The Spygate Saga

[Teamsaint1]

36 minutes ago, Fabrice29 said:

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. 

SFC and all the individuals concerned  have suffered significant penalties, and of course the EFL operates under the FA.

I get that the FA felt that they needed to investigate individuals ,( why only TE BTW )  and snails pace apparently being appropriate,  but unless they turned up something really serious in terms of bullying or further club rule breaking , and given the Bielsa precedent ( charges not brought even  for a whole season of the same offence) there is no justification whatsoever for further significant punishment. A heavy slap on the  wrist is the most that should happen, not least because the deterrent to other clubs is now well understood.

If the club felt that TE had been punished far enough ( by the EFL sanctions and any internal sanctions)  for his involvement, they were well within their rights  not to sack him  just because there was an entirely unjustified FA threat hanging over them and him. And they would have been right to take that stand in those circumstances. 

Edited 4 hours ago by Teamsaint1
added Just

[saintant]

55 minutes ago, Farmer Saint said:

Should be a suspended sentence and a fine.

Agree.

[saintant]

1 hour ago, egg said:

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. 

Playing devil's advocate where does diving to win a penalty that proves to be the winning goal in a play-off semi-final thus gaining a huge advantage to gain a massive prize sit as against a bit of spying that gains little or no advantage? Both offences are clearly against EFL rules. Not aiming this at you personally just wondering out loud.

Edited 4 hours ago by saintant

[egg]

10 minutes ago, saintant said:

Playing devil's advocate where does diving to win a penalty that proves to be the winning goal in a play-off semi-final thus gaining a huge advantage to gain a massive prize sit as against a bit of spying that gains little or no advantage? Both offences are clearly against EFL rules. Not aiming this at you personally just wondering out loud.

There's a world of a difference between something done in the field of play in the spur of the moment, and planned cheating on 3 occasions. 

Edited 4 hours ago by egg

[saintant]

7 minutes ago, egg said:

There's a world of a difference between something done in the field of play in the spur of the moment, and planned cheating on 3 occasions. 

Agree, one affects the result of a game and the other doesn't. Both are premeditated by the way.

Edited 4 hours ago by saintant

[egg]

4 minutes ago, saintant said:

Agree, one affects the result of a game and the other doesn't. Both are premeditated by the way.

They're worlds apart, and I'm staggered that anyone seriously thinks there's equivalent premeditation between going down in a situation in a football match that you can't foresee, and sending people to watch other teams training, x 3.

Bizarre. 

[saintant]

1 minute ago, egg said:

They're worlds apart, and I'm staggered that anyone seriously thinks there's equivalent premeditation between going down in a situation in a football match that you can't foresee, and sending people to watch other teams training, x 3.

Bizarre. 

Not sure I understand this bit.

[egg]

3 minutes ago, saintant said:

Not sure I understand this bit.

You can't plan when to dive in a football match. You can plan when to spy. 

Seriously mate, you're comparing a carrot to a steak here. 

[Lighthouse]

17 minutes ago, egg said:

There's a world of a difference between something done in the field of play in the spur of the moment, and planned cheating on 3 occasions. 

I wouldn’t bother. This point has already been explained ad nauseam but a lot of people don’t seem to want to believe it.

[saintant]

1 minute ago, egg said:

You can't plan when to dive in a football match. You can plan when to spy. 

Seriously mate, you're comparing a carrot to a steak here. 

A dive, by nature, is planned. If not surely it wouldn't be classed as a dive. That's how I see it anyway. 

[egg]

Just now, saintant said:

A dive, by nature, is planned. If not surely it wouldn't be classed as a dive. That's how I see it anyway. 

I'll leave it mate. I can't be going round in circles with someone who'll only see what he wants to see. 

[saintant]

2 minutes ago, Lighthouse said:

I wouldn’t bother. This point has already been explained ad nauseam but a lot of people don’t seem to want to believe it.

Ever thought it could be just a simple case of some people not agreeing to it? Differing opinions are allowed.

[Teamsaint1]

Just now, saintant said:

Ever thought it could be just a simple case of some people not agreeing to it? Differing opinions are allowed.

I agree with you. Plenty of players will plan to dive if they feel a touch . Whether that is premeditated is a question of semantics.  Same as turning up to an opposition training ground with the intention of photographing if they get an opportunity, but not knowing for sure that they will.   

[Harry_SFC]

17 minutes ago, saintant said:

A dive, by nature, is planned. If not surely it wouldn't be classed as a dive. That's how I see it anyway. 

Yep, like Jamie Vardy and Harry Kane. They are both divers by nature. 

[Midfield_General]

Let’s say it wasn’t us. Let’s say it had been Pompey who had been doing it, had been caught, and had admitted to it. Would everyone still be putting these arguments forward? 

Edited 3 hours ago by Midfield_General

[Graffito]

1 hour ago, egg said:

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. 

So what might the punishment have been had Boro won the second leg? You can’t throw a team out of a competition if they’re already out, but the team still sought a massive advantage, as you put it. 

(I take it that “in reverse” is your apology for misquoting me. Thanks).

[LordHester]

Just now, Midfield_General said:

Let’s say it wasn’t us. Let’s say Pompey had been caught doing the same thing. Would everyone still be putting these arguments forward? 

No, because this is the Saints' forum. We'd just be taking the piss out of Pompey.

[LordHester]

1 hour ago, Teamsaint1 said:

and given the Bielsa precedent

Don't mention the Bielsa precedent! I mentioned it once, but I think I got away with it.

[Midfield_General]

6 minutes ago, LordHester said:

No, because this is the Saints' forum. We'd just be taking the piss out of Pompey.

So what you’re saying is, people are just trying to think of reasons we should get out of it because it’s their team it happened to. It’s not a neutral, objective view. Which rather undermines the arguments, especially when so many people on here are frothing about objectivity, fairness and so on. 

Edited 3 hours ago by Midfield_General

[badgerx16]

Is The Bielsa Precedent a low budget reboot of the Jason Bourne films ?

[LordHester]

4 minutes ago, Midfield_General said:

So what you’re saying is, people are just trying to think of reasons we should get out of it because it’s their team it happened to. It’s not a neutral, objective view. Which rather undermines the arguments, especially when so many people on here are frothing about objectivity, bias and so on. 

No, that's what *you're* saying. I can see that you're confused, but I'm happy to help with your befuddlement.

[LordHester]

4 minutes ago, badgerx16 said:

Is The Bielsa Precedent a low budget reboot of the Jason Bourne films ?

[Charlie Wayman]

VE Day tomorrow? 

 

(Verdict on Eckert)

[egg]

18 minutes ago, Graffito said:

So what might the punishment have been had Boro won the second leg? You can’t throw a team out of a competition if they’re already out, but the team still sought a massive advantage, as you put it. 

(I take it that “in reverse” is your apology for misquoting me. Thanks).

Had Boro beaten us the sanction would have been points this season. I think that's a given.

Having beaten Boro, they couldn't have given us points simply because had we won at Wembley, those points wouldn't have been imposed in the PL, and we'd essentially have escaped any penalty. 

That, essentially, is where our legal team got it wrong. They offered the panel no alternative sporting penalty to the expulsion. 

[Teamsaint1]

21 minutes ago, Midfield_General said:

So what you’re saying is, people are just trying to think of reasons we should get out of it because it’s their team it happened to. It’s not a neutral, objective view. Which rather undermines the arguments, especially when so many people on here are frothing about objectivity, fairness and so on. 

We didn’t get out of it.

[LGTL]

Bit of talk of a 6 month full football ban unfortunately. 

Edited 3 hours ago by LGTL

[AlexLaw76]

I see we are being prep’d for a significant ban.

[hypochondriac]

13 minutes ago, LGTL said:

Bit of talk of a 6 month full football ban unfortunately. 

From the sun?

[trousers]

14 minutes ago, LGTL said:

Bit of talk of a 6 month full football ban unfortunately. 

 

5 minutes ago, AlexLaw76 said:

I see we are being prep’d for a significant ban.

Source(s) please gents 👍🏻

But if it does turn out to be a 6 month total ban then I get to play my "told you so" card... Every cloud...

Edited 3 hours ago by trousers

[Willo of Whiteley]

Imagine the predicament:

- Tonda six month ban - club look ridiculous 

- Do they then stick with Tonda for when he comes back?

- SR look further ridiculous appointing Lallana/Garner to management positions

- Alienate the fanbase to point of no return with no established manager

- Do players respond and play well? Or does the season effectively tank?

- If the players play well under interim manager, what happens to Tonda?

- If we’re serious about promotion does the club immediately cut ties with him, making them look further stupid after the summer?

- Who do the club go for realistically?

So many situations will arise regardless of the outcome.

[trousers]

1 minute ago, Willo of Whiteley said:

Imagine the predicament:

- Tonda six month ban - club look ridiculous 

- Do they then stick with Tonda for when he comes back?

- SR look further ridiculous appointing Lallana/Garner to management positions

- Alienate the fanbase to point of no return with no established manager

- Do players respond and play well? Or does the season effectively tank?

- If the players play well under interim manager, what happens to Tonda?

- If we’re serious about promotion does the club immediately cut ties with him, making them look further stupid after the summer?

- Who do the club go for realistically?

So many situations will arise regardless of the outcome.

I'm sure the dynamic Sport Republic response team have got it all in hand.... Fret ye not.... 

[Lee On Solent Saint]

With a six month ban, he's going to be practically out of contract at the end of it.

[trousers]

So is the talk of "6 months" based on this Sun article, which just says that it "could" be 6 months...?

Charlie Austin seems to have changed his tune too... He was wading in against us when it all kicked off, I seem to recall

 

 

Edited 2 hours ago by trousers

[Saint NL]

 

 

[Jack]

3 minutes ago, Saint NL said:

 

 

Who the fuck is this guy to speak for every manager in the football league. Clown just trying to make a name for himself

[Jack]

All this talk of a 6 month ban is just opinion and people speaking out of turn, pretending to be ITK or trying to get some press time. There have been no leaks at all from the FA through the whole process, it’s all just speculation. Just sit tight and wait for the hearing to take place 

[trousers]

6 minutes ago, Jack said:

Who the fuck is this guy to speak for every manager in the football league. Clown just trying to make a name for himself

The angel that is Neil Harris...

 

[Nieldy]

Next rumour will be telling us that Russell Martin has agreed to come back to take over from Tonda.

[benjii]

18 minutes ago, trousers said:

So is the talk of "6 months" based on this Sun article, which just says that it "could" be 6 months...?

Charlie Austin seems to have changed his tune too... He was wading in against us when it all kicked off, I seem to recall

 

 

"Saints icon..."

[ally_uk]

6 months then get Howe in 

[whelk]

Fuck off with your 6 month ban you melts. 

[EssEffCee]

19 minutes ago, ally_uk said:

6 months then get Howe in 

Howe? If you're hitting the crack pipe then it's considered rude to not pass it around.

[AlexLaw76]

21 minutes ago, ally_uk said:

6 months then get Howe in 

😝

[hypochondriac]

Sounds like the media is out in force tonight pushing for a harsh punishment.

[Colinjb]

3 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

Sounds like the media is out in force tonight pushing for a harsh punishment.

The Middlesbrough pushback.

[qwertyell]

1 hour ago, Saint NL said:

 

 

I thought everyone in football thinks it's all been overblown and a bit of a joke. 

Neil's obviously not getting his news from saintsweb. 

 

[sandwichsaint]

Happy to stick with my prediction from months ago,

4-6 games fair,

7-10 games harsh,

More than 10 games, ridiculously over the top.

When you consider the club have already been punished extremely harshly, and that punishment has been spread over two whole seasons, and taking account the Chelsea’s and Man City’s of this world, what on earth would be gained by suspending him for six months?

if they are looking at some sort of ‘pour discourager les autres’ approach I would imagine other clubs are now well aware of the penalties they potentially risk. 
 

[saintwbu]

17 minutes ago, qwertyell said:

I thought everyone in football thinks it's all been overblown and a bit of a joke. 

Neil's obviously not getting his news from saintsweb. 

 

He’s the first non Middlesbrough affiliated football figure i’ve seen suggesting significant ban. All Sky pundits i’ve seen comment on it have said it should be left alone now. 

[23rdSaint]

Anyone else listened to that episode of 72+? I worry if Jobi McAnuff has any part in the FA's panel. Blackmore also arse-licking the others: https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/p0pc1trf?partner=uk.co.bbc&origin=share-mobile

 

[hypochondriac]

17 minutes ago, sandwichsaint said:

Happy to stick with my prediction from months ago,

4-6 games fair,

7-10 games harsh,

More than 10 games, ridiculously over the top.

When you consider the club have already been punished extremely harshly, and that punishment has been spread over two whole seasons, and taking account the Chelsea’s and Man City’s of this world, what on earth would be gained by suspending him for six months?

if they are looking at some sort of ‘pour discourager les autres’ approach I would imagine other clubs are now well aware of the penalties they potentially risk. 
 

I agree. 3 games per charge. 6 games with three suspended for the  guilty plea and mitigating circumstances. That for me would be fair. Anything more than that and you'd be comparing him to people who have racially abused or assaulted people which would be ridiculous.