The Spygate Saga

[RedArmy]

11 minutes ago, PJ said:

This. I originally wanted to give PP the benefit of the doubt, and that despite mistakes, he was far from the main issue here. He didn't instruct the spying after all. However, this interview in particular does not reflect well on him. The fact he's squinting from the sun doesn't help - it makes him look like he's smirking throughout. Amateur - how you come across is as important as what you say. The contrast between this interview and the Dragan one in the summer is massive. PP just hasn't got the skills and gravitas to pull this off. He looks like he's mixed-up between whether to look firm and uncompromising, or apologetic and humble. And he achieved neither. Which makes things worse for us

He’s a fucking idiot who should have been sacked day 1. 

[die Mannyschaft]

11 minutes ago, AlexLaw76 said:

why have a match day manager at all, if this is the case

Its the exact question I picked up from some fans during the Wrexham game and on coach back. It also raises the point of recruiting inexperienced managers who have data driven experience which looks the the CV clincher. Can anyone who understands data first manage a team rather than the training stuff on coaching badges 

[saintant]

1 hour ago, Saint Pete said:

I'm personally not totally against doing an interview to get our side of the argument out there and put some media spotlight and pressure on the FA themselves to make a fair decision, as I feel we have been too passive in this process from the start. But if you are going to do it, it needs to be done with real conviction and you need to have something really tangible to say in your defence or a bit of threat towards the FA rather than just "please don't punish him because it will hurt us" .

Problem is Parsons isn't the right man to do that, so it just comes across as a bit weak again. The bit about why we haven't already sacked him in particular, which Parsons answered by saying because he's a good manager so deserves our loyalty, which may be true but makes it sound like we have no integrity. He should have said because he is young and made a mistake and deserves a second chance as we still feel he is a good man. 

If we were going to do this, I would have liked Parsons to go harder on the fair and proportionate punishment to fit the crime angle by drawing parallels with FA cases of rule breaking and cheating against the bigger clubs (eg Chelsea) where punishments have been light, suspended sentences, fines etc. If we were worried about naming them for legal reasons, we could have still referred to them broadly as cases involving larger clubs without naming names. That is an angle where I think we would get more sympathy from the media and the wider football world, so could have helped us put more pressure on the FA before a final decision is arrived at and announced, assuming that was the aim. 

Thanks Pete, what dates are you available? 🙂

[Midfield_General]

21 minutes ago, die Mannyschaft said:

Its the exact question I picked up from some fans during the Wrexham game and on coach back. It also raises the point of recruiting inexperienced managers who have data driven experience which looks the the CV clincher. Can anyone who understands data first manage a team rather than the training stuff on coaching badges 

What in god’s name are you going on about 

[Teamsaint1]

28 minutes ago, Miltonaggro said:

I would actually contribute £100 to that plan.

I would match your £100 ..

it would be very  fitting to appoint him, , and I reckon he could do well in fact.

[whelk]

Am I being too optimistic hoping some Serbian gangsters have kidnapped one of the FA panel’s favourite child and giving ultimatums mentioning fingers and ears?

[benjii]

36 minutes ago, PJ said:

This. I originally wanted to give PP the benefit of the doubt, and that despite mistakes, he was far from the main issue here. He didn't instruct the spying after all. However, this interview in particular does not reflect well on him. The fact he's squinting from the sun doesn't help - it makes him look like he's smirking throughout. Amateur - how you come across is as important as what you say. The contrast between this interview and the Dragan one in the summer is massive. PP just hasn't got the skills and gravitas to pull this off. He looks like he's mixed-up between whether to look firm and uncompromising, or apologetic and humble. And he achieved neither. Which makes things worse for us

He can barely string a coherent sentence together. Just seems pretty low IQ and not up to it.

[benjii]

28 minutes ago, saintant said:

No doubt this will be fully covered by the ethics policy of Southampton FC as with any company. I'm sure all staff would have completed ethics training to make them aware of all rules and regs. I know it happened at every company I worked for in recent times.

You might be confusing SFC with a professionally run business.

[Miltonaggro]

1 hour ago, Midfield_General said:

Also spot on.

I can see no benefit whatsoever to doing an interview at all, but if you're going to do it, actually present an argument that has factual validity and might cause people to agree with it (like the facts of the imbalance between the punishments for big clubs vs. everyone else) not just waaah waaah waaah crying like a little bitch with no substance and nothing worthwhile to add.

His actions are poorly judged and will cause us more harm, as always. He's an idiot, and every new mistake he's allowed to make just makes me think that Solak must be an idiot too for leaving him in place to blunder on making everything worse. 

If Eckert gets the book thrown at him and has to be removed Solak needs to do what he should have done in the summer and bin Parsons and entourage.  I must admit I hadn't seen him interviewed before this clip and the man exudes rabbit in the headlights incompetence paired with a complete incapacity to hold a position of authority in a multi-million pound business.  He seems to function on self-pity / preservation - not good attributes for a CEO. Any CEO.  I am beginning to think that the club has been tipped off of the outcome after negotiations with the FA and what we are seeing with Ankersen stepping down and Parsons whining is the reactive, performative finale.

In terms of Solak being an idiot, he certainly lacks judgement in personnel, is remarkably hands off, and appears incapable of learning from a series of costly decisions and mistakes.  His post-appeal statement in the summer included the following nuggets:

"I am sorry for how this season has ended. I am at the head of the football club and I must take responsibility for everything that happens here.

It's important to apologise for how we handled the matters in the early stages of the process. We have to be better.

Mistakes have been made and we will learn from them. Let me take this opportunity to reaffirm how committed I am to bringing success to St Mary's.

I also like to thank Johannes [Spors] and Phil [Parsons] for their efforts during the difficult time.

We all together will continue to work hard this summer to give you a team you can be proud of and a club that is growing every year.

We will work with the FA in the coming weeks to make everything right and to put this whole situation behind us so we can focus on building the club and the team and the unity and the community of Saints that everybody can only be proud of.

I promise you that we'll bring to you at the end of the summer the team that will take you out of your seats and excitement will run high against St Mary's."

This was obvously pre-season ticket PR, but it is fucking daft if you don't deliver on it in the circumstances and bugger on as you have before. I don't think the EFL and FA treat us like this with Cortese (a litigious and committed hot head) or Reed (a known figure with FA circles) running the football side of the club. Solak needs to bear this in mind should he decide to replace the clowns. 

      

[James]

The tone of the conversation on this week’s Total Saints Podcast was incredibly downbeat re the outcome which I found surprising given they have barely mentioned it up to now. I do have the feeling that the club has been given an indication of a harsh outcome. 

[saintant]

30 minutes ago, benjii said:

You might be confusing SFC with a professionally run business.

I think you'll find it's a legal requirement these days.

[Willo of Whiteley]

Just read the interview in detail.

It’s not the worst piece ever written, you just have to trust that Parsons, the lawyers and the board have got their facts correct and laid everything out.

The club and the fans have been punished enough.

To give a lengthy ban would be to then hinder the club further when damage has already been done.

[sadoldgit]

The point raised on tv today was spot on. We have already faced a very harsh penalty for last season and another penalty for this season with -4 points. Why yet another sanction against us?

[sfc4prem]

5 minutes ago, sadoldgit said:

The point raised on tv today was spot on. We have already faced a very harsh penalty for last season and another penalty for this season with -4 points. Why yet another sanction against us?

As with many things currently, loud and regular public flagellation is needed for organisations to virtue signal. 

[tdmickey3]

5 minutes ago, sadoldgit said:

The point raised on tv today was spot on. We have already faced a very harsh penalty for last season and another penalty for this season with -4 points. Why yet another sanction against us?

Because we are not Man City, Man Utd, Liverpool, Chelsea, Arsenal or Spurs

[Holmes_and_Watson]

3 hours ago, trousers said:

Good morning Phil 👋🏻

😉

I can't be Phil. I didn't confess to something for absolutely no reason. 🙂

[Holmes_and_Watson]

48 minutes ago, whelk said:

Am I being too optimistic hoping some Serbian gangsters have kidnapped one of the FA panel’s favourite child and giving ultimatums mentioning fingers and ears?

Welcome to the Sunny Side of Child Kidnapping, with your host whelk. 🙂

[Midfield_General]

15 minutes ago, Willo of Whiteley said:

you just have to trust that Parsons, the lawyers and the board have got their facts correct and laid everything out.

I think I may have spotted the potential issue here

[trousers]

9 minutes ago, Holmes_and_Watson said:

I can't be Phil. I didn't confess to something for absolutely no reason. 🙂

Ah... The classic "I'm not person" denial... The plot thickens...

[AlexLaw76]

17 minutes ago, sadoldgit said:

The point raised on tv today was spot on. We have already faced a very harsh penalty for last season and another penalty for this season with -4 points. Why yet another sanction against us?

it is against Tonda, not the club

[madge]

Surely the FA can’t change their stance on the precedent set when bielsa did the same.. they haven’t appeared to have changed their rules.. it’s like someone getting off with a suspended sentence and the next person getting a murder sentence..  I think any competent lawyer surely exploits this and this is perhaps why the FA pricks have taken so long. They want to be absolutely watertight in what shit they throw at us, can’t be picked up and thrown back!!  

[Holmes_and_Watson]

3 minutes ago, trousers said:

Ah... The classic "I'm not person" denial... The plot thickens...

And no one puts the "thick" in "thickens" Mr Parsons 🙂

[Willo of Whiteley]

I don’t see the club sticking with Tonda if he’s given a six month ban.

But I do see them sticking with Ben Garner which absolutely terrifies me.

[AlexLaw76]

1 minute ago, madge said:

Surely the FA can’t change their stance on the precedent set when bielsa did the same.. they haven’t appeared to have changed their rules.. it’s like someone getting off with a suspended sentence and the next person getting a murder sentence..  I think any competent lawyer surely exploits this and this is perhaps why the FA pricks have taken so long. They want to be absolutely watertight in what shit they throw at us, can’t be picked up and thrown back!!  

There is no stance to change as, at the time, Bielsa was never guilty of knowingly breaking the rues

[Saint Pete]

9 minutes ago, sadoldgit said:

The point raised on tv today was spot on. We have already faced a very harsh penalty for last season and another penalty for this season with -4 points. Why yet another sanction against us?

I don't disagree the EFL punishment on the club was very harsh, I would argue over the top and out of proportion to what happened and the sporting impact. But the FA will always answer your question by saying their role is to discipline the individual not the club and Tonda has not been punished personally for what he did yet. 

So, I don't think we will get very far arguing that they shouldn't be punishing him/us again. Our only real avenue is to push the FA more on what a proportionate and reasonable punishment for what he did and the sporting impact of it should be. That's why I think we should have used the Parsons interview more to argue that there shouldn't be a disparity between how heavily smaller clubs like us and their staff are punished for breaking the rules compared to bigger clubs like Chelsea. And to point out that the FA cases brought against those bigger clubs had a far more significant sporting impact than what Tonda and the kid with the phone did. I personally think that argument would have gained more support in the press, which in turn might have helped make the FA or their panel think again about imposing another very harsh penalty on Thursday. 

[whelk]

21 minutes ago, Holmes_and_Watson said:

Welcome to the Sunny Side of Child Kidnapping, with your host whelk. 🙂

If it works there could be no end to how far this could take us up the table and beyond

[Teamsaint1]

43 minutes ago, sadoldgit said:

The point raised on tv today was spot on. We have already faced a very harsh penalty for last season and another penalty for this season with -4 points. Why yet another sanction against us?

Especially when gibson specifically asked for a sporting sanction ( not that it is his business to be involved ) and we had two and a financial penalty in that we lost a minimum of the playoff final receipts.

and the deterrent function is clear enough from our punishments.

[Saint86]

2 hours ago, westmidlandsaint said:

I wonder what the LMA stance will be if the sanctions are heavy

Good question TBF, not an angle that I've seen discussed anywhere.

[Midfield_General]

1 hour ago, Saint Pete said:

I don't disagree the EFL punishment on the club was very harsh, I would argue over the top and out of proportion to what happened and the sporting impact. But the FA will always answer your question by saying their role is to discipline the individual not the club and Tonda has not been punished personally for what he did yet. 

So, I don't think we will get very far arguing that they shouldn't be punishing him/us again. Our only real avenue is to push the FA more on what a proportionate and reasonable punishment for what he did and the sporting impact of it should be. That's why I think we should have used the Parsons interview more to argue that there shouldn't be a disparity between how heavily smaller clubs like us and their staff are punished for breaking the rules compared to bigger clubs like Chelsea. And to point out that the FA cases brought against those bigger clubs had a far more significant sporting impact than what Tonda and the kid with the phone did. I personally think that argument would have gained more support in the press, which in turn might have helped make the FA or their panel think again about imposing another very harsh penalty on Thursday. 

Excellent points from Saint Pete KC.

Meanwhile in his big national interview, half-term Phil chooses to focus on whining about how much the club has had to spend on the legal fees which have been incurred as a direct consequence of the club's own premeditated actions. That should really help to get people onside. 

Edited 1 hour ago by Midfield_General

[LordHester]

2 hours ago, westmidlandsaint said:

I wonder what the LMA stance will be if the sanctions are heavy

Lawrie Mac is a vice-president – hopefully he can put a word in.

[hypochondriac]

6 minutes ago, Saint86 said:

Good question TBF, not an angle that I've seen discussed anywhere.

Imagine if it happened in any other workplace. Broken no law but your governing body gets you fired. I suppose it would be something like a board of governors revoking your teaching license or the police.

[benjii]

1 hour ago, saintant said:

I think you'll find it's a legal requirement these days.

We don't have a great track record with regulatory compliance.

[whelk]

23 minutes ago, Midfield_General said:

Excellent points from Saint Pete QC.

Meanwhile in his big national interview, half-term Phil chooses to focus on whining about how much the club has had to spend on the legal fees which have been incurred as a direct consequence of the club's own premeditated actions. That should really help to get people onside. 

Before MLG says anything……KC

[badgerx16]

Just to be clear, this was the FA's decision on Bielsa ; "The FA worked closely with the EFL during the investigation into Leeds United FC observing opponent training sessions, and The FA notes the League’s decision to charge Leeds for a breach of its Competition Rules. " 

"The FA has on this occasion decided to conclude this matter by issuing formal warnings against Leeds United FC, Leeds Manager Marcelo Bielsa and a club video analyst.

"Notwithstanding The FA’s decision on this occasion, The FA will take appropriate action should further evidence of this nature come to light in the future.

"The FA would like to remind all participants, including clubs and club employees (and agents) that action can be brought against any participant if their conduct fails to act in the best interest of the game or otherwise brings the game into disrepute, pursuant to FA Rule E3(1)." 

Arsehole Henry Winter wrote "Calls for a touchline ban for Bielsa or points deduction for Leeds United over Spygate are far too extreme. Just needs a warning from the FA, for the EFL to tighten its rules, LMA to have a quiet word about respect between its members and everybody advised to plant more trees... "

 

( Taken from Alfie House's article in The Echo, though he doesn't call Winter an Arsehole )

Edited 2 hours ago by badgerx16

[23rdSaint]

15 minutes ago, badgerx16 said:

"Notwithstanding The FA’s decision on this occasion, The FA will take appropriate action should further evidence of this nature come to light in the future.

This doesn't just relate to the Leeds case, does it? 

[badgerx16]

2 minutes ago, 23rdSaint said:

This doesn't just relate to the Leeds case, does it? 

My assumption is that they were saying they might reopen the case if further evidence against Leeds or Bielsa came to light.

[Holmes_and_Watson]

1 hour ago, whelk said:

If it works there could be no end to how far this could take us up the table and beyond

History if full of vassal states handing over their relatives for the greater glory of whatever empire was in charge. Not only have you sorted Spygate, but every thread in the Lounge. Take a bow, whelk. 🙂

[Holmes_and_Watson]

29 minutes ago, whelk said:

Before MLG says anything……KC

If you think it'll help...

 

Although I wish the FA would just Give It Up.

[LaptopSaint]

Can’t shake the feeling that Parsons is out of his depth. Just not impressive. Hopefully Dragan knows what he’s doing there. 

We’ve got Eckert… (for now) 

[saintant]

50 minutes ago, badgerx16 said:

Just to be clear, this was the FA's decision on Bielsa ; "The FA worked closely with the EFL during the investigation into Leeds United FC observing opponent training sessions, and The FA notes the League’s decision to charge Leeds for a breach of its Competition Rules. " 

"The FA has on this occasion decided to conclude this matter by issuing formal warnings against Leeds United FC, Leeds Manager Marcelo Bielsa and a club video analyst.

"Notwithstanding The FA’s decision on this occasion, The FA will take appropriate action should further evidence of this nature come to light in the future.

"The FA would like to remind all participants, including clubs and club employees (and agents) that action can be brought against any participant if their conduct fails to act in the best interest of the game or otherwise brings the game into disrepute, pursuant to FA Rule E3(1)." 

Arsehole Henry Winter wrote "Calls for a touchline ban for Bielsa or points deduction for Leeds United over Spygate are far too extreme. Just needs a warning from the FA, for the EFL to tighten its rules, LMA to have a quiet word about respect between its members and everybody advised to plant more trees... "

 

( Taken from Alfie House's article in The Echo, though he doesn't call Winter an Arsehole )

Which begs the obvious question, why wasn't Bielsa made an example of to stop this happening again?

[Weston Super Saint]

19 hours ago, Harry_SFC said:

The fact that Parsons has done an interview with the BBC worries me. I think the club are expecting bad news.

Parsons speaking at all is bad news tbf. Bloke is a buffoon. 

FFS!  What's he admitting to this time?  We were the ones that hid Lord Lucan?   Princess Diana was run off the road by one of our analysts?  Watergate was us?

[badgerx16]

1 minute ago, saintant said:

Which begs the obvious question, why wasn't Bielsa made an example of to stop this happening again?

Maybe Leeds are up there with Chelsea, etc.

[Midfield_General]

1 hour ago, whelk said:

Before MLG says anything……KC

I’ve been whelked

[sadoldgit]

1 hour ago, Saint Pete said:

I don't disagree the EFL punishment on the club was very harsh, I would argue over the top and out of proportion to what happened and the sporting impact. But the FA will always answer your question by saying their role is to discipline the individual not the club and Tonda has not been punished personally for what he did yet. 

So, I don't think we will get very far arguing that they shouldn't be punishing him/us again. Our only real avenue is to push the FA more on what a proportionate and reasonable punishment for what he did and the sporting impact of it should be. That's why I think we should have used the Parsons interview more to argue that there shouldn't be a disparity between how heavily smaller clubs like us and their staff are punished for breaking the rules compared to bigger clubs like Chelsea. And to point out that the FA cases brought against those bigger clubs had a far more significant sporting impact than what Tonda and the kid with the phone did. I personally think that argument would have gained more support in the press, which in turn might have helped make the FA or their panel think again about imposing another very harsh penalty on Thursday. 

I’m not sure how punishing both Eckert and the club works? If he has taken full responsibility, why not just sanction him? We have already been hit both last season and this, despite the offences only being committed last season. Any action on Eckert would be a third punishment.

It is also ridiculous that we are now well into the season and they are only now going to hear the case that has already been dealt with months ago by the EFL.

 

[Football Special]

19 minutes ago, saintant said:

Which begs the obvious question, why wasn't Bielsa made an example of to stop this happening again?

They did make an example of him.....

By giving him a fair play award 

[LiberalCommunist]

25 minutes ago, saintant said:

Which begs the obvious question, why wasn't Bielsa made an example of to stop this happening again?

Marcelo Bielsa won the2019 FIFA Fair Play Award

 

They made a proper example of him. 

[Harry_SFC]

47 minutes ago, LaptopSaint said:

Can’t shake the feeling that Parsons is out of his depth. Just not impressive. Hopefully Dragan knows what he’s doing there. 

We’ve got Eckert… (for now) 

The bloke is a fucking idiot of the highest order. Just winds me up looking at him. 

[IFHP]

Phil Parsons is a fucking idiot and i blame him more than Tonda why we got kicked out the playoffs.

From the very moment the news 1st broke about us spying this idiot was totally out of his depth and handled the spying thing terribly .

i hope the idiot has a credible back up plan for when Tonda gets the news, which could well be a lengthy ban.

The club has been punished, but as of yet Tonda hasn’t. 

[Harry_SFC]

9 hours ago, tdmickey3 said:

Well, if they haven't made some kind of contingency plan for bad outcome then, its Lallana or one of the coaches as interim.

Surely we have some kind of plan?

Plan? What's one of those? SR haven't had a plan since they bought the club 

[Saint Pete]

1 hour ago, sadoldgit said:

I’m not sure how punishing both Eckert and the club works? If he has taken full responsibility, why not just sanction him? We have already been hit both last season and this, despite the offences only being committed last season. Any action on Eckert would be a third punishment.

It is also ridiculous that we are now well into the season and they are only now going to hear the case that has already been dealt with months ago by the EFL.

 

The problem there was we were stupid enough to do it in both the main season and the play offs and then get caught. So the EFL interpretation was to chuck us out of play offs for the Boro offence, but that they also needed to punish us for the league games and as it was too late to do that in last season, the points deduction was rolled forward. Not saying I agree with it (the play off expulsion was too harsh in my opinion) but that is the reasoning they used.

Agree with you completely over the ridiculous length of time the FA have taken, I can't see any justification for why it shouldn't have been done and dusted well before the start of the season.