Please log in or register. Registered visitors get fewer ads.
Social Media Post Cast's Doubt On Middlesbrough Version Of Spygate Event's
Monday, 18th May 2026 12:02

A Southampton fan living in the North East with knowledge of the Rockcliffe training complex, has given his opinion of the Spygate accusations and how they do not suggest that and actual training session was spied upon.

There is a Saints fan who posts on Saints Social Media who lives up in the North East, I have altered some of the original post so that his identity is not revealed as it could make things tricky for them up there.

However I think his post needs a wider audience as it is pointing out that Will Salt was half a mile away from the pitch where the first team train and that if he wanted to watch Boro training he should have been on a footpath on the opposite side of the training complex from the one with the infamous tree if he wanted to see the actual Middlesbrough first team train.

This is what he had to say:

I live up in the North East and I am familiar with the Rockliffe complex and training ground, which is not in Middlesbrough, but is actually in Hurworth-on-Tees. the Rockliffe grounds include Hotel, Golf Club, training ground, cricket club and woods.

I can tell you that there is a lot of rubbish being shared about the story and some of the pictures. Here is my take:

1. The Middlesbrough FC First Team training pitch is on the opposite side of the MFC training centre from the Rockliffe Hotel and golf club.

2. The picture of a boy stood behind a tree filming does not, as far as I can see, tally with anywhere around the first team training pitch.

3. The other picture of a tree beside a gate with training pitches in the background DOES appear to be taken from the gate near to the Rockliffe Golf clubhouse.

4. However, the pitches in the background of that picture are supplementary training pitches and, as stated above, that is not the First Team Training pitch. Those pitches are mainly used by the academy sides and women's sides for their training. However, it is possible that some training could have taken place there, but I'm not convinced any spy would have been able to see significant tactical input in that area.

5. If I were to spy on MFC's first team training, instead of trying to get to the first team training pitch from the golf course, I would walk along the public footpath around the perimeter of Rockliffe and slip through the woods where it is possible to spy on the training pitch. From there you could also stay out of sight of CCTV cameras.

So lot of the rumours about the spying seem to be suggesting the spy was caught
where the first team training pitch is, but according to our man in the north East that does not seem to be correct.

His story tallies with the piece dont on Sky Sports News showing the location of the alleged spy, a story done with the co-operation of Middlesbrough FC who allowed them on to their land to film and also presumably who gave them the details of where the spy was caught and subsequently walked away when spotted.

It seems to suggest that the alleged spy Will Salt did not make any attempt to actually fim the Boro first team training.

Whether any other team, academy or womans team was training is not disclosed, but Salt would have been anywhere between 200-400 metres from the actual pitches and was revealed by Sky sports.

So does this suggest that Salt was not there to spy on Middlesbrough training, but the training complex itself.

If he was "Spying" then surely he would have used google maps to check out the complex itself and where there were opportunities using public footpaths and as was mentioned here to take cover in woods.

Not as he did so, make no real attempt to disguise his presence on the complex, but stand in full view next to a tree and a gate, not in woods but next to a tree and a gate.

Hopefully the real truth will come out in the Independent Panel's findings, but the fake news coming out of Middlesbrough, now seems to concentrate not on what actually happened, initially it was suggesting a covert operation including surveillance equipment by a man in hiding undercover in woods.

But now they are very silent on the actual facts of the situation, just concentrating on demanding the ultimate penalty for the charge levied against Southampton FC, no regard for the severity of what actually happened.

In essence is what this social media posting is saying is that this is the equivalent of a member of Boro's staff standing outside Staplewood, but not entering the premises, no actual spying too place, nor any attempt to spy.

All Photos Via Reuters



Please report offensive, libellous or inappropriate posts by using the links provided.



SanMarco added 12:48 - May 18
Just to play devil's advocate - if Salt WAS spying then I think we would have to agree that he was TOTALLY USELESS at it!! Not sure that is much of a defence if he WAS spying for us.

The stress of this for us fans is that there is barely a verified fact in all of this. The actual facts of the situation seem to be: guy with a phone somewhere in the vicinity of a golf course. For all we know Saints are totally innocent and deserve compensation or they are totally guilty and deserve heavy punishment.

The tension is getting to me and, I bet, loads of us. One of the biggest stresses is the loathing we are developing for a football club that none of us ever thought about until the other week. Who will we cheer for in Poopey vs Mboro next season?!
7

WestSussexSaint added 12:56 - May 18
One thing in this article is definitely true - that there is a lot of rubbish that has been spouted about spygate in the last few days.

If Will Salt was spying on another of Boro’s teams then presumably the club did not breach the 72hr rule as we weren’t playing those teams. If it is that cut and dry then why haven’t Saints put out a statement to that effect and we could have saved days of speculation and uncertainty.
2

bstokesaint added 13:05 - May 18
We’re nearly there now. Let’s hope justice is done and that Saints fans and employees are not humiliated any further. Boro have been a disgrace the way they have conducted themselves throughout this process. I don’t know how anyone is allowed to lean in so heavily to an independent inquiry or continually use the media to issue several different versions of the story. I get there’s a lot of money at stake but trying to get through on a technicality is one step up at best from cheating. As others have said if the EFL choose to kick us (and this would set a precedent considerably higher than multiple other alleged cheating across the football leagues) then Hull should just get through as the only true winners. Offering second chances is just as much as a farce. As we all said before this is as much about Boro failing to capitalise from their home advantage, where they battered us. They have let slip a great position and have gone from embarrassed to embarrassing. If anyone else has been affected by any spying (and it is systemic) then it’s the other clubs in the league, not Boro.
3

PaleRider added 13:24 - May 18
Does anyone actually know who is on the "independent" panel and how "independent" they really are?
1

SanMarco added 13:26 - May 18
The two inferences I have made from all the noise is:

1. M'boro's case isn't as watertight as they claim it is. If it was then after making their claim of the facts they would have sat back smugly and waited for Saints to be expelled. All the Trump-like aggression and spin means it's not open and shut.

2. Much as we would like it to be the case Saints' silence tells me that Salt was up there at the behest of someone at the club. If he was scouting out the hotel for his cousin's forthcoming wedding then Saints would surely have not let it go this far. My hope is that Salt was an amateur and totally useless freelancer. If so it should be a slap on the wrist and on to Wembley. If someone senior sent him up there we might conceivably be in trouble - more likely to be points deduction than expulsion though (not that points isn't bad enough)...
2

SanMarco added 13:34 - May 18
I think they keep them anonymous PaleRider. I heard a rumour thoug that one of them is called Gibbon or Gibson or something...
0

andoverpierre added 14:07 - May 18
Great article , lets just hope the whole case is looked into without the media circus that has been going on with 2+2= 5 and to the feasbility of what could actually of been achieved , does smack of desperation from MFC given their financial state at the moment 10 years out of the prem again and it was 10 years before when they were last in so in the last 21 years they have been in the prem for 1 season , not a good return at all.
4

kenis added 14:26 - May 18
Rule 127 is observing or attempting to observe, so doesnt matter whether we did successfully observe or gain any tactical advantage or not. Its still a breach. Plus we know its a brach of regulation 3.4.

So the question is does the extent or effectiveness of the rule breach make a difference to the penalty / consequence of being guilt or not?

We all feel pretty strongly that there was no direct advantage gained, dont think there is even a single boro fan saying we did. They lost the tie becuase of the 1st half 1st leg inability to convert dominance into goals. (Our statistically worst half of football since the 9-0 against Man Utd when we had 10 men).

Unfortuanetly if I was on the panel and it was a different club in our position I'd probably be saying they should be kicked out of the play-offs. Only way I wouldnt would be if it was provably a lone wolf, one off, misguided individual - and it had been self reported by the offending club (not caught by the impacted club) and even then not sure that woull be enough as it was still a member of the coaching staff and it was a breach of the rule.

In addition if it has happened in other matches in the seaon would inflict a points deduction for next season, fine and relevant coaching staff ban - with durations and amounts mitigated by the club confessing to it all.

I have a ticket for Saturday.... feels more likely I'll be looking for a refund than planning another day out at wembley.

Can only hope facts only the committee have support a different outcome / fair judgement......
-5

Mesher added 14:31 - May 18
I am not a boro supporter but visit the Rockclife complex on a weekly basis for the last ten years viewing teams playing on every pitch. The first team have rotated their pitch two or three times over the years. This season they practice on the pitch adjacent the golf club path where the spy guy was caught.
There is a public foot path around part of the complex giving tree cover but it is 4- 500 yards from the first team pitch.
The boro were refused permission to show their evidence at the tribunal.
Regardless of the conjecture Southampton eventualy admitted to cheating and must face the punishment
They new the possible punishments but still decided to cheat.
Southampton fans must be distraught

-15

Jeffers66 added 14:49 - May 18
Mesher where have Southampton admitted to cheating? What evidence have you got of this or are you GID (Gibson In Disguise)
4

DellBoyWally added 15:25 - May 18
If Saints are removed from the final it should be awarded to Hull (but the EFL want the money!!) No way should Middlesborough be allowed to play. Why should they benefit after employing a useless manager who took them from favourites for auto-promotion to 5th?! They demonstrated their poor form during the first half ooop t'north!!!
4

bartley41 added 15:30 - May 18
In an earlier post several days ago, I looked at a web site quoted.
www.derby.ac.uk/undergratadiatee/sport
All about Will Salt----- Spy?
Do read it all through, very interesting!
0

Jesus_02 added 16:11 - May 18
I am afraid that @Mesher view is shared by most of the popultion. It has been widely (and incorrectly) reported that southampton have accepted guilt. Middleborough have been refused to show thier evidence is also BS. They have provided thier evidence at the time of the complaint.

The only thing that we can be sure of is the statements made by the clubs and a photo of a man stood by a tree leaked be Boror to sway public opinon. What he is taking a photo of is purely based on the statement by Boro.

The dicaplinary pannel will base thier decision on thoer opinion what is probable. They may decide that there simply isnt enough evidence or tey may decide that he was proabbly there to spy or it wasnt premeditated. There are a whole raft of conclusions that can be drawn before any punnishment can be given out..

For example the club could have sent him to spy but told him not to within 72 hrs... all within the rules. Then he acted as an oportunist as he saw Boro had decided not to train in thier indoor complex and inexplicbly next to the golf club entrance .
0

DPeps added 17:19 - May 18
I think Mesher is taking the reports that Saints won't deny the charges as admission of guilt. There's definitely a fine line between the two things.
Of course Boro were able to give their evidence at the time of the charge and correct that they shouldn't be allowed to influence the independent tribunal by bringing in extra evidence late in the day.

By prediction is a points deduction and fine next season. EFL doesn't tend to punish during the season in ways that benefit afflicted teams (see Wycombe and Derby, where Derby committed way worse offences than those we're alleged). I don't think the EFL will want to reward Boro here, and I think Boro know that because of how noisy they are being. We'll see tomorrow
0

darthvader added 17:20 - May 18
He could be taking photos of butterflies
2

kenis added 17:28 - May 18
@DPeps the EFL has been trying to rectify that by doing more things fast tracked and apply to the season the offences occured or were discovered (was part of rule changes post the derby and leicester things) - so think they will do points for next championship season if spying earlier in the season admitted to, but could still expel us just for the playoff offence, or just expel us and leave it clean for next season (other than maybe a ban for coaches involved).
-3

SaintJackoInHurworth added 17:38 - May 18
I'm quite happy to be identified as the fan in the North East who originally posted the claims repeated in this post and OK with TUI using the content of my original post. Since I posted my observations, though, I have found out a bit more and must adjust the opinion I expressed a few days ago slightly.
I stand by the assertion that he wouldn't have been able to get a very good view from that gate. However, I have since seen reports that he actually climbed the gate to get onto the training ground so that he was a lot closer.
Unfortunately, my assertion that the main first team training pitch is on the other side of the training complex was probably wrong, I'm afraid. I was basing my knowledge on winter training when they carry out training on the astroturf at the rear of the main building. However, today I went over to Rockliffe to see if the Boro players were training and discovered that they were training on the lower training pitches - the ones which can be observed from the gate and even better observed from the slope down from the training centre.
What is bizarre, though, is why he went into the grounds over the gate and along the bottom of that slope, as there is no real cover behind which he could hide! I still assert that if he had any sense, he would/should have gone to the footpath on the other side of the training complex!! Here is a quick video sweep of Rocklife that I took this lunchtime about half an hour before they started this afternoon's training session:
As the video sweeps round you will also note the CCTV stanchion which, it is claimed, filmed the spy. However, you will also note the height of this, which shows that the photograph of 'Will' standing by the gate was almost certainly not genuine.
3

SaintJackoInHurworth added 17:59 - May 18
Just to follow up my previous comment and respond to what Mesher has said. It appears that he is right that they have rotated the training pitches that they use, but he is incorrect about the distance from the footpath to the training pitch. In fact, the footpath is a matter of about ten metres from one of the pitches at its nearest point! It is about 500 metres or so from the gate featured in the spygate picture from the Daily Mail. The pitches are spread between those two points but the nearest pitch to the gate is about 100 metres away, whereas the nearest pitch to the footpath is only a few metres.
2

SanMarco added 18:47 - May 18
Can you get a clear line of sight from the grassy knoll though?
1

wibbersda added 18:54 - May 18
I'm seeing a lot of new names in the comments, trying to undermine this story. Perhaps nick can check if these are new accounts created from IP addresses from up north!
0

dirk_doone added 20:49 - May 18
Videos of Middlesbrough first team's training sessions taken this season clearly show that the article is right. They are training on the pitch up the hill on the opposite side from where the young lad with the i-phone was.
0

DPeps added 10:20 - May 19
@kenis - you're right, but still I don't *think* that the EFL will want to set a precedent for compensating clubs who are affected by other clubs' foul play, financial or otherwise. Doing that will open a can of worms for the EFL.

I feel very conflicted about this whole issue. We should never have got ourselves in this situation. I hope the lone wolf narrative is the truthful account, but I have to say I doubt it!
0


You need to login in order to post your comments

Blogs 31 bloggers

Southampton Polls

About Us Contact Us Terms & Conditions Privacy Cookies Online Safety Advertising
© FansNetwork 2026