Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.
EFL Playoffs 25/26 (Saints booted out of final and given 4 point deduction - pg34)
Comments
-
I am surprised he hasn't gone already? Apparently met with all the players today......J BLOCK said:Makes me laugh when people ask about the managers involvement. I'm sure he would have been a key part in this whole thing.0 -
The Russell Brand defence - well I knew I was a bit norty but I thought they liked being fucked over and anyway who would believe them. I didnt really stop to think how wrong it was, just kind of got caught up in it all. I mean other people have done it and got away with it right?1
-
Said the man in the orthopaedic shoesCharltonManor1966 said:
Absolutely- I stand corrected. My apologiescafcfan said:
Groucho Marx wasn't it?CharltonManor1966 said:
CL is an excellent forum!eastterrace6168 said:
D'ya know what, the more of these "other" forums I read just makes CL look really good and well laid out...robroy said:If anyone fancies a read of their forum when the S&*t hit the fan, here we go.
Saints Expelled from Playoffs - The Saints - SaintsWeb
Some excellent reading on there haha
I am on it with the maxim of WC Fields who said
"I wouldn't want to be a member of any club (forum) that would have me as a member"......8 -
EugenesAxe said:
Said the man in the orthopaedic shoesCharltonManor1966 said:
Absolutely- I stand corrected. My apologiescafcfan said:
Groucho Marx wasn't it?CharltonManor1966 said:
CL is an excellent forum!eastterrace6168 said:
D'ya know what, the more of these "other" forums I read just makes CL look really good and well laid out...robroy said:If anyone fancies a read of their forum when the S&*t hit the fan, here we go.
Saints Expelled from Playoffs - The Saints - SaintsWeb
Some excellent reading on there haha
I am on it with the maxim of WC Fields who said
"I wouldn't want to be a member of any club (forum) that would have me as a member"......
8 -
Lynn these are sex people...lordromford said:EugenesAxe said:
Said the man in the orthopaedic shoesCharltonManor1966 said:
Absolutely- I stand corrected. My apologiescafcfan said:
Groucho Marx wasn't it?CharltonManor1966 said:
CL is an excellent forum!eastterrace6168 said:
D'ya know what, the more of these "other" forums I read just makes CL look really good and well laid out...robroy said:If anyone fancies a read of their forum when the S&*t hit the fan, here we go.
Saints Expelled from Playoffs - The Saints - SaintsWeb
Some excellent reading on there haha
I am on it with the maxim of WC Fields who said
"I wouldn't want to be a member of any club (forum) that would have me as a member"......Don't make the same noise as them they might think you want to join in!9 -
No shame if they are involved. Should be banned like what Eckert will get if they had any knowledge and did not report it or walk outRedRobin said:Worth noting the Charlton connection here. Ben Garner is Eckert’s right hand man and Ben Reeves is also a first team coach, both you’d expect would know this is wrong! What a mess and a shame if they are involved in this nonsense.3 -
Of course there is an added factor if/when it comes out that they spied on more than three teams. They have told the EFL that it was only three so will have been showed to have lied to them. Personally, I think the major step that most won't take is to do it once. When it becomes habitual after that step, it would surely have been done multiple times but lets see. Proving it is another matter of course and I suspect this is what Southampton might have been gambling on when they admitted to two league games of no consequence and no real success in terms of results for the cheating.
Let's look at it this way, and take their account at face value. The spied on a team that ultimately got relegated and lost and spied on another and drew. So in view of that great success, or evidently total lack of it, they decided to do it again! This is a situation where common sense points you to more cases of spying and this needs thorough investigation by the EFL. And if they believed there was nothing wrong with it, as they have said, why did they not do it more?7 -
Hard to imagine they didn't know what was going on.RedRobin said:Worth noting the Charlton connection here. Ben Garner is Eckert’s right hand man and Ben Reeves is also a first team coach, both you’d expect would know this is wrong! What a mess and a shame if they are involved in this nonsense.
Surely when Eckert and his staff sat to discuss tactics before a game there would've been some mention of "the intern saw this" or "this player is fit and training" or "it looks like they will line up like this"1 -
I think it could be presented in terms of 'our scouting has identified this'. Something like this is best kept to a few people as possible to ensure it doesn't come out I imagine.Chris_from_Sidcup said:
Hard to imagine they didn't know what was going on.RedRobin said:Worth noting the Charlton connection here. Ben Garner is Eckert’s right hand man and Ben Reeves is also a first team coach, both you’d expect would know this is wrong! What a mess and a shame if they are involved in this nonsense.
Surely when Eckert and his staff sat to discuss tactics before a game there would've been some mention of "the intern saw this" or "this player is fit and training" or "it looks like they will line up like this"1 -
It’s the 100 million quid winnings itself that is disproportionate.stevexreeve said:
The fine is effectively 100 million quid. This is the sort of money banks pay for crashing the economy or water companies pay for killing people with their shit.Arsenetatters said:Southampton to appeal today and the suggestion by the BBC that things could potentially change again.I can’t see what they can challenge tbh
I think there is a good argument that it is disproportionate!
All winnings and earnings at this level and above are disproportionate.2 -
Sponsored links:
-
Never trust anyone named BenRedRobin said:Worth noting the Charlton connection here. Ben Garner is Eckert’s right hand man and Ben Reeves is also a first team coach, both you’d expect would know this is wrong! What a mess and a shame if they are involved in this nonsense.15 -
He could start a podcast, everyone else does - Maybe Philby and Me?jose said:I wonder what will become of that poor internet lad who did the spying, presumably under instruction.
He will be tainted by this backstory for life. The Southampton players might consider having a whip round and giving the young man a few million quid to re start his life.2 -
Possible yes, but i still find it hard to believe over the course of the season it wouldn't have been obvious.MuttleyCAFC said:
I think it could be presented in terms of 'our scouting has identified this'. Something like this is best kept to a few people as possible to ensure it doesn't come out I imagine.Chris_from_Sidcup said:
Hard to imagine they didn't know what was going on.RedRobin said:Worth noting the Charlton connection here. Ben Garner is Eckert’s right hand man and Ben Reeves is also a first team coach, both you’d expect would know this is wrong! What a mess and a shame if they are involved in this nonsense.
Surely when Eckert and his staff sat to discuss tactics before a game there would've been some mention of "the intern saw this" or "this player is fit and training" or "it looks like they will line up like this"
Especially when you read stuff like this (admittedly not sure if this is true though):
"The whistleblower provided an image that was shared internally at Southampton as far back as December 2025. The picture showed a soldier in full camouflage gear, and the face of the soldier had been replaced with an image of Will Salt".1 -
The more I read the more likely it seems that this was something they did regularly.
Their immediate future now hangs on whether it can be proved. If it is, I would expect a major points deduction inbound and frankly, that should be the case. I just cant see how they did this against Oxford and Ipswich, got a single point, and sent the intern up to Middlesbro. That is just so unlikely.8 -
Communist!jimmymelrose said:
It’s the 100 million quid winnings itself that is disproportionate.stevexreeve said:
The fine is effectively 100 million quid. This is the sort of money banks pay for crashing the economy or water companies pay for killing people with their shit.Arsenetatters said:Southampton to appeal today and the suggestion by the BBC that things could potentially change again.I can’t see what they can challenge tbh
I think there is a good argument that it is disproportionate!
All winnings and earnings at this level and above are disproportionate.1 -
Telling porkies to the EFL about whether video was taken and used is not a good look.5
-
It just doesn’t make any sense what Southampton have admitted to.MuttleyCAFC said:Of course there is an added factor if/when it comes out that they spied on more than three teams. They have told the EFL that it was only three so will have been showed to have lied to them. Personally, I think the major step that most won't take is to do it once. When it becomes habitual after that step, it would surely have been done multiple times but lets see. Proving it is another matter of course and I suspect this is what Southampton might have been gambling on when they admitted to two league games of no consequence and no real success in terms of results for the cheating.
Let's look at it this way, and take their account at face value. The spied on a team that ultimately got relegated and lost and spied on another and drew. So in view of that great success, or evidently total lack of it, they decided to do it again! This is a situation where common sense points you to more cases of spying and this needs thorough investigation by the EFL. And if they believed there was nothing wrong with it, as they have said, why did they not do it more?They want everyone to believe that they spied on teams in December, April, and May, but at no other points in the season since the new manager was in place, even though he has admitted to apparently not knowing it was against the rules.As you say, proving it is the issue. If clubs have the time over the summer to look back at any irregularities on CCTV etc then Southampton are going to be in a lot more trouble as a club, on top of the individual punishments which are undoubtedly coming.4 -
I think its inconceivable that they only spied on teams in the league where the outcome had little impact on league standings. I also think the EFL would really like this to end rapidly because of the harm it has done to the integrity of the game and their competition, so took Southampton's offer of guilt for those games and didn't look to far elsewhere. Unfortunately for all parties it now seems likely that the FA will now have to be involved. Its a bit of a stretch to believe that the coaching staff didn't know or was actually involved in this, or for that matter person or persons in admin, someone must have approved travel costs for the lowly intern patsy. I wonder if the FA believe footballers to be so thick as to not questions or actually know where data comes from especially when going on a record breaking run.ken_shabby said:The more I read the more likely it seems that this was something they did regularly.
Their immediate future now hangs on whether it can be proved. If it is, I would expect a major points deduction inbound and frankly, that should be the case. I just cant see how they did this against Oxford and Ipswich, got a single point, and sent the intern up to Middlesboro. That is just so unlikely.
I now also wonder if this rule breaking is not just confined to one club but is done by others, obviously not us our results seem to suggest not.
1 -
On Radio Solent this morning, Tosser Eckert has admitted to authorising the cheating, well that’s a shock…not!!
should be shown the door and given a ban2 -
Q. Did the Southampton players know about this ? How do you impart the knowledge you've gained from spying to the players ? Do you say 'we think they might set up like this or that'. It will all come out in the end.1
-
Sponsored links:
-
Addickted2TheReds said:Where does Eckert go from here after a, surely, inevitable departure?Will anyone else hire him?
MI6.8 -
I always knew Garner was a wrongun. Had disproportionately massive feet and tried to get league one centre backs to play out from the back18
-
unlikelyRodneyCharltonTrotta said:Addickted2TheReds said:Where does Eckert go from here after a, surely, inevitable departure?Will anyone else hire him?
MI6.
0 -
What this whole saga is really emphasising to me is something existential about the nature of modern football.
Twenty, thirty years ago, this wouldn't have been a big deal. In fact it'd have been a joke. Everyone would have had a laugh and nothing would have been done.
Twenty, thirty years ago, players were given certain instructions, but they were also given freedom. Not everything was rehearsed; on-field decisions were much more improvised.
But now? Now it seems, spying can be a powerful tool. Because it gives an insight into the precise systems, tactics and routines a club is rehearsing.
Obviously, this reflects badly on Southampton. But for me, it reflects worse upon the modern game, that we would optimise our sport to this extent. You see it in any top-level match - even in open play, there are clear formulas at work, rehearsed passing moves, percentages rigorously played with positioning, etc.
And there's no putting the genie back in the bottle. Everything has been automated now. High level club football is officially a science.
This is going to sound absolutely wild, but my solution would be to legalise and even encourage 'spying'.
But not to justify or help the Eckerts of this world. He is absolutely the sort of micromanaging, technocratic coach I'd want to see disadvantaged. I'd particularly welcome his training sessions being spied upon.
Put some power back in the hands of the unpredictable, the instinctive.
PSG and Bayern showed us the way. You could have shown them training videos of each other until the cows came home before their tie and we'd have still gotten the same football, the same devil-may-care slugfest. These are teams that, yes, do rehearse a few things - quite a few things - what top-level club doesn't - but above that, they trust their talented players to do amazing things.
It's the not-quite-galactic-level clubs you have to really watch out for in the 'football science' regard - the moneyballers, the 'well-coached' system merchants. With Arsenal their kings.
I know there's a horrible wealth disparity in football, and that only a couple of clubs in the world can afford to play expansive, instinctive football and still be any good.
But despite the Qatari blood-money funding the whole operation, I'm hoping PSG absolutely gub Arsenal. And I hope we get a World Cup final like the last one. As reminders that football doesn't need to be an organised, predetermined sequence of 'match-ups'. It can just be teams of skilled blokes trying to get one over on each other. With tactical ideologies, yes, and with in-game shifts in play patterns or whatever, but ultimately a case of footballers having to work it out in the moment.
So yes. Viva 'spying'. If everyone knows everything, who knows anything?6 -
The fact that they "provided inaccurate information, suggesting that the conduct was not part of SFC's culture and that no video footage was captured, transmitted, shared or analysed, when in fact the opposite was the case" suggests they may well have provided inaccurate information about how many times they spied on other clubsMuttleyCAFC said:Of course there is an added factor if/when it comes out that they spied on more than three teams. They have told the EFL that it was only three so will have been showed to have lied to them. Personally, I think the major step that most won't take is to do it once. When it becomes habitual after that step, it would surely have been done multiple times but lets see. Proving it is another matter of course and I suspect this is what Southampton might have been gambling on when they admitted to two league games of no consequence and no real success in terms of results for the cheating.
Let's look at it this way, and take their account at face value. The spied on a team that ultimately got relegated and lost and spied on another and drew. So in view of that great success, or evidently total lack of it, they decided to do it again! This is a situation where common sense points you to more cases of spying and this needs thorough investigation by the EFL. And if they believed there was nothing wrong with it, as they have said, why did they not do it more?1 -
especially as he got caught. And left evidenceIdleHans said:
unlikelyRodneyCharltonTrotta said:Addickted2TheReds said:Where does Eckert go from here after a, surely, inevitable departure?Will anyone else hire him?
MI6.0 -
19 -
Maybe just maybe the 72 hour element of the rule is a factor?stoneroses19 said:
It just doesn’t make any sense what Southampton have admitted to.MuttleyCAFC said:Of course there is an added factor if/when it comes out that they spied on more than three teams. They have told the EFL that it was only three so will have been showed to have lied to them. Personally, I think the major step that most won't take is to do it once. When it becomes habitual after that step, it would surely have been done multiple times but lets see. Proving it is another matter of course and I suspect this is what Southampton might have been gambling on when they admitted to two league games of no consequence and no real success in terms of results for the cheating.
Let's look at it this way, and take their account at face value. The spied on a team that ultimately got relegated and lost and spied on another and drew. So in view of that great success, or evidently total lack of it, they decided to do it again! This is a situation where common sense points you to more cases of spying and this needs thorough investigation by the EFL. And if they believed there was nothing wrong with it, as they have said, why did they not do it more?They want everyone to believe that they spied on teams in December, April, and May, but at no other points in the season since the new manager was in place, even though he has admitted to apparently not knowing it was against the rules.As you say, proving it is the issue. If clubs have the time over the summer to look back at any irregularities on CCTV etc then Southampton are going to be in a lot more trouble as a club, on top of the individual punishments which are undoubtedly coming.
Perhaps on some occasions they were spying / observing but in the allowable timetable.3 -
Just after we signed Tal Ben Haim (and others) we had a behind closed doors pre season friendly at Sparrows Lane.
I went to the path that runs along the east side of the site and watched it, there was another bloke, Seb Lewis brother, and we were joined by Seb himself.
By moving some branches we had a view from behind one of the goals we were using, but I am sure we wouldn’t have been noticed from the training complex.
Southampton could easily have spied on training from that vantage point and wouldn’t have been spotted, and I suspect it would’ve been possible elsewhere. There is no way we could prove it happened, but it would be pretty simple to do.8 -
If it subsequently transpires that there are indeed more occurrences of cheating which although far from certain does seem likely then Southampton have burnt all their bridges with the defence of initially cooperating because they’ve had their chance of owning up and if more cheating does come to light then they should in my opinion face the harshest of penalties. For me that would be demotion to league two and something like a twelve point deduction. Hard to believe it was only ever Hull, Oxford and Ipswich. On the other hand Southampton are playing with fire if they are still covering up.CAFC_boi said:Written reasons say that it was a 3 point deduction per offense (Ipswich and Oxford) but they reduced to 2 points per game due to the mitigating factors - 1) Southampton co- operated and 2) they plead guilty to the charges.Think they’ve got off lightly tbh.Plead guilty to the two with incriminating evidence but haven’t plead guilty to the other times they definitely have done it.4
