23rdSaint

His mum’s from there: https://www.thefa.com/news/2022/oct/01/jobi-mcanuff-black-history-month-20220110 I can’t find it, but there was a 72+ episode from BBC Sounds where he talks about having a soft spot for them and that a load of his family support them. Think he almost moved there once, too

Thanks for sharing. I don’t really care about McAnuff or his views, but I do have a problem with him being presented as a neutral party, given his Portsmouth ties and being on the FA Board…

Pompey losing? How strange. I thought from this interview (01:15 onwards) that no other team's above their level: https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p0p3g91n 😂😂😂

What's become clear to me since the height of the furore is that my support for Tonda as a person and as a manager is the highest it's been. I don't think I've felt this way about anyone in charge since Adkins. I'm happy to admit that I voted for him to go in the second SaintsWeb poll but I think time and everything that's been communicated since has only bolstered my feelings.

I would guess a combination of Jacob's ties to the club, the Athletic's wider sources (hence Southgate insight) and perhaps the point we're at within the FA investigation. Purely speculative, though

The Athletic | Tonda Eckert received death threats during spygate scandal. For him and Southampton, the saga rumbles on by Jacob Tanswell -- Sixty-four days after Southampton were chucked out of the Championship play-off final, their head coach Tonda Eckert was charged with bringing the game into disrepute by the Football Association. The charge centres on ‘spygate’, one of British football’s biggest, most controversial stories in some time. Southampton admitted to spying on other clubs, including Middlesbrough, who they had defeated in the play-off semi-final. Middlesbrough took their place at Wembley, only to lose to Hull City. They had also spied on Oxford United and Ipswich Town. As well as expulsion from the play-offs, Southampton were handed a four-point deduction which applies to the upcoming Championship season. The punishments did not end there. On July 22, and following its own investigation, the FA determined Eckert had breached rule E3.1, which mandates that “all participants act in the best interests of the game at all times”. Precedent for this came seven years ago, when Leeds United, then a Championship side, were fined £200,000 by the English Football League after manager Marcelo Bielsa confessed to sending staff to spy on Derby County. Back then, there was no formal process to follow for spying, with the EFL’s fine due to breaching ‘good faith regulations’. Bielsa, though, did not incur any personal sanctions, even if he did agree to pay the fine on behalf of his club. As part of Leeds’ contrition, they agreed to support new regulations which made it clear, as their statement put it, that “clubs would be expressly prohibited from viewing opposition training in the 72 hours immediately prior to a fixture, unless invited to do so”. The staggered nature of Southampton’s punishments has contributed to a curious situation. Their 2025-26 season came to a crashing, galling halt on May 19 when the EFL expelled them and yet, as summer preparations were well underway ahead of the new campaign, a charge arrived at Eckert’s door. He is leading them into what is expected to be a hostile Championship season, which begins on Sunday away to Watford, without knowing whether he will be their head coach for much longer. Uncertainty is the undercurrent of Southampton’s preparations. The most severe potential sentence is Eckert being banned from all football activity for a prolonged period, in which case he will surely have no choice but to step down. The 33-year-old German spent the summer back home in Berlin with his wife and became a father. After the initial hearing was delayed due to the Eckerts becoming parents, he travelled to London at the start of July, a week before his players were due to return for pre-season, and was interviewed by the FA. The process lasted two days and involved Eckert being interviewed for several hours, going into detail about what happened and giving his version of events. Sources close to the situation, speaking on the condition of anonymity, described the hearing as going well and appearing professional. The proceedings included an FA integrity manager, who allowed Eckert to share his thoughts and lay out what led to Southampton spying on opposing teams and the reasons and context behind his decisions. Those close to Eckert say he appreciated the opportunity to share his side, having felt the initial EFL hearing, when they were deciding Southampton’s fate, was more focused on the facts of the matter and not the reasons behind it. The matter of spygate raised questions culturally. Eckert told those close to him that, previously when working in Germany, “training observation” was par for the course. Perhaps naively, he overlooked whether it was viewed the same way in England. Having only been appointed head coach in December, stepping up following the sacking of Will Still from the role of under-21s boss he’d started last July, Eckert had not sat in the EFL meeting before the start of the season in which managers are informed of rule changes and the minutiae of certain rules. Eckert attended this season’s meeting on July 22 and read the EFL handbook over the summer. More specifically, he wanted to understand the changes in culture. Why does English football view spying as a heinous crime while other countries openly admit to using drones to study upcoming opponents? Eckert reached out to Gareth Southgate. The pair had a long conversation, with the Southampton coach asking for background on why the rules were implemented and the key perception differences of observing an opponent’s training session. Sceptics will argue he did not require a former England manager to explain the rules, especially when surrounded at Southampton by a mostly English backroom team. Once Eckert authorised a staff member to spy on an opposition, someone more ingrained in the British game should have warned of the potential ramifications. Admittedly, spying is more difficult to do in the Premier League, with training grounds gated and fenced. It is easier in the lower leagues and at some Championship clubs, due to better public access. For example, Eckert was informed before December’s trip to Oxford of a public road next to the club’s training ground, which is used by dog walkers. As for Middlesbrough, they train next to a golf course. Incriminating WhatsApp messages from Eckert to the club’s analysts were revealed during the hearing to decide Southampton’s fate. The Athletic reported at the time that sources with knowledge of proceedings said these were particularly damaging to the south coast club’s case. Two of the analysts gave evidence, expressing remorse for their actions but saying they were pushed into going on the spying trips. Privately, those close to Eckert bristle against that perception of him. Eckert does not have the phone number of William Salt, the performance analyst intern who was caught filming Middlesbrough in training. According to those close to him, he has never sent or received a message from Salt. This is because of the chain of command at Southampton, which started at Eckert at the top and filtered down to Salt. In preparation for the first leg of their play-off semi-final away at the Riverside Stadium, Eckert watched every game of Middlesbrough’s from January onwards. Early that week, with the game on the Saturday, Eckert and his coaching staff had a meeting which lasted over eight hours. At one stage, the question of midfielder Hayden Hackney’s fitness came up. Hackney had recently won Championship player of the season. His presence or absence from the home team was going to form a critical part of preparations. When Eckert was told Middlesbrough trained adjacent to a golf course, he sanctioned a staff member, without specifying who, to be sent up to the north-east to try to find out if Hackney was training. The conversation then moved on, leaving this matter up to the club’s analysts. Initially it was not supposed to be Salt who travelled but a more senior staff member. However, they could not go for other reasons. Middlesbrough caught Salt spying on the Thursday, less than two days from the tie’s first leg. As it was within the 72-hour period before the match, Southampton had breached the rules. Southampton’s response was to admit their guilt, also disclosing training videos from the Wednesday’s session to the EFL and all information from the technical meetings. Salt is now a full-time employee at the club. Ironically, that first leg finished in a goalless draw, with Southampton riding their luck in the first half. Eckert told those close to him it was among their worst displays under his watch. Clearly, the early rumblings of spygate, yet to be felt fully, had some effect as Southampton struggled to get into Middlesbrough territory. Gradually, the story’s impact started to affect Eckert, with every passing day heightening the scrutiny. According to a source close to the Southampton coach, he received death threats via LinkedIn. He was not allowed to drive himself anywhere, with the club offering additional protection, with security picking him up and dropping him off. Eckert had to negotiate an EFL hearing and verdict, the second leg against Middlesbrough — which Southampton won 2-1 on May 12 — plus media speculation and coverage that had now reached the front page of national newspapers. The Athletic reported some players were considering legal action. There were squad members who had taken 40 per cent pay cuts post-relegation from the Premier League a year earlier and were due to have that reinstated if promoted. Bonuses for wider staff, though, did not just centre on returning to the top flight. A week later, on Tuesday, May 19, Southampton were ejected from the play-off final by the EFL’s independent disciplinary commission. The next morning, Eckert requested that the players attend the training ground. The atmosphere was frosty. He asked them to control their emotions until the outcome of Southampton’s appeal against the initial verdict. Once Southampton’s appeal had been rejected and their fate was definite the next day, the players came together again. Southampton’s ownership group led a meeting without Eckert, and sounded out dressing-room opinions. The response was that he should continue as coach. The German wanted time to think, however. His wife, heavily pregnant, was back in Germany. He returned to Berlin shortly after. A few weeks later, Eckert decided that he retained the energy and desire to strive for promotion again. It was not thought players’ potential legal cases would materialise, with the coach believing morale had been dented but not broken. Regardless, failure to achieve promotion last season did not help in a financial climate where Southampton were pulling back support for their women’s team and reducing the number of academy employees. With the mood having been so disrupted, this off-season centred on restoring the mood. Southampton have not experienced defeat in the league since January, so Eckert’s work was not focused on tactical evolution, but on trying to ensure that everyone at the club could move on. This remained a complex task against the backdrop of the FA’s ongoing investigation. Eckert invited his coaching staff over to Berlin for three days in June. They talked about how to regather trust and spirit. Smaller details included beginning pre-season later than most Championship teams, giving more time for everyone to take stock. When players and staff did return, Eckert wanted anyone who wished to speak to him and his coaches to do so, airing any frustrations and mapping out a way they could move forward. The early signs, according to players and Eckert speaking publicly, are that they have been successful, particularly strengthened during a four-game pre-season tour in Germany. How robust those relationships are will be tested given the ire that will invariably be directed towards Southampton and Eckert once the Championship season begins this weekend. How Southampton perform in their early games is imperative and would go a long way in building back trust with their fanbase. All of this hinges on the FA’s charge. Even with a four-point deduction, the club are aiming for promotion again. Scrutiny will be on Eckert from the outset, amplified by this ongoing question which casts further uncertainty over his position. As Southampton try to move on, the shadow of spygate still looms large. https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/7488696/2026/08/14/tonda-eckert-southampton-spygate-spying-championship-season/?source=user_shared_article&smid=ta-ios-share

George Elek is a pompous arse; I can't listen to NTTT as a result. I disagree with a lot of what Second Tier say (I think they've been pretty consistent in their vilification to us, including the new guy) but they don't take themselves as seriously.

Even David Prutton has the gall to come out and say we brought the game into disrepute. I like the guy but pot and kettle...

But I wasn't making a point about fans. It was specifically about media personalities and publications.

For me, it's the ongoing commentary from the media and the piousness/hypocrisy of opinion. "Cheat" is such an emotive word and doesn't feel like it's proportionally used – the example in the Mourinho documentary won't lead people to call Chelsea cheats (beyond any of their other antics) because, as people have stated, it's not against any specific rules in the Prem. It's comparable to (and arguably as egregious as) what we did in terms of benefits. We breached specific EFL rules with Spygate though, so we're being branded as cheats. So if breaking the rules = cheating, why aren't Everton, Forest and Leicester considered cheats for breaching PSR? If "cheating" means deliberately seeking an unfair sporting advantage through dishonest means (irrespective of whether there are specific rules in place or not), why aren't Leeds described as cheats?

Apologies, I missed that completely!

Injured: https://www.southamptonfc.com/en/news/article/report-saints-suffer-late-defeat-in-paderborn-test

Totally fair. Unless they thought: "this kid's confidence is shot, the fans are on his back and have made their minds up. Let's take him out of the firing line, tone down the heat on him and start again next season." Maybe it's me doing 2+2=5, but if Mubama's the only striker we're bringing in and we're getting rid of BBD and Archer, he stays as third striker. Nobody's going to pay anywhere near the amount we did, so I'm sure the club are willing to give him another shot.

My read: Mubama and Downs replace Archer and Stewart's squad places going into this season. Call it wishful thinking or being whet behind the ears, but I'm not ready to write Downs off just yet. Hopefully a full pre-season with a competent coach is enough to reset a dreadful first year here. Not expecting the best striker ever but I am anticipating a more effective player. Happy to eat my words at Christmas when he's shipped out on loan again...

Wish him nothing but the best. Thanks for some memorable goals

So why are you saying 20? I'd suggest worrying about your own team not taking Derby's crown this season rather than baiting other teams' fans on their forum.

20-match espionage mission?

Wiki not updated:

I see Blackmore's now bending over and prising his cheeks

Dunno but lives on the Isle of Wight

Can you elaborate, Connor? How do you know he's a connection?

Best shirt since 11/12 season

Sorry to piss on your chips

I saw reports of clubs aware that it happened to them but they considered the case closed. If they have proof and they see what the punishment is, you've got to imagine they'd consider it...

I have no knowledge of why they've come to the decision but I would assume the EFL's rationale is that the play-offs is a separate competition (i.e. knockouts), so we forfeit our position for spying ahead of the 1st leg.