Graffito

One of the echo reporters asked Eckert about it post match. The answer was something to do with responding to how Watford set up. All a bit vague. However, I think it unlikely he’ll repeat it. It was clearly a crap move.

I was at the match and that’s what I saw. Should have been corrected much sooner.

I don’t know but he’s clearly worth something if wild saint has him up for sale. Suspect he might mean Ramsdale.

That’s a yes then. They’re all at it.

Stick that one on the back of your shirt.

We need a centre forward.

Would then what FIFA decided in the Canada case be a legal precedent for a decision by the FA in the TE case or just a guide?

It was the reluctant Intern that requested an Eastleigh kit.

He has not “proved to be dishonest”. Eckert authorised something dishonest. That does not prove him to be dishonest. Somebody was saying he lacks integrity, maybe you, maybe someone else. Again not so. You are arguing from the very particular to the general; damning someone’s whole character based on something they did wrong. It’s a logical fallacy. And I think it does matter what the players think. If Eckert didn’t treat his players with honesty and integrity they simply wouldn’t play for him. Some have gone beyond that and praised him.

I’m not claiming precedent. It’s about fairness and consistency.

Has the relevant FA rule changed then, since when Bielsa was not charged but merely warned as to his conduct?

Only a fool would do a thing like that. Now we’re stinking the place out.

They didn’t want to be associated with a big fat bird and frankly who does?

Agreed. Calling what TE did “morally repugnant” probably wasn’t a good career move.

Seymour Salt.