AlexWilliamsGloves
Well-Known Member
I miss the training reports from Carrington on here.....who was it used to do them?
The issue is its against the rules, if it makes no difference then why do it?What even is the issue with someone spying the training of a team? Anyone could have stood outside Boro’s training ground and watched them. Don’t see what the fuss is about considering Boro could not be bothered with preventing this to start with. Surely shows how little of a difference it makes.
Irrelevant, he was spying on the opposition less than 72 before the game. The land being public or private is another matter.FWIW, I believe he wasn't, he was outside the boundary.
It's what's known in the trade as "trying it on".Bit scummy of Hull to try and get promoted without playing the final. They finished 6th overall, 11 points off second, so hardly justifiable of being worth of a "third" automatic promotion place given they were 4 places off the spot.
Then for the 100th time why do it if it doesn't change anything?, well done on the train indoors then angle, hilarious.I just can't get that irate or worked up about something I find relatively trivial.
They do this and worse all around the world. Go behind closed doors if it's top secret.
It's not the reason Boro went out, just like it's not the reason they beat Arsenal, good teams react to what is happening on the pitch, not what some 2 bit coach saw on his phone.
If you think 200m is trivial, I want to know if there's any vacancies where you work!I just can't get that irate or worked up about something I find relatively trivial.
They do this and worse all around the world. Go behind closed doors if it's top secret.
It's not the reason Boro went out, just like it's not the reason they beat Arsenal, good teams react to what is happening on the pitch, not what some 2 bit coach saw on his phone.
We seemed to go back very much to the short corner routine over the last few games and not sure it improved matters much.I reckon we can’t even score them in training
Get them into the National League.Full explanation out
Basically asserting that Southampton lied about the extent of their actions and pressured staff into them as well as the orders coming from senior level
They illicitly used the log in details of Rob Newman who was still employed at City on over a hundred occasions, hence it went undiscovered for so long. It only came to light when the ‘log in’ was used and they discovered it couldn’t be Rob as he was in a different location and ‘unable’ to log in at that time. Should have had them prosecuted.It wasn’t technically hacked the offenders used accounts that they knew the details for when they worked for City
It's not irrelevant given the post I was replying to!Irrelevant, he was spying on the opposition less than 72 before the game. The land being public or private is another matter.
But I was just pointing out that he wasn't on their training ground, he was on land adjacent to it. Not sure why you'd try to change the context, when that was you said and what I was replying to!That land is private land. It's not on the training facility itself but it's still considered private land and has signs. That's why he was removed.
Besides, that's not even that important. Staff members of other clubs cannot observe other clubs training sessions within 72 hours of a game unless invited. There's no asterisk in the rule to say it's fine if you're stood behind a fence.
Not how it happened.It was pretty embarrassing for City that security was so lax that passwords etc. were not changed when staff left. Over the past 20+ years any decent IT company would have been telling customers that they needed proper security for remote access using hardware tokens or latterly authentication apps on smartphones.
To be honest it was probably a good thing that it was only a scouting database that was illegally accessed and that caused a security review which presumably resulted in access being properly locked down.
I do agree the way it was handled was surprisingly low key - most dipper fans genuinely know nothing about it.


At least it ensured that the ball went to a City player.We seemed to go back very much to the short corner routine over the last few games and not sure it improved matters much.
But it's still private land, owned by the club owner for his hotel.But I was just pointing out that he wasn't on their training ground, he was on land adjacent to it. Not sure why you'd try to change the context, when that was you said and what I was replying to!