The Spygate Saga

[Kenilworthy1959]

With a two match ban for a West Brom forward for handling the ball into the net it looks like the era for over the top punishments is well established. It is not even clear that it was intentional. Will Norwich get a ban for their goal against us last season? 

[Birder Saint]

13 minutes ago, Kenilworthy1959 said:

With a two match ban for a West Brom forward for handling the ball into the net it looks like the era for over the top punishments is well established. It is not even clear that it was intentional. Will Norwich get a ban for their goal against us last season? 

Or the skates?

[LiberalCommunist]

We really are in new territory now. Until they try it with a club big enough to stand up to them, then we are in the same territory. 

[James]

Just now, LiberalCommunist said:

We really are in new territory now. Until they try it with a club big enough to stand up to them, then we are in the same territory. 

Completely insane. 2 match ban because the ref missed what should have been an obvious decision to disallow a goal. Definitely not clear that it was intentional.

[benjii]

23 minutes ago, Kenilworthy1959 said:

With a two match ban for a West Brom forward for handling the ball into the net it looks like the era for over the top punishments is well established. It is not even clear that it was intentional. Will Norwich get a ban for their goal against us last season? 

So an offence that's a yellow card if the ref sees it, is a 2 match ban if the ref doesn't see it.

Makes sense.

[Whitey Grandad]

13 hours ago, James said:

Completely insane. 2 match ban because the ref missed what should have been an obvious decision to disallow a goal. Definitely not clear that it was intentional.

He could have owned up to it immediately. 

Intentional or not is irrelevant. 

[East Kent Saint]

I remember Geoff Hurst admitting he scored with his hand , the day after !

The Match: Playing for West Ham, Geoff Hurst scored multiple times against Sunderland (hitting six in total during a famous rout).

The Incident: Hurst confessed that his first goal in that match was "a bit naughty".

How it Happened: He missed a cross with his head, kept his hand up near his ear, and deliberately palmed the ball into the net. 

[Weston Super Saint]

7 minutes ago, East Kent Saint said:

I remember Geoff Hurst admitting he scored with his hand , the day after !

The Match: Playing for West Ham, Geoff Hurst scored multiple times against Sunderland (hitting six in total during a famous rout).

The Incident: Hurst confessed that his first goal in that match was "a bit naughty".

How it Happened: He missed a cross with his head, kept his hand up near his ear, and deliberately palmed the ball into the net. 

Ah, the good old days before VAR!

[Badger]

15 hours ago, Kenilworthy1959 said:

With a two match ban for a West Brom forward for handling the ball into the net it looks like the era for over the top punishments is well established. It is not even clear that it was intentional. Will Norwich get a ban for their goal against us last season? 

 

14 hours ago, Birder Saint said:

Or the skates?

And Argentina retrospectively eliminated from the 1986 WC Final series. 
 

[James]

6 hours ago, Whitey Grandad said:

He could have owned up to it immediately. 

Intentional or not is irrelevant. 

Come on, be realistic. How many players would have done that? If you are asking players to self referee themselves to avoid retrospective bans then that's quite the shift in the way the game is played...

[Whitey Grandad]

10 minutes ago, James said:

Come on, be realistic. How many players would have done that? If you are asking players to self referee themselves to avoid retrospective bans then that's quite the shift in the way the game is played...

Some players have done the honourable thing in the past and it is a sad reflection on the modern game that it has become much less common.

In terms of impact actions such as this one have a bigger impact than any amount of 'spying' ever will.

[CSA96]

Apparently it’s just been said on BBC 5 Live by Mark Clemmit that the panel is due to meet and issue Eckert’s punishment during the last week of September, which is during the international break. Would mean the first game without him would be Pompey at St Mary’s

[Patches O Houlihan]

10 minutes ago, CSA96 said:

Apparently it’s just been said on BBC 5 Live by Mark Clemmit that the panel is due to meet and issue Eckert’s punishment during the last week of September, which is during the international break. Would mean the first game without him would be Pompey at St Mary’s

F**k the FA and the EFL

How long have they had to think about it?!

[LGTL]

Yes that ties in as I know for sure that the club aren’t expecting the outcome until October. 

[badgerx16]

3 hours ago, Patches O Houlihan said:

F**k the FA and the EFL

How long have they had to think about it?!

Death by a thousand cuts - they'll drag this out as long as they can, and if he gets a ban it will be timed to knock us back just as we are finding form .

After all, we are the biggest cheats in football history, ever, and possibly in all professional sports. Fixing the World Series was nothing compared to a bloke standing next to a tree on a public footpath.

Edited yesterday at 16:14 by badgerx16

[James]

3 hours ago, CSA96 said:

Apparently it’s just been said on BBC 5 Live by Mark Clemmit that the panel is due to meet and issue Eckert’s punishment during the last week of September, which is during the international break. Would mean the first game without him would be Pompey at St Mary’s

I thought it was fairly widely known that we'd get the sanction during the September international break. 

[Sir Ralph]

On good authority that parsons was told by the EFL that the punishment wouldn’t involve being kicked out of the playoffs hence our apparent absence of being vocal in the media cause we didn’t want to upset the applecart and then they did us over….

Edited yesterday at 17:32 by Sir Ralph

[bpsaint]

58 minutes ago, Sir Ralph said:

On good authority that parsons was told by the EFL that the punishment wouldn’t involve being kicked out of the playoffs hence our apparent absence of being vocal in the media cause we didn’t want to upset the applecart and then they did us over….

Someone might have told you that in good faith but likely untrue TBH, we’d have had rights to a massive legal claim if so.

[tdmickey3]

3 hours ago, Sir Ralph said:

On good authority that parsons was told by the EFL that the punishment wouldn’t involve being kicked out of the playoffs hence our apparent absence of being vocal in the media cause we didn’t want to upset the applecart and then they did us over….

Golden post.

But absolutely bollocks

[Oldandtired]

Interesting... just started watching the Mourinho doc on Netflix.  Chelsea were due to play Bolton. At about 16 minutes in John Terry talks about watching a film of the Bolton training session from the day before, laughingly saying I don't know where he got that from. 
 

So we ain't the first!

Edited yesterday at 21:10 by Oldandtired

[Sir Ralph]

3 hours ago, bpsaint said:

Someone might have told you that in good faith but likely untrue TBH, we’d have had rights to a massive legal claim if so.

Fair enough I’m not here to convince anyone. Not sure we would have a legal claim if we were told this informally.  People say things all the time and u turn, unless its in writing it would be difficult to evidence and ultimately sue them and it was always subject to an “independent “hearing anyway

Edited yesterday at 21:58 by Sir Ralph

[Sir Ralph]

2 hours ago, tdmickey3 said:

Golden post.

But absolutely bollocks

You’re such an articulate fellow

Edited 23 hours ago by Sir Ralph

[trousers]

9 hours ago, CSA96 said:

Apparently it’s just been said on BBC 5 Live by Mark Clemmit that the panel is due to meet and issue Eckert’s punishment during the last week of September, which is during the international break. Would mean the first game without him would be Pompey at St Mary’s

If we consider it to be a disproportionate punishment (my hunch is that it will be), I assume we'll appeal, thus pushing any start date further down the road...? 

[CSA96]

20 minutes ago, trousers said:

If we consider it to be a disproportionate punishment (my hunch is that it will be), I assume we'll appeal, thus pushing any start date further down the road...? 

I wondered if that's why they were punting it back to the international break. It's the extra long one that goes on for three weeks so if they got a ruling out in the first few days then there'd still be two and a half weeks before a return to league action during which time the appeals process could presumably run from start to end?

[whelk]

Can we please stop responding with “we spy where/when we want” . Add to the list of some other absolutely embarrassing chants 

[LiberalCommunist]

Yeah, bin it. had we got away with a slap on the wrist, then it would be hilarious. As it is, I'd like it buried pretty soon. 

[pingpong]

Nuremberg looking to sue us for a couple mill on missed add-ons...

[Disco Stu]

28 minutes ago, pingpong said:

Nuremberg looking to sue us for a couple mill on missed add-ons...

They won't have a case.

[Matthew Le God]

1 hour ago, pingpong said:

Nuremberg looking to sue us for a couple mill on missed add-ons...

Not if their claim is based on what ifs, as suggested in the article.