The Spygate Saga - 6 Week ban suspended for Eckert

[swedish dave]

2 hours ago, Whitey Grandad said:

"Played for them once" but he was with them for an extended period, at least half a season. 

and doubtless made friends there. IF it was that long ago ? ..Boro were likely still at Ayresome Park?..

[Secret Site Agent]

19 hours ago, Paul Chuckle said:

Sky Sports News reporter just said he'd spoken to a number of managers in the EFL who felt exclusion from the Playoffs was a harsh punishment. I thought Neil Harris said all 71 managers in the EFL wanted Tonda banned? 

It seems that when the Spying was announced, a lot of teams, pundits, talking heads and especially the media were clutching their pearls and saying, quite rightly, that this was a despicable act.

When we were thrown out of the Playoff, and LARGE PROPORTION came out and said the punishment was harsh, some even saying it was TOO harsh and didn't fit the crime.

So Niel Harris was full of shit.

Now we wait to see what their opinion of Tonda's punishment is.

[bpsaint]

17 minutes ago, 23rdSaint said:

Just to be clear, Simon Jordan isn't a friend of ours (he's a professional contrarian who clearly hasn't read the full findings) but this is interesting regardless. Interesting bits about his mate Gibbo: 

 

Decent from Jordan again TBH. One of the few in the media that seems to have a sensible head on things regarding Tonda’s punishment.

[saintant]

1 hour ago, jrobsbigshorts said:

I'm sure I would be privately but given the appeal commission reduced the FAs ban which the FA could still appeal based on Tonda's remorse and regret it makes me nervous when Dragan comes out with this stuff at this point, seems reckless to me, but fair play he got it right backing Tonda

Not sure this is true - didn't the independent panel come to their own conclusion of a fair and just punishment? I don't think they actually reduced the FAs proposed length of ban.

[benjii]

2 hours ago, Whitey Grandad said:

"Played for them once" but he was with them for an extended period, at least half a season. 

Yeah, the number of appearances is irrelevant. Of all the people who could have sat on the panel, there were any number with no prior connection to either club who would have been a better choice.

[whelk]

The Sun and Mail journalists on SSN last night back pages thing both agreed that punishment was suitable. Imagine if they had those couple of cunts Burt and Winter?

[Secret Site Agent]

I think the Media and all of these pundits and AI generated click bait on YouTUbe are forgetting one thing.

Southampton isn't guilty of spying.

They are guilty of spying within the 72 hour window.

It is perfectly legal to do it outside the 72 hour window, and in the Premiership, and in Germany and Italy.

"Man Caught Speeding on the M27" is a better headline than "Man Caught doing 54 MPH on the M27 when a speed reduction was in force to 50 mph" Doesn't quite cut the same impact.

 

[skintsaint]

15 minutes ago, bpsaint said:

Decent from Jordan again TBH. One of the few in the media that seems to have a sensible head on things regarding Tonda’s punishment.

Yep, but don't agree with him saying that we were spying on an industrial scale though.

[Saint86]

37 minutes ago, 23rdSaint said:

Just to be clear, Simon Jordan isn't a friend of ours (he's a professional contrarian who clearly hasn't read the full findings) but this is interesting regardless. Interesting bits about his mate Gibbo: 

 

Appreciate the share on that one 23rd! Simon Jordan has by and large spoke a lot of sense over the whole thing - i think more than perhaps anyone else - and he largely stepped outside of the orchestrate media campaign that was whipped up against saints.

[bpsaint]

20 minutes ago, skintsaint said:

Yep, but don't agree with him saying that we were spying on an industrial scale though.

True, perhaps the wrong terminology was used there, I took it as we were probably doing it to every opponent, not just the 3 that we admitted to - one of which the “spy” disguised himself as an Eastleigh FC member of staff.

Edited 29 minutes ago by bpsaint

[Forester]

14 hours ago, Fabrice29 said:

Think Eckert would receive a harsher punishment in that instance. It's pretty clear from the report that the EFL punishment and Eckerts contrition are the two main factors for reduction and suspension. 

Think the idea that todays ruling is a bad reflection the EFL ruling is a wrong one in that sense. FA had two things the EFL didn't, a previous punishment and the time to interview Eckert a few months on whilst he's reflected, shown remorse and worked on his understanding.

While factually correct, the “time” point skips past the fact that an inappropriate timetable was rammed through by EFL

[Jimmy_D]

3 minutes ago, bpsaint said:

True, perhaps the wrong terminology was used there, I took it as we were probably doing it to every opponent, not just the 3 that we admitted to - one of which the “spy” disguised himself as an Eastleigh FC member of staff.

If you read the FA report, looks like the Eastleigh one just didn't happen. Eckert was offered CCTV and accepted it after training had happened there apparently.

[OneMrsWallace]

15 hours ago, There when Franny scored said:

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. 

That's really interesting. Goes against some key reasons why the EFL went so hard on us. I'm with the view that in years to come evidence will come out of seriously dodgy behaviour by the EFL and their crony matres. The panel was organised and led by a company listed as a supplier to the EFL for goodness sake. 

[egg]

2 hours ago, trousers said:

You and I will probably disagree on that until the end of time...

But it's a fact. We offered no alternative sporting sanction to the expulsion. EFL cup ban if we went up, points if we didn't, were both alternative sporting sanctions, but they weren't offered up if a fine wasn't deemed appropriate.

When the only sporting sanction option for the panel to consider was expulsion, there's literally nothing else on the table. 

It was an appalling approach by the club. 

[suewhistle]

3 hours ago, 23rdSaint said:

Don't worry. Our fearless leader's already on the case with more likes that Winter's tweet:

To avoid going on Tw*tter, did Steve Grant get a reply from the Tw*tter-in-chief?