A junior analyst at Southampton has claimed he “didn’t really have an option” but to spy on the club’s Championship rivals in a move which sparked the ‘Spygate’ scandal.
Saints were last month thrown out of the play-off final for spying on semi-final opponents Middlesbrough. A subsequent appeal was rejected, with the League Arbitration Panel’s written reasons published on Monday.
The south-coast club then questioned the independence of the panel, which included David Winnie, who played one game for Boro in 1994. He said, in a statement to the Press Association last month, that suggestions he could be influenced were “wholly without foundation”.
The 39-page written reasons set out why Southampton spied on Oxford, Ipswich and Middlesbrough, along with what type of information was discovered.
It also laid bare the influence of Saints head coach Tonda Eckert and said it had been “a contrived and determined plan from top down to gain a competitive advantage”.
It continued: “These junior members of staff felt compelled to do what they were very uncomfortable doing because they considered their jobs would otherwise be at risk.
“They were, to that extent, exploited. The Commission considered that was a seriously aggravating factor. They were entitled to do so. It clearly was.”
It was alleged that Eckert wanted to know whether Oxford caretaker Craig Short would play with a back four or back five before their Boxing Day clash and if Cameron Brannagan was fit for the U’s, which resulted in a junior analyst intern being asked to watch Saints’ opponents train.
“In his evidence to the Commission, the junior analyst intern said: “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.
The written reasons noted: “There was evidence from the Junior Analyst Intern and Analyst 1 that an analyst had lost his job earlier in the season, and there was a concern that they might lose theirs too.
“They felt pressurised to do the observations that Mr Eckert and the senior coaches wished them to do.
“Analyst 1 messaged the Junior Analyst Intern on WhatsApp: “Try and make out as much as you can please. You legend. Manager loved it.”
It was also revealed that an analyst at Southampton was provided with Eastleigh kit in order to watch Ipswich train at Eastleigh’s ground before a 2-2 draw on April 28 at St Mary’s. Footage of the training session was also provided to Saints and allowed them to predict the Ipswich starting line-up.
Eckert was also accused of wanting to watch Middlesbrough’s training session to determine if Hayden Hackney was involved.
The written reasons stated the junior analyst intern, who was again chosen, “felt under extreme pressure due to the context of the importance of the game for the club”. It added: “He feared that he might be dismissed by the Club or it might otherwise adversely affect his career if he did not do it. So, he went.”
A statement by Southampton acknowledged they “breached the relevant regulations” but questioned the composition of the League Arbitration Panel, which included Winnie.
“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,” the Saints statement read.
“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.”
PA
