--- source: thedugout.football generated: 2026-11-06T01:50:34.224Z data_provider: API-Football canonical: https://thedugout.football/clubs/southampton/news/aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZGFpbHllY2hvLmNvLnVrL3Nwb3J0LzI2NTc2OTk1LnNvdXRoYW1wdG9ucy1lY2tlcnQtZmEtaGVhcmluZy1jb21wbGV0ZS1zcHlnYXRlLXRpbWVsaW5lLz9yZWY9cnNz --- # Complete Spygate timeline: How Eckert scandal actually unfolded at Saints - **Source:** - **Club:** Southampton - **Original URL:** https://www.dailyecho.co.uk/sport/26576995.southamptons-eckert-fa-hearing-complete-spygate-timeline/?ref=rss The St Mary's side were kicked out of the Championship play-off final in May, after being found to have spied on three opponent training sessions. Eckert admitted to authorising the clandestine missions, and he has been charged by the FA woth three counts of bringing the game into disrepute. Here is how the controversy unfolded, from Eckert's request to watch Oxford train in December through to expulsion from the play-offs in May. December 2025 – Saints began preparing to face Oxford United on Boxing Day. Oxford had just sacked Gary Rowett and placed Craig Short in interim charge, creating uncertainty over how they would line up. Days before December 26, 2025 – At a coaching and analysis meeting, Eckert asked whether somebody could watch Oxford train. He wanted to establish their tactical shape and whether Cameron Brannagan was fit. Eckert later said he did not believe there was an issue with doing so and was surprised after the Middlesbrough incident to discover it breached EFL rules. December 2025 – A Saints analyst selected a junior analyst intern to travel urgently to Oxford and report back on tactics and player selection. The analyst later admitted he knew, because of the previous Leeds case, that such conduct breached the rules. The intern later told the disciplinary commission: “I didn’t really have an option and wasn’t provided an opportunity to say no.” He said he was an intern “doing what I was told”. Evidence was also given that analysts were concerned about their job security after another analyst had lost his job earlier in the season. The intern watched Oxford training from public areas and footpaths. During the session, he sent Saints photographs, videos and updates about tactical shape and player selection. The following day – Saints sent the intern back to watch Oxford train again. He established that Oxford intended to use a back four rather than the back five they had previously favoured. December 2025 – An analyst prepared a predicted Oxford team using the information gathered. When he asked the intern whether the prediction was accurate, the reply was: “Yh spot on.” Five minutes later – The predicted team was sent to Eckert. It contained “key messages” which the appeal decision said appeared to have been gleaned from that morning’s observation. After the second Oxford observation – The intern spoke by telephone with Eckert and another analyst and answered questions about what he had seen, including Oxford’s line-up. December 2025 – During the Oxford operation, an analyst messaged the intern: “Try and make out as much as you can please. You legend. Manager loved it.” Eckert maintained that he did not personally watch the training footage and said the information did not influence match preparation. December 26, 2025 – Saints lost 2-1 to Oxford. April 28, 2026 – Ipswich Town were due to visit Saints and trained at Eastleigh before the game. Saints and Eastleigh had what the evidence described as a close working relationship. Before the Ipswich game – One analyst told the commission that a first-team assistant coach had said Eckert wanted somebody to go to Eastleigh to watch Ipswich. The junior intern said he was approached to go because “the boss is adamant that someone needs to go”. April 2026 – This time, the intern refused. He said he felt uncomfortable and said “No”. No further pressure was applied to him. Another analyst also felt uncomfortable and did not go. April 2026 – A different academy analyst intern was eventually recruited for the task. An analyst asked for him to be supplied with Eastleigh kit and a cover story explaining his supposed “role” at Eastleigh. April 28, 2026 – The academy intern watched Ipswich train at Eastleigh. Someone at Eastleigh also recorded the entire training session that morning and the footage was sent to Saints. The club was able to predict Ipswich’s exact starting XI. April 28, 2026 – Eckert said he only became aware of the CCTV footage a couple of hours before kick-off. He said he had it switched off after a short time and that it did not influence Saints' preparations. April 28, 2026 – Saints drew 2-2 with Ipswich. Saturday, May 2, 2026 – Saints discovered they would face Middlesbrough in the Championship play-off semi-finals after finishing fourth, with Boro fifth. The first leg was scheduled for May 9. Monday, May 4 – At a match-preparation meeting, Eckert asked whether it would be possible to watch Middlesbrough train. He was particularly interested in whether midfielder Hayden Hackney was fit. The same junior intern used for the Oxford operation was selected to go to Middlesbrough. He was told that another analyst had disagreed with Eckert's proposal. Before the trip – The intern later said he felt under “extreme pressure” because of the importance of the play-off. He feared refusing could cost him his job or damage his career. Before the trip – One analyst even suggested the intern could simply not attend training and tell Eckert that security had been too tight to observe anything, leaving the head coach “none the wiser”. Before May 6 – Southampton's operations manager arranged flights and two nights of accommodation for the intern. Before leaving, he was shown drone footage of Middlesbrough's training complex so he could work out where to position himself. Wednesday, May 6 – The intern flew to Middlesbrough. He was told Eckert was unhappy that he had not travelled on Tuesday in time to watch Wednesday’s training, but the first available flight had been on Wednesday. Thursday, May 7, around 10.40am – The intern walked from his hotel to Middlesbrough’s training ground. First-team training began at 11.15am. Around 11.30am – He located Middlesbrough’s first team and recorded three videos on his phone from behind a tree. Minutes later – Four people began walking towards him. The intern sent his videos back to a Saints analyst, who passed information from them to Eckert, including a projected Middlesbrough line-up featuring Hackney. May 7 – The intern tried to move quickly away. One of the men ran after him and caught up. The intern said he was “just watching” and was told to delete the videos from his phone, which he did. Minutes later – He went to a nearby golf clubhouse, changed his clothes and deleted his LinkedIn profile because he feared Middlesbrough would identify him. May 7 – The intern returned to his hotel and called a Saints analyst. He was told to wait there until Eckert agreed that he could return to Southampton. Later on May 7 – After receiving no confirmation, the intern decided to leave anyway and caught a train back to Southampton. It was on the train home that he discovered online that the story had broken and Saints had been caught “spying” on Middlesbrough. May 7 – Back at Southampton, an analyst broke down what he believed the videos showed. This included Middlesbrough’s predicted line-up and an indication that they would press man-to-man when Saints built from the left. May 7 – The analyst suggested Saints' media team should remove or hide online pictures celebrating Eckert's Manager of the Month award because the intern appeared in the background. He wrote that this was the “only way” Middlesbrough could connect the intern's face with Saints after he deleted his LinkedIn picture, adding: “Just got to hope they won’t put the 2 together”. May 7 – The analyst asked Eckert whether he wanted to see the videos. Eckert said he did. They were also shared with another analyst the following day. May 7 – Eckert later said the footage was poor quality, filmed from too far away and of no benefit to him. He maintained it did not affect preparations. Saints had already decided their formation by Wednesday, he said, while Thursday was a staff day off and Friday was devoted to set-pieces. May 7 – Middlesbrough complained to the EFL on the same day as the observation. The EFL immediately wrote to Saints demanding an explanation, the identity and employment status of the person involved, details of any footage and information about who had given instructions. Friday, May 8 – Southampton's chief executive responded to the EFL. The club said the alleged conduct was neither part of its culture nor something it condoned. May 8 – Saints acknowledged that a junior analyst had been near Middlesbrough's training ground but said he had “not been instructed by any members of senior Club staff”. May 8 – The club also told the EFL that the intern had not retained or transmitted information and that “No footage was captured, transmitted, shared or analysed.” It therefore said it had no relevant documents or data. May 8 – Saints further said that neither senior executives nor the first-team manager had endorsed the behaviour. May 8 – The EFL charged Saints with breaching its “utmost good faith” rule and the specific regulation prohibiting observation of opposition training within 72 hours of a match. Saturday, May 9 – Saints drew 0-0 away to Middlesbrough in the first leg of the play-off semi-final. Hackney, whose fitness had been one of the reasons for the spying mission, did not play. Sunday, May 10 – The EFL demanded further disclosure. This included mobile devices belonging to Eckert and Southampton's analysis team, relevant emails, messages and calls, and financial records belonging to the intern and the club. Tuesday, May 12 – Southampton's lawyers apologised for inaccuracies in the club's original May 8 response. They admitted the Middlesbrough visit had been carried out at Eckert's request. May 12 – Saints also admitted the intern had sent three videos back to the club before deleting them and that an analyst had explained to Eckert via WhatsApp what he could discern from the footage. Saints revealed that their internal investigation had also uncovered the previous Oxford and Ipswich incidents. On the pitch, Saints beat Middlesbrough 2-1 in the second leg to reach the play-off final. They were scheduled to face Hull City at Wembley on May 23. Independent disciplinary commission Wednesday, May 13 – An independent disciplinary commission was established and imposed an expedited timetable because of the approaching play-off final. During the disciplinary process – Saints admitted the breaches but denied gaining a sporting advantage. The club argued that a fine and reprimand were sufficient and suggested that, if a sporting punishment was necessary, it should be limited to a one-point deduction. During the disciplinary process – Middlesbrough applied to intervene in the case. The commission refused its application. Sunday, May 17, 7.30am – Following Southampton's disclosures, the EFL formally brought four additional charges covering the Oxford and Ipswich incidents. It sought to have all six charges heard together on May 19. Monday, May 18, 5.30pm – The commission agreed to consolidate all six charges into one hearing. Saints were ordered to respond to the additional charges by 7am the following morning. May 18, 11.11pm – Saints filed their response that night, together with further witness statements from Eckert, two analysts and an assistant coach. Tuesday, May 19, 8am – Southampton's disciplinary hearing began. May 19 – Five witnesses gave oral evidence: Eckert, the junior analyst intern, Analyst 1, a Saints director and Middlesbrough's Head of Football. The first four were called by Saints, while Middlesbrough's Head of Football was called by the EFL. Other witnesses supplied written evidence. May 19, 1pm – The hearing concluded after five hours. May 19, 2.44pm – The commission delivered its decision. Saints were expelled from the Championship play-offs, meaning Middlesbrough replaced them in the Wembley final against Hull. Saints were also given a four-point deduction to be applied at the start of the 2026/27 season and reprimanded. May 19, 9.35pm – The commission issued its written reasons just hours after the hearing. May 19 – The commission described Southampton's actions as a “contrived and determined plan from the top down” designed to gain a competitive advantage. It was particularly critical of junior staff being used to carry out clandestine observations. May 19 – The commission accepted Southampton's expressions of remorse but said that mitigation was tempered by the club's initially misleading response to the EFL. It was also “unimpressed” by suggestions from some witnesses that they had not known the conduct breached the rules. May 19 – The commission said the integrity of the play-offs had been “seriously violated” and concluded that expulsion was required. It reasoned that a fine could effectively encourage clubs to gamble on breaking the rule because of the financial rewards available for Premier League promotion. May 19 – For the Oxford and Ipswich offences, the commission started from three points per incident, or six in total, before reducing the punishment to four points because of Southampton's admissions, cooperation and disclosure of the other incidents. Overnight, May 19-20 – Saints lodged an appeal running to more than 30 pages. The club wanted the sporting sanctions replaced by a financial penalty and reprimand. Wednesday, May 20 – An expedited appeal was heard because the play-off final was only three days away. Saints were represented by Lord Pannick KC, Kate Gallafent KC and Tom Coates. Brendan Kelly KC and Amina Graham represented the EFL. May 20 – Saints argued that the original process had been procedurally unfair and that the punishment was “excessive, erroneous and grossly disproportionate”. The club also maintained that it had obtained no sporting advantage from the three incidents. May 20 – The appeal was dismissed. The original sanctions were confirmed, ending Southampton's attempt to regain their place in the play-off final.