WhatsApp messages have exposed fresh details of the ‘Spygate’ saga after the League Arbitration Panel released its written reasons for dismissing Southampton’s appeal against their punishment.
Last month, Southampton was expelled from the EFL play-offs final and deducted four points next season after admitting to spying on a training session of semi-final opponents Middlesbrough.
The scandal erupted when junior analyst William Salt was caught filming the rival’s training session from behind a tree, fleeing the area after being confronted by Middlesbrough staff. He changed his clothes at a nearby golf club and deleted photos of himself from LinkedIn.
Get all the latest football news, highlights and analysis delivered straight to your inbox with Fox Sports Sportmail. Sign up now >
Following an investigation, an independent disciplinary commission dumped Southampton out of the play-off final against Hull, with Middlesbrough taking their place.
As revealed in the League Arbitration Panel’s written reasons for the punishment, Southampton booked flights and two nights in a hotel for Salt, who was also shown drone footage of where he could stand to observe training.
In his evidence to the independent disciplinary commission, Salt claimed he feared losing his job after being put under pressure to film the training session.
“I didn’t really have an option and wasn’t provided an opportunity to say no. I was an intern and was doing what I was told,” Salt said.
After Salt was caught at Middlesbrough, another analyst sent him a WhatsApp message that read: “I said all along I was never happy about it all & it wasn’t right but no one listened to me!”
Southampton also confessed to spying on Oxford United in December, with the report suggesting that head coach Tonda Eckert orchestrated the ploy.
It claims the Southampton manager wanted to know whether Oxford United would play with a back four or back five for the Boxing Day clash and whether Cameron Brannagan was fit to play.
After the spying mission, Salt received a WhatsApp message that read: “You legend. Manager loved it.”
On Monday evening, Southampton released a statement confessing they “wish this had been managed differently from the outset”.
However, the club also claimed two members of independent disciplinary commission had links to Middlesbrough, insinuating they were subjected to an unfair disciplinary process.
“Southampton Football Club notes today’s publication by the Arbitration Panel of the written reasons behind our unsuccessful appeal of the sanctions the Disciplinary Panel previously imposed on us in the EFL proceedings,” the statement read.
“We accept that the club breached the relevant regulations and we recognise that the disciplinary bodies were entitled to conclude that proof of sporting advantage was not necessary in order to establish a serious offence.
“The club accepts that aspects of our initial response to the situation were not treated with the level of scrutiny they required at the time. In hindsight, we wish this had been managed differently from the outset and this represented an error of judgement for which we take responsibility.
“Despite this, we are happy with the way in which we admitted the charges and offered our full cooperation and honesty once the formal EFL investigation process had started.
“We also note that the club was judged against the very highest standards of integrity and good faith. That is entirely proper.
“What is harder to accept is that similar scrutiny does not appear to have been applied to the composition of the disciplinary panel itself, given the apparent historic and indirect connections of two panel members to Middlesbrough.
“While those connections do not by themselves prove bias, they plainly raise legitimate questions about consistency, perception and the standards of independence expected in proceedings of this magnitude.
“The club is also concerned by the weight placed on assertions that junior staff were pressurised into involvement, when some of the most serious allegations appear not to have been supported by direct evidence.
“That said, junior employees should never have been placed in a position where they felt under pressure, and the club accepts responsibility for that failure of leadership and oversight.
“This case has ultimately been decided on the basis that breach and attempted breach were enough, regardless of whether any sporting benefit was actually obtained.
“In fact, at no stage was there any finding that the club actually obtained any sporting advantage as a result of the conduct in question. That is a severe interpretation but one the disciplinary authorities were entitled to adopt under the rules as written.
“Southampton Football Club will now reflect carefully on the published reasons, review its internal processes and ensure that governance, oversight and decision-making procedures are strengthened as a result.
“Our responsibility now is to acknowledge what has happened, take ownership of the lessons it brings, and use this experience to strengthen our judgement, discipline, and integrity moving forward together as a club.”