to be an issue.

In a case that was all about probity, it leaves the whole think stinking.

Poll:

Would you welcome Oriol Romeu back?

Now the dust has settled and I’ve calmed down let’s re-visit Spygate on 15:21 - Jun 3 with 1079 views

130yrs_and_one_Cup

So, lets get this right. A player who played pretty much spent the first 17 years of his playing football life in Scotland with 6 spells and 5 clubs, but who then had 8 weeks in England on loan would have formed lifelong bonds there?

This, despite the fact that when his playing career was over he managed in Iceland where he had finished his career before moving back to Scotland in management and coaching roles for 3 different clubs.

He had 10 playing spells at 9 clubs of which all of them bar the Middlesbrough spell were permanent moves. He played one solitary game at Boro on loan and bever returned to England in any football capacity after leaving, and this English spell was 32 years before Spygate.

He spent at least a season at every single club, apart from Boro. The only time he ‘returned to England’ was when he joined a law firm as a Solicitor in St Albans.

Well, maybe all the above facts are why this Winnie chap was not seen to have been compromised, and was accepted by all parties prior to the hearing. It really is straw-grasping to make this minute point such a big issue.

Poll:

Is Southampton FC a big club. Where do they rank?

Now the dust has settled and I’ve calmed down let’s re-visit Spygate on 17:41 - Jun 3 with 1019 views

MattFinish

Now the dust has settled and I’ve calmed down let’s re-visit Spygate on 15:21 - Jun 3 by 130yrs_and_one_Cup

Has somebody farted?

Forum index | Previous Thread | Next thread