Fabrice29

He’s getting banned ffs let alone sacked. Can’t believe we went down the route of ignorance too. Clean break needed.

So our guilty behaviour the moment the allegations appeared and the non existent media strategy and odd behaviour at St Mary’s on Tuesday wasn’t because we’re unbelievably professional then?

Asking for trouble but not victim blaming 🤣 perfectly normal sentence.

This has all been explained quite a few times before but the overwhelming desire to victim blame is a concerning state of society.

Biggest problem for West Ham this summer is their owners injunctions all being lifted. Relegation and tax bills are going to pale into insignificance. Presumably Bowen gets his move so I wonder if some vested interests mean Fernandes is kept on unless really big offers come in.

He absolutely walks into Man Uniteds midfield right now. Only thing that could stop a move is price/contract length. Will be interesting to see who/if anyone stumps up what West Ham paid us and more.

This is all possible and nobody is assuming anything. It’s just a hypothetical discussion.

Presumably because they have little to be coy about and have also been moved aside from the investigation now.

And wont get in any trouble for doing so, so remind me why we aren’t saying something unofficial again? Is it the same reason that we sent out MLT at half time to tell everyone to stop singing about spying? 🤣

Are you over proper football man Chris Wilder yet? Also this idea I’m anti Tonda when I was one of the very few who was happily taking stick on here for daring to suggest he might be a decent appointment and we shouldn’t sack him a few weeks later is incredible

That’s the whole point of using the media to do it via. Sources say etc. And by the way we’ve already commented like this by telling them we have accepted the charges.

There are differences but also precedence https://www.espn.co.uk/football/story/_/id/42351579/canada-soccer-bev-priestman-olympics-coach-drone-spy-scandal Anyway, I’m imagining the proving he was involved but is probably quite difficult so it’s a mute conversation but this was one of my concerns about the lack of narrative control via local media. It would be very easy and not a big deal to just set the record straight that he wasn’t involved via House/Blackmore if he wasn’t involved…

Again, I think what they do to protect themselves from being spied on by the opposition is check the rules that say the opposition can’t spy on you. It’s not on them to border up their training ground to stop people from Southampton watching them. It’s on Southampton.

That would not be a mitigating factor that would wash with anyone of substance. Also, if Tonda is proven to be involved we won’t need to sack him, he’ll be banned and there is absolutely precedent for that.

He’s got you spreading his name and the podcast he’s on and telling everyone where in the video we can find it. Content creators want you to engage with their content and to engage others. Job done.

What are you on about? 😂

Obviously. No? 😂

I see the sports lawyer that was on talk sport the other day suggesting being kicked out was excessive is slowly changing his mind on that.

Again, for the umpteenth time, it doesn’t matter what’s on the phone.

Yeah I didn’t though and I’m happy for you to find the quote and context where I did but nice point anyway.

Okay good for you. I’ve been quite happy to state it as fact from the moment the Boro manager laughed in the Sky reporters face when he said allegedly before the first leg.

Eh? Yeah or Saints could cut out the middle man and do it themselves…oh no wait…they couldn’t.

The view of it is supposed to be blocked by the rule. That’s why he was upset, because someone has gone out of their way to disrespect him and gain an advantage they aren’t allowed to gain, however easy it is to gain.

I read your point as a whole. I’ve read it on the other outlets you’ve posted it on to. That’s why I specifically said you’re missing the point in my post. I also listened almost word for word at the lawyer on talksport making the same point a few days ago.

They don’t need to prevent someone in the public from viewing it (albeit they probably should). All they need to do is prevent someone at Saints from viewing it, which the rule should do because the onus is on Saints not to watch it.