The Spygate Saga

[Fabrice29]

1 hour ago, Fitzhugh Fella said:

Don't quite get the dump on Parsons. His basic thrust was everyone (that's the club, the fans, the manager) has been punished more than enough by being thrown out of the play-offs, plus the -4 points and anything else would be disproportionate. Sometimes it's better to get your point across forcefully before the verdict is announced. I approve that the club has come out fighting. Enough is enough, the EFL (and most people who run football) are a bunch of weasels and and can get f*cked imo.

Well it’s a pretty dumb basic thrust isn’t it? That’s the problem. Because the guy who orchestrated the whole thing has yet to be punished, which is what the hearing is about.

[Fabrice29]

Just now, Charlie Wayman said:

As I suggested earlier, the Club will have been informed by the FA through the back channels of the likley sanction on Eckert. That there are no rumours or evidence of a search for a new manager suppots the view that the sanction will be relatively modest and that there is no need to look for a replacement. 

Quite a while ago according to @MB right? 

Anyway, yes I tend to agree. Club have been briefing for quite a while that they don’t expect a huge punishment for Eckert. So let’s hope their briefings are on point this time around.

[egg]

23 minutes ago, Turkish said:

I love the way it’s labelled as the FA giving a fresh statement when it’s actually a former board member at Everton giving his opinion 

Although he's not an FA voice, I'm happy that voices with even a tiny bit of clout are coming out with stuff like that. Simon Jordan another case in point. 

I still think they'll ban him for 8-12 games. If it's at the bottom end of that scale, we'll be ok, and although 12 is stretching it, he'd be back before the Christmas fixtures. 

[saintant]

I'm expecting either a 2-4 match ban or they may go 3 month ban suspended for 2 years. Either way there will be a hefty fine to help pay the FA expense accounts which I suspect are not small beer, no pun intended.

[egg]

1 hour ago, Fitzhugh Fella said:

Don't quite get the dump on Parsons. His basic thrust was everyone (that's the club, the fans, the manager) has been punished more than enough by being thrown out of the play-offs, plus the -4 points and anything else would be disproportionate. Sometimes it's better to get your point across forcefully before the verdict is announced. I approve that the club has come out fighting. Enough is enough, the EFL (and most people who run football) are a bunch of weasels and and can get f*cked imo.

He should have gone for what he said and admitted at Boro, if not the aftermath. As the man at the top, I'd assume he was behind, or at least overseeing and approving, what we then put out via the media, our choice of legal team, and tactics and approach in the debacle that was the legal process. 

Someone has to take account of how badly we got it wrong, and for me that was/is Parsons. 

[Midfield_General]

9 hours ago, Saint86 said:

Make of this what you will, but predicting a 2-4 game ban and a fine.

https://talk2soccer.com/the-football-association-issues-a-fresh-statement-on-the-tonda-eckert-situation-as-the-latest-update-on-southamptons-expected-ban-emerges/?fbclid=Iwb21leAUf4LpjbGNrBR_gWnBkb2YFZXh0bgNhZW0CMTEAc3J0YwZhcHBfaWQMMzUwNjg1NTMxNzI4AAEeLv9lxDkjAYyHXhpvZTTE5FJCLEYKk0qtjl92r8SLJ-4nZIMFWK9dM07WgRs_aem_xljNiCUyf9qsQD27NM6sAQ

 

That article is gibberish.

The headline says that the FA have issued a fresh statement ahead of the hearing. Which of course they haven’t, and it’s never mentioned again in the article. 

Then the article itself is just some random who used to work for Everton giving his personal thoughts. 

Then it says ‘the fact that Eckert was aware of it or directed it to some extent will serve in mitigation of the fine’, which makes absolutely zero sense.

It’s just the usual Football Insider mix of AI slop and random quotes from obscure people with no knowledge of the situation. 

[Saint86]

1 hour ago, Turkish said:

I love the way it’s labelled as the FA giving a fresh statement when it’s actually a former board member at Everton giving his opinion 

Yeah, as usual, the title is pure click bait, but the quotes provide an interesting take.

[Midfield_General]

9 minutes ago, Saint86 said:

Yeah, as usual, the title is pure click bait, but the quotes provide an interesting take.

Why? They don’t make any sense, and it’s just some random with no clout or knowledge, who gives a fuck what they think?

No-one treats Football Insider as a credible source on anything. It’s literally made up.

You might as well ask Salman Rushdie or Anton du Beke, it would have about as much significance 

Edited 4 hours ago by Midfield_General

[Turkish]

49 minutes ago, egg said:

Although he's not an FA voice, I'm happy that voices with even a tiny bit of clout are coming out with stuff like that. Simon Jordan another case in point. 

I still think they'll ban him for 8-12 games. If it's at the bottom end of that scale, we'll be ok, and although 12 is stretching it, he'd be back before the Christmas fixtures. 

I wont take anything for granted until we've heard James Cordens opinion

[hypochondriac]

29 minutes ago, Midfield_General said:

That article is gibberish.

The headline says that the FA have issued a fresh statement ahead of the hearing. Which of course they haven’t, and it’s never mentioned again in the article. 

Then the article itself is just some random who used to work for Everton giving his personal thoughts. 

Then it says ‘the fact that Eckert was aware of it or directed it to some extent will serve in mitigation of the fine’, which makes absolutely zero sense.

It’s just the usual Football Insider mix of AI slop and random quotes from obscure people with no knowledge of the situation. 

Bollocks. It's positive about the situation so I believe it unquestionably. Don't be a hater.

[Saint Marky]

26 minutes ago, Midfield_General said:

Why? They don’t make any sense, and it’s just some random with no clout or knowledge, who gives a fuck what they think?

No-one treats Football Insider as a credible source on anything. It’s literally made up.

You might as well ask Salman Rushdie or Anton du Beke, it would have about as much significance 

That’s not a bad idea, I personally would love to hear what Salman and Anton think about the whole saga.

[Miltonaggro]

28 minutes ago, Midfield_General said:

Why? They don’t make any sense, and it’s just some random with no clout or knowledge, who gives a fuck what they think?

No-one treats Football Insider as a credible source on anything. It’s literally made up.

You might as well ask Salman Rushdie or Anton du Beke, it would have about as much significance 

I would happily pay the paywall fee for Rushdie or du Beke.

[Midfield_General]

Just now, hypochondriac said:

Bollocks. It's positive about the situation so I believe it unquestionably. Don't be a hater.

Heard this morning that Curtis Stigers reckons a 4 match touchline ban with another 4 suspended for 18 months would be the fairest outcome, so I’m feeling more confident about things now

[Turkish]

7 minutes ago, Midfield_General said:

Heard this morning that Curtis Stigers reckons a 4 match touchline ban with another 4 suspended for 18 months would be the fairest outcome, so I’m feeling more confident about things now

 I wonder why he thinks that?

[Midfield_General]

10 minutes ago, Turkish said:

 I wonder why he thinks that?

All That Matters is justice ✊

[obelisk]

22 minutes ago, Saint Marky said:

I personally would love to hear what Salman and Anton think about the whole saga

I doubt they'd have been taken in by "Gibbo" and his mates. More likely they'd come down on the side of someone standing in a public area watching some blokes have a kick -about in the open.

[LordHester]

26 minutes ago, Midfield_General said:

Heard this morning that Curtis Stigers reckons a 4 match touchline ban with another 4 suspended for 18 months would be the fairest outcome, so I’m feeling more confident about things now

I reckon Ed Sheeran needs to speak out about Saints' treatment. He's been far too quiet.

[hypochondriac]

39 minutes ago, Midfield_General said:

Heard this morning that Curtis Stigers reckons a 4 match touchline ban with another 4 suspended for 18 months would be the fairest outcome, so I’m feeling more confident about things now

Great news. The fightback momentum is unstoppable. Parsons knew what he was doing.

[Colinjb]

2 hours ago, Charlie Wayman said:

As I suggested earlier, the Club will have been informed by the FA through the back channels of the likley sanction on Eckert. That there are no rumours or evidence of a search for a new manager supports the view that the sanction will be relatively modest and that there is no need to look for a replacement. 

Considering the sale of 37,000 tickets was permitted before we were kicked out indicates that may not be a logic to trust.

[Turkish]

15 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

Great news. The fightback momentum is unstoppable. Parsons knew what he was doing.

Eni Aluko has finally piped up. She thinks Tonda should be banned for 12 months, which if you do the math only equals 4 games.

[Wade Garrett]

5 hours ago, BARCELONASAINT said:

So you would have taken the easy way out and sacked a good man that made a mistake that is only a mistake in the EFL. Everyone in Europe thinks this is fucking ridiculous.

Glad to know you are the kind of guy willing to throw someone under the bus it makes things easier for you.

No wonder there is no bloody loyalty in this game any more if this is the general attitude. I actually have more respect for the club that they didn't take the easy route and sack him and have stood by him thus far.

It’s just my opinion.  You know nothing about me.

 

[Saint Pete]

4 hours ago, Fitzhugh Fella said:

Don't quite get the dump on Parsons. His basic thrust was everyone (that's the club, the fans, the manager) has been punished more than enough by being thrown out of the play-offs, plus the -4 points and anything else would be disproportionate. Sometimes it's better to get your point across forcefully before the verdict is announced. I approve that the club has come out fighting. Enough is enough, the EFL (and most people who run football) are a bunch of weasels and and can get f*cked imo.

I don't disagree at all with putting our point of view out there before the final hearing and verdict, and trying to use the press and social media to help us for once. But having decided to do it, he wasn't anywhere near forceful enough and I don't think just saying "don't ban him because it will hurt us more and by the way, we have had lots of legal costs" can be considered coming out fighting.

He needed to put much more meat on the bones of why our punishments so far (and by extension further bans on Tonda) should be considered disproportionate in comparison with equivalent or worse wrongdoing by other clubs and individuals, particularly those in bigger clubs. The small vs big clubs disparity I think would have generated more of a debate in the media and potentially more people coming out on our side to pressure the FA a bit, which surely was the aim of doing the interview? 

[LordHester]

33 minutes ago, Wade Garrett said:

It’s just my opinion.  You know nothing about me.

 

He knows it's your opinion, and he's judging you on it. I don't agree with all he said, but if you put your opinion up on a forum, it's fair game, no?

[Patrick Bateman]

Waiting to hear what the outcome is from Trump and Burnham's discussions as this is such an important topic facing humanity. 

[Wade Garrett]

1 minute ago, LordHester said:

He knows it's your opinion, and he's judging you on it. I don't agree with all he said, but if you put your opinion up on a forum, it's fair game, no?

Yes, but surmising the type of person I am isn’t.

[Fitzhugh Fella]

3 hours ago, Fabrice29 said:

Well it’s a pretty dumb basic thrust isn’t it? That’s the problem. Because the guy who orchestrated the whole thing has yet to be punished, which is what the hearing is about.

Eckert would have been on a huge bonus for getting us up plus an enhanced CV etc etc so he has been punished along with the rest of us. Fuck sake I know mistakes were made but let's not beat ourselves up about this - let the rest of the football world do that.

Edited 2 hours ago by Fitzhugh Fella

[sadoldgit]

15 hours ago, Sheaf Saint said:

I've said this many times before but it bears repeating...

Where SR are concerned, If you're wondering why they've been silent on something or have communicated in an odd way then you should always, always lean heavily towards incompetence as being the explanation. Every time.

In the run up to the hearing in May, I really wanted to believe that they were just keeping a dignified silence and didn't want to show their winning hand. But deep down I knew that was just wishful thinking.

They are a bunch of hopeless incompetent clowns, and I won't be the slightest bit surprised if it turns out they don't have a plan to replace Tonda when he inevitably gets royally shafted by the FA.

Parsons is a fucking muppet who should be absolutely nowhere near the boardroom of a multi-million pound business.

To be fair I think that we, and most people following the sport, thought it was all a bit of a joke when the news first broke. Did anyone of us suspect that Gibbo would make such a big deal about it and that we would be hammered so hard when the photo appeared of the spy by the tree? It still seems ridiculous to me that it became such a big deal. It was most inept act of spying ever and had zero effect on the result of the game. This will go down as one of the most ridiculous sanctions in sporting history and I don’t see how anyone could have foreseen what would happen from what was initially released about the situation.

[Midfield_General]

13 minutes ago, Saint Pete said:

I don't disagree at all with putting our point of view out there before the final hearing and verdict, and trying to use the press and social media to help us for once. But having decided to do it, he wasn't anywhere near forceful enough and I don't think just saying "don't ban him because it will hurt us more and by the way, we have had lots of legal costs" can be considered coming out fighting.

He needed to put much more meat on the bones of why our punishments so far (and by extension further bans on Tonda) should be considered disproportionate in comparison with equivalent or worse wrongdoing by other clubs and individuals, particularly those in bigger clubs. The small vs big clubs disparity I think would have generated more of a debate in the media and potentially more people coming out on our side to pressure the FA a bit, which surely was the aim of doing the interview? 

Once again you demonstrate that you understand the concept of media & comms strategy far better than the person we've had leading our response ever will 

Can you do the next interview please

[Midfield_General]

1 hour ago, sadoldgit said:

To be fair I think that we, and most people following the sport, thought it was all a bit of a joke when the news first broke. Did anyone of us suspect that Gibbo would make such a big deal about it and that we would be hammered so hard when the photo appeared of the spy by the tree? It still seems ridiculous to me that it became such a big deal. It was most inept act of spying ever and had zero effect on the result of the game. This will go down as one of the most ridiculous sanctions in sporting history and I don’t see how anyone could have foreseen what would happen from what was initially released about the situation.

How are people still not getting this? 

It doesn't matter whether 'we' think the rules are stupid or not. The rules exist. Our club broke them. Not once, but multiple times. Deliberately. They got caught. They admitted they'd done it. 

Breaking rules has consequences. The club misjudged what those consequences would be. That's no-one else's fault but theirs. Now we/ they are finding out those consequences the hard way. 

I might not agree with a 70mph speed limit on British motorways, but if I get pulled over steaming along the M3 at 100mph, multiple times, I can't then start bleating that I should get leniency because it's different on the fucking Autobahn. 

The club did it deliberately, trying to gain an advantage to win a massive prize. It knew there were risks. Their gamble failed. Now they face the consequences. It's on them, and they have no-one else to blame but themselves.

Unfortunately, as usual the fans have to suffer the collateral damage, because if this derails our promotion chances this season, which it very obviously might, then it could fuck us up for years. 

Edited 6 minutes ago by Midfield_General

[Saints4Prem]

6 minutes ago, Midfield_General said:

How are people still not getting this? 

It doesn't matter whether 'we' think the rules are stupid or not. The rules exist. Our club broke them. Not once, but multiple times. Deliberately. They got caught. They admitted they'd done it. 

Breaking rules has consequences. The club misjudged what those consequences would be. That's no-one else's fault but theirs. Now we/ they are finding out those consequences the hard way. 

I might not agree with a 70mph speed limit on British motorways, but if I get pulled over steaming along the M3 at 100mph, multiple times, I can't then start bleating that I shouldn't be punished because it's different on the fucking Autobahn. 

The club did it deliberately, trying to gain an advantage. It knew there were risks. Their gamble failed. Now they face the consequences. It's on them. 

I take your point that we broke the rules but surely if you were sentenced to life imprisonment for going 100 mph on the M3 you would agree it was a bit harsh?

 

[saintant]

22 minutes ago, sadoldgit said:

To be fair I think that we, and most people following the sport, thought it was all a bit of a joke when the news first broke. Did anyone of us suspect that Gibbo would make such a big deal about it and that we would be hammered so hard when the photo appeared of the spy by the tree? It still seems ridiculous to me that it became such a big deal. It was most inept act of spying ever and had zero effect on the result of the game. This will go down as one of the most ridiculous sanctions in sporting history and I don’t see how anyone could have foreseen what would happen from what was initially released about the situation.

Spot on. How it turned from a bit of a joke into the full blown maelstrom stirred up by some of the press, pundits and Gibbo was nuts and came out of nowhere.

[obelisk]

11 minutes ago, Midfield_General said:

How are people still not getting this? 

It doesn't matter whether 'we' think the rules are stupid or not. The rules exist. Our club broke them. Not once, but multiple times. Deliberately. They got caught. They admitted they'd done it. 

Breaking rules has consequences. The club misjudged what those consequences would be. That's no-one else's fault but theirs. Now we/ they are finding out those consequences the hard way. 

I might not agree with a 70mph speed limit on British motorways, but if I get pulled over steaming along the M3 at 100mph, multiple times, I can't then start bleating that I should get leniency because it's different on the fucking Autobahn. 

The club did it deliberately, trying to gain an advantage. It knew there were risks. Their gamble failed. Now they face the consequences. It's on them, and they have no-one else to blame but themselves.

Unfortunately, as usual the fans have to suffer the collateral damage, because if this derails our promotion chances this season, which it very obviously might, then it could fuck us up for years. 

Yes, the rules exist. They're the equivalent of having a 70 mph speed limit on a Thursday but not on a Wednesday. The rules are looked on as a joke elsewhere in the football world and I can pretty much guarantee that almost nobody commenting here knew about them before "Gibbo" brought them to our attention when it suited him and his cry-babies.

[Midfield_General]

8 minutes ago, Saints4Prem said:

I take your point that we broke the rules but surely if you were sentenced to life imprisonment for going 100 mph on the M3 you would agree it was a bit harsh?

 

I might think it was harsh but if there were rules in place that said there was even a possibility of me getting that punishment, however remote those chances might be, I’d probably think twice about doing it in the first place. And I definitely wouldn’t do it repeatedly. 

Edited 1 hour ago by Midfield_General

[leeham_69]

Just catching up - sounds like Tonda's been caught doing 100 on the M3 and has been sentenced to life in jail? phew talk about a let off for the FA.

[The Kraken]

7 minutes ago, Saints4Prem said:

I take your point that we broke the rules but surely if you were sentenced to life imprisonment for going 100 mph on the M3 you would agree it was a bit harsh?

In what way do you find it harsh? Or, to put it another way, what punishment do you think better would have better suited, and why?

[PerthshireSaint]

Is it too soon to discuss the best way to cook a decent carbonara ?

fuck me that feels a lifetime ago 

[egg]

43 minutes ago, sadoldgit said:

To be fair I think that we, and most people following the sport, thought it was all a bit of a joke when the news first broke. Did anyone of us suspect that Gibbo would make such a big deal about it and that we would be hammered so hard when the photo appeared of the spy by the tree? It still seems ridiculous to me that it became such a big deal. It was most inept act of spying ever and had zero effect on the result of the game. This will go down as one of the most ridiculous sanctions in sporting history and I don’t see how anyone could have foreseen what would happen from what was initially released about the situation.

Midfield General has put it better than I could, but if you look at the sanction factually, it was a one game ban and 4 points. Sure, it was the biggest game in club football, but we bought it entirely on ourselves.

[egg]

2 minutes ago, PerthshireSaint said:

Is it too soon to discuss the best way to cook a decent carbonara ?

fuck me that feels a lifetime ago 

Never add the egg mix to the pasta, always pasta to the mix. Small difference, but as an egg, I know these things. 

[The Kraken]

Just now, egg said:

Midfield General has put it better than I could, but if you look at the sanction factually, it was a one game ban and 4 points. Sure, it was the biggest game in club football, but we bought it entirely on ourselves.

Or expulsion from a cup competition, similar to fielding an illegible player in a cup round.

Once we were caught and owned up to it all, I’m struggling to see what a more appropriate punishment is.

[Fabrice29]

57 minutes ago, Fitzhugh Fella said:

Eckert would have been on a huge bonus for getting us up plus an enhanced CV etc etc so he has been punished along with the rest of us. Fuck sake I know mistakes were made but let's not beat ourselves up about this - let the rest of the football world do that.

Arguing that somebody not getting a huge bonus is punishment enough for any breaking of rules is grotesque.
 

No idea what the outcome of this will be but I find the narrative that Tonda has been punished already laughable, because he quite literally hasn’t. It’s not about beating ourselves up, it’s a pretty basic principle. 

[egg]

17 minutes ago, The Kraken said:

Or expulsion from a cup competition, similar to fielding an illegible player in a cup round.

Once we were caught and owned up to it all, I’m struggling to see what a more appropriate punishment is.

Indeed.  Our naive approach gave the panel the choices between the sporting sanction of expulsion, or a fine. It was always going to be a sporting sanction, so we got the only one on the table. 

The club should have offered the panel an alternative sporting sanction, and the only one I can think that would have been guaranteed to bite, was a ban from the EFL cup. That'd hurt us as a club who develops players and bloods them in that tournament. 

That we didn't give the EFL a credible alternative to an expulsion/one game ban is entirely on us. As is getting ourselves in that mess to begin with. 

Edited 51 minutes ago by egg

[EssEffCee]

16 minutes ago, egg said:

Midfield General has put it better than I could, but if you look at the sanction factually, it was a one game ban and 4 points. Sure, it was the biggest game in club football, but we bought it entirely on ourselves.

Also worth pointing out that the reason the punishment was losing out on the richest game in club football was because we cheated in an attempt to give us an advantage in reaching said game.

I really don't understand why people point out it's not a rule elsewhere as it's completely irrelevant. People act as if the EFL unilaterally introduced this rule and most football clubs didn't agree with/want it which is demonstrably untrue.

Edited 56 minutes ago by EssEffCee

[VectisSaint]

14 minutes ago, egg said:

Midfield General has put it better than I could, but if you look at the sanction factually, it was a one game ban and 4 points. Sure, it was the biggest game in club football, but we bought it entirely on ourselves.

It's only the 'biggest game in football' if you win it. 

[saintwbu]

11 minutes ago, Fabrice29 said:

Arguing that somebody not getting a huge bonus is punishment enough for any breaking of rules is grotesque.
 

No idea what the outcome of this will be but I find the narrative that Tonda has been punished already laughable, because he quite literally hasn’t. It’s not about beating ourselves up, it’s a pretty basic principle. 

The club that he manages have been kicked out of a competition, and deducted 4 points for the following season. I find the idea that people say he hasn’t been punished absolutely laughable. If he gets a ban that leads to him losing his job, he’ll be free to manage abroad where he’ll most likely get a job with a bigger club than us - is that punishment for him? Feels more like punishment for the club. 

[Stripey McStripe Shirt]

29 minutes ago, PerthshireSaint said:

Is it too soon to discuss the best way to cook a decent carbonara ?

fuck me that feels a lifetime ago 

I'm still pissed off about that whole saga.

[benjii]

25 minutes ago, The Kraken said:

Or expulsion from a cup competition, similar to fielding an illegible player in a cup round.

Once we were caught and owned up to it all, I’m struggling to see what a more appropriate punishment is.

Fine, seeing as it was a minor breach.

[egg]

3 minutes ago, saintwbu said:

The club that he manages have been kicked out of a competition, and deducted 4 points for the following season. I find the idea that people say he hasn’t been punished absolutely laughable. If he gets a ban that leads to him losing his job, he’ll be free to manage abroad where he’ll most likely get a job with a bigger club than us - is that punishment for him? Feels more like punishment for the club. 

You'd have a point if he'd suffered any more punishment than his players, colleagues, employers or fans. He hasn't been punished, and it's nonsense to suggest otherwise. 

The club could have saved themselves the inconvenience of a ban by dealing with the matter themselves.

[egg]

1 minute ago, benjii said:

Fine, seeing as it was a minor breach.

Trying to gain an advantage in a game with a £200m prize isn't minor. It was always going to be a sporting sanction. 

[trousers]

25 minutes ago, egg said:

Indeed.  Our naive approach gave the panel the choices between the sporting sanction of expulsion, or a fine. It was always going to be a sporting sanction, so we got the only one on the table. 

The club should have offered the panel an alternative sporting sanction, and the only one I can think that would have been guaranteed to bite, was a ban from the EFL cup. That'd hurt us as a club who develops players and bloods them in that tournament. 

That we didn't give the EFL a credible alternative to an expulsion/one game ban is entirely on us. As is getting ourselves in that mess to begin with. 

My thinking at the time was that a more proportionate sporting sanction would have been us forfeiting the game we actually 'spied' on, i.e. just the first leg. Award that 3-0 to Middlesbrough then allow the second leg to go ahead and the aggregate result stand. 

Seems reasonable to me. 

Edited 36 minutes ago by trousers

[benjii]

Just now, egg said:

Trying to gain an advantage in a game with a £200m prize isn't minor. It was always going to be a sporting sanction. 

"Trying" is the key word. And it was minor when Bielsa did it.

At the end of the day, the complete lack of any parameters or guidance in the EFL rulebook over sanctions makes the whole thing a farce. Add that to Boro having a board member and an ex-player on the panel, the rushed timescale and the media campaign and the whole thing was a sham process.