SW11_Saint

No it isn’t. You wouldn’t gain anything from taking still pictures of a business meeting. Bugging a meeting would be a better comparison.

No it isn’t. You wouldn’t gain anything from taking still pictures of a business meeting. Bugging a meeting would be a better comparison.

🎯 Not to mention the pressure exerted on junior staff. This is academic anyway, a 12-18 month ban is coming his way I suspect.

Why would you think that?

It’s not just about ‘breaking a stupid rule’ - though that in itself is enough of a reason to get rid - we’d be actively standing by someone who has gone out of their way to bully subordinates into doing something that was wrong, and they didn’t want to do (and were vocal about not wanting to do). The ‘deplorable’ behaviour the judge referenced, and he was right. I don’t believe in cancelling people for mistakes, and I hope Tonda’s career can survive this, but it would take something very significant from him and the club to convince me his position is tenable. As it happens I suspect the decision will be taken out of the clubs hands by a lengthy FA ban.

12-18 months I reckon.

Peretz?! Are you having a laugh?

Good point.

And 50% reduction for all existing ST holders next season.

Same as us then.

He is a good coach but his position is simply untenable. He will likely get a long ban, but he should resign anyway. If he doesn’t resign, he should be sacked, along with anyone else who is complicit in this. He has brought this downfall on the club. Talking of downfall… how long before someone produces one of those Hitler spoofs on us?!

🎯

Who the hell was our Counsel? If Tonda’s defence was really that he didn’t know it was against the rules (and if so, why didn’t someone else on staff inform him?) why didn’t they tell him to keep his f*****g mouth shut?! The whole thing screams 🤡show!!

Can you imagine?!?

Waiting for ‘the rapture’ (Boro-style)

And kits… 😂

Whatever the legal terminology, it would be impossible for them to wholly blame the S/F result on ‘Spygate’. If anything it affected us more than them!

I wasn’t referring to the inquiry outcome, rather the case that Boro would have to build if they decide to sue us for ‘loss of earnings’ after the fact (which is what the post I responded to was about).

Not talking about the outcome of the disciplinary hearing - I am referring to the case that Boro would have to build if they decide to sue us for ‘loss of earnings’ after the fact (which is what the post I responded to was about).

They would need to prove beyond reasonable doubt that this (spying) action directly resulted in their failure to progress over two matches and 215 minutes. Bottom line, they can’t.

I think you’d best brace yourself for some significant disappointment…

So good you said it twice?

Agree. Although the commission should act independently & with integrity - I just can’t see how politics of moving the final (or even having to replace us with Boro) won’t somehow play into this. They can still impose a very punitive punishment on us, without removing us from the final and creating the ensuing chaos. Apologies if this is covered elsewhere, but does anyone know what legal firm is representing us?

Well, I guess we’ll find out.