The Spygate Saga

[Graffito]

44 minutes ago, Lighthouse said:

We were never, ever, ever going to get the same punishment as Leeds and Bielsa, people really need to drop this line of arguing. It was made abundantly clear after that incident(s) that this would not be tolerate again in the future and that the punishment for doing so would be worse.

 

Rules and their punishments change all the time, you can’t just keep going about precedent.

Has the relevant FA rule changed then, since when Bielsa was not charged but merely warned as to his conduct?

[egg]

9 minutes ago, Ken Tone said:

There's bans and bans. He might be banned for a number of matches or a number of weeks/months.

And very importantly, he might be banned from all football activities making it impossible to be manager - or it might just be a touchline ban meaning he could still manage and watch/coach from the stands. 

Touchline feels very unlikely for an offence which happened away from the pitch. 

[hypochondriac]

3 minutes ago, RedArmy said:

I’m not really sure why the FA need to have brought in a new rule off the back of Bielsa? Especially when the EFL rule is not universal across football in England. 
 

Bringing the game into disrepute is a cover-all rule and does the job just fine from their point of view. 

OK so why three charges for Tonda and none for Bielsa who seemingly did it even more? Surely he broke the same FA rule?

[benali-shorts]

I’d imagine the main consideration is whether they tar and feather him first or just crack straight onto the execution. 

[egg]

5 minutes ago, Graffito said:

Has the relevant FA rule changed then, since when Bielsa was not charged but merely warned as to his conduct?

Bielsa wasn't charged by the FA. We aren't going to rock up at FA towers and say "you didn't charge Bielsa, so nothing to see here" so I'm not sure why people keep bringing up Bielsa. 

[John B]

2 hours ago, hypochondriac said:

I think that the punishment I predicted would be wildly inappropriate but I thought that about kicking us out of the playoffs too.

What do you think is a suitable punishment for somebody who ruined for so many young supporters a day they would have always remembered and possibly caused long term damage to SFC if we do not get promoted this year.

I personally can not understand why he put at jeopardy our return to the PL when at the end of the season we were clearly the best team in the Championship with some of the best players.

[tdmickey3]

11 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

OK so why three charges for Tonda and none for Bielsa who seemingly did it even more? Surely he broke the same FA rule?

Yeah but, everyone loved Bielsa

The FA are waiting to see who comes up with the best suggestion for the punishment in the media

Edited 9 hours ago by tdmickey3

[Saint86]

4 minutes ago, egg said:

Bielsa wasn't charged by the FA. We aren't going to rock up at FA towers and say "you didn't charge Bielsa, so nothing to see here" so I'm not sure why people keep bringing up Bielsa. 

If we take legal action, that is exactly the kind of argument we can make 😅

[hypochondriac]

6 minutes ago, egg said:

Bielsa wasn't charged by the FA. We aren't going to rock up at FA towers and say "you didn't charge Bielsa, so nothing to see here" so I'm not sure why people keep bringing up Bielsa. 

Of course you look at precedent when deciding on punishments. Bielsa clearly broke the exact same rule that Tonda has done but got nothing more than a warning whilst Tonda has been charged. 

[badgerx16]

So when do we get the verdict on Man City ?

[tdmickey3]

Just now, badgerx16 said:

So when do we get the verdict on Man City ?

🤣🤣🤣🤣

Premier League giants, no one wants to upset them ffs

[egg]

3 minutes ago, Saint86 said:

If we take legal action, that is exactly the kind of argument we can make 😅

Err, ok mate. 

One bloke getting away without a charge doesn't create a precedent for people not to be charged in the future.

[HarvSFC]

We've potentially missed out on a few targets that the media haven't clocked onto yet because of this and the uncertainty of the manager's position at the club, so alongside being kicked out of the play-offs and points deductions, we're also going through a time of uncertainty and instability that the FA won't consider.

[egg]

2 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

Of course you look at precedent when deciding on punishments. Bielsa clearly broke the exact same rule that Tonda has done but got nothing more than a warning whilst Tonda has been charged. 

Not being charged isn't a precedent. A precedent is what's done after charge, and for something comparable. 

If I get caught doing 50 in a 30, but get waved off, it doesn't mean that others will get away with similar. 

[Graffito]

14 minutes ago, egg said:

Bielsa wasn't charged by the FA. We aren't going to rock up at FA towers and say "you didn't charge Bielsa, so nothing to see here" so I'm not sure why people keep bringing up Bielsa. 

I’m not claiming precedent. It’s about fairness and consistency. 

[obelisk]

2 minutes ago, egg said:

If I get caught doing 50 in a 30, but get waved off, it doesn't mean that others will get away with similar. 

There's a law that says you mustn't do 50 in a 30 zone and penalties for doing so are laid out. The FA just have a catch-all rule that says you mustn't drive "improperly" and if they deem that you were doing something improperly in their view that they can punish you or not in any way that the blazers seem fit. Probably depends whether they consider the case before or after a long lunch.

[OneMrsWallace]

25 minutes ago, obelisk said:

There's a law that says you mustn't do 50 in a 30 zone and penalties for doing so are laid out. The FA just have a catch-all rule that says you mustn't drive "improperly" and if they deem that you were doing something improperly in their view that they can punish you or not in any way that the blazers seem fit. Probably depends whether they consider the case before or after a long lunch.

Exactly this. In legal disputes, charged/not charged previously in the same/similar situation is relevant. Any decent lawyer will jump on that. Problem is, like FIFA, the FA just make shit up as they go along. My best guess is they are probably regretting not charging Bielsa and so they're making up for that with Tonda. The FA really are a bunch of Muppets. 

[RedArmy]

1 hour ago, hypochondriac said:

OK so why three charges for Tonda and none for Bielsa who seemingly did it even more? Surely he broke the same FA rule?

Tonda broke a specific spying rule, Bielsa did not. 
 

Im not why after nearly 3 months people don’t understand that part. 

[RedArmy]

58 minutes ago, badgerx16 said:

So when do we get the verdict on Man City ?

When the Premier Leagues independent commission panel (nothing to do with the FA) conclude their case? 

[hypochondriac]

1 minute ago, RedArmy said:

Tonda broke a specific spying rule, Bielsa did not. 
 

Im not why after nearly 3 months people don’t understand that part. 

You're the one who is misunderstanding. There is no spying rule in the FA rulebook. He broke the EFL rules and that's why the club was charged by the EFL. There is no different rule to break under fa rules that has changed since beilsa broke the rule previously.

[James]

2 minutes ago, RedArmy said:

Tonda broke a specific spying rule, Bielsa did not. 
 

Im not why after nearly 3 months people don’t understand that part. 

Tonda broke an EFL rule, Bielsa also breached an EFL regulation (otherwise it would not have been possible to fine Leeds United). The FA regulation that Tonda has today been charged under existed at the time Bielsa engaged in the same conduct. I also don’t understand why people don’t understand that. 

[James]

1 minute ago, hypochondriac said:

You're the one who is misunderstanding. There is no spying rule in the FA rulebook. He broke the EFL rules and that's why the club was charged by the EFL. There is no different rule to break under fa rules that has changed since beilsa broke the rule previously.

Exactly. I can’t believe some of our fans are so accepting these ridiculous punishments as justified for us having done wrong. I don’t think fans of any other club would engage in such self flagellation. Everyone accepts the club did wrong, it doesn’t mean that this level of potential punishment is justified.  

[trousers]

1 hour ago, egg said:

Not being charged isn't a precedent. A precedent is what's done after charge, and for something comparable. 

If I get caught doing 50 in a 30, but get waved off, it doesn't mean that others will get away with similar. 

Agreed... But is it "fair" that someone gets away with it and someone else doesn't...? (Yes, I know "fairness" never comes into these decisions, where inconsistency usually rules the roost, but it's still a valid observation)

[RedArmy]

1 minute ago, hypochondriac said:

You're the one who is misunderstanding. There is no spying rule in the FA rulebook. He broke the EFL rules and that's why the club was charged by the EFL. There is no different rule to break under fa rules that has changed since beilsa broke the rule previously.

Why do EFL and FA rules have to align, they are separate entities. 
 

Tonda and Saints broke a very specific rule that didn’t exist when Bielsa and Leeds got caught. 
 

The FA have a cover-all “bringing the game into disrepute” rule. It’s very straightforward. 

[James]

Just now, RedArmy said:

Why do EFL and FA rules have to align, they are separate entities. 
 

Tonda and Saints broke a very specific rule that didn’t exist when Bielsa and Leeds got caught. 
 

The FA have a cover-all “bringing the game into disrepute” rule. It’s very straightforward. 

But if the FA had the same cover-all at the time when Bielsa engaged in the same conduct as Tonda, why was he not charged with bringing the game into disrepute? You’re right that the FA and EFL rules don’t have to align but why does the fact that the EFL brought in a rule make it “straightforward” that Tonda should be charged under an FA rule that has always existed? Either a specified course of conduct “brings the game into disrepute” or it doesn’t, surely?

[trousers]

14 minutes ago, RedArmy said:

Tonda broke a specific spying rule, Bielsa did not. 
 

Im not why after nearly 3 months people don’t understand that part. 

The FA are charging him under their own rules, not the EFL rules....

[trousers]

8 minutes ago, RedArmy said:

Why do EFL and FA rules have to align, they are separate entities. 
 

Tonda and Saints broke a very specific rule that didn’t exist when Bielsa and Leeds got caught. 
 

The FA have a cover-all “bringing the game into disrepute” rule. It’s very straightforward. 

Exactly... It's very straightforward.... The EFL rules have got nothing to do with the FA rules.... Ergo, it doesn't matter what EFL rules were in place when Bielsa carried out the same activity as Tonda....  They should both be treated the same by the FA (if they choose to be consistent)

Edited 8 hours ago by trousers

[trousers]

6 minutes ago, James said:

But if the FA had the same cover-all at the time when Bielsa engaged in the same conduct as Tonda, why was he not charged with bringing the game into disrepute? You’re right that the FA and EFL rules don’t have to align but why does the fact that the EFL brought in a rule make it “straightforward” that Tonda should be charged under an FA rule that has always existed? Either a specified course of conduct “brings the game into disrepute” or it doesn’t, surely?

Indeed... It's not very complicated, is it?

[RedArmy]

3 minutes ago, James said:

But if the FA had the same cover-all at the time when Bielsa engaged in the same conduct as Tonda, why was he not charged with bringing the game into disrepute? You’re right that the FA and EFL rules don’t have to align but why does the fact that the EFL brought in a rule make it “straightforward” that Tonda should be charged under an FA rule that has always existed? Either a specified course of conduct “brings the game into disrepute” or it doesn’t, surely?

To use eggs speeding example… If I get caught doing 50mph in a 40mph I get 3 points and a fine. If in 2 years time they drop that road to a 30mph limit and you get caught doing 50mph you’re going to court. 
 

We did the same speed, why is it so different? Because the rules have changed.
 

It’s not hard to understand why the FA will look at the 2 cases differently. The idea that they should have updated their rules to include spying in the EFL and that they shouldn’t do what they’ve done is for the birds. 

[hypochondriac]

8 minutes ago, RedArmy said:

To use eggs speeding example… If I get caught doing 50mph in a 40mph I get 3 points and a fine. If in 2 years time they drop that road to a 30mph limit and you get caught doing 50mph you’re going to court. 
 

We did the same speed, why is it so different? Because the rules have changed.
 

It’s not hard to understand why the FA will look at the 2 cases differently. The idea that they should have updated their rules to include spying in the EFL and that they shouldn’t do what they’ve done is for the birds. 

Who is they in that scenario? Your post is an explanation for why the EFL treated us differently, not why the FA would treat Tonda differently for breaking the same rule as Bielsa (arguably to a lesser extent since Tonda only did it three times.)

Edited 8 hours ago by hypochondriac

[badgerx16]

32 minutes ago, RedArmy said:

When the Premier Leagues independent commission panel (nothing to do with the FA) conclude their case? 

Will that be in this decade ?

[tdmickey3]

Just now, badgerx16 said:

Will that be in this decade ?

No

[James]

5 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

Who is they in that scenario? Your post is an explanation for why the EFL treated us differently, not why the FA would treat Tonda differently for breaking the same rule as Bielsa (arguably to a lesser extent since Tonda only did it three times.)

Exactly. The FA rules haven’t changed, the EFL rules have. The change to the EFL rules explains why we were treated differently to Leeds under the EFL disciplinary procedure (although the difference in treatment was totally disproportionate) but doesn’t explain why the FA didn’t charge Bielsa but are charging Tonda.

[hypochondriac]

1 minute ago, James said:

Exactly. The FA rules haven’t changed, the EFL rules have. The change to the EFL rules explains why we were treated differently to Leeds under the EFL disciplinary procedure (although the difference in treatment was totally disproportionate) but doesn’t explain why the FA didn’t charge Bielsa but are charging Tonda.

Indeed. Not difficult to understand and one of the things I'd expect the lawyers to be asking if we don't get a result we deem to be fair.

Edited 8 hours ago by hypochondriac

[trousers]

7 minutes ago, James said:

Exactly. The FA rules haven’t changed, the EFL rules have. The change to the EFL rules explains why we were treated differently to Leeds under the EFL disciplinary procedure (although the difference in treatment was totally disproportionate) but doesn’t explain why the FA didn’t charge Bielsa but are charging Tonda.

Indeed. 

If a Premier League manager had been caught spying last season, some people seem to be saying that the FA couldn't sanction him under their 'bringing the game into disrepute' rule because the EPL didn't have a spying rule.... Surely, a league having a rule isn't a prerequisite for how the FA sanctions a manager for anything they deem to be disreputable?

Edited 8 hours ago by trousers

[hypochondriac]

21 minutes ago, trousers said:

Indeed. 

If a Premier League manager had been caught spying last season, some people seem to be saying that the FA couldn't sanction him under their 'bringing the game into disrepute' rule because the EPL didn't have a spying rule.... Surely, a league having a rule isn't a prerequisite for how the FA sanctions a manager for anything they deem to be disreputable?

Presumably the answer would be that the FA have deemed it to have broken their rules because we've broken our league rules but that's not a way to run things. The FA could potentially disagree with the rules of the EFL.

Edited 7 hours ago by hypochondriac

[Marsdinho]

Is there an argument to say that the club (and the fans!) have already been punished once for Spygate, and that the punishment from the FA should be more towards the individual?

That being the case, any ban would effectively punish the club once more surely?

A fine and a suspended sentence would be the appropriate punishment. But this is the FA!

[hypochondriac]

Just now, Marsdinho said:

Is there an argument to say that the club (and the fans!) have already been punished once for Spygate, and that the punishment from the FA should be more towards the individual?

That being the case, any ban would effectively punish the club once more surely?

A fine and a suspended sentence would be the appropriate punishment. But this is the FA!

But you could argue that it's the club's decision to continue to employ him. Sack him and it's problem solved for the club...

[Marsdinho]

7 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

But you could argue that it's the club's decision to continue to employ him. Sack him and it's problem solved for the club...

Yeah, true. I guess its the FA's job to hand out what they feel is the appropriate punishment; its our "problem" that he's employed as the manager of the first team. 

[egg]

1 hour ago, James said:

Exactly. I can’t believe some of our fans are so accepting these ridiculous punishments as justified for us having done wrong. I don’t think fans of any other club would engage in such self flagellation. Everyone accepts the club did wrong, it doesn’t mean that this level of potential punishment is justified.  

Nobody "accepts" the punishment as fair, but the initial charge was obvious, as is this.

We've got people telling us to defend something that we've already admitted, and with findings that we're stuck with that concluded this to have been a top down issue. 

What we need to accept is that we bought this on ourselves, Tonda bought it on himself, that the club made a proper shambles of the investigation and EFL process, that it doesn't matter that Bielsa got off with a warning, and that we're simply here to mitigate the damage.

[hypochondriac]

1 minute ago, egg said:

Nobody "accepts" the punishment as fair, but the initial charge was obvious, as is this.

We've got people telling us to defend something that we've already admitted, and with findings that we're stuck with that concluded this to have been a top down issue. 

What we need to accept is that we bought this on ourselves, Tonda bought it on himself, that the club made a proper shambles of the investigation and EFL process, that it doesn't matter that Bielsa got off with a warning, and that we're simply here to mitigate the damage.

I don't think our lawyers will view it that way if we have to go down the legal route.

[James]

Just now, egg said:

Nobody "accepts" the punishment as fair, but the initial charge was obvious, as is this.

We've got people telling us to defend something that we've already admitted, and with findings that we're stuck with that concluded this to have been a top down issue. 

What we need to accept is that we bought this on ourselves, Tonda bought it on himself, that the club made a proper shambles of the investigation and EFL process, that it doesn't matter that Bielsa got off with a warning, and that we're simply here to mitigate the damage.

Anyone who compares the severity of our sanction to similar situations is being told by some fans to “get over it”. There is a difference between defending the allegation (which everyone agrees is moot given we’ve admitted it) and defending/mitigating against the possibility of yet another ridiculous sanction being imposed on the club. It’s legitimate to point out that Saints appear to be being treated incredibly harshly versus other clubs who have engaged in similar conduct. 

[EssEffCee]

I think the difference the EFL rule makes on the FA side is that there is no longer any doubt whatsoever that doing this is an improper way to act.

Biesla (like Tonda) said he didn't know it was frowned upon in the UK. That was believable at that time but quite clearly isn't now given a specific rule was implemented outlining that this behaviour isn't deemed acceptable.

For me that's the difference and why Tonda's improper conduct will be seen as more serious than Biesla's.

[egg]

25 minutes ago, James said:

Anyone who compares the severity of our sanction to similar situations is being told by some fans to “get over it”. There is a difference between defending the allegation (which everyone agrees is moot given we’ve admitted it) and defending/mitigating against the possibility of yet another ridiculous sanction being imposed on the club. It’s legitimate to point out that Saints appear to be being treated incredibly harshly versus other clubs who have engaged in similar conduct. 

I'm not sure who's telling anyone to "get over it". Accepting the reality of what we've done to ourselves is different. 

Re the rest.

We haven't been "treated" in any way by the FA. Sure, Tonda has been charged, and any suggestion that he shouldn't have been is unrealistic. We can only hope he gets off lightly. 

The EFL treatment was kind of inevitable, and despite what you suggest, no other club has been caught trying to cheat their way through a play off final and lied through their teeth to the investigation people. 

As a fan, I'd loved to have seen us get off lightly, but given what we were trying to achieve from the cheating, I'm not sure what other penalty they could have given. 

The club will have learned from their botched approach to the EFL charge. Fortunately that'll mean being more realistic than fans inevitably will be. 

[CB Fry]

1 hour ago, James said:

Anyone who compares the severity of our sanction to similar situations is being told by some fans to “get over it”.

I think you need to get over me telling you to get over it.

Get over it.

[CanadaSaint]

I don't think the FA's focus is the spying, which IS NOT specifically referenced in their rules. The EFL already addressed that issue because it IS specifically referenced in theirs', and the punishment they handed out has become quite widely regarded as excessive.

I think the FA could well be focused on the alleged bullying. Rule E3.1 covers behaviour that's improper, brings the game into disrepute, or involves violent conduct, serious foul play, threatening, abusive, indecent, or insulting words or behaviour.

Either way, the FA has to tread very carefully because they would be setting a dangerous precedent for themselves, whether it relates to spying (not referenced in their rules) or bullying.

That precedent could force them to - horror of horrors 😂 - treat a Man United, Man City, Arse, Liverpool or Spurs in the same way as they treated Saints. I'd bet my last pound that all of those big boys have, at some point, spied on opponents and bullied players and staff.

Their decision could open a huge can of worms - and the FA know it. I just hope that FIFA stays the hell out of it, but they've got enough shit of their own making to deal with.

[EssEffCee]

42 minutes ago, CanadaSaint said:

I don't think the FA's focus is the spying, which IS NOT specifically referenced in their rules. The EFL already addressed that issue because it IS specifically referenced in theirs', and the punishment they handed out has become quite widely regarded as excessive.

I think the FA could well be focused on the alleged bullying. Rule E3.1 covers behaviour that's improper, brings the game into disrepute, or involves violent conduct, serious foul play, threatening, abusive, indecent, or insulting words or behaviour.

Either way, the FA has to tread very carefully because they would be setting a dangerous precedent for themselves, whether it relates to spying (not referenced in their rules) or bullying.

That precedent could force them to - horror of horrors 😂 - treat a Man United, Man City, Arse, Liverpool or Spurs in the same way as they treated Saints. I'd bet my last pound that all of those big boys have, at some point, spied on opponents and bullied players and staff.

Their decision could open a huge can of worms - and the FA know it. I just hope that FIFA stays the hell out of it, but they've got enough shit of their own making to deal with.

No the charges specifically relate to the spying.

[CB Fry]

47 minutes ago, CanadaSaint said:

I don't think the FA's focus is the spying, which IS NOT specifically referenced in their rules. The EFL already addressed that issue because it IS specifically referenced in theirs', and the punishment they handed out has become quite widely regarded as excessive.

I think the FA could well be focused on the alleged bullying. Rule E3.1 covers behaviour that's improper, brings the game into disrepute, or involves violent conduct, serious foul play, threatening, abusive, indecent, or insulting words or behaviour.

Either way, the FA has to tread very carefully because they would be setting a dangerous precedent for themselves, whether it relates to spying (not referenced in their rules) or bullying.

That precedent could force them to - horror of horrors 😂 - treat a Man United, Man City, Arse, Liverpool or Spurs in the same way as they treated Saints. I'd bet my last pound that all of those big boys have, at some point, spied on opponents and bullied players and staff.

Their decision could open a huge can of worms - and the FA know it. I just hope that FIFA stays the hell out of it, but they've got enough shit of their own making to deal with.

aaaaand we're back round to "its not in the rulebook so it can't be against the rules" horseshit.

[Whitey Grandad]

3 minutes ago, CB Fry said:

aaaaand we're back round to "its not in the rulebook so it can't be against the rules" horseshit.

Then why have rules?

[CB Fry]

Just now, Whitey Grandad said:

Then why have rules?

There are rules.

There are also rules like "bringing the game into disrepute" which covers unique/different/atypical situations. That kind of catch-all behaviour rules are written in every employment contract for every employee in the country. Basically don't be a twat and we judge what that is if we think you've done it.

No business or institution anywhere has an Encyclopedia Brittanica of every conceivable punishable offence all written out.