The Spygate Saga

[Fabrice29]

10 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. 

I have no idea what a suitable punishment is. Nor even if the FA will decide a punishment of any sort is due. But the idea that a ruling body would say ‘fair enough, the clubs been kicked out and he’s missed out on a potential shot at a bonus (not even an actual bonus, just a shot at it), no further action’ is daft. The club being kicked out is not a punishment for the individual which is evident by you correctly stating it’s the club that’s been kicked out.

Any internal repercussions or side effects of people missing an opportunity are exactly that. No reputable organisation would conclude that a company being punished is the same as an individual.

[egg]

3 minutes ago, benjii said:

"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.

We'll agree to differ. We were clearly going to punished on the intent, not the actual benefit. The Bielsa comparison isn't, and has been done to death. 

Sure, the punishment wasn't laid out, but trying to gain a sporting advantage can only sensibly be met with a sporting sanction. One of our many failings was not giving the panel a credible alternative to the fine that we were never going to get. 

I also see the process complaint as a red herring. The bloke who played a few times at Boro didn't have a conflict of interests, although having him there was unfortunate and doesn't look clever. The single biggest issue with the panel was our approach - non specialist solicitors, non specialist counsel (who was sacked post panel and pre appeal - must have been shit), calling the kid to give evidence, downplaying the offences and seeking either a fine or a fine, etc. 

We stitched ourselves up far more than anyone stitched us up. 

[Midfield_General]

10 minutes ago, trousers said:

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. 

We didn't just spy on one game.

It was Middlesbrough, Oxford and Ipswich, and those were only the ones we admitted to. 

It wasn't a one-off mistake, it was a premeditated pattern of behaviour, which is one of the reasons they're coming down so hard on us. 

[egg]

16 minutes ago, trousers said:

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. 

That could have worked if done between the first and second legs, but not after both legs imo.

Regardless, we needed to give the panel an alternative to consider and failed to do that. I'm unsure who decided on the strategy, but it was plain daft to leave the panel with expulsion as the only option if they (inevitably) didn't go with the fine suggestion. 

[Scummer]

One thing I don't understand, why is it only Tonda who has been charged? Surely the head of the scouting department is as responsible? Probably more so as the direct line manager of Salt. It feels like they just went for the headline-grabbing charge.

[IFHP]

Parsons stitched us up by the way he’s handled spygate from the moment news 1st broke.

The prick is still at it, he’s going on like we are the victims when in fact we are the accused- and a guilty one at that.

[Scummer]

8 minutes ago, egg said:

That could have worked if done between the first and second legs, but not after both legs imo.

 

That's on the EFL though. They knew about this before the first leg, they proposed throwing us out, why the hell did they let both matches happen?

[EssEffCee]

33 minutes ago, trousers said:

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. 

I said at the time they probably should have delayed the second leg to give themselves time to have that as an option. Couldn't really happen after it had been played in my view.

I do wonder though if they consider a two legged tie as a single entity but that's just speculation on my part and not necessarily my opinion.

[The Kraken]

8 minutes ago, Scummer said:

One thing I don't understand, why is it only Tonda who has been charged? Surely the head of the scouting department is as responsible? Probably more so as the direct line manager of Salt. It feels like they just went for the headline-grabbing charge.

I’ve said this before. The analysis team should have the autonomy to say “we’re not doing that, it’s not allowed in the laws of the game”. Whether Tonda demanded it of them, or they just simply acquiesced, is irrelevant. The analysis management who sent Salt up there are equally culpable. In fact probably more so, they should know for certain what the laws of the game are regarding analysis and should never, ever knowingly break those laws.

[LordHester]

40 minutes ago, egg said:

The Bielsa comparison isn't, and has been done to death. 

The Bielsa incident is the last time that the FA dealt with a manager who arranged spying on another team. In what way is that not relevant?

[Saint86]

16 minutes ago, The Kraken said:

I’ve said this before. The analysis team should have the autonomy to say “we’re not doing that, it’s not allowed in the laws of the game”. Whether Tonda demanded it of them, or they just simply acquiesced, is irrelevant. The analysis management who sent Salt up there are equally culpable. In fact probably more so, they should know for certain what the laws of the game are regarding analysis and should never, ever knowingly break those laws.

Didn't the head of the scouting and analysis team leave the club immediately after we were kicked out? I would say the rot was significantly within that team regardless - they weren't all junior interns and they have all been in the English game long enough to know the rules. Those messages that were leaked were all internal to the analysis team - "nice one mate, the boss loved it" were internal communications showing their own team instructing Salt end of the day.

[trousers]

54 minutes ago, Midfield_General said:

We didn't just spy on one game.

It was Middlesbrough, Oxford and Ipswich, and those were only the ones we admitted to. 

It wasn't a one-off mistake, it was a premeditated pattern of behaviour, which is one of the reasons they're coming down so hard on us. 

Yes, but thats already been covered by the EFL's separate punishments... i.e. chucked out of the play off semi-final for the Middlesbrough spying, and docked 2 points each (carried forward to this season) for the Oxford and Ipswich spying. 

I'm simply saying that (in my opinion) a more proportionate 'sporting sanction' option was available for the play off semi-final (i.e. forfeit the first leg 3-0 instead of outright explusion)

Edited 2 hours ago by trousers

[trousers]

42 minutes ago, egg said:

That could have worked if done between the first and second legs, but not after both legs imo.

Yes, agree... It was something the EFL could've instigated between the legs, but they chose not to...

Edited 2 hours ago by trousers

[Graffito]

35 minutes ago, egg said:

We'll agree to differ. We were clearly going to punished on the intent, not the actual benefit. The Bielsa comparison isn't, and has been done to death. 

Sure, the punishment wasn't laid out, but trying to gain a sporting advantage can only sensibly be met with a sporting sanction. One of our many failings was not giving the panel a credible alternative to the fine that we were never going to get. 

I also see the process complaint as a red herring. The bloke who played a few times at Boro didn't have a conflict of interests, although having him there was unfortunate and doesn't look clever. The single biggest issue with the panel was our approach - non specialist solicitors, non specialist counsel (who was sacked post panel and pre appeal - must have been shit), calling the kid to give evidence, downplaying the offences and seeking either a fine or a fine, etc. 

We stitched ourselves up far more than anyone stitched us up. 

If the EFL were serious about deterring, post Bielsa, observation of training sessions they should have set out the sanctions in clear terms alongside the new rule, for those that are unable to think through the consequences of their actions, as they do for other serious breaches of the rules. In your example earlier, if we all know that driving at over 70mph brings a life term we don’t do it. The EFL didn’t set out the sanctions so it’s a moot point but they are not blameless in this.
 

Secondly, points deductions are sporting sanctions (as are fines if they are sufficiently hefty in relation to the wealth of the club). They could have imposed a points deduction and large fine for the Middlesborough offence as there is now provision to apply these in the PL in the event that Saints were promoted.

[trousers]

34 minutes ago, Scummer said:

One thing I don't understand, why is it only Tonda who has been charged? Surely the head of the scouting department is as responsible? Probably more so as the direct line manager of Salt. It feels like they just went for the headline-grabbing charge.

Yep, I've always wondered that too... Maybe that's something the FA could pursue retrospectively, once they've sanctioned the 'ringleader'...?

[The Kraken]

Just now, trousers said:

Yes, agree... It was something the EFL could've instigated between the legs, but they chose not to...

With the docking of 6 points (reduced to 4) for the two league games, they’ve set something of a precedent. Though, given the season was over and reversing those results against Oxford and Ipswich would have made no difference whatsoever to our playoff status, perhaps there’s room in future for a 3-0 if the spying is identified straight away.

[trousers]

8 minutes ago, LordHester said:

The Bielsa incident is the last time that the FA dealt with a manager who arranged spying on another team. In what way is that not relevant?

"Coz there's a new EFL rule, innit?"

[LordHester]

4 minutes ago, trousers said:

"Coz there's a new EFL rule, innit?"

There is? Surprised we haven't heard more about it.

[The Kraken]

12 minutes ago, Saint86 said:

Didn't the head of the scouting and analysis team leave the club immediately after we were kicked out? I would say the rot was significantly within that team regardless - they weren't all junior interns and they have all been in the English game long enough to know the rules. Those messages that were leaked were all internal to the analysis team - "nice one mate, the boss loved it" were internal communications showing their own team instructing Salt end of the day.

I don’t think he was the head, was he? Just a senior analyst who was recruited earlier in the year. Certainly there must be a big chance the things are related though.

[egg]

7 minutes ago, Graffito said:

If the EFL were serious about deterring, post Bielsa, observation of training sessions they should have set out the sanctions in clear terms alongside the new rule, for those that are unable to think through the consequences of their actions, as they do for other serious breaches of the rules. In your example earlier, if we all know that driving at over 70mph brings a life term we don’t do it. The EFL didn’t set out the sanctions so it’s a moot point but they are not blameless in this.
 

Secondly, points deductions are sporting sanctions (as are fines if they are sufficiently hefty in relation to the wealth of the club). They could have imposed a points deduction and large fine for the Middlesborough offence as there is now provision to apply these in the PL in the event that Saints were promoted.

The 70 mph example wasn't mine. 

I disagree that the EFL could be expected to set out sanctions for every breach...who would reasonably foresee that a club would be so stupid as to do this prior to a play off game and set a sanction just in case someone is so daft? If it was 3 games mid season the outcome would be very different.

Sometimes offences need to be taken on their own facts and circumstances. 

[Sparkkyy]

Heard a rumour the punishment will be litter picking for Tonda around Rockliffe Park November 26th AM. Just reporting what i've been told. 

[egg]

8 minutes ago, trousers said:

"Coz there's a new EFL rule, innit?"

New is irrelevant,but yep, there was a rule. 

There's also the trivial matter of us trying to cheat in the play off first leg to give us a chance to sew up the tie. I'm not sure Bielsa did that. 

[VectisSaint]

1 hour ago, 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. 

We never got to that game, the 3rd spying incident was before the semi-final 1st leg, which as far as I'm aware does not have any prize at all. Sorry if that's a bit MLG.

[LordHester]

3 minutes ago, egg said:

There's also the trivial matter of us trying to cheat in the play off first leg to give us a chance to sew up the tie. I'm not sure Bielsa did that. 

As you've said earlier, he'll get punished on the intent, not the benefit. And Bielsa spied systematically on all teams for half a season up to the point where they were caught, as opposed to the three occasions that Tonda has been charged with.

[The Kraken]

3 minutes ago, egg said:

The 70 mph example wasn't mine. 

I disagree that the EFL could be expected to set out sanctions for every breach...who would reasonably foresee that a club would be so stupid as to do this prior to a play off game and set a sanction just in case someone is so daft? If it was 3 games mid season the outcome would be very different.

Sometimes offences need to be taken on their own facts and circumstances. 

Yep. Punishment doesn’t necessarily have to be pre-determined. It’s better when it actually is but there also needs to be some flexibility. Say, for instance (entirely hypothetically), there was only a one off instance of spying, it was in the league, and it involved one scout doing it off his own back and entirely without the knowledge of the club, one would think that might have a different (lower) level of punishment despite it being a very similar offence.

[egg]

Just now, VectisSaint said:

We never got to that game, the 3rd spying incident was before the semi-final 1st leg, which as far as I'm aware does not have any prize at all. Sorry if that's a bit MLG.

Of course, but trying to get an advantage to get us there was precisely what we were trying to do. 

[egg]

1 minute ago, LordHester said:

As you've said earlier, he'll get punished on the intent, not the benefit. And Bielsa spied systematically on all teams for half a season up to the point where they were caught, as opposed to the three occasions that Tonda has been charged with.

Ever decreasing circles. It's obvious what we were trying to achieve, and that the timing of the last offence magnified the seriousness, hence the punishment. The Bielsa comparison has been done to death. You see it as relevant, I don't. No amount of discussion will change our views. 

[LordHester]

1 minute ago, egg said:

The Bielsa comparison has been done to death. You see it as relevant, I don't. No amount of discussion will change our views.

To be clear, are you saying you think it's not relevant just because there's a new EFL rule? Or is there more to it than that?

[egg]

3 minutes ago, The Kraken said:

Yep. Punishment doesn’t necessarily have to be pre-determined. It’s better when it actually is but there also needs to be some flexibility. Say, for instance (entirely hypothetically), there was only a one off instance of spying, it was in the league, and it involved one scout doing it off his own back and entirely without the knowledge of the club, one would think that might have a different (lower) level of punishment despite it being a very similar offence.

Any tariff would have a range, say slap on wrists to expulsion, but nobody could seriously expect a tariff to set out specific penalties depending on the fixture, that's just daft.

You can't, for example, say it's a 2 point deduction if it's for a 6 pointer in the last 4 games of the season where it really matters, but only a slap on the wrists if done early in the season, a point if midway. but expulsion if pre play off semi or final. That's just overly prescribed. The facts, circumstances and timing have to determine the punishment. 

We've now set the punishment precedent, and anyone else doing it will argue against that yardstick. 

[egg]

2 minutes ago, LordHester said:

To be clear, are you saying you think it's not relevant just because there's a new EFL rule? Or is there more to it than that?

Forget "new". There's a rule. There's also that we didn't cooperate - twice, but primarily the timing pre play off semi. It's just not comparable imo. 

[Turkish]

1 hour ago, Midfield_General said:

We didn't just spy on one game.

It was Middlesbrough, Oxford and Ipswich, and those were only the ones we admitted to. 

It wasn't a one-off mistake, it was a premeditated pattern of behaviour, which is one of the reasons they're coming down so hard on us. 

We only did it three times though bro, much like our parents only shagged 3 times because they've only got 3 kids.

[LordHester]

5 minutes ago, egg said:

Forget "new". There's a rule. There's also that we didn't cooperate - twice, but primarily the timing pre play off semi. It's just not comparable imo. 

Fair enough, appreciate you clarifying. For what it's worth, I think that conflates the charge against the club ('we' didn't co-operate) already dealt with by the EFL, with the charge against Tonda by the FA. Hopefully we'll find out one way or another soon enough ...

[egg]

7 minutes ago, Turkish said:

We only did it three times though bro, much like our parents only shagged 3 times because they've only got 3 kids.

🤣😂🤣

[Midfield_General]

38 minutes ago, Turkish said:

We only did it three times though bro, much like our parents only shagged 3 times because they've only got 3 kids.

Quite. 

Edited 1 hour ago by Midfield_General

[Toussaint]

I think we’ll get our four points reinstated and a grovelling apology, which we will not accept but instead will successfully sue the EFL and the FA. We will then build a 70000 seat stadium and within three years win the champions league. 

[Cuddles]

11 minutes ago, Toussaint said:

I think we’ll get our four points reinstated and a grovelling apology, which we will not accept but instead will successfully sue the EFL and the FA. We will then build a 70000 seat stadium and within three years win the champions league. 

Yes but will there be a monkey chicken petting zoo?

[Midfield_General]

14 minutes ago, Toussaint said:

We will then build a 70000 seat stadium and within three years win the champions league. 

Calling @Turkish to stamp on this dream 

[qwertyell]

7 hours ago, Charlie Wayman said:

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. 

"They wouldn't be selling tickets for the final if we were about to be kicked out."

[Toussaint]

14 minutes ago, Cuddles said:

Yes but will there be a monkey chicken petting zoo?

If it’s important to you I can manifest it for you, I’ve listened to several podcasts and watched several YouTube videos and find myself pretty damn confident I can shift reality, time and space anywhere I please. 

[Doctoroncall]

1 hour ago, egg said:

Forget "new". There's a rule. There's also that we didn't cooperate - twice, but primarily the timing pre play off semi. It's just not comparable imo. 

Not sure about didn’t cooperate. Certainly didn’t get the story straight for the report which had the 24 hour deadline - should not have guessed and kept to the known facts at the time, with details to follow. 

the points were reduced from six to four. Was that not for cooperation and telling all?

[LordHester]

8 minutes ago, qwertyell said:

"They wouldn't be selling tickets for the final if we were about to be kicked out."

True but, rightly or wrongly, there is not the time pressure on this decision as there was when the EFL made their judgement.

[Graffito]

1 hour ago, egg said:

The 70 mph example wasn't mine. 

I disagree that the EFL could be expected to set out sanctions for every breach...who would reasonably foresee that a club would be so stupid as to do this prior to a play off game and set a sanction just in case someone is so daft? If it was 3 games mid season the outcome would be very different.

Sometimes offences need to be taken on their own facts and circumstances. 

Apologies for pinning the 70mph on you.
 

Likewise, I didn’t say “the EFL could be expected to set out sanctions for every rule breach”. That’s just not practical. But for serious offences where the sanction is so draconian and which many in football have said is wholly disproportionate, the punishment should have been clear and unambiguous and introduced with the rule. IMO.

“Who could reasonably foresee that a club would have been so stupid etc…”, well a club was stupid enough to do it and I don’t believe it’s the only club that’s been observing training sessions. Could all have been avoided had the EFL set out the penalty with the rule.

I’m not sure about this timing point either. A rule breach is a rule breach no matter when it occurs, isn’t it?

[egg]

9 minutes ago, Doctoroncall said:

Not sure about didn’t cooperate. Certainly didn’t get the story straight for the report which had the 24 hour deadline - should not have guessed and kept to the known facts at the time, with details to follow. 

the points were reduced from six to four. Was that not for cooperation and telling all?

We misled them, twice I believe. That's not co-operation. 

I think the panel went strong on the points to allow the appeal tribunal something to give us. 

[Willo of Whiteley]

Olly Lancashire promoted on the youth set up.

The dominoes are starting to fall into place.

Lallana and Garner double act incoming!

[Farmer Saint]

Should be a suspended sentence and a fine.

[egg]

9 minutes ago, Graffito said:

Apologies for pinning the 70mph on you.
 

Likewise, I didn’t say “the EFL could be expected to set out sanctions for every rule breach”. That’s just not practical. But for serious offences where the sanction is so draconian and which many in football have said is wholly disproportionate, the punishment should have been clear and unambiguous and introduced with the rule. IMO.

“Who could reasonably foresee that a club would have been so stupid etc…”, well a club was stupid enough to do it and I don’t believe it’s the only club that’s been observing training sessions. Could all have been avoided had the EFL set out the penalty with the rule.

I’m not sure about this timing point either. A rule breach is a rule breach no matter when it occurs, isn’t it?

In reverse. 

Timing, and context, makes all the difference. You're not suggesting that doing what we did pre Boro in the play off semis is no different to doing it in a mid season game?

Re the rest, I don't pretend to know the EFL rules, but I suspect they set out a range of punishments for breach. For this, I'm not sure you can have anything other than a very broad range, with each case then assessed on it's facts and circumstances. 

However you cut it, we were seeking an advantage to gain a massive prize, and that was always going to get a massive punishment. 

[sadoldgit]

2 hours ago, Scummer said:

One thing I don't understand, why is it only Tonda who has been charged? Surely the head of the scouting department is as responsible? Probably more so as the direct line manager of Salt. It feels like they just went for the headline-grabbing charge.

Also the people carrying out the spying acts? The “only following orders” defence was discredited a long time ago.

This is one of my many problems with the way this matter has been dealt with so far. The club were hammered last season. The club have also be punished this year. The club could now be punished again this season by losing its manager for a period of time. 

[Fabrice29]

8 minutes ago, sadoldgit said:

Also the people carrying out the spying acts? The “only following orders” defence was discredited a long time ago.

This is one of my many problems with the way this matter has been dealt with so far. The club were hammered last season. The club have also be punished this year. The club could now be punished again this season by losing its manager for a period of time. 

It’s two different organisations doing the punishing though. The FA are not going to leave it because the EFL have already done something.

Thats aside from the obvious fact that an individual also doesn’t get waved through with zero repercussions just because it’s already indirectly affected him. Whatever happens here, and it could well be zero punishment at all, it’s not going to be cause a different organisation already punished Tondas employers who have subsequently left Tonda in charge.

If they do punish Tonda and it affects the club, it’s because the club have left him in charge. (Which they have chosen to do and have briefed that it won’t have a big affect, so fingers crossed that comes through). If we didn’t want it to affect us as a club again, we could have removed him ourselves but we’ve obviously assessed its worth it. 

Edited 26 minutes ago by Fabrice29

[egg]

20 minutes ago, Willo of Whiteley said:

Olly Lancashire promoted on the youth set up.

The dominoes are starting to fall into place.

Lallana and Garner double act incoming!

Eek.

I think there's another ex youth lad as part of the first team coaching setup. Can't think who though. 

[Scummer]

8 minutes ago, Fabrice29 said:

If we didn’t want it to affect us as a club again, we could have removed him ourselves 

Because of course, sacking him wouldn't have had any impact on the club as we'd have been guaranteed to replace him with someone even better....