I'd have to read it again but I'm sure they were already investigating those 2 games as part of evidence provided by Boro (which surely means whistleblower) - we didn't just outright fess up to those 2 for no reason.
In fact I'm pretty sure it said Boro had evidence of the Oxford one on the 7th which was the same day they caught Salt up there.
It does say that about Oxford (I missed it because they start referring to 'OU' instead of Oxford), but not Ipswich and the EFL didn't charge us until we admitted it and it's clearly stated that the EFL presented no evidence in relation to Oxford or Ipswich. So presumably any evidence they had wasn't enough to support charging us and wasn't worth presenting. I doubt the whistleblower has any more information. Boro wanted to get into the play off final. If the whistleblower knew of other incidents there would be no reason not to mention them at the earliest opportunity.
If there more more incidents then I'd expect the internal Southampton investigation to have found evidence of them and if they had then I think we would have presented it to the panel. Reasons:
1. Apart from the first response we seem to have co-operated in full. In particular we didn't seem to realise giving them the evidence relating to Ipswich and Oxford could/would result in more charges being added so I don't think we would have been worried about admitting more than two incidents.
2. Assuming the use of "incident" is correct, there was only one other incident being investigated, presumably Oxford. So why would we admit to Ipswich as well but not anything else? I'm sure any future panel would take concealing evidence very seriously so if you're going to conceal any evidence then you may as well conceal everything you can.
3. Related to 2, if the panel is competent I assume they asked Saints to confirm they had revealed everything they found and probably asked Tonda and the two analysts who were witnesses if these were the only times we spied. Lying to them would be pretty stupid if there's any chance of being found out or if you're one of the analysts and plan to reveal more later.
4. The Athletic have reported details of the message evidence (Tonda not being happy with the quality of info gathered, wearing Eastleigh gear etc) and it seems like the panel saw a lot of messages. They may well have asked for all whatsapp type messages to be disclosed and even if they didn't I'm sure they'd have wanted confirmation that we'd given them everything relevant.
The other question is how many training grounds are easily accessible anyway. Staplewood isn't from what I can see. Oxford's and Boro's are. I don't care enough to go and check every club's but unless there's some public business next door, like Boro, or part of the same complex, like Oxford, then it's not going to be easy to get in.
