New developments over the lengths Southampton went to orchestrate their ‘Spygate’ scandal can now be revealed – with a series of WhatsApp messages implicating their head coach Tonda Eckert.
Southampton were thrown out of the Championship play-off final just over a week ago and deducted four points from next season after being found guilty of charges of spying on opponents in the second tier. A subsequent appeal was rejected, with the League Arbitration Panel’s written reasons published on Monday.
The south coast club had pleaded guilty to charges of spying on Oxford United and Ipswich Town in the regular season, and then Middlesbrough before the play-off semi-final.
It has been widely reported that an intern had been spotted at Middlesbrough’s training ground before the first leg at the Riverside Stadium, which ended goalless. Southampton went on to progress with a 2-1 extra-time win in the second leg but Middlesbrough were later reinstated, going on to lose to Hull in the final.
And junior members of staff have told an independent disciplinary commission that they were ‘under extreme pressure’ from Eckert to spy on rivals.
In one text exchange, a junior intern received second-hand praise from Eckert for his reconnaissance mission on an Oxford United training session before their December clash. The intern’s boss told him: ‘You legend. Manager loved it.’
Reflecting on how the whole incident played out, the intern told the independent disciplinary commission in his evidence: ‘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 39-page written reasons from the independent disciplinary commission also laid bare the influence of 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.
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 David Winnie – who played one game for Boro in 1994.
In response to the publication of the written reasons, Southampton released a statement admitting culpability.
‘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,’ it read. ‘In hindsight, we wish this had been managed differently from the outset and this represented an error of judgement for which we take responsibility.’
However, they added: ‘The club is 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.’
They concluded: ‘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.’
