EFL Playoffs time

[Mad Eyed Screamer]

But it's still private land, owned by the club owner for his hotel.

He was trespassing

It was on a golf course, Now it could be a "members only / private golf course" but that means it has public access.

 

[halfcenturyup]

Too many lawyers involved with football these days. Everything is legally challenged, threatened, charged, prosecuted. Nothing personal, but I wish they would all just fuck off and leave the game alone.

It's all about money, of course. It stopped being sport a long time ago. The game in England needs to think how to share its revenues more evenly so individual issues aren't make or break financially.

What a mess the fucking authorities have made of everything over the last twenty years (or longer).

 

[jamesha]

Not how it happened.
View attachment 192873View attachment 192874

I think most of my point stands. Sharing logins is a basic IT no-no and the best way to prevent that is to use multi-factor authentication where, as well as a password, a user has to enter a code generated by a hardware token or smartphone app which is in their possession. This would have prevented the issue happening and was something I was doing at companies I worked for way before 2012.
The extent that the dippers used this login should really have resulted in a bigger punishment but I maintain it was embarassing that City let it happen.

 

[mattcity5]

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.

Totally agree with this. Some interesting points via AI. Supports that Eckert may well have thought there was no issue, especially if on public land.

The 72-hour rule is uniquely tailored to English league football, having been specifically written into the EFL handbook as a direct response to the 2019 Leeds United incident.

However, looking globally, most other major footballing nations and governing bodies do not have a hyper-specific, written "anti-espionage" statute with a time-bound window like the EFL does. Instead, actions like Southampton's are heavily prosecuted under much broader, overarching codes of conduct.

If a team were caught covertly filming a rival's tactics in Spain, Italy, or Germany, they would not be charged with a "spying law." Instead, leagues rely on broad "Sporting Integrity" regulations:
Spain (La Liga): Infractions are covered under the Código Disciplinario de la RFEF (Royal Spanish Football Federation Disciplinary Code). Specifically, Article 89, which governs acts that compromise the integrity, pre-determination, or fair outcome of a match or competition.

Italy (Serie A): Handled under Article 4 of the FIGC Code of Sports Justice, which strictly mandates that all clubs, executives, and players behave according to the principles of "loyalty, correctness, and honesty." In the past, Italian clubs caught scouting rivals improperly have faced fines and suspensions under this general banner.

Germany (Bundesliga): Covered under the DFB (German FA) principles of Fair Play. Interestingly, German football has historically been a bit more relaxed about casual observation. In 2018, Werder Bremen admitted to flying a drone over a Hoffenheim training session. Because there was no specific rule against it, the police investigated it as an illegal drone flight rather than a footballing crime, and the DFB ultimately issued no sporting points deductions.

Why the EFL Rule is Unique​

The reason the EFL (and subsequently the English FA) formalized Regulation 127.1 is that during the 2019 Marcelo Bielsa incident, Leeds United's lawyers successfully argued that because there was no explicit rule saying you couldn't watch a training session from a public boundary, they hadn't technically broken a law. The EFL had to awkwardly fine Leeds under a vague "Good Faith" clause.

To prevent clubs from using that legal loophole ever again, England created the explicit 72-hour blackout rule. As Southampton just found out the hard way, having that hyper-specific rule on the books makes it incredibly easy for an independent commission to hand out absolute, maximum sporting penalties.

 

[mattcity5]

Some other points - I asked why they chose those 2 league games and not others to spy:


The independent disciplinary commission’s written reasons reveal that Southampton’s espionage was not a series of random acts, but a calculated, "top-down" strategy driven by manager Tonda Eckert.
The primary reason Southampton chose to target Oxford United, Ipswich Town, and ultimately Middlesbrough, rather than other clubs, boils down to two factors: extreme tactical desperation during critical competitive turning points, and sheer logistical convenience.

Here is why those specific clubs were selected during the campaign:

1. Oxford United (December): The Unpredictability of a New Manager
The spy mission against Oxford United happened right before their Boxing Day clash. Just three days prior, Oxford had sacked their manager, Gary Rowett, and placed coach Craig Short in caretaker charge.

The Motive: When a team suddenly changes managers, their tactical playbook becomes a black box. Southampton’s coaching staff had zero recent film or reliable data on how Craig Short would set up his team, what formation he would use, or who he would select. Desperate to avoid a tactical ambush during the hectic festive period, Eckert authorized spying to steal selection and tactical data. Ironically, despite the spying, Oxford pulled off a surprise 2-1 win.

2. Ipswich Town (April): The High-Stakes Promotion Race
By April, the Championship automatic promotion race was reaching a boiling point, with Southampton and Ipswich locked in a direct battle for the top two spots.

The Motive: This was a classic "six-pointer." The pressure to gain a competitive advantage in a match of this magnitude was immense. Southampton’s staff targeted Ipswich specifically to uncover late-season tactical tweaks and set-piece designs.

The Logistical Trick: Logistical opportunity played a major role here. The Athletic revealed that Southampton staff members actually disguised themselves by wearing Eastleigh FC kits (a local non-league club) to blend in and covertly observe Ipswich’s session.

3. Middlesbrough (May): The Injury Guessing Game
While Middlesbrough wasn't in your initial list, the details of that final mission explain the exact data-driven motive behind the club's targeted spying.

The Motive: Ahead of the playoff semi-final, Southampton’s primary objective was to find out whether Boro’s star midfielder, Hayden Hackney, was going to be fit to play. Injury updates in press conferences are notoriously unreliable, so Southampton sent an intern to physically film Middlesbrough's closed session to verify Hackney’s fitness and see if Boro was training in a shape that accommodated him.

Why Not Other Clubs?
The commission noted that this was a "contrived and determined plan" meant for "competitions of real significance."

Southampton didn't spy on every team because doing so carries massive operational risks. They only pulled the trigger when the stakes were overwhelmingly high (a direct promotion rival or a high-stakes playoff) or when they faced total tactical blindness (a sudden managerial change).

Furthermore, the operation ultimately collapsed because of internal resistance. The commission's report revealed that the junior intern pressured into spying on Oxford and Middlesbrough explicitly refused to participate in the April assignment against Ipswich Town, signaling that the operation was logistically difficult to sustain without fracturing the trust of their own backroom staff.

 

[blue b4 the moon]

Fuck it, having thought about it the obvious solution is to promote both Hull and Boro, just relegate the fourth from bottom Prem team. ;)

 

[halfcenturyup]

I think most of my point stands. Sharing logins is a basic IT no-no and the best way to prevent that is to use multi-factor authentication where, as well as a password, a user has to enter a code generated by a hardware token or smartphone app which is in their possession. This would have prevented the issue happening and was something I was doing at companies I worked for way before 2012.
The extent that the dippers used this login should really have resulted in a bigger punishment but I maintain it was embarassing that City let it happen.

Pretty damning that access protocols were so lax on a pretty important piece of software. But shit happens. More damning, though, is that, having been bitten once, the whole environment wasn't made water-tight to avoid falling for things like the old infected attachment trick six years later.

Maybe I am being harsh, but wtaf? I may be misremembering, but I am reasonably sure the attachments to emails in our organisation were scanned to make sure they were what they claimed to be before anybody could open them, even well before 2018 .....

 

[johnny crossan]

I miss the training reports from Carrington on here.....who was it used to do them?

Douglas Higginbotham - banned by Mancini and often accompanied by his ladder, me, the wife and I think @dadnlad when the latter was a lad.

 

[mrbelfry]

Pretty damning that access protocols were so lax on a pretty important piece of software. But shit happens. More damning, though, is that, having been bitten once, the whole environment wasn't made water-tight to avoid falling for things like the old infected attachment trick six years later.

Maybe I am being harsh, but wtaf? I may be misremembering, but I am reasonably sure the attachments to emails in our organisation were scanned to make sure they were what they claimed to be before anybody could open them, even well before 2018 .....

Wasn't the software externally hosted? I've always assumed it would have been. Sharing passwords on one system wouldn't necessarily have meant a review of email systems in that case. Also don't over estimate peoples IT literacy and remember we weren't the only organisation to get hacked. Didn't banks and police forces also get hacked?

City weren't "leaked" we were victims of a criminal act. Yes we could have done more to prevent it but we were still victims of a sophisticated criminal enterprise from a person who extorted and blackmailed multiple organisations.

 

[Asa's left peg]

Fuck it, having thought about it the obvious solution is to promote both Hull and Boro, just relegate the fourth from bottom Prem team. ;)

I like the cut of your jib.
(That's boating terminology, not scouse)

 

[AlexWilliamsGloves]

Douglas Higginbotham - banned by Mancini and often accompanied by his ladder, me, the wife and I think @Dadandlad when the latter was a lad.

They always caused great "debate" :-)

 

[johnny crossan]

They always caused great "debate" :-)

My other half telling Mr K to get fit alongside Doug and some others who could still be posting on here ;-)

 

[Blueknows]

I think most of my point stands. Sharing logins is a basic IT no-no and the best way to prevent that is to use multi-factor authentication where, as well as a password, a user has to enter a code generated by a hardware token or smartphone app which is in their possession. This would have prevented the issue happening and was something I was doing at companies I worked for way before 2012.
The extent that the dippers used this login should really have resulted in a bigger punishment but I maintain it was embarassing that City let it happen.

Woking in the NHS we have to change our passwords regularly

 

[jimharri]

Oops! Bit of a dickhead thing to do, Taylor. Enjoy next season in the Prem, er Championship!

 

[simmo]

If nothing else it’s kept the half and half scarf sellers on their toes.

If Boro win they could do a commemorative version and have all 3 teams names on it and strike through Southampton.

 

[N1985]

Fuck it, having thought about it the obvious solution is to promote both Hull and Boro, just relegate the fourth from bottom Prem team. ;)

Comment of the year right here.

 

[jimharri]

I'm assuming that we're all honorary "Hullensians" (had to look that up!) today.

 

[Tbilisi]

I'm assuming that we're all honorary "Hullensians" (had to look that up!) today.

Boro for me, nothing against Hull just know a couple of Boro fans.

 

[DTKOAG]

Up the Tigers

 

[Whether or not]

Not much of a Boro lover, but apparently they have sold out 35,000 plus tickets, for a game in London at 2 days notice. You have to say that is a tremendous effort. However, come on Hull.