The Spygate Saga

[Patrick Bateman]

23 minutes ago, Badger said:

Why not just show support for Tonda (if he’s still here)? And the team of course. 

I did do a winky thing ...  

[saintant]

2 minutes ago, egg said:

Whatever the word used, City aren't prejudiced by the outcome being out there. The appeal tribunal will decide it on its merits. I suspect you've listened to a media hungry lawyer. 

From my very poor recollection I think he suggested that both sides had signed NDAs and then the news that City had been found guilty was announced prematurely on, I think, The Athletic thus breaking the NDA. Again I'm not suggesting this makes any difference because clearly I wouldn't know so was just passing on something I'd heard and, to your point, he probably is one of many media hungry lawyers 🙂

[Willo of Whiteley]

The Rob Edwards “link” is funny.

Whilst he wouldn’t be my first choice he equally isn’t the worst, but there are many questions that come before this:
When Tonda is banned (because let’s face it he will be, are we still throwing our weight behind him and effectively offering a temp job to another manager?

If that is the case, what if that manager is successful? 

What does Tonda’s position look like after that?

On a complete side note it’ll be funny to see how Sports Republic spin this after all the Tonda backing over the summer. 👀🤣

Could be a few popcorn moments coming…

[egg]

2 minutes ago, saintant said:

From my very poor recollection I think he suggested that both sides had signed NDAs and then the news that City had been found guilty was announced prematurely on, I think, The Athletic thus breaking the NDA. Again I'm not suggesting this makes any difference because clearly I wouldn't know so was just passing on something I'd heard and, to your point, he probably is one of many media hungry lawyers 🙂

Gotcha, thanks that. Breaching an NDA isn't clever, but it's hard to see how that undermines the decision itself. Let's see where this goes. 

[Saint Fan CaM]

My money is on Tonda hearing his punishment first and it will be not too harsh - that way the FA/EPL will be in a better position to hand City a softer than deserved punishment. And let’s face it whatever they get, it’ll be old news 3 days later.

[disconnect]

4 hours ago, westmidlandsaint said:

Could the FA charge people at Man City boardroom level of were involved? SFC sanctioned by EFL but Tonda by FA. Surely City by the PL but Officials should also be charged like Tonda for "not acting in good faith" surely again that is a hell of a lot worse than Tonda. Will that come into FA's thinking, if we ban Tonda for any long period they're going to have to look at life bans for City execs surey?

You'd think so, but somehow I think a big fine (which will be loose change to them) will be their punishment, whilst Saints will no doubt get the biggest possible punishment (if the points and being kicked out of the playoffs wasn't enough). 

On a side note, (and I know it's likely been covered to death), but why is it not the analyst teams / head of analysis (or whatever they are called) that gets the ban rather than Tonda? Is he taking the fall because he's the head of the tree as such or because he deliberately told them to go and do these things no matter what?

Is it because the head analyst (Eduard Schmidt) conveniently left at the end of the season and therefore banning him wouldn't punish Saints anymore? It's been going on so long I genuinely can't remember if he's actually the one that's told them to go and do it (within the 72 hours) or he's just taken responsibility (or we'll never know). 

[Roo1976]

Could we be further punished with more points being deducted? ...Tonda 5 match ban, and maybe another financial fine but being suspended for like 2 seasons?

[goodymatt]

15 minutes ago, Roo1976 said:

Could we be further punished with more points being deducted? ...Tonda 5 match ban, and maybe another financial fine but being suspended for like 2 seasons?

My understanding is the 3 charges are all against Tonda specifically, points deductions are not on the table.