Graffito

Agree re pace not being essential for a CM. The weakness I saw in his game is that he was slow on the turn and sometimes got caught square to his man so players went past him. Always thought that was something that could be addressed with coaching. Haven’t seen enough of him recently to know whether he’s improved it.

I think we’ve had enough of shady shenanigans.

It’s definitely on Now TV.

You were right. I have 15 always, I was logged in at 3.30 and it had sold out.

So about half as wealthy as Dragan Solak.

£25. That’s five pints and a shag in Wales.

If you think he spied on Fulham, Arsenal, Man City, your deluded. And if you think other championship teams weren’t at it last season, including your lot, your deluded.

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.

Those are my principles and if you don’t like them, well I have others.

Yeah quite a turnaround in 7 years (and not just the Guardian of course)which can’t be explained simply by the introduction post Bielsa of rule 127. The media onslaught instigated by Boro probably helped set the tone. Incidentally, the author of the second article says “The EFL regulation [127] refers to “sporting sanction”. It is hard to see what that could amount to and still be meaningful if it were not to award the game to Middlesbrough.” Does it? Perhaps I’m misreading it the regulation. This is one of the issues. Had the EFL introduced a clear sporting sanction with regulation 127 none of this would have happened. As it was, we know at least one club was stupid enough to think it could observe opposition training during the 72 hour prohibition and simply pay a £200,000 fine.

The Mostyn KC article. Worth a read. He calls the tribunal decision a travesty of justice. https://www.insideworldfootball.com/2026/05/26/op-ed-sir-nicholas-mostyn-kc-soutampton-fc-admiral-byng-is-shot-again/