The independent commission which looked into Spygate has lambasted Southampton for the way senior staff directed the "deplorable use of junior members to conduct clandestine operations", and dismissed out of hand coach Tonda Eckert's claim the information was of no use to him.

Southampton were thrown out of the play-offs after admitting to three counts of spying on other clubs, allowing Middlesbrough to face Hull City in the May 23 final. The Saints were also docked four points for next season after hearing oral evidence from four witnesses.

The written reasons for the punishment have now been published.

An intern on placement spied on Middlesbrough and Oxford United before games against Southampton, whilst an "associated individual" watched Ipswich Town.

The intern spoke to the commission of the pressure he was put under.

The commission argued their findings were "discussed with Mr Eckert and others and it was sought so as to inform the strategy for the match."

It suggested Oxford's formation was the main focus of that mission and "the availability of a key player" – almost certainly injured Championship player of the year Hayden Hackney – was the primary reason for watching Middlesbrough.

"Such information could only be sought in order to factor it into strategy, whether the information confirms a strategy, is disregarded as unreliable or leads to a change of strategy does not, in our view alter the wrong which is committed when such information is sought,” theindependent disciplinary commission concluded. “It is inherent in having information which your opponent would wish to keep private that you have a sporting advantage."

I SPY: A Southampton fan makes a joke before their semi-final second leg against Middlesbrough (Image: Warren Little/Getty Images)

placeholder image — I SPY: A Southampton fan makes a joke before their semi-final second leg against Middlesbrough (Image: Warren Little/Getty Images)

The commission wrote of "a contrived and determined plan from the top down to gain a competitive advantage in competitions of real significance by deliberate attendance at opposition training grounds for the purpose of obtaining tactical and selection information. It involved far more than innocent activity and a particularly deplorable approach in its use of junior members of staff to conduct the clandestine observations at the direction of senior personnel. The commission is not persuaded that this is an exceptional case."

It was also not swayed by "the evidence of Mr Eckert that he did not find the information useful".

The three incidents Southampton admitted to were all before games they failed to win.

The commission also confirmed that on the day the initial charges were laid against Southampton, Boro tried and failed to gain permission to intervene in the proceedings which, under the timescale, had to be carried out speedily.

UNDER PRESSURE: Southampton coach Tonda Eckert (Image: Ed Sykes/Getty Images)

It was the Teessiders who made the commission aware that the individual they caught ahead of their 0-0 play-off semi-final first leg had been in the vicinity of Oxford's training ground watching sessions on December 23 and 24. Southampton lost 2-1 to Oxford on Boxing Day.

Eckert admitted authorising the information gathering at Oxford and Middlesbrough.

Ipswich trained at Eastleigh on the day of a Championship game away to the Saints. According to the commission, "at approximately midday, an individual associated with (Southampton), on the instructions of (their) coaching and analytical staff, attended Eastleigh Football Club where (Ipswich) were training. The footage and information obtained was shared within (Southampton). The fixture ended in a 2-2 draw."

Southampton argued a fine or two-point deduction would be fair, arguing there was "no justification for a sporting sanction."

It cited its co-operation with the investigation in mitigation, despite admitting it falsely claimed no video footage was "captured, transmitted, shared or analysed".

It dismissed suggestions from some Southampton witnesses that they did not know they were breaking the rules.

"The integrity of the play-off competition was seriously violated, and the actions of (Southampton) constituted a deliberate attempt to obtain an unfair advantage," it wrote. "Points deductions for the regular season might still be a risk worth taking if it enhanced the possibility of promotion. A financial penalty, as proposed by (Southampton) would not be effective at this stage in the competition since the financial rewards on offer for a team which is promoted to the Premier League through the play-offs would render any penalty meaningless.

"Perversely this may act as an incentive for clubs to breach Regulation 127 and pay the fine."

It would be a major surprise were Football Association charges against former Barnsley coach Eckert were not to follow given how scathing the commission’s judgement has been.