egg

Has it not been suggested that he left under a bit of a cloud?

That'd be about a dozen steps backwards.

Development

If I'd asked you a question, it would signify the start of a conversation. When I tell you, politely, that I think you're a whiny prick with a slightly skewed moral compass, I'm simply expressing my opinion. As you've chosen not to let this go, I'll also remark that it's slightly odd that you think that people must have a conversation with you because you insist, and that they should be expected to follow you down your various ridiculous rabbit holes. You'll note that I pose no question, which for clarity, means this isn't a discussion. It's me saying that I cannot be arsed to waste time conversing with you. I'm out of here. Adiós poppet.

I haven't asked for a debate - I'm not interested in your quest for equivalence. I've expressed my opinion on a specific point. It's done. Happy Friday.

I'm not sure what's hard to understand - the issue is closed for me.

I'm not debating it mate. I've expressed my opinion. Issue closed for me.

The issue is you not being to accept his charge on it's merits, and seeking equivalences. That's why you've pissed your panties. It's an incident on its own facts, charged proportionally. That's it.

I think it's inevitable he'll step up, at least until the end of the season. He's had a tough start with the under 21's but seems to be doing well. Personally, I like the idea with him stepping up and the rest of the coaching structure staying in place. It gives as much stability and continuity as possible.

And that ladies and gentlemen is why people are reluctant to pass on what they hear. I don't doubt he's heard something, and I don't doubt that it's a probably bit vague because things are happening, and/or he feels the need to be a bit vague as being specific could identify the source and get someone a kick in the bollocks.

Yep. I suspect he didn't mean any harm to the bloke on board, and although he arguably could have been charged with more, the simple criminal damage keeps things in perspective. It'll be interesting to see how he pleads, and what happens if me has the temerity to go not guilty.

Have a word with yourself mate. A bloke has been charged with criminal damage after being filmed causing criminal damage. That's it. That he did it, and some idiots being angry that he got charged, is the issue, nothing else.

You're embarrassing yourself getting so angry about it.

I don't know mate, but perhaps they saw him staying beyond that contract. Who knows. I don't.

What about, what about, etc. It's nauseating. People need to realise that this was bloody serious.

If correct that's better than was feared by the club.

I've followed it for years, hence my strong views. If you haven't seen Hamza Saadah, check his insta. Countless video interviews with Israelis, including IDF soldiers, on an off the battlefield, and kids including talking with them in school. Thet celebrate and call for the death of kids and babies. It's sickening. It's clear that they're indoctinated, yet the western masses have this mistaken belief that they're a peaceful lot. Bewildering, and very sad.

Utterly disgusting. Alas, with their US partnership and weak West, they'll carry on expanding, killing, maiming, etc, etc.

You mean this junior employee who "cocked up", costing us what it did, and then given a contract. That junior employee? The optics of that are terrible...if he cocked up, he should have been binned, and his evidence would have been that of a scorned employee. As you say though, you don't actually know what happened, me neither. One breach being a mistake, barely believeable, but okay let's roll with it, but we admitted 3 breaches. Three. And let's not forget that this EFL found (and we can't go behind that finding) that this was a top down instruction, and given that Tonda is in the FA dock, it's reasonable to assume that's the source of the top down instruction. Let's see what the FA say, but that it hasn't been done and dusted before now suggests that there's been a bit going on behind the scenes.

Forgetting, my arse. However you cut it, we, as per Canada, spied on training to gain an advantage, and filmed or tried to film it surreptitiously. The similarities are clear as day... unless you're a Saints fan who refuses to acknowledge them.

Boom!!

I think there's similar pre planning here. Our offence looks more amateur than using drones, but the similarities are there - observing without being seen, and attempting to record.

It's how I'd argue it. The Canada ban was 12 months, but in a situation where 8-12 games were likely to have been played. Replicating the 12 months in domestic football puts the ban at 50+ games, which equates to 5 - 6 years of female international matches. That's how I see the Canadian precedent should be applied fairly.

Them being able to give it, but it being disproportionate, are different. It's a "they could, but they shouldn't" scenario.

I'm sticking with 8 - 12 games. I don't see anything more as justified.