The Spygate Saga

[hypochondriac]

20 minutes ago, egg said:

I'm sticking with 8 - 12 games. I don't see anything more as justified. 

We could swallow that. I would guess at least a few suspended.

[hypochondriac]

20 minutes ago, LordHester said:

... and then give him a Pompey season ticket. It's the only language these people understand.

Steady on. 

[LiberalCommunist]

If this was six, it would have been done already. 

I think they have forced us into something today. Something unpleasant. 

[saintant]

32 minutes ago, Ted Bates Statue said:

I think it was in Tonda's apology video but Alfie House summarises things well in today's article (relevant extract below). Call me a naive idiot but it doesn't feel all that bad written down, when you ignore the hype about bullying and how deplorable it all was. Just stupidly amateurish.

 

Monday, May 4 – At a match-preparation meeting, Eckert asked whether it would be possible to watch Middlesbrough train. He was particularly interested in whether midfielder Hayden Hackney was fit.

Wednesday, May 6 – The intern flew to Middlesbrough. He was told Eckert was unhappy that he had not travelled on Tuesday in time to watch Wednesday’s training, but the first available flight had been on Wednesday.

Thursday, May 7, around 10.40am – The intern walked from his hotel to Middlesbrough’s training ground. First-team training began at 11.15am.

Do employees as lowly as interns really get to fly to somewhere like Middlesboro rather than go by car?

[sfc4prem]

2 minutes ago, LiberalCommunist said:

If this was six, it would have been done already. 

I think they have forced us into something today. Something unpleasant. 

Not sure I buy the 'if it were lenient it would've been done by now' take. The FA take their sweet fucking time with everything, it seems.

[sadoldgit]

2 hours ago, Lighthouse said:

The reason you’ve said it so many times is because you don’t like the answer, so you keep ignoring it. If the rule was nonsensical then there’d be no reason whatsoever to break it, but we did. We broke it three times, apparently by accident because the scouts arrived too late on all three occasions, completely by coincidence.

Not just me, plenty of people including seasoned pros. If the rule was sound why is it only the EFL who has it? As we know, it only came about because the EFL wanted to be seen as doing something about Leeds. No one else followed. No one in any league around the plant. Why? Because it was nonsense for the reasons previously explained. You can with spy or you can’t. The idea that it is ok depending on a timescale or which league you play in doesn’t make sense.

[Toadhall Saint]

1 minute ago, sfc4prem said:

Not sure I buy the 'if it were lenient it would've been done by now' take. The FA take their sweet fucking time with everything, it seems.

It’s their age. Can’t piss can’t sleep it all takes a toll. I keep getting pictures of old twats covered in dust when i think of the FA.

[The Kraken]

22 minutes ago, egg said:

I'm sticking with 8 - 12 games. I don't see anything more as justified. 

I don't quite see how they give a "middle-ground" punishment like that.  A season long ban, yes I get that.  Also a touchline ban I'd understand for that sort of duration; but as @Turkish has said before, it's hard to see how a touchline ban could be valid when the offence wasn't committed on the pitch.  I just don't see a ban where its "take a total break from football for 6-8 weeks then welcome back".

I think most likely it'll be something massive: a ban for minimum until the end of the season is what I can see coming.  Disproportionate, but the FA flexing their muscles and doing something significant, cos they can.

All fingers crossed it will be something at the other end of the scale, but my optimism for that has really waned in the past few days and I'm now considering that extremely unlikely.  To the point that I'm thinking our best outcome is the long suspension but that it is appealed immediately, Tonda is allowed to work during the appeal, and he appeal rumbles on for a few more months.

[hypochondriac]

5 minutes ago, sfc4prem said:

Not sure I buy the 'if it were lenient it would've been done by now' take. The FA take their sweet fucking time with everything, it seems.

Indeed. The Chelsea punishment took a while and they got off basically.

[hypochondriac]

1 minute ago, The Kraken said:

I don't quite see how they give a "middle-ground" punishment like that.  A season long ban, yes I get that.  Also a touchline ban I'd understand for that sort of duration; but as @Turkish has said before, it's hard to see how a touchline ban could be valid when the offence wasn't committed on the pitch.  I just don't see a ban where its "take a total break from football for 6-8 weeks then welcome back".

I think most likely it'll be something massive: a ban for minimum until the end of the season is what I can see coming.  Disproportionate, but the FA flexing their muscles and doing something significant, cos they can.

All fingers crossed it will be something at the other end of the scale, but my optimism for that has really waned in the past few days and I'm now considering that extremely unlikely.  To the point that I'm thinking our best outcome is the long suspension but that it is appealed immediately, Tonda is allowed to work during the appeal, and he appeal rumbles on for a few more months.

How would a season long ban be something you can get? It would be grossly disproportionate. They've also let him start the season which is even more mad.

[sadoldgit]

2 hours ago, obelisk said:

This saga had me wondering whether it's also even against the rules for an opponent to check which players are boarding a bus or aircraft when setting off to play a game. I suppose it must so be careful out there.

Maybe we will reach the point where players wear balaclavas and no longer have their names on shirts just in case the opposition get an unfair advantage if they know who they are playing against. As for publishing team sheets an hour before a game, how has that become acceptable? 

[sfc4prem]

1 minute ago, sadoldgit said:

The idea that it is ok depending on a timescale or which league you play in doesn’t make sense.

I think as soon as it is labelled 'cheating' and is seen as a blasphemous crime, the concept of it actually being okay if you do it a bit earlier makes it wholly farcical.

I understand that teams progressively train in a manner more akin to the next match the closer they get to it chronologically. I understand that is why the rule was made.

However, if it is a heinous act worthy of such public scrutiny and lampooning, then surely it should be outlawed full fucking stop. Black and fucking white. No grey. No timescale differentials.

The EFL can fuck right off. Whether the FA need to remains to be seen, should they be similarly harsh.

[sfc4prem]

3 minutes ago, Toadhall Saint said:

It’s their age. Can’t piss can’t sleep it all takes a toll. I keep getting pictures of old twats covered in dust when i think of the FA.

Like the old bankers from Mary Poppins. Bunch of white haired cockwombles with moths in their blazer pockets.

[Saint_lambden]

6 minutes ago, sfc4prem said:

Not sure I buy the 'if it were lenient it would've been done by now' take. The FA take their sweet fucking time with everything, it seems.

Yep. They’ve only just charged the Cardiff CB for the hand around the throat incident at Pompey and that was the beginning of September

[Toadhall Saint]

Just now, sfc4prem said:

Like the old bankers from Mary Poppins. Bunch of white haired cockwombles with moths in their blazer pockets.

Exactly that. So far from reality they might as well be sat on Mars.

[The Kraken]

Just now, hypochondriac said:

How would a season long ban be something you can get? It would be grossly disproportionate. They've also let him start the season which is even more mad.

I don't disagree with any of that, I'm not saying it makes sense, just the feeling I have about it.  It's all completely hat stand, and the fact it has been allowed to drag on anywhere near this long is an effing disgrace.  

[egg]

2 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

How would a season long ban be something you can get? It would be grossly disproportionate. They've also let him start the season which is even more mad.

Them being able to give it, but it being disproportionate, are different. It's a "they could, but they shouldn't" scenario. 

[saintant]

Wonder whether Tonda will be in charge for tomorrow's friendly with Villa.

[Toussaint]

Have the FA issued their apology yet?

[egg]

6 minutes ago, The Kraken said:

I don't quite see how they give a "middle-ground" punishment like that.  A season long ban, yes I get that.  Also a touchline ban I'd understand for that sort of duration; but as @Turkish has said before, it's hard to see how a touchline ban could be valid when the offence wasn't committed on the pitch.  I just don't see a ban where its "take a total break from football for 6-8 weeks then welcome back".

I think most likely it'll be something massive: a ban for minimum until the end of the season is what I can see coming.  Disproportionate, but the FA flexing their muscles and doing something significant, cos they can.

All fingers crossed it will be something at the other end of the scale, but my optimism for that has really waned in the past few days and I'm now considering that extremely unlikely.  To the point that I'm thinking our best outcome is the long suspension but that it is appealed immediately, Tonda is allowed to work during the appeal, and he appeal rumbles on for a few more months.

It's how I'd argue it. The Canada ban was 12 months, but in a situation where 8-12 games were likely to have been played.

Replicating the 12 months in domestic football puts the ban at 50+ games, which equates to 5 - 6 years of female international matches. 

That's how I see the Canadian precedent should be applied fairly. 

[Midfield_General]

3 minutes ago, sadoldgit said:

Not just me, plenty of people including seasoned pros. If the rule was sound why is it only the EFL who has it? As we know, it only came about because the EFL wanted to be seen as doing something about Leeds. No one else followed. No one in any league around the plant. Why? Because it was nonsense for the reasons previously explained. You can with spy or you can’t. The idea that it is ok depending on a timescale or which league you play in doesn’t make sense.

Why the rules exist, and whether you personally agree with them or not, is as completely irrelevant now as it was the 10,000 other times you've made the same point. 

Why the rules were put in place doesn't matter. What seasoned pros think doesn't matter. What other leagues and countries do, doesn't matter. Whether you personally agree with the rules about timescales doesn't matter. 

The rules were put in place by the governing body. The club broke them, multiple times. They got caught. They admitted to it. Now they're being punished. 

That's it. 

[sadoldgit]

4 minutes ago, sfc4prem said:

I think as soon as it is labelled 'cheating' and is seen as a blasphemous crime, the concept of it actually being okay if you do it a bit earlier makes it wholly farcical.

I understand that teams progressively train in a manner more akin to the next match the closer they get to it chronologically. I understand that is why the rule was made.

However, if it is a heinous act worthy of such public scrutiny and lampooning, then surely it should be outlawed full fucking stop. Black and fucking white. No grey. No timescale differentials.

The EFL can fuck right off. Whether the FA need to remains to be seen, should they be similarly harsh.

The timescale rule is why this makes no sense. As you say, it is black or white. There is no grey. If it is not ok to spy, just ban it all of the time for everybody.

As for Tonda being hammered for cheating, where do you draw the line? Is what he did any worse than diving for a penalty or trying to get an opponent sent off, both of which could have a bigger impact on the outcome of a match than watching a training session or knowing a bit earlier if a player is fit or not.

[Midfield_General]

8 minutes ago, sadoldgit said:

Maybe we will reach the point where players wear balaclavas and no longer have their names on shirts just in case the opposition get an unfair advantage if they know who they are playing against. As for publishing team sheets an hour before a game, how has that become acceptable? 

Because it's allowed in the rules? The ones that are written down clearly, published, and that everyone is told to follow? 

[sadoldgit]

3 minutes ago, Midfield_General said:

Why the rules exist, and whether you personally agree with them or not, is as completely irrelevant now as it was the 10,000 other times you've made the same point. 

Why the rules were put in place doesn't matter. What seasoned pros think doesn't matter. What other leagues and countries do, doesn't matter. Whether you personally agree with the rules about timescales doesn't matter. 

The rules were put in place by the governing body. The club broke them, multiple times. They got caught. They admitted to it. Now they're being punished. 

That's it. 

One word. Proportionality.

[The Kraken]

1 minute ago, egg said:

It's how I'd argue it. The Canada ban was 12 months, but in a situation where 8-12 games were likely to have been played.

Replicating the 12 months in domestic football puts the ban at 50+ games, which equates to 5 - 6 years of female international matches. 

That's how I see the Canadian precedent should be applied fairly. 

Yeah, that's originally how I considered it could go, basing on the Canada ban.  But, I don't know, somehow I just feel the actual duration would be more important to them than equating the number of games.  A year or a season, I just see more likely.  The only good thing is, I have absolutely no basis in fact for feeling that, so hopefully I'm waaaaay off beam with what they intend to do.

[hypochondriac]

3 minutes ago, egg said:

It's how I'd argue it. The Canada ban was 12 months, but in a situation where 8-12 games were likely to have been played.

Replicating the 12 months in domestic football puts the ban at 50+ games, which equates to 5 - 6 years of female international matches. 

That's how I see the Canadian precedent should be applied fairly. 

It was also a fifa ban not fa and involved a fair amount of pre planning and preparation which should be an aggravating factor compared to what happened in this case.

[sfc4prem]

3 minutes ago, Midfield_General said:

Why the rules exist, and whether you personally agree with them or not, is as completely irrelevant now as it was the 10,000 other times you've made the same point. 

Why the rules were put in place doesn't matter. What seasoned pros think doesn't matter. What other leagues and countries do, doesn't matter. Whether you personally agree with the rules about timescales doesn't matter. 

The rules were put in place by the governing body. The club broke them, multiple times. They got caught. They admitted to it. Now they're being punished. 

That's it. 

So what you're saying is... any discussion on a football forum is just pissing into the wind? 

There's no point to this thread at all? Is that it? Blimey, what a waste of time.

[sadoldgit]

4 minutes ago, Midfield_General said:

Because it's allowed in the rules? The ones that are written down clearly, published, and that everyone is told to follow? 

So because some rules are written down, we can’t question their legitimacy or the level of punishment in proportion to the rule broken?

Other teams have committed far more serious breach of rules and have not received the level of punishment that we have (which is the main point here).

Edited 1 hour ago by sadoldgit

[LordHester]

4 minutes ago, Midfield_General said:

The rules were put in place by the governing body. The club broke them, multiple times. They got caught. They admitted to it. Now they're being punished. 

At risk of opening this up again - the club have already been punished under the rules put in place. That bit's done and dusted.

Tonda has been charged under rules that haven't changed in some time.

[sotonjoe]

2 hours ago, hypochondriac said:

When Tonda gets his twelve month ban, I want the echo to find kirk from corrie and his dad and do a recreation of the classic photo.

They won't have to look very far. The two blokes in that picture are immediate family of one of the current Echo writers.

[Midfield_General]

3 minutes ago, sfc4prem said:

So what you're saying is... any discussion on a football forum is just pissing into the wind? 

There's no point to this thread at all? Is that it? Blimey, what a waste of time.

No, I'm saying that crying after the event about how unfair or stupid the rules are, that were clear for everyone to see, is a total waste of time and totally missing the point. 

Whether the punishment fits the crime is a separate issue entirely. 

But whatever. Knock yourselves out. 

Edited 1 hour ago by Midfield_General

[Whitey Grandad]

6 minutes ago, sadoldgit said:

The timescale rule is why this makes no sense. As you say, it is black or white. There is no grey. If it is not ok to spy, just ban it all of the time for everybody.

As for Tonda being hammered for cheating, where do you draw the line? Is what he did any worse than diving for a penalty or trying to get an opponent sent off, both of which could have a bigger impact on the outcome of a match than watching a training session or knowing a bit earlier if a player is fit or not.

But why just Tonda?

[sfc4prem]

1 minute ago, Midfield_General said:

No, I'm saying that crying after the event about how unfair the rules are, that were clear for everyone to see, is a total waste of time and totally missing the point. 

Whether the punishment fits the crime is a separate issue entirely. 

But whatever. Knock yourselves out. 

So rules is rules and shouldn't be critiqued? Whatever the big man says goes? Don't whine about it and carry on?

[LordHester]

1 minute ago, sfc4prem said:

So rules is rules and shouldn't be critiqued? Whatever the big man says goes? Don't whine about it and carry on?

We'd be in much stronger place to complain about rules being crap if we hadn't just broken them. 

[LGTL]

Beginning to think sending that analyst up to Middlesbrough might not have been the best idea. 

[LordHester]

1 minute ago, LGTL said:

Beginning to think sending that analyst up to Middlesbrough might not have been the best idea. 

When this is all over, we should try and find out who was responsible.

[sfc4prem]

1 minute ago, LGTL said:

Beginning to think sending that analyst up to Middlesbrough might not have been the best idea. 

Why did you do it, Tonda? Why?!?!

[Sunglasses Ron]

2 minutes ago, LGTL said:

Beginning to think sending that analyst up to Middlesbrough might not have been the best idea. 

We won the play-off tie didn't we? Sheeesh!

[egg]

12 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

It was also a fifa ban not fa and involved a fair amount of pre planning and preparation which should be an aggravating factor compared to what happened in this case.

I think there's similar pre planning here. Our offence looks more amateur than using drones, but the similarities are there - observing without being seen, and attempting to record. 

[hippo]

I bumped into Tonda in Wembley box park at lunchtime, whilst the hearing was in recess. He was having a pitcher of Blue Lagoon and said Bob Mortimer and Stewart Downing were on the panel. 
 

He had a tag on. 

[egg]

5 minutes ago, LGTL said:

Beginning to think sending that analyst up to Middlesbrough might not have been the best idea. 

Boom!! 

[West end Saints]

22 minutes ago, Midfield_General said:

Why the rules exist, and whether you personally agree with them or not, is as completely irrelevant now as it was the 10,000 other times you've made the same point. 

Why the rules were put in place doesn't matter. What seasoned pros think doesn't matter. What other leagues and countries do, doesn't matter. Whether you personally agree with the rules about timescales doesn't matter. 

The rules were put in place by the governing body. The club broke them, multiple times. They got caught. They admitted to it. Now they're being punished. 

That's it. 

The ambiguous bit is that the FA have not decided this action needs to be banned, (think I am correct but not read everything on this ).

Their 20 highest profile managers would not be breaking a rule.

Hence EFL already punished us  and this being a disrepute vague charge.

I would not be surprised with any punishment suggested, but do wonder how justified a huge punishment can be (by them) when it's not deemed worthy of being against their rules?

Also, whilst not seeking to play down how bad / stupid it was, I struggle with the outrage some show with the cheat label - as do feel that many of these players / managers will have cheated themselves

Edited 52 minutes ago by West end Saints

[trousers]

2 hours ago, egg said:

Significantly more than the mooted 6 months. Significantly. 

Bat shit crazy (not you, a sanction that disproportionate)

[VectisSaint]

11 minutes ago, LordHester said:

At risk of opening this up again - the club have already been punished under the rules put in place. That bit's done and dusted.

Tonda has been charged under rules that haven't changed in some time.

Tonda has not been charged with spying, that is an EFL rule that applies to the Club. He has been charged x3 by the FA with bringing the game into disrepute, which though it will be related to the spying has a wider scope that probably includes stuff to do with coercion. All the arguments on here about the EFL rule, whether they are correct or not are largely irrelevant. The FA have rules that say clubs must treat other clubs with due respect which covers espionage without being specific like the EFL rule, and as have said several times they are most interested in policies that some might refer tonas woke, like discrimination, bullying and so on.

[bugenhagen]

2 minutes ago, sadoldgit said:

The timescale rule is why this makes no sense. As you say, it is black or white. There is no grey. If it is not ok to spy, just ban it all of the time for everybody.

As for Tonda being hammered for cheating, where do you draw the line? Is what he did any worse than diving for a penalty or trying to get an opponent sent off, both of which could have a bigger impact on the outcome of a match than watching a training session or knowing a bit earlier if a player is fit or not.

I think the rule is silly, and is just made up as them showing that they are doing something about it after the Bielsa debacle. 

I do however see the logic in the 72 hour period. Training is being watched up and down the country all the time, so they can’t ban it full stop without creating a mess for themselves in governing it. They therefore made the 72 hour thing so it potentially covers the two last days of training before the game, again, to make the rule sound smart in their eyes. 

[trousers]

2 hours ago, hypochondriac said:

I know it makes no difference but I hope the club releases a scathing response if he is banned for a huge amount of time. Nothing to lose at that point so may as well get into them.

Clutching at straws but what are the chances of the club having a hitherto unpublished 'dosier' of other clubs that have done the same thing, which they've been keeping up their sleeve if they felt a nuclear reaction was ever warranted?

After all, the club did state in it's original response to the EFL verdict that they were 'offering to help set up a commission to investigate the wider implications' (or words to that effect)... Why would they have said that if they had zero evidence of anyone else doing it, anecdotal or otherwise...?

Edited 8 minutes ago by trousers

[Pamplemousse]

Looking through previous FA disciplinary announcements (our friend Neil Harris features at least twice recently...) they announce the decisions at random times. 9am, 1pm, as late as 6pm. Who knows when we'll hear

[saintant]

16 minutes ago, egg said:

I think there's similar pre planning here. Our offence looks more amateur than using drones, but the similarities are there - observing without being seen, and attempting to record. 

If only he'd had the gumption to do that rather than hiding behind a tree then stepping out in full view 🙂

[saintant]

17 minutes ago, hippo said:

I bumped into Tonda in Wembley box park at lunchtime, whilst the hearing was in recess. He was having a pitcher of Blue Lagoon and said Bob Mortimer and Stewart Downing were on the panel. 
 

He had a tag on. 

That doesn't sound good.

[KingInDaSouf]

Quite clear that we're going to be used by the FA to show that they shouldn't be messed with, whilst simultaneously ignoring the 15 billion charges against Man City