Jump to content

The Spygate Saga

St Chalet

By St Chalet
in The Saints

 Share

Recommended Posts

rallyboy

rallyboy

Posted
Posted
44 minutes ago, Teamsaint1 said:

AI says they had 9 in March 2010, first PL team to go into admin.

10 in Feb 2012 in the championship

10 in April 2013 in L1.

 But despite this and the gun runner owner, they simply never cheat .

 

My recollection is that Pompey were the only club at that time who didn't have a penalty held over until the next season as they were already relegated.

Also, we still await the results of the promised full forensic investigation into their accounts, just after they presented fraudulent paperwork to the High Court.

But I wasn't that interested at the time, so I may be wrong.

  • Like 1
SW5 SAINT

SW5 SAINT

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, EssEffCee said:

They got 9 in PL and 10 the year we went up under Adkins.

Might have got another 10 in L1 too?

They were the only team to get a -10 in EFL after they had already been relegated. I.e they didn’t have to carry it over to the following season in League 2. If they had carried the deduction over to the next season in league 2 they would’ve been relegated to National League or whatever it was called then…..

  • Like 1
Window Cleaner

Window Cleaner

Posted
Posted (edited)
4 hours ago, Weston Super Saint said:

If the outcome is yet to be decided - because they are deliberating and cojitating - then the statement is likely to read : "man turns up for meeting".

Cogito, ergo sum....

Unless of course they're "jitating" collectively.

Edited by Window Cleaner
Toussaint

Toussaint

Posted
Posted
On 26/09/2026 at 13:53, AlexLaw76 said:

That is a football pyramid, right?

compare us to Barnet or Bromley and see what is fair and what isn’t.

You are correct in describing that as the existing situation, and presumably you are ok with it from your fatalistic response.
 

My issue is that there is now no possibility of any who is not already comfortably sitting at the top of getting there, and is getting more difficult all of the time. It doesn’t any longer seem possible for a well run club to achieve very much at all, take our very own club. Under Lawrie McMenemy we one an fa cup, signed Kevin Keegan, signed a host of other internationals, under Chris Nichol we finished second behind Liverpool. At various times we had players of such I high calibre the calibre of which we will never see again. What I am saying it’s no longer possible for a well run club, with a strong academy, who gets everything right to achieve much at all, because now it’s only about money. 

  • Like 4
Sheaf Saint

Sheaf Saint

Posted
Posted
27 minutes ago, Pamplemousse said:

What exactly are they waiting for? It's not like we're contesting the charges, just fucking announce the sanction and everyone can move on.

The way I see it, there are two possibilities here. 

One is that the hearing on Thursday was just to ascertain guilt of the charges and that a separate hearing will be convened in order to decide the punishment (much as would be the case in a criminal trial). However, I would assume that the verdict would have been announced immediately in that instance (certainly if he was found not guilty it would have been), which leads me to lean more towards the other possibility - that the sanction was already dished out at the hearing and we/Tonda launched an immediate appeal against it.

And if that's the case then it can't be good news, because it suggests to me that the sanction involves a lengthy ban rather than a slap on the wrist and a fine.

LiberalCommunist

LiberalCommunist

Posted
Posted
47 minutes ago, Pamplemousse said:

What exactly are they waiting for? It's not like we're contesting the charges, just fucking announce the sanction and everyone can move on.

Maximum disruption. It can't be anything else at this stage. 

  • Like 2
DT

DT

Posted
Posted (edited)

Can't decide between thinking the Man City stuff will make them come down on us like a tonne of bricks on this in order to flex their little muscles too or be more lenient given that a bloke in a tree with an iPhone 24 hours early is hardly mass fraud that has disrupted the entire game of football in this country for the last decade. Ho hum. Perhaps the Prem is now dead and a superleague is that much closer...

Edited by DT
Dan Johnson

Dan Johnson

Posted
Posted
6 minutes ago, Sheaf Saint said:

The way I see it, there are two possibilities here. 

One is that the hearing on Thursday was just to ascertain guilt of the charges and that a separate hearing will be convened in order to decide the punishment (much as would be the case in a criminal trial). However, I would assume that the verdict would have been announced immediately in that instance (certainly if he was found not guilty it would have been), which leads me to lean more towards the other possibility - that the sanction was already dished out at the hearing and we/Tonda launched an immediate appeal against it.

And if that's the case then it can't be good news, because it suggests to me that the sanction involves a lengthy ban rather than a slap on the wrist and a fine.

They’ve already asserted guilt, he was charged on the 22nd July.

There’s been no appeal from our side over that assertion of guilt, we’ve accepted the charges. We’re just waiting the punishment.

its an absolute farce, the fact we’re nearly in October, that Eckert has managed 10 football matches since his charge, yet there’s still talk that his actions were so severe that he deserves a complete football ban for 6 months+ yet not severe enough that it’s not been expedited to prevent him taking part in football after his charge on July 22nd!!

Fucking pathetic from the FA

  • Like 26
VectisSaint

VectisSaint

Posted
Posted
8 minutes ago, Dan Johnson said:

They’ve already asserted guilt, he was charged on the 22nd July.

There’s been no appeal from our side over that assertion of guilt, we’ve accepted the charges. We’re just waiting the punishment.

its an absolute farce, the fact we’re nearly in October, that Eckert has managed 10 football matches since his charge, yet there’s still talk that his actions were so severe that he deserves a complete football ban for 6 months+ yet not severe enough that it’s not been expedited to prevent him taking part in football after his charge on July 22nd!!

Fucking pathetic from the FA

Being charged is not ascertaining guilt. That was done at the hearing last week. Sanctions determined separately. Sanctions will be determined and announced when the commission meets, maybe today maybe later. Exactly the same happened with the EFL back in May, but the timescales were.comoressed with the agreement of Saints because of the urgency in getting it sorted. Same is happening with Man City. Punishments are not decided by the same people who determine guilt,.they make their decisions based on the advice of the board, it's all to try and preserve independence, whether it does of course is a different matter.

hypochondriac

hypochondriac

Posted
Posted
10 minutes ago, Dan Johnson said:

They’ve already asserted guilt, he was charged on the 22nd July.

There’s been no appeal from our side over that assertion of guilt, we’ve accepted the charges. We’re just waiting the punishment.

its an absolute farce, the fact we’re nearly in October, that Eckert has managed 10 football matches since his charge, yet there’s still talk that his actions were so severe that he deserves a complete football ban for 6 months+ yet not severe enough that it’s not been expedited to prevent him taking part in football after his charge on July 22nd!!

Fucking pathetic from the FA

100%. If he deserves a long term ban because he's such a disgrace and an ongoing risk then why has he been allowed to manage so much of this season already? What is the purpose of a lengthy ban if he's already been allowed to manage?

  • Like 6
EssEffCee

EssEffCee

Posted
Posted
35 minutes ago, VectisSaint said:

Being charged is not ascertaining guilt. That was done at the hearing last week. Sanctions determined separately. Sanctions will be determined and announced when the commission meets, maybe today maybe later. Exactly the same happened with the EFL back in May, but the timescales were.comoressed with the agreement of Saints because of the urgency in getting it sorted. Same is happening with Man City. Punishments are not decided by the same people who determine guilt,.they make their decisions based on the advice of the board, it's all to try and preserve independence, whether it does of course is a different matter.

If he didn't contest the charge (which surely he didn't) then guilt will have been established long before last week's hearing.

Saint_lambden

Saint_lambden

Posted
Posted

It'll be TWENTY weeks tomorrow since we beat Boro in the second leg of the semi-final. The FA are sitting on millions in cash according to their latest accounts yet clearly still have a disciplinary process that wouldn't be fit for purpose at Sunday league level, let alone professional football. A shambles all round. 

  • Like 12
hypochondriac

hypochondriac

Posted
Posted
50 minutes ago, Saint_lambden said:

It'll be TWENTY weeks tomorrow since we beat Boro in the second leg of the semi-final. The FA are sitting on millions in cash according to their latest accounts yet clearly still have a disciplinary process that wouldn't be fit for purpose at Sunday league level, let alone professional football. A shambles all round. 

Even if you ignore everything else, how is this fair on the fans who let's not forget are an innocent party in all this. It's pretty disgraceful to leave this ha going for so long. No reason at all this process couldn't have been fair but also quicker.

  • Like 3
LaptopSaint

LaptopSaint

Posted
Posted

If I remember correctly, when Chelsea were sanctioned for financial breaches by the FA it took more than six months from the initial verdict to reach a decision on Chelsea’s appeal. And all the details remained confidential while the appeal was pending. On a similar timeline that would take us to the end of March. Maybe we think we can spin the appeal process out for another six weeks into mid-May, to allow Tonda to get us promoted before he gets banned. 

  • Like 2
beatlesaint

beatlesaint

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, LaptopSaint said:

If I remember correctly, when Chelsea were sanctioned for financial breaches by the FA it took more than six months from the initial verdict to reach a decision on Chelsea’s appeal. And all the details remained confidential while the appeal was pending. On a similar timeline that would take us to the end of March. Maybe we think we can spin the appeal process out for another six weeks into mid-May, to allow Tonda to get us promoted before he gets banned. 

Thats correct, they appealed in January and it took until the summer to get the decision. We could well go down that route if required. 

 

  • Like 1
VectisSaint

VectisSaint

Posted
Posted
3 hours ago, EssEffCee said:

If he didn't contest the charge (which surely he didn't) then guilt will have been established long before last week's hearing.

That's not how it works. Even if Tonda admitted guilt there is a hearing, like a Court, where the FA seek to establish guilt before an independent panel, and the defence are provided the chance to provide mitigation evidence. In cases like this, bringing the game into disrepute, it's not as black and white as guilty/not guilty. 

  • Like 1
sadoldgit

sadoldgit

Posted
Posted
4 hours ago, VectisSaint said:

Being charged is not ascertaining guilt. That was done at the hearing last week. Sanctions determined separately. Sanctions will be determined and announced when the commission meets, maybe today maybe later. Exactly the same happened with the EFL back in May, but the timescales were.comoressed with the agreement of Saints because of the urgency in getting it sorted. Same is happening with Man City. Punishments are not decided by the same people who determine guilt,.they make their decisions based on the advice of the board, it's all to try and preserve independence, whether it does of course is a different matter.

I thought that he had accepted guilt and the hearing was all about what he did and why he didn’t think that he had done anything wrong - mitigation.

EssEffCee

EssEffCee

Posted
Posted
34 minutes ago, VectisSaint said:

That's not how it works. Even if Tonda admitted guilt there is a hearing, like a Court, where the FA seek to establish guilt before an independent panel, and the defence are provided the chance to provide mitigation evidence. In cases like this, bringing the game into disrepute, it's not as black and white as guilty/not guilty. 

Have you got a source for that mate? I'm fairly certain that when you accept the charge you establish your guilt at that point.

hypochondriac

hypochondriac

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, EssEffCee said:

Have you got a source for that mate? I'm fairly certain that when you accept the charge you establish your guilt at that point.

I sort of see his point though. Tonda is saying he is guilty but with mitigations and he has to be given a chance to give those mitigations to the panel. I thought that would have been the 4 hour interview back in May or whenever it was. 

hypochondriac

hypochondriac

Posted
Posted

It's all speculation at this poibt but I do wonder if the amount of time it is taking is potentially a positive for Tonda. It would maybe suggest that the verdict isn't one that is easy to come by and that they couldn't reach shortly after the hearing.

hypochondriac

hypochondriac

Posted
Posted

I still go back to the Bielsa example. How is this materially different under FA rules? I'll be fascinated to see if that case is mentioned in the written explanation for the sanction and how they believe this was different than when Bielsa did this more egregiously. The only thing I can think if they do go big is if there is some evidence of explicit direction on his part to the junior analysts and if he knew it was wrong and did it anyway. If there isn't then a harsh verdict will not sit well with me. Under the rules of the FA there shouldn't be a double standard there.

  • Like 2
bugenhagen

bugenhagen

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

It's all speculation at this poibt but I do wonder if the amount of time it is taking is potentially a positive for Tonda. It would maybe suggest that the verdict isn't one that is easy to come by and that they couldn't reach shortly after the hearing.

Or they just wanna make sure they have crossed their t's and dottet their i's before they light the fire and burn him at the stake?

But seriously, I think they are thorough as they don't want to come down hard, only for the punishment be lifted on appeal.

I do, however, agree with you that it is probably not as black and white as "we have accepted the charges = Tonda has plead guilty to all charges". There are for sure factors that makes it a little more difficult as others have been involved, but he is the person ultimatly responsible for what has happened.

revolution saint

revolution saint

Posted
Posted
5 minutes ago, bugenhagen said:

Or they just wanna make sure they have crossed their t's and dottet their i's before they light the fire and burn him at the stake?

But seriously, I think they are thorough as they don't want to come down hard, only for the punishment be lifted on appeal.

I do, however, agree with you that it is probably not as black and white as "we have accepted the charges = Tonda has plead guilty to all charges". There are for sure factors that makes it a little more difficult as others have been involved, but he is the person ultimatly responsible for what has happened.

it does seem to be that way although I'm surprised that Spors seems to have got away without any questions being aimed towards him.  There's a decent argument that if he didn't know what was going on then he probably should have been aware.  Plus I was under the impression that he'd recruited the majority of the analysts team. 
Total aside to what's actually going on but still seems a bit strange to me.

bugenhagen

bugenhagen

Posted
Posted
6 minutes ago, revolution saint said:

it does seem to be that way although I'm surprised that Spors seems to have got away without any questions being aimed towards him.  There's a decent argument that if he didn't know what was going on then he probably should have been aware.  Plus I was under the impression that he'd recruited the majority of the analysts team. 
Total aside to what's actually going on but still seems a bit strange to me.

Good point, and something that makes me wonder as well.

Did the club decide on Tonda as the "fall guy" as they thought they would have a better case to plead the "I didn't know-card" with him, rather than with Spors?

It could also be so easy as the analyst team did not report things like this to Spors? I guess the fact that Tonda is the manager (or head coach) and asked someone to gather info from other teams trainigs is why he is on trial, and Spors is not...

  • Confused 1
hypochondriac

hypochondriac

Posted
Posted
9 minutes ago, bugenhagen said:

Good point, and something that makes me wonder as well.

Did the club decide on Tonda as the "fall guy" as they thought they would have a better case to plead the "I didn't know-card" with him, rather than with Spors?

It could also be so easy as the analyst team did not report things like this to Spors? I guess the fact that Tonda is the manager (or head coach) and asked someone to gather info from other teams trainigs is why he is on trial, and Spors is not...

Is everyone employed by the club subject to that 3.1 rule or just the manager?

  • Like 1
VectisSaint

VectisSaint

Posted
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, EssEffCee said:

Have you got a source for that mate? I'm fairly certain that when you accept the charge you establish your guilt at that point.

As I said it's not black and white in cases like this (bringing the game into disrepute). How serious is the disrepute, what are your mitigations, etc etc. It's not rocket science, it's how all judicial systems work (at least in this country). 

You may find this link of interest, if you don't fall asleep reading it. https://www.footballlaw.co.uk/football-discipline-overview

Edited by VectisSaint
Added link
rallyboy

rallyboy

Posted
Posted

Presumably no Man City manager has any charges to answer because they had no idea that their whole playing project was being run fraudulently, and they weren't even aware that their own personal contracts that they'd negotiated and signed were illegal? They just thought all the best players in world football went there for the weather.

Tonda should have just shrugged and chucked an analyst under the bus, we'd have looked after them.

  • Like 3
  • Haha 2
EssEffCee

EssEffCee

Posted
Posted
40 minutes ago, VectisSaint said:

As I said it's not black and white in cases like this (bringing the game into disrepute). How serious is the disrepute, what are your mitigations, etc etc. It's not rocket science, it's how all judicial systems work (at least in this country). 

I get that it's not black and white and he can offer mitigations but he was still guilty of the charge the minute he accepted it.

If you choose not to accept the charge then you're admitting responsibility for it.

saintant

saintant

Posted
Posted
28 minutes ago, rallyboy said:

Presumably no Man City manager has any charges to answer because they had no idea that their whole playing project was being run fraudulently, and they weren't even aware that their own personal contracts that they'd negotiated and signed were illegal? They just thought all the best players in world football went there for the weather.

Tonda should have just shrugged and chucked an analyst under the bus, we'd have looked after them.

This is a very good point. 

  • Like 1
Football Special

Football Special

Posted
Posted (edited)

Anyone else going to this? 

Surely it will be Will Salt, at the training ground, with an iPhone 

Clue - coffee purchased on his debit card near crime scene 

FB_IMG_1790614156988.thumb.jpg.7bcd0f3c7a60aa2ba969f81b75aa6a85.jpg

Edited by Football Special
  • Haha 6

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...