Saints expelled from Play Offs by EFL

[SaintElliot]

So I ran that past my Legal Council too:


If those facts are accurate, then the legal and sporting picture changes quite a bit.


If the alleged Southampton F.C. staff member was:

• standing on genuinely public land,
• not trespassing,
• not breaching barriers/security,
• not using specialist surveillance equipment,
• and simply holding an iPhone from 100+ yards away,

then the “spygate” narrative becomes legally and evidentially much weaker.


Because at that point, several things become relevant:

• There is generally no legal prohibition on standing in public and observing something visible from public land
• Taking photos/video from public places is usually lawful in the UK
• Expectation of privacy outdoors at visible training grounds is limited unless measures are taken to shield activity
• If the pitches were visible from public areas, the club arguably bears some responsibility for operational privacy

That does not necessarily mean the conduct was acceptable under football rules. Sporting regulations can prohibit conduct that is not illegal.


But from a proportionality perspective, if:

• a person standing in public with a phone
  was then:
• tracked via CCTV,
• identified,
• investigated,
• and formally escalated through football disciplinary channels,

an EFL panel may start asking:

• how serious was this actually?
• was any confidential information realistically obtained?
• was there sporting prejudice?
• was this normal observational behaviour being over-characterised?

And importantly for your earlier GDPR point:


the less serious and intrusive the original conduct appears,
the harder it becomes to justify intrusive counter-surveillance and data sharing.


Because proportionality cuts both ways.


If this was effectively:
“man standing on public land with a phone,”


then a regulator might ask whether:

• reviewing CCTV,
• identifying him through external sources,
• and circulating that information

was genuinely necessary and proportionate.


That still would not automatically make the CCTV sharing unlawful, but it weakens the justification compared to:

• trespass,
• covert filming,
• drones,
• long-lens surveillance,
• infiltration,
• or security breaches.

From an evidential standpoint, the EFL may also consider:

• whether the person was actually recording,
• whether anything confidential could even be seen from that distance,
• whether there was intent to gain unfair advantage,
• and whether the case is becoming more media narrative than substantive misconduct.

So the newer facts you mention could materially soften:

• both the sporting allegation,
• and the strength of any justification for the data-sharing response.

It would very much weaken, or if not completely ruin the chances of Gibson making any legal challenges (if you're on public land, and you're not expected privacy filming in public etc)

It won't change the charge of spying from the EFL.

 

[fran-MLs little camera]

Owner of Hull saying we should be kicked out as well and his side preparing to play Boro

You must log in or register to see media

Hull owner should keep out of this. Nothing to do with him. Suspect he just doesn’t want to play Southampton. Are his coaches seriously preparing for Boro? Bet they are not…just nodding at him and carrying on as usual.

 

[Saints_Alive]

I should also add to the post above that whether we benefitted from it or not, it also has no bearing. It's all about our boy observing their training. They would probably want to know if he was sent there by the club or did it of his own volition. Whatever it was wouldn't get us off the hook as he would be a SFC employee but it might have some affect on the level of punishment.

But surely the motive has to be proved as to adjudicate the seriousness of the crime and assess a proportionate punishment. We broke the rules but how much could seriously be learned from a mobile phone at 150 metres away? Like I said, I just reckon they wanted to know if Hackney was training.

 

[SaintElliot]

It really doesn't matter what he was using, if it's accepted he was from our club. I'm not sure but I think just being there as a SFC employee to observe their training even without recording gear is an offense.

It won't stop the spying charge, no, but it massively weakens Boros claims that this was some high profile operation that has been going on for 6 months+.

 

[SR get out of my club]

It would very much weaken, or if not completely ruin the chances of Gibson making any legal challenges (if you're on public land, and you're not expected privacy filming in public etc)

It won't change the charge of spying from the EFL.

The GDPR piece wont change the EFL view - you are correct.

However it does fly in the face if espionage drama to a fella with his iphone.

Sounds all a bit like mountains out of a molehill from Boro.

Don't get me wrong, we shouldn't have done it, but the manner in which Boro and the media have dramatised this is awful, and way, way over the top.

 

[Saints_Alive]

So I ran that past my Legal Council too:


If those facts are accurate, then the legal and sporting picture changes quite a bit.


If the alleged Southampton F.C. staff member was:

• standing on genuinely public land,
• not trespassing,
• not breaching barriers/security,
• not using specialist surveillance equipment,
• and simply holding an iPhone from 100+ yards away,

then the “spygate” narrative becomes legally and evidentially much weaker.


Because at that point, several things become relevant:

• There is generally no legal prohibition on standing in public and observing something visible from public land
• Taking photos/video from public places is usually lawful in the UK
• Expectation of privacy outdoors at visible training grounds is limited unless measures are taken to shield activity
• If the pitches were visible from public areas, the club arguably bears some responsibility for operational privacy

That does not necessarily mean the conduct was acceptable under football rules. Sporting regulations can prohibit conduct that is not illegal.


But from a proportionality perspective, if:

• a person standing in public with a phone
  was then:
• tracked via CCTV,
• identified,
• investigated,
• and formally escalated through football disciplinary channels,

an EFL panel may start asking:

• how serious was this actually?
• was any confidential information realistically obtained?
• was there sporting prejudice?
• was this normal observational behaviour being over-characterised?

And importantly for your earlier GDPR point:


the less serious and intrusive the original conduct appears,
the harder it becomes to justify intrusive counter-surveillance and data sharing.


Because proportionality cuts both ways.


If this was effectively:
“man standing on public land with a phone,”


then a regulator might ask whether:

• reviewing CCTV,
• identifying him through external sources,
• and circulating that information

was genuinely necessary and proportionate.


That still would not automatically make the CCTV sharing unlawful, but it weakens the justification compared to:

• trespass,
• covert filming,
• drones,
• long-lens surveillance,
• infiltration,
• or security breaches.

From an evidential standpoint, the EFL may also consider:

• whether the person was actually recording,
• whether anything confidential could even be seen from that distance,
• whether there was intent to gain unfair advantage,
• and whether the case is becoming more media narrative than substantive misconduct.

So the newer facts you mention could materially soften:

• both the sporting allegation,
• and the strength of any justification for the data-sharing response.

It's more poor sportsmanship rather than a serious breach of the rules imo.

 

[SaintElliot]

And now Ayling has chosen not to pursue the allegations that Harwood-Bellis used discriminatory language and the matter is now closed, per The FA.

 

[Libby]

The GDPR piece wont change the EFL view - you are correct.

However it does not fly in the face if espionage drama to a fella with his iphone.

Sounds all a bit like mountains out of a molehil from Boror.

Dont get me wrong, we shouldnt have done it, but the manner in which Boro and the media have dramatised this is awful, and way, way over the top.

Re GDPR how the **** does the Mail know he used his bank card at the venue? Surely Gibson isn't allowed to provide that info to the press?

 

[Libby]

And now Ayling has chosen not to pursue the allegations that Harwood-Bellis used discriminatory language and the matter is now closed, per The FA.

Fair play to Ayling.

 

[SR get out of my club]

Re GDPR how the **** does the Mail know he used his bank card at the venue? Surely Gibson isn't allowed to provide that info to the press?

Exactly. I wonder if we should send this angle to the club and they inform the data protections people.

 

[It'sOnlyAGame]

But surely the motive has to be proved as to adjudicate the seriousness of the crime and assess a proportionate punishment. We broke the rules but how much could seriously be learned from a mobile phone at 150 metres away? Like I said, I just reckon they wanted to know if Hackney was training.

I'm not sure that matters SA. If they have evidence it was a SFC employee observing Boro's training (I believe they have photographic evidence) then we are guilty. I guess how far away he was might be considered mitigating circumstances in terms of the punishment, but the offence still stands.

 

[Saints_Alive]

I'm not sure that matters SA. If they have evidence it was a SFC employee observing Boro's training (I believe they have photographic evidence) then we are guilty. I guess how far away he was might be considered mitigating circumstances in terms of the punishment, but the offence still stands.

Yes, but how serious of an offence is it and will the punishment be proportionate is what i'm saying, kicking us out of the play-offs would be way over the top and we would surely contest it legally.

 

[doritoharv]

Re GDPR how the **** does the Mail know he used his bank card at the venue? Surely Gibson isn't allowed to provide that info to the press?

He may just have him on CCTV using it. That in itself is probably no big issue.

The venue is most likely to be using a payment gateway provider for financial transactions (e.g. Worldpay). Having worked with these through my own role, they are effectively black box processes that simply request payment and confirm it back (and thus to release the product/service). Any detail of the card transaction itself is kept within the payment gateway provider - the business doesn't receive this information. By doing that, it takes any stresses of retaining financial transaction away from the business itself (i.e. retaining that information in an ISO certified, secure manner, for X years)

 

[SR get out of my club]

Well, I for one believe it is not unreasonable for Boro to be demoted to L1 for GDPR failures.

By the way, the possible fines for this sort of stuff can run into the millions if they were guilty.

Not that I think anything would come of it, but I do feel the club should investigate this.

 

[SaintElliot]

Fair play to Ayling.

And I hope that it was a genuine mis-hearing of words (also because discriminatory language is a serious issue) because they were chatting at full time and had their arms around each other.

 

[SR get out of my club]

Were they like this at full time?

You must log in or register to see images

 

[It'sOnlyAGame]

It won't stop the spying charge, no, but it massively weakens Boros claims that this was some high profile operation that has been going on for 6 months+.

I agree it wouldn't put Boro in a good light with the hearing committee but I'm not sure what effect that might have with us. We will still be judged on what actually happened. It may have some bearing on the level of punishment, I don't know, that would just be speculation. But what I have posted above is from taking information I have read from different sources saying the same. I'm sure that's how it will pan out. The big unknown is where the committee will set the punishment.
What does concern me is that there is an enormous lobby from all angles calling for severe punishment and I'm hoping that public pressure won't influence the decision.

 

[Libby]

Team for the Final

Conway picked up a knock.. obviously wanted to be involved for the game.. but I think it was a bit more than that. Hackney fit for the final? Not sure about that.. does he start or does he come on later on.. if at all. ——————Brynn—————- ——Ayling—Fry—Malanda——- Brittain————————Targett...

fmttmboro.com

 

[SR get out of my club]

I think if the EFL remove us from the Play Off Final, the legal challenge would be immense. Thye could literally be sued for >£100m, likely far more than that.

I'd also go further by suggesting every EPL team also would sue them from the likelihood of 6 points guarantee and a handsome goal difference advantage they will all miss out on...

 

[It'sOnlyAGame]

Yes, but how serious of an offence is it and will the punishment be proportionate is what i'm saying, kicking us out of the play-offs would be way over the top and we would surely contest it legally.

That I guess is whether we have a chance to argue our corner before/during the hearing or just contest the decision afterwards. Maybe we submit our version of events beforehand and hope we can put up a good enough case to avoid the death penalty that everyone is asking for.