The extraordinary level of detail in Southampton’s orchestrated spying operations have been revealed, including deleting a LinkedIn account and obtaining CCTV training footage from a non-league ground.Southampton were expelled from the Championship play-offs last month after it emerged a junior analyst had been sent to watch semi-final opponents Middlesbrough train ahead of meeting in the first leg.Further breaches of the EFL’s rules were also detailed in their subsequent disciplinary hearing, with Southampton accepting that they had also spied on Oxford United and Ipswich Town before games in the regular season. That brought a further four-point deduction that will be applied to their total in the 2026-27 season.Southampton contested the original verdict of a three-person independent panel and the full details of that appeal hearing, held on May 20, have now been published by the EFL.Included are the full movements of Southampton’s analyst William Salt during what was originally planned to be a two-night stay near to Middlesbrough’s training base.Salt, referred to throughout as the club’s “junior analyst intern”, was even shown drone footage of Middlesbrough’s training ground ahead of flying to Teesside on May 6 to familiarise himself with the lay-out of their base.Southampton’s head coach Tonda Eckert had asked that Salt attend training the following day but his spying from behind a tree, which included three videos sent back to colleagues, was noticed by Middlesbrough staff.Eckert was appointed Southampton head coach in November (Ed Sykes/Getty Images)Salt was made to delete the footage and when retreating to the golf course club house adjacent to Middlesbrough’s training ground, he also disabled his LinkedIn account in an attempt to avoid detection through his profile photograph.It was then proposed that Southampton’s media team delete a photo from their site of Eckert winning a Manager of the Month prize with Salt among those in the background. “The only way they can put his face from CCTV with (Southampton) as he’s deleted his LinkedIn picture. Just got to hope they won’t put the 2 together,” one message read.Eckert claimed that the footage received from Middlesbrough’s training ground lacked the quality to offer tactical insight and Salt had also suggested, incorrectly, that star midfielder Hayden Hackney would be fit to play.Southampton’s other two spying missions were also outlined in the appeal hearing.They included a trip to Oxford United’s training ground ahead of the team’s meeting on December 26, with Eckert eager to learn more about his opponent’s approach in the wake of Gary Rowett’s sacking days earlier. It was said that Salt observed training, under apparent pressure from Eckert, from public footpaths across two days and deduced that Oxford would revert from a back five to a back four.One message from a senior analyst, sent to Salt, read: “Try and make out as much as you can please. You legend. Manager loved it.” Southampton went on to lose the fixture 2-1.The other spying mission came late in the season ahead of Ipswich’s visit to St Mary’s Stadium. A training session at nearby Eastleigh had been flagged to Eckert and, again, attempts were made to watch. That included being sent CCTV footage from Eastleigh and being given a cover story that included the undercover analyst wearing Eastleigh kit and having a falsified role at the non-league club.Southampton were able to predict Ipswich’s starting XI for the game, which ended in a 2-2 draw.The details underline why the original commission was able to call Southampton’s actions a “contrived and determined plan” and sheds further light on the pressures placed upon Salt by more established figures at the club.The club’s appeal had attempted to argue that a sporting sanction was inappropriate but that was dismissed by the sole arbitrator in the case, Sir Gary Hickinbottom,He noted: “This was not a “prank”. Cheating in sport, including spying, is a serious offence.. Here, the Middlesbrough incident seriously violated the integrity of the play-off knock out competition.”Southampton published a lengthy statement in light of the appeal’s details being made public, promising to “take ownership” of the lessons learned.There was also a swipe at the make-up of the original disciplinary commission that delivered a strong punishment. That included David Winnie, a former player turned barrister who played one game for Middlesbrough in 1994, and Lydia Banerjee, whose Littleton Chambers firm previously represented Middlesbrough.“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,” Southampton’s 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.”Middlesbrough went on to lose the Championship play-off final, beaten 1-0 by Hull City at Wembley.Jun 1, 2026Connections: Sports EditionSpot the pattern. Connect the termsFind the hidden link between sports terms