Southampton were guilty of a ‘deplorable approach’ in putting pressure on junior staff members to spy on opposition teams, authorised by head coach Tonda Eckert.
In the bombshell release of the written reasons as to why an independent commission expelled Southampton from the play-off final, it was revealed that the club initially lied and said they did not record rivals’ training sessions.
However, after evidence was presented and the club admitted to spying on three teams, including play-off semi-final opponents Middlesbrough, they were kicked out of the final and docked four points ahead of next season.
The commission noted: ‘It involved far more than innocent activity and a particularly deplorable approach in its use of junior members of staff to conduct the clandestine observations at the direction of senior personnel.
‘There was transmission and internal dissemination and analysis of footage and observations. The Commission is not persuaded that this is an exceptional case in which there is evidence that no use was made of the material and therefore no sporting advantage.
Southampton’s spying intern was caught filming a Middlesbrough training session
Tonda Eckert accepted that he authorised observing opponents to obtain key information
‘The Commission consider that the evidence demonstrates that the output of the observations fed into analysis conducted by the team, it was discussed with Mr Eckert and others and it was sought so as to inform the strategy for the match. Mr Eckert accepted, as he must, that information such as team selection and injuries is sensitive information which a club would wish to keep private in the build up to a game.
‘He also accepted that he had specifically authorised the observations to obtain information about formation (in the Oxford United Incident) and about the availability of a key player (in the Middlesbrough Incident).
‘We were unimpressed by suggestions on the part of some of the (Southampton’s) witnesses that they were unaware that these actions were in breach of the Rules. (Southampton) is a member of the EFL and has agreed to be bound by the Rules.’
An intern was pictured filming Middlesbrough’s training, but the commission added: ‘The EFL submitted that the evidence supported the view that the observations were authorised at a senior level and that the task was delegated to the intern in relation to the Middlesbrough Incident and the Oxford Incident. He declined to be involved in the Ipswich incident. We heard evidence from the intern who described the pressure he was placed under.
‘Such staff were in a vulnerable position without job security and with limited ability to object to or resist the instructions given to them.
‘We have concluded that there was, on the part of the respondent (Southampton), a contrived and determined plan from the top down to gain a competitive advantage in competitions of real significance by deliberate attendance at opposition training grounds for the purpose of obtaining tactical and selection information.’
MORE TO FOLLOW…
