Jump to content

The Spygate Saga

St Chalet

By St Chalet
in The Saints

 Share

Recommended Posts

HKsaint

HKsaint

Posted
Posted
5 hours ago, do i not like fizzy pop said:

This is bloody hilarious! 🤣

Screenshot_20260611_153505_X.jpg

So he is so desperate and trying every means to go PL, playing an extra game, fail in which abandoning his team… pathetic 

Badger

Badger

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Dr Who? said:

Are the FA actually doing anything about Tonda, is there an investigation going on? 

Perhaps they’ll publish (sneak) the outcome to the media ahead of or just after the England game to ‘manage’ the publicity, whichever way it goes. 

Window Cleaner

Window Cleaner

Posted
Posted
15 hours ago, Dr Who? said:

Are the FA actually doing anything about Tonda, is there an investigation going on? 

Certainly, what was it that Blair said at some Middle East crisis or other, ah yes doing nothing is not an option. Even if he gets a token punishment they have to look into it.

Mr X

Mr X

Posted
Posted

Any sign of knowing when will we actually find out if Tonda is officially managing us next season or an FA ban? When are we likely to find out? 

TheAlehouseBrawlers

TheAlehouseBrawlers

Posted
Posted

Saw a reasonable theory on the UI about this, it was suggested that we've appointed top legal bods in an attempt to continually delay the proceedings, much as City and the like have done.

The thinking that by the time any sanctions against Tonda are filed, he may well have already moved on, be it that it was a successful season and headhunted or just contract up. 

  • Like 1
Holmes_and_Watson

Holmes_and_Watson

Posted
Posted
11 minutes ago, TheAlehouseBrawlers said:

Saw a reasonable theory on the UI about this, it was suggested that we've appointed top legal bods in an attempt to continually delay the proceedings, much as City and the like have done.

The thinking that by the time any sanctions against Tonda are filed, he may well have already moved on, be it that it was a successful season and headhunted or just contract up. 

We could back date Tonda's employment with us. Then link him to the City transfers of Edozie, Baz, Larios etc. The government will shut it all down, as not being in the national interest.

trousers

trousers

Posted
Posted
50 minutes ago, TheAlehouseBrawlers said:

Saw a reasonable theory on the UI about this, it was suggested that we've appointed top legal bods in an attempt to continually delay the proceedings, much as City and the like have done.

The thinking that by the time any sanctions against Tonda are filed, he may well have already moved on, be it that it was a successful season and headhunted or just contract up. 

In a parallel universe, we had these 'top legal bods' onboard at the outset and we're now preparing for life back in the Premier League having beaten Hull in the playoff final....

  • Like 4
Window Cleaner

Window Cleaner

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, trousers said:

In a parallel universe, we had these 'top legal bods' onboard at the outset and we're now preparing for life back in the Premier League having beaten Hull in the playoff final....

If you say so. An EFL tribunal isn't a court of law. The EFL makes the rules, applies them according to their whim and hands out the sanctions. A top legal eagle might find some  disputable point or other but as we lied and then admitted it the outcome would be the same. As, or so I think,we are the first club actually caught breaking rule 127 they have established a precedent. Don't do it or don't get caught because the punishment will be severe.

Secret Site Agent

Secret Site Agent

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, TheAlehouseBrawlers said:

Saw a reasonable theory on the UI about this, it was suggested that we've appointed top legal bods in an attempt to continually delay the proceedings, much as City and the like have done.

The thinking that by the time any sanctions against Tonda are filed, he may well have already moved on, be it that it was a successful season and headhunted or just contract up. 

Or Retired from football?

trousers

trousers

Posted
Posted (edited)
54 minutes ago, Window Cleaner said:

If you say so. An EFL tribunal isn't a court of law. The EFL makes the rules, applies them according to their whim and hands out the sanctions. A top legal eagle might find some  disputable point or other but as we lied and then admitted it the outcome would be the same. As, or so I think,we are the first club actually caught breaking rule 127 they have established a precedent. Don't do it or don't get caught because the punishment will be severe.

Oops... Forgot to 'wink' at the end of my post... I keep forgetting people take stuff too seriously otherwise... ;)

#tongueincheek

Edited by trousers
obelisk

obelisk

Posted
Posted

I was in the pub this afternoon (sorry if you're working) and noticed on the telly that they were actually showing England training sessions. Not only that but there were people behind the fence - and trees! - who were also "spying". What on earth should the punishment be?

  • Like 2
Holmes_and_Watson

Holmes_and_Watson

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, obelisk said:

I was in the pub this afternoon (sorry if you're working) and noticed on the telly that they were actually showing England training sessions. Not only that but there were people behind the fence - and trees! - who were also "spying". What on earth should the punishment be?

None, as that was our analyst team, getting some practice in on a post season trip.

Dark Munster

Dark Munster

Posted
Posted
4 hours ago, Window Cleaner said:

If you say so. An EFL tribunal isn't a court of law. The EFL makes the rules, applies them according to their whim and hands out the sanctions. A top legal eagle might find some  disputable point or other but as we lied and then admitted it the outcome would be the same. As, or so I think,we are the first club actually caught breaking rule 127 they have established a precedent. Don't do it or don't get caught because the punishment will be severe.

Having top legal representation from the get go could have avoided that.

  • Like 3
spyinthesky

spyinthesky

Posted
Posted
13 minutes ago, Dark Munster said:

Having top legal representation from the get go could have avoided that.

Perleese!!!
Dont demean yourself by using American English.
Plenty of proper English such as 'from the beginning'. 'from the outset' etc etc😉

  • Like 2
  • Haha 1
Dark Munster

Dark Munster

Posted
Posted
5 hours ago, spyinthesky said:

Perleese!!!
Dont demean yourself by using American English.
Plenty of proper English such as 'from the beginning'. 'from the outset' etc etc😉

In my defence I've lived in San Diego for almost 40 years! I try to keep a stiff upper British lip but occasionally I demean myself and an Americanism sneaks in.

  • Like 3
  • Haha 1
rallyboy

rallyboy

Posted
Posted

Unlike the EFL who had no legal precedent for that new law, the FA have previously dealt with a manager who has admitted to observing other clubs.

The legal precedent set by Bielsa's case of many more charges than Saints, is that he received NO personal ban at all, the club fine was deemed sufficient - while the media all laughed that off as a storm in a teacup.

So if the FA attempt to impose any personal ban it should be robustly challenged through their 'independent' system and then in a real court, where legal process is followed and former Middlesbrough players don't decide what's best for Middlesbrough.

Enough is enough.

  • Like 16
spyinthesky

spyinthesky

Posted
Posted
10 hours ago, Dark Munster said:

In my defence I've lived in San Diego for almost 40 years! I try to keep a stiff upper British lip but occasionally I demean myself and an Americanism sneaks in.

I remember seeing the Rolling Stones at the Chargers Stadium in the early 1980's during a visit to family in the area.
Really wanted to go to a George Benson show in the centre of the city but the Stones show was an experience.
Sat at the top of one of the open stands with an overpowering smell of cannabis.
Nice place to live, I imagine.

VectisSaint

VectisSaint

Posted
Posted
3 hours ago, rallyboy said:

Unlike the EFL who had no legal precedent for that new law, the FA have previously dealt with a manager who has admitted to observing other clubs.

The legal precedent set by Bielsa's case of many more charges than Saints, is that he received NO personal ban at all, the club fine was deemed sufficient - while the media all laughed that off as a storm in a teacup.

So if the FA attempt to impose any personal ban it should be robustly challenged through their 'independent' system and then in a real court, where legal process is followed and former Middlesbrough players don't decide what's best for Middlesbrough.

Enough is enough.

I've said before, the FA will be more 'concerned' with the alleged 'bullying' than the spying itself. As far as I am aware there were no allegations of bullying in the Bielsa case, so there is no precedent there. Personally I think they will be hard pressed to make the bullying allegations stick, but who knows with the FA.

hypochondriac

hypochondriac

Posted
Posted
Just now, VectisSaint said:

I've said before, the FA will be more 'concerned' with the alleged 'bullying' than the spying itself. As far as I am aware there were no allegations of bullying in the Bielsa case, so there is no precedent there. Personally I think they will be hard pressed to make the bullying allegations stick, but who knows with the FA.

Who has alleged bullying ?

Holmes_and_Watson

Holmes_and_Watson

Posted
Posted
36 minutes ago, skintsaint said:

4th time lucky...

Although in all seriousness, if Burnley won money from Everton for competitive gains from financial breaches, who's to stop sueing Hull for the same thing?

It's an overspend generated the moment they won the final. Right up until that moment, there was no overspend.

So, 'boro can't claim Hull had any competitive advantage from an overspend during the game. Not that they won't try, probably.

 

 

  • Like 1
S-Clarke

S-Clarke

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Stripey McStripe Shirt said:

Assume Gibbo will be pleading for Boro to be promoted instead of Hull due to potential financial breaches.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/articles/czde31803e9o

wtf? It just gets weirder and so unfair. Where is the sporting punishments on City, Chelsea and co?

It really makes the entire playoffs this year an absolute mess, you've got Boro getting to the final by losing the semi final, and Hull getting promoted - great achievement - and then facing almost immediate relegation due to a points deduction.

Dark Munster

Dark Munster

Posted
Posted
5 hours ago, spyinthesky said:

I remember seeing the Rolling Stones at the Chargers Stadium in the early 1980's during a visit to family in the area.
Really wanted to go to a George Benson show in the centre of the city but the Stones show was an experience.
Sat at the top of one of the open stands with an overpowering smell of cannabis.
Nice place to live, I imagine.

I saw U2 there as well. It’s torn down now. Yes it’s a great place to live, although the Mango Mussolini and his fascist party are doing their best to ruin the country. Anyway, I digress. Back to spying….

badgerx16

badgerx16

Posted
Posted (edited)
12 minutes ago, AlexLaw76 said:

Are Hull now a bunch of cheats ?

 

No. The overspend is because promotion bonuses paid to the team have pushed them £6M over the PSR limit. As long as they can raise £6M in transfer fees before the official start of the season they will be fine.

Once the new season officially starts they will be able to splurge as much dosh as they want.

Edited by badgerx16
EssEffCee

EssEffCee

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, badgerx16 said:

No. The overspend is because promotion bonuses paid to the team have pushed them £6M over the PSR limit. As long as they can raise £6M in transfer fees before the official start of the season they will be fine.

Apparently the bonuses are tied into next year and they'd be on course to breach regardless.

They'll make the required sales anyway, though might have to take smaller offers now this is all out there.

EssEffCee

EssEffCee

Posted
Posted

The ridiculous thing is given the recent Burnley/Everton case if they did end up breaching both Boro and Millwall would arguably have a casr for a financial settlement of sorts.

badgerx16

badgerx16

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, EssEffCee said:

Apparently the bonuses are tied into next year and they'd be on course to breach regardless.

They'll make the required sales anyway, though might have to take smaller offers now this is all out there.

According to the Beeb the payments count into the season promotion is achieved.

badgerx16

badgerx16

Posted
Posted
7 minutes ago, EssEffCee said:

The ridiculous thing is given the recent Burnley/Everton case if they did end up breaching both Boro and Millwall would arguably have a casr for a financial settlement of sorts.

One comment on the BBC suggests Hull could sue M'boro because if Boro had won the final the promotion clauses would not have kicked in.

  • Haha 1
EssEffCee

EssEffCee

Posted
Posted
9 minutes ago, badgerx16 said:

According to the Beeb the payments count into the season promotion is achieved.

They updated their original article to include this:

 

Quote

Initially it was believed the club's overspend had been caused by promotion bonuses which were triggered by the 1-0 victory over Boro in the Championship showdown at Wembley.

But it has since come to light that these payments are, in effect, ghosted in the accounts for the calculation in the season which the promotion happens.

Hull would have faced PSR challenges regardless of winning the play-off final.

 

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...