Matthew Le God

It isn't irrelevant. Clubs would still be guilty of spying and warrant punishment for that. But it is relevant to the servity of the offence. Clubs that make no effort to enclose their training ground from public view can't then justify that the training sessions were highly secretive as any member of the public could view them and then publish them online (even if just in written notes rather than videos) for the world to see.

Stuck in the middle with you!

MLG's Smoggie cousin

It reads much more like something written by an AI-assisted draft than by a professional legal representative. A few reasons why: The language is overly dramatic and repetitive (“serious and systematic breach”, “antithesis of good faith”, “contempt for the competing club”). It throws in a very large number of legal claims at once, some of which are weak, questionable, or unlikely to apply. A solicitor would usually be much more cautious about alleging things like fraud, deception, or unlawful economic interference without hard evidence. The structure looks AI-generated/legal-template style: numbered headings, broad assertions, repeated phrasing, and exhaustive lists. Real legal correspondence is normally tighter, more precise, and avoids speculative conclusions like: “explicit knowledge and authorisation by club management” “gross negligence” unless evidence already exists. A lawyer would usually distinguish clearly between: proven facts, allegations, and possible inferences. This draft blurs them together. The biggest tell is probably the legal overreach. Claims like: “Misuse of Private Information” “Trade Secrets Regulations 2018” “Fraud and Deception” “Economic Tort” Feels like someone searched for every remotely related legal concept and added them in. A professional sports lawyer would probably focus narrowly on the relevant English Football League regulations and maybe trespass/confidentiality at most. It does sound superficially “legal”, but in the way AI often does: confident, comprehensive, and formal-sounding — while lacking restraint and proportionality.

I know the joke he was doing. Punchline was wrong 😉

If true, they should appeal it for shits and giggles.

With Stephens back on the bench for the 2nd leg he might start the final.

If that happened I don't think I could stop laughing from now until the final.

In fact... aren't they breaching the same regulation Saints have? EFL Regulation 3.4 — clubs must “act towards each other with the utmost good faith.” Attempting to prejudice and influence the outcome of an ongoing investigation is not acting in good faith!

The Middlesbrough statement today asking for us to be kicked out is the equivalent of a player doing a tackle and the opponents surrounding the ref and demanding he give a red card! Acting like that isn't allowed on the pitch, nor should it be off it.

If he didn't think it was an issue, he wouldn't be hiding behind a tree.

If that was the case he should have said 'no, Im not doing that'. If my boss told me to do something that shouldn't be done, I'd take it to his boss.

That is nonsense. It is between the EFL and Saints. Boro lawyers won't be presenting anything in person, nor can they appeal any decision.

Due process Plus... how do you know he hasn't?

Flynn Downes = Fred Shaggy = Ross Stewart Tonda Eckert = As the (former) caretaker of the theme park Steve Gibson = Scrappy Doo

He is wrong on this... "Southampton, Boro and/or the EFL can appeal" Middlesbrough can not appeal. It is between Saints and the EFL.

This didn't get his team chucked out of a competition for spying on tactics 😉

It is because Saints jumped the gun and it should have been announced at the same time Hull City publish it.

Steve Gibson's hotel has some poor reviews on Trip Advisor

If Boro are confident things are going their way, why are they leaking everything to the press?

What would stop any member of the public from booking a hotel room, taking a stroll in the hotel grounds and sending training notes to Hull if Boro are in the final? Nothing So Boro clearly can't be too bothered about sensitive tactical information being in the public gaze.

If we all buy match tickets tomorrow and then get kicked out, refuse getting a refund and keep the ticket 😉 😇

Missing the point I was making (again)

You missed the point I was making. Yes, it happened. Yes, we should be punished. But if any member of the public is able to livestream a tactical training session it highlights rhe flaw in the defence of saying vital info could be seen. It can't be deemed vital if it is on public show with no fences!

Should Saints be punished for breaking the rules? YES However.... A Middlesbrough claim of viewing their training allowed a significant advantage is flawed! Viewable by any member of the public to see. They have made no effort to block views. Public could film and put on YouTube for the world (and opponents) to see and it wouldn't break a rule.