VectisSaint

He won't be 'given the captaincy', unless Jack is on his way.

but Bazunu playing would mean you will be disappointed.

I'll join you in the minority. I was reasonably certain before Spygate that Leo would stay whatever, maybe a few doubts now, but it seems to me that he feels he owes us a lot for plucking him from obscurity and is clearly not in the usual greedy pro mould.

Whether or not it's a stupid rule, we didn't just get charged with the 72 hour spying rule, we were also charged with (paraphrasing) disrespecting opponents, the same rule as exists in the EPL. Even without the 72 hour rule we could/would have been charged if Boro felt we were taking the piss (which we were). We would probably have been thrown out just the same. We can go on and on about silly rules, unfair sanctions till the cows come home. In the end we were incredibly stupid, perhaps through naivity, but it was our fault. End of.

We did not appeal the spying accusation, or the other 5 rule breaches, we appealed the sentence only (and I believe only the sentence for the two Boro related charges).

They don't need to codify punishments for all misdemeanours. They have a catchall that says they can apply sanctions that they see fit. There were already precedents, not just Swindon in the EFL Trophy (excluded and a small fine for something that was completely inconsequential) but also Swindon in 1990? when they were excluded from the playoffs after they had won the thing, New York they were also demoted 2 divisions (one on appeal), yes their crime was very serious but did not really warrant the Draconian punishment they received, and the appeal seemed to support that notion. This whole idea that the EFL should spell out for the hard of thinking what sanction can be applied for each transgression is utter nonsense. Not forgetting we faced two charges (forget the Ipswich and Oxford charges, they were dealt with differently, i.e. points deductions because they were League games), so how would that work if each charge had a different sanction. There is only one realistic course of action in a knockout scenario, expulsion. Whether that costs a team £2k or £200m is irrelevant. If a match had not been played they could have awarded a walkover, but the outcome is the same.

No, because there is no rule against spying within 72 hours within the FA Cup. In addition, PL teams are highly unlikely to spy or attempt to spy because their training grounds are secure. The EFL have this rule because they know that many of their members cannot put such measures in place and so are legislating against teams acting in an unsportsmanlike manner. In its history, 143 Clubs have been disqualified from the FA Cup for transgressions. Expelling teams from knockout competitions has many many.orw events. Exactly what happened to us, the difference and why there is so much angst is because the Championship playoffs have become a monster, due to the potential PL money. The sporting sanction remains the same, but obviously the stakes were much higher highlighting further how stupid the spying was. A totally pointless action with no quantifiable gain or likely gain. People need to stop blaming the football authorities for something that was self inflicted, crass stupidity and where the "punishment" was always self evident.

The interesting point to me which you have picked up on, is that Tonda was not the instigator of the plan. I have been alluding to this in my infrequent comments, and in my view it is probably as much of a reason nothing has moved much yet as any other factor. The implication of this comment is that it is likely someone higher up knew about and instigated things, and this probably started before Tonda took the reins. Tonda was obviously complicit in authorising it to continue but others, and no idea if it's Spoors, Parsons, or whoever, knew about it and were even at the forefront. I'm certain as well that others, such as Garner, maybe even Lallana, and certainly one or two of the players knew exactly what was occurring. This is what the FA will be investigating, bringing the game into disrepute and also the alleged bullying of junior staff which they will take a dim view of. I suspect Saints are under an obligation to say nothing at present and not to do anything that would prejudice the investigation, similar to an injunction. Although this is a sporting rather than a legal investigation the rule of law will generally be followed. It could drag on for some time and completely wreck our summer plans. Let's hope not.

They do, but when a complaint is made or reported to the FA then the FA will investigate. As I understand it, if a complaint was made at all, it was reported by the EFL. Of course for all I know no complaint has been made but them's the rumours and usually there is no smoke without fire. In 2018 the FA ran an investigation into allegations of bullying made against head of strategy and performance Dave Reddin. The outcome was that there was no issue, but they took it seriously enough.

Not true Weston, the FA have an anti-bullying policy,.part of RESPECT. It is one area that the FA have little tolerance for (supposedly). In my view I suggest they will come down heavier on any bullying or discrimination than aspects than on the so called cheating for individuals (whether that is Tonda or otherwise) because the EFL have effectively already sanctioned the cheating)breaking of the rules.

Swindon who were also fined was after the Grimsby incident, so yes it is actually the pre event. Swindon could justifiably argue that they were harshly treated because of Grimsby. But punishments do tend to increase for infringements on the basis that we tried a measly fine and clearly it wasn't enough so sick this up instead.

Swindon the EFL Trophy.

I would suggest the bullying aspects will be the main focus. FA don't care too much about breaking rules, more interested in inclusivity, etc.

Actually Duckhunter is absolutely right here (in my opinion). The playoffs were a straight knockout competition. Any flouting of the rules in a knockout competition usually results in exclusion from the competition and a fine (cf Swindon, EFL Trophy). There is little else that can be done. The outrage is down to the fact that the playoff (especially the Champ play off) is now seen as such a huge prize (100m-200+ depending who you talk to, if you win of course) that the punishment is completely out of line with the crime (does anyone really believe there is anything much to be gained from spying on training). That's why there is outrage. But that's not the fault of anyone other than those who thought up the idea of promotion playoffs. It's also why I think the EFL did not fine us, what would be the point, financially we were already fecked. In the normal course of league games, points deductions (and a fine) are the appropriate punishment, as happened with the Ipswich and Oxford charges. If course the punishment here did not fit the crime but there was no realistic alternative. It's also with remembering that we weren't just charged with spying in the 72 hour window,.we were also charged with not treating our opponents with due respect, and probably this counted for more than the simplistic spying rule. Because I only have limited posts I want to say the reason there is no spying rule in the PL, is because PL teams generally have high security making it extremely unlikely to be successful. The EFL have manage lesser teams in their 3 divisions, clubs that can't make their training secure, operating on sometimes public facilities. I can walk half a mile down the road and watch Swindon training any time I want (should I be that sad), or 4 miles in the other direction and I can watch Forest Green Rovers (I know they aren't in the EFL currently). I don't need to hide behind a tree.

and also none of them would have given a thought about promotion and the financial implications back in December.

No doubt, but the question remains, who else was involved? I find it hard to believe that no one "above" Tonda knew what was happening, or at least did not proactively discourage him to break the rules. Unlikely as it may seem, its possible this was going on before Tonda was appointed, I mean Will Still's results would suggest otherwise, but if like me you don't believe that spying actually gains more than a miniscule benefit, who knows. Then there is the rest of the coaching staff, including the u21s, probably some of the players. To my mind better to have Eckert still employed by the Club until the FA complete their investigation, rather than him being an unemployed loose cannon.

We didn't just own up to it, the information came from Middlesbro, presumably from the whistleblower (whoever he or she was), the EFL then charged us on Sunday and we accepted that it was the case.

Justice done. Well done Hull.

Smiffy

Just wondering whether we are holding off sacking until the FA investigation has concluded. Possibly the FA investigation works a bit like an injunction. Maybe not I don't know. But if he is still employed by SFC he is less likely to spill the beans about what else has gone on or who else is involved. If he was sacked before he could in theory just go ballistic and make things a whole lot worse.

How about Lallana? Was part of Still's staff and took over the 21s, clearly experienced in the English game, and would presumably have been part of the briefing at season start. Did Eckart do spying when he was in charge of the 21s? In my view this all goes higher than Tonda, if Spoors and Parsons did know they should go, if they didn't know that's incompetence and they should go.

and no mention of Rupert Lowe (unless thats covered in the minus 10), Clive Woodward, they were dark days. I would suggest that other claims to this title would be Swindon Town (remeber that in 1990 they won the play-offs and were subsequently booted out and demoted 2 further divisions, reduced to one on appeal), Sheffield Wednesday and of course our fishy friends down the road.

I'm not sure that Tonda should be shouldering all the blame. In my eyes Spoors has much to answer for, if he didn't know what was going on then that's as bad as knowing. He is responsible for Eckert in my view, and should have been giving the guidance to him about rules etc. One thing that strikes me is that we don't have anyone senior who has been involved for long in the English game. I don't mean they need to be English, but someone with some knowledge, experience at the sporting level. These guys should be ensuring that rules are known and understood. Maybe it got overlooked because we were not in the EFL when the rules changed, but thats no excuse. Also don't buy the idea that Tonda was new to the EFL, he used to be at Barnsley, he hasn't just come over on a boat. Where does Ben Garner stand in all this? Surely he is the experienced aide. Also don't think its as clean cut as "not knowing", clearly the guy at Boro knew he shouldn't have been doing what he did, and the story of the lad in Eastleigh kit for the Ipswich training smacks of knowing what they were doing was shady at least. I also question whether any of this was going on before Tonda took over. Results under Still suggest that it wasn't but it seems strange that it all seems to have started with Tonda's promotion. Its a stupid thing to do, its absolutely clear that it is of no or at best minute benefit. So why do it. As 'arry says its just absolutely stupid. Last point, I'm not convinced (all of) the players are as squeaky clean as some would have us believe. It transpires that the data from these surveillance trips was used in the player briefings, surely some of the "senior" players should have smelled a rat, I can accept that the new transfers and those who have joined from abroad would probably not have known this was wrong. Conspiracy theory here but maybe Adam Armstrong knew too much? In the end, its difficult to argue that Eckert didn't do a brilliant job, trying to make out it was largely due to the players has got to be revisionist thinking in the extreme. I bet in a few years Eckert will be doing well in the Bundesliga, or possibly around the German national team.

No thanks, Hull should win.

Apparently these extra charges were brought by the EFL on Sunday, following information provided by Boro. No one seems to have been aware of this at the time, not announced by EFL, or surprisingly by anyone on here. So altogether we faced 4 charges.