The Spygate Saga - 6 Week ban suspended for Eckert

[Pilchards]

Time to get up the league and attract some players in January to push on.

Lets face it, it looked like many refused to come because they would of been worried about the Tonda situation.

[Mustang Saint]

2 hours ago, Sidney Fudpucker the 3rd said:

The only blow is that the cheating twat still has a job and seems to have got off lighter than anyone else. 

I honestly can't understand how the fans can think that it's acceptable that he's still at the club. He let us all down massively and yet people think he's some kind of hero. 

Is your arse jealous of all the shit that comes out your mouth?

[23rdSaint]

19 minutes ago, Saints4Prem said:

Thanks for that Alfie came across a lot better than Mr Blackmore on Five Live. If you go to the BBC sounds it is actually 02:08:00 on the counter

Yeah, sorry. I originally linked the live broadcast (6:07pm) but the programme changed. Thanks for correcting

[madge]

3 hours ago, Pamplemousse said:

Dragan Solak on the official website absolutely scathing about the EFL

I think the make up

of that EFL panel needs some serious investigation. Looked proper dodgy with some Boro connections. If EFL reps turn up at st Mary’s I hope solak tells them to feck off!!

[trousers]

1 hour ago, hypochondriac said:

Can we keep a track of which journalists are scumbags. I love how they all have an opinion on this verdict which praises our manager and admits he made a mistake but silence around the opposing verdict which ruled he was untrustworthy despite this investigation being much more thorough and over a longer period.

 

A Sun "journalist" preaching about morality... Now that's what I call irony...

[trousers]

1 hour ago, Saint_clark said:

"Precedent has been set. Every club in the championship may as well have a go now"

Forgotten that we got booted out of the playoff final already then. 

Northerners in 'thick as mince' shocker...

[Lord Duckhunter]

I don’t necessarily agree that this new independent panel are all seeing and knowing, and the EFL one a load of fuckwits. The timescales clearly helped us. The initial EFL hearing was a clusterfuck as far as we were concerned, whereas this one we could plan a strategy, coach Tonda into being more contrite & humble as well as mount precise and considered mitigation. Remember we also broke a specific EFL rule , whereas the FA “rule” was still exactly the same one Leeds manager was charged (and slapped on the wrist) with. The same FA people judging the initial EFL case, could well have reached the same conclusion they did. 
 

My feeling is the club were probably treated too harshly, whereas Tonda has been treated slightly leniently. Hopefully it’s now behind us and we can get back to our end of season form. 

Edited 1 hour ago by Lord Duckhunter

[Football Special]

52 minutes ago, Saints4Prem said:

Thanks for that Alfie came across a lot better than Mr Blackmore on Five Live. If you go to the BBC sounds it is actually 02:08:00 on the counter

Cant stand Blackbore, count my blessings i usually get to go to games and not listen to that fat brummie cunt waffling on , he's been wetting himself with excitement at the prospect of a ban 

[Pamplemousse]

[RedWillie]

2 hours ago, whelk said:

They are still posting over there. Surely must be joyriding and thieving time now 

Be a few front garden walls worried up there tonight.

[Graffito]

30 minutes ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

I don’t necessarily agree that this new independent panel are all seeing and knowing, and the EFL one a load of fuckwits. The timescales clearly helped us. The initial EFL hearing was a clusterfuck as far as we were concerned, whereas this one we could plan a strategy, coach Tonda into being more contrite & humble as well as mount precise and considered mitigation. Remember we also broke a specific EFL rule , whereas the FA “rule” was still exactly the same one Leeds manager was charged (and slapped on the wrist) with. The same FA people judging the initial EFL case, could well have reached the same conclusion they did. 
 

My feeling is the club were probably treated too harshly, whereas Tonda has been treated slightly leniently. Hopefully it’s now behind us and we can get back to our end of season form. 

Unlikely. Seems clear from The FA regulatory commission report of the case v Eckert that the FA commission disagreed with quite a few of the EFL commission findings and note they had the EFL commission evidence available to them and they refer to it at length.

[S-Clarke]

At last, it's over.

From the start this has been the most ridiculously overblown 'saga' I've ever experienced in football, the pile on in May was just ridiculous - and Boro's efforts to ensure they gained from it won't be forgotten, and I'd hope that most football fans realise how badly they acted throughout all of this. They will claim they were 'acting' on behalf of the integrity of the game...but let's be honest, they saw a potential free ticket to the final after they forgot to turn up in the Semi Finals.

At no point have we ever condoned what was done, or said it was great - not at all. I'd say 99% of the fan base were thinking along the lines of ''What a stupid dumb arse thing to do'' - but that's where the line should have been drawn, it was a stupid dumb arse thing to do - but it wasn't some crime of the century, certainly not compared with what else goes on in Football and the world.

We were made a ridiculous example of during the Playoffs, the way we positioned ourselves and initially reacted dug us a hole for sure - but there were almost certainly some Boro voices influencing all of this.

I'm just glad sense was finally seen and we can all move on from this. Let the Boro fans cry into their pillows tonight, not entirely sure why it still bothers them so much. They were given a free ticket to the PL and gave it up, so that's on them - not us.

Edited 1 hour ago by S-Clarke

[Paulwantsapint81]

Is the suspended bit only if Tonda spies again ? Or does it include berating a ref after Leo is absolutely assaulted or Stephen’s concedes a penalty from a blatant attackers dive?

[Scummer]

Listening to the Solent special on BBC Sounds, have they not misinterpreted the suspended sentence? They are saying if he does it again he'd just get a six game ban, but surely there would be a new charge, with it's own punishment, on top of that. And I suspect as it would be a repeat offence the next ban would be longer.

[whelk]

6 minutes ago, Scummer said:

Listening to the Solent special on BBC Sounds, have they not misinterpreted the suspended sentence? They are saying if he does it again he'd just get a six game ban, but surely there would be a new charge, with it's own punishment, on top of that. And I suspect as it would be a repeat offence the next ban would be longer.

Not exactly hard to refrain from doing it is it. It is basically a let off of a sentence

[bugenhagen]

14 minutes ago, Paulwantsapint81 said:

Is the suspended bit only if Tonda spies again ? Or does it include berating a ref after Leo is absolutely assaulted or Stephen’s concedes a penalty from a blatant attackers dive?

Only if spying.

[Badger]

15 minutes ago, Paulwantsapint81 said:

Is the suspended bit only if Tonda spies again ? Or does it include berating a ref after Leo is absolutely assaulted or Stephen’s concedes a penalty from a blatant attackers dive?

From what I’ve read yes it is specific to the spying 

[grezz]

Guys - it's don't do that again or you're out forever Tonda. Slipping some goats milk in the oppo half time tea.....separate issue.

[OneMrsWallace]

Whew. Two thoughts. The Bielsa situation caused a precedent that made it harder to be much more punitive with Tonda; and it may be that the Man City announcement made ours look significantly less of an issue, so going hard on us would mean having to destroy Citeh and I don't believe they are going to do that.

[hypochondriac]

40 minutes ago, Football Special said:

Cant stand Blackbore, count my blessings i usually get to go to games and not listen to that fat brummie cunt waffling on , he's been wetting himself with excitement at the prospect of a ban 

I quite like Adam but calling Tonda morally reprehensible was laughable.

[grezz]

1 minute ago, hypochondriac said:

I quite like Adam but calling Tonda morally reprehensible was laughable.

He might wanna reign that in with the timing of holiday 🤣

[Badger]

4 hours ago, Saint86 said:

https://fmttmboro.com/index.php?threads/eckert’s-day-of-reckoning.85933/page-14

Reading their forum there are some hysterical and self righteous bellends there, some still wallowing in enjoying their victim status.

But there are many reasoned posters just saying get over it, let’s move on, get on with the season. Fair play to them.

All in all, just a range of opinions some more reasoned than others. Typical of any  online forum and set of fans. Including our own. 

[SaintlyAnd]

Just read the 40-something pages. One thing I didn’t understand about the punishment was section 114 where they state “A Regulatory Commission is not entitled to include a ‘deterrent element’”. Was this a dig at the EFL?

Back in June the EFL commission said that a lesser sporting penalty might be a risk worth taking and that a fine might encourage other clubs to cheat. Therefore, deterrence clearly influenced the severity of the sanction. 

It’s probably me not understanding things but it feels something a bit off.

[Miltonaggro]

5 hours ago, Pamplemousse said:

Boro tears have already begun in the media

 

The voice of reason:

[bpsaint]

7 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

I quite like Adam but calling Tonda morally reprehensible was laughable.

That’s pretty cuntish from Blackmore tbf, he’s meant to be on our side.

[Badger]

Surprisingly moderate. I was expecting longer. Think most would have accepted a six week ban, let alone it being suspended.

[OneMrsWallace]

4 minutes ago, SaintlyAnd said:

Just read the 40-something pages. One thing I didn’t understand about the punishment was section 114 where they state “A Regulatory Commission is not entitled to include a ‘deterrent element’”. Was this a dig at the EFL?

Back in June the EFL commission said that a lesser sporting penalty might be a risk worth taking and that a fine might encourage other clubs to cheat. Therefore, deterrence clearly influenced the severity of the sanction. 

It’s probably me not understanding things but it feels something a bit off.

That's 40 pages more than anyone at the FA will do 🤣

[SaintlyAnd]

2 minutes ago, OneMrsWallace said:

That's 40 pages more than anyone at the FA will do 🤣

The EFL insist its read in 30 seconds!

[The Wyvern]

24 minutes ago, Scummer said:

Listening to the Solent special on BBC Sounds, have they not misinterpreted the suspended sentence? They are saying if he does it again he'd just get a six game ban, but surely there would be a new charge, with it's own punishment, on top of that. And I suspect as it would be a repeat offence the next ban would be longer.

Is his suspension still going to happen, but just postponed to June 2028?

[Graffito]

3 minutes ago, SaintlyAnd said:

Just read the 40-something pages. One thing I didn’t understand about the punishment was section 114 where they state “A Regulatory Commission is not entitled to include a ‘deterrent element’”. Was this a dig at the EFL?

Back in June the EFL commission said that a lesser sporting penalty might be a risk worth taking and that a fine might encourage other clubs to cheat. Therefore, deterrence clearly influenced the severity of the sanction. 

It’s probably me not understanding things but it feels something a bit off.

No I picked up on that too. The EFL punishment was intended to have a deterrent effect as well as punishment for the offence. The difference with the FA approach may be something to do with different terms of reference of the different commissions or as you say the fa commission restricting the punishment to the facts of the case and nothing more which could be an implied criticism of the EFL commission.

[Lighthouse]

1 minute ago, The Wyvern said:

Is his suspension still going to happen, but just postponed to June 2028?

I think you’ve misunderstood. A ‘suspended sentence’ is just the legal jargon way of saying a public hanging. It’s harsh for an offence like this but the law is the law.

[Holmes_and_Watson]

5 minutes ago, The Wyvern said:

Is his suspension still going to happen, but just postponed to June 2028?

If he doesn't spy on anyone until June 2028, the sentence is removed completely, as it no longer applies.

[Dr Who?]

5 hours ago, The Kraken said:

I’ll add it to the list.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Must be a student or at least unemployed, look at the hours he keeps. Most people ITK keep stuff to themselves. Well no one believes you on here and also the people I know would not know what was going on in this kind of thing or many other things, when the club do not even know. Most the time it is rumours like in every day life, so best to keep under your hat and hopefully enjoy later on with a select few you choose to tell. 

most people do not blag on a forum if they are told something or they at least keep it cryptic, or the person or people they know will not be telling them anything else. All ballshite on here!

Edited 15 minutes ago by Dr Who?

[Dr Who?]

13 minutes ago, Holmes_and_Watson said:

If he doesn't spy on anyone until June 2028, the sentence is removed completely, as it no longer applies.

It’s the same as suspended jail sentencing, just be good and we will not throw you behind bars. 

[There when Franny scored]

Having read the written reasons they are a real vindication for Tonda:

- did not pressure anyone 

- did not know that spying was against specific rules 

- no systemic spying 

I also agree with the poster above that para. 114 is a back-hander to the EFL, I.e. that they went against the precedent in FA v Klopp that deterrence cannot result in disproportionality.

Another one is at para. 34 where they appear to take issue with the lack of cross examination of a witness “seemingly because of the pressure of time.”

These written reasons seriously undermine the EFL decisions in my view and demonstrate that the ridiculously short timescale of those not one but two arbitrations resulted in procedural unfairness and did not provide us with sufficient opportunity to present our case. 
 

i haven’t seen anything that suggests we’re pursuing a section 68 challenge under the Arbitration Act, it would be interesting to know why not. In particular, it appears that this panel considered a lot more evidence, over 1000 pages (and 187 pages of transcript). These written reasons are also much more cautious in stating the weight given to the evidence, noting specific instances of cross examination and where the FA chose not to adduce evidence, something that was notably lacking in the EFL decisions. Something that a high court judge considered made the decisions unsafe - https://www.insideworldfootball.com/2026/05/26/op-ed-sir-nicholas-mostyn-kc-soutampton-fc-admiral-byng-is-shot-again/

Ultimately, the FA relied heavily on the evidence in the EFL decisions, this panel chose to reject a lot of that. 

[There when Franny scored]

32 minutes ago, SaintlyAnd said:

Just read the 40-something pages. One thing I didn’t understand about the punishment was section 114 where they state “A Regulatory Commission is not entitled to include a ‘deterrent element’”. Was this a dig at the EFL?

Back in June the EFL commission said that a lesser sporting penalty might be a risk worth taking and that a fine might encourage other clubs to cheat. Therefore, deterrence clearly influenced the severity of the sanction. 

It’s probably me not understanding things but it feels something a bit off.

I agree with you, this is an implicit criticism of the EFL decisions, I.e. that the deterrence did not take account of the FA v Klopp precedent that if you’re going to issue a deterrent element it can’t result in a disproportionate overall sanction. 
 

In para. 115 they go on to say “in this context…”, which I took to mean that the consideration of sanctions that followed was framed by that principle.