Sports Republics response to “Spygate”

[Lighthouse]

2 minutes ago, Whitey Grandad said:

Eh? What are you smoking?

They are completely different situations. Virtually in a separate universe.

A closer parallel would be where a loan player cannot play against his own club.

So you have information to suggest that David Winnie is still employed by Middlesbrough FC?

[Mr X]

4 hours ago, LGTL said:

I think it’s blindingly obvious the direction that the club is going in after that statement. Both legally and from a football perspective. 

Is the direction down to league One? 

[Teamsaint1]

11 minutes ago, Lighthouse said:

So you have information to suggest that David Winnie is still employed by Middlesbrough FC?

If you had been asked to go on that panel, and had , even once played for Middlesbrough, would you not have declared it?
I certainly would. 

[Lighthouse]

6 minutes ago, Teamsaint1 said:

If you had been asked to go on that panel, and had , even once played for Middlesbrough, would you not have declared it?
I certainly would. 

Somehow I doubt that information was shrouded in secrecy, it's literally on his wikipedia page. The simple fact is that it's irrelevant. I would have made it known, as it was with Winnie, and I highly doubt anyone would care.

[wild-saint]

10 minutes ago, Teamsaint1 said:

If you had been asked to go on that panel, and had , even once played for Middlesbrough, would you not have declared it?
I certainly would. 

also would boro have been happy if one of the panel had a former saints player on it regardless of the number of starts. 

[saintwbu]

I guess the question is, was it really not possible to find a panel of 3 individuals who did not once play for, or legally represent, one of the two clubs involved? Doesn’t feel like it would be that difficult to do so, but maybe it was. 

[Whitey Grandad]

25 minutes ago, Lighthouse said:

So you have information to suggest that David Winnie is still employed by Middlesbrough FC?

What?

Don't you understand? It's enough that he at one time was employed by Middlesbrough. Any connection,  no matter how tenuous, is enough that he should have turned down the appointment. 

[HarvSFC]

5 minutes ago, wild-saint said:

also would boro have been happy if one of the panel had a former saints player on it regardless of the number of starts. 

They wanted Charlie Austin on there.

[Whitey Grandad]

6 minutes ago, Lighthouse said:

Somehow I doubt that information was shrouded in secrecy, it's literally on his wikipedia page. The simple fact is that it's irrelevant. I would have made it known, as it was with Winnie, and I highly doubt anyone would care.

It most certainly is not irrelevant. He would, at one time, have felt some affinity with Middlesbrough. 

[hypochondriac]

Things can be true at the same time. Did the fact this guy had one appearance for Boro influence the panel? Almost certainly not. Should saints have made a fuss about this prior to the disciplinary? Definitely. Should this guy have brought this up and removed himself from the panel? Absolutely.

[James]

3 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

Things can be true at the same time. Did the fact this guy had one appearance for Boro influence the panel? Almost certainly not. Should saints have made a fuss about this prior to the disciplinary? Definitely. Should this guy have brought this up and removed himself from the panel? Absolutely.

Exactly. Whether there was bias or not (and there probably wasn’t) is irrelevant. Saints could and should have used this to question the integrity of the proceedings at the time and/or stall the timeline by having the Panel reconstituted. In proceedings of this magnitude you have to do background checks on the people deciding your case.

[Lighthouse]

16 minutes ago, Whitey Grandad said:

It most certainly is not irrelevant. He would, at one time, have felt some affinity with Middlesbrough. 

I fully agree. If this panel was being put together in 1994, I certainly wouldn't have him on it.

There are three possible scenarios here:

1. Absolutely nobody involved in the enquiry was aware of information which is readily available on wikipedia.
2. People did know about it but decided to keep him on anyway because everyone secretly hates Saints.
3. People did know about it but decided it was inconsequential and wouldn't affect his judgement.

Out of those three options I know which is by far the most plausible option. Perhaps some of you would sleep better if we'd been kicked out the playoffs by a different guy who hadn't played one game on loan 32 years ago. Personally, I couldn't give a hoot.

[aintforever]

4 minutes ago, Lighthouse said:

I fully agree. If this panel was being put together in 1994, I certainly wouldn't have him on it.

There are three possible scenarios here:

1. Absolutely nobody involved in the enquiry was aware of information which is readily available on wikipedia.
2. People did know about it but decided to keep him on anyway because everyone secretly hates Saints.
3. People did know about it but decided it was inconsequential and wouldn't affect his judgement.

Out of those three options I know which is by far the most plausible option.

Obviously three but how can anyone, except for the person himself, know wether it would affect his judgement?

If you were putting together an independent panel why choose a former Middlesbrough player when there must be thousands of legal experts out there with no links at all. 

[trousers]

20 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

Things can be true at the same time. Did the fact this guy had one appearance for Boro influence the panel? Almost certainly not. Should saints have made a fuss about this prior to the disciplinary? Definitely. Should this guy have brought this up and removed himself from the panel? Absolutely.

Indeed. It's really not very complicated, is it?

[hypochondriac]

28 minutes ago, Lighthouse said:

I fully agree. If this panel was being put together in 1994, I certainly wouldn't have him on it.

There are three possible scenarios here:

1. Absolutely nobody involved in the enquiry was aware of information which is readily available on wikipedia.
2. People did know about it but decided to keep him on anyway because everyone secretly hates Saints.
3. People did know about it but decided it was inconsequential and wouldn't affect his judgement.

Out of those three options I know which is by far the most plausible option. Perhaps some of you would sleep better if we'd been kicked out the playoffs by a different guy who hadn't played one game on loan 32 years ago. Personally, I couldn't give a hoot.

He really should have realised it amounted to a conflict of interest for a case of this magnitude and voluntarily removed himself. Doesn't really matter because it almost certainly made no difference to the judgement but it doesn't look good and really you want to be beyond reproach with this.

[saintant]

35 minutes ago, Lighthouse said:

I fully agree. If this panel was being put together in 1994, I certainly wouldn't have him on it.

There are three possible scenarios here:

1. Absolutely nobody involved in the enquiry was aware of information which is readily available on wikipedia.
2. People did know about it but decided to keep him on anyway because everyone secretly hates Saints.
3. People did know about it but decided it was inconsequential and wouldn't affect his judgement.

Out of those three options I know which is by far the most plausible option. Perhaps some of you would sleep better if we'd been kicked out the playoffs by a different guy who hadn't played one game on loan 32 years ago. Personally, I couldn't give a hoot.

Let's put it this way, in the charge of spying we claimed we gained no advantage. The EFL and enquiry stated it wasn't whether there was advantage gained it was the intent to gain an advantage. Same applies with Winnie - nobody can say he was biased but he might have been. He should have declared his connection to Boro and excused himself from forming part of the panel. The legal woman should probably have done the same. There is no room for such ambiguity in such high stakes enquiries so it was unfair to us and we can well imagine the furore if the boot was on the other foot. How hard was it to make sure the panel had zero connection with either club?

[Whitey Grandad]

16 minutes ago, saintant said:

Let's put it this way, in the charge of spying we claimed we gained no advantage. The EFL and enquiry stated it wasn't whether there was advantage gained it was the intent to gain an advantage. Same applies with Winnie - nobody can say he was biased but he might have been. He should have declared his connection to Boro and excused himself from forming part of the panel. The legal woman should probably have done the same. There is no room for such ambiguity in such high stakes enquiries so it was unfair to us and we can well imagine the furore if the boot was on the other foot. How hard was it to make sure the panel had zero connection with either club?

Indeed. If Winnie is not smart enough to appreciate that he shouldn't have got involved then he's not smart enough to take part in decisions of such importance.

[St. Ciervo]

His presence muddies everything, whether that is fair or not. That is why there is a recusal process that should have happened. I hope our team seizes on that. Between the timeline and obvious recusals, we have to have a fighting Karen's chance...

Edited 8 hours ago by St. Ciervo

[Osvaldorama]

8 hours ago, Lighthouse said:

I fully agree. If this panel was being put together in 1994, I certainly wouldn't have him on it.

There are three possible scenarios here:

1. Absolutely nobody involved in the enquiry was aware of information which is readily available on wikipedia.
2. People did know about it but decided to keep him on anyway because everyone secretly hates Saints.
3. People did know about it but decided it was inconsequential and wouldn't affect his judgement.

Out of those three options I know which is by far the most plausible option. Perhaps some of you would sleep better if we'd been kicked out the playoffs by a different guy who hadn't played one game on loan 32 years ago. Personally, I couldn't give a hoot.

Im not sure why you’re still pretending it’s nothing. It’s very weird. No one is saying it had a huge outcome. Just that it looks terrible and he shouldn’t have been there. 
 

He literally played for the club that was given an unprecedented bye to the final, after a sustained PR campaign to get them reinstated.
 

It could not be a bigger conflict of interest. IMO. 

[Football Special]

 

[Osvaldorama]

We’ve got Eckert 

spying Eckert 

just don’t think you understand 

watch behind a tree

win the fuckin league 

we’ve got Tonda Eckert 

 

 

[Toussaint]

9 hours ago, aintforever said:

Obviously three but how can anyone, except for the person himself, know wether it would affect his judgement?

If you were putting together an independent panel why choose a former Middlesbrough player when there must be thousands of legal experts out there with no links at all. 

He wouldn’t have passed jury selection. 

[Thripp87]

Finally some meaningful clarity and some words from someone in power. 

I like the fact he acknowledges our response was naive and compares our lawyers being ineffective in comparison to Middlesbrough’s. Parson’s should be held accountable here.
I remain concerned about Tonda staying on, especially if he has a ban later on. It is not the approach I would take, but at least he has made a decision which we now need to get behind.

The most concerning line of the article for me is however is, “If you are a player of Southampton that really has quality to play in Premier League, I'm pretty sure you'll play in Premier League this season or the next." Whilst we expected it, that is a very clear message the playing staff will be far inferior next season.

[pingpong]

38 minutes ago, Football Special said:

 

Can't really argue with that.  I also don't see why we can't have a caretaker manager whilst tonda serves any ban.  Lallana, or even bring someone in for a year.  Depending on the ban, maybe tonda could make the teas, or even do analysis work (nudge nudge). Boro would shit themselves if they saw tonda standing by that tree giving it the death stare. (Up until 72 hrs of course).

[obelisk]

48 minutes ago, Football Special said:

 

"Extraordinary scandal"? Roan needs to get a grip. Totally blown out of proportion.

[chiknsmack]

9 minutes ago, Thripp87 said:

The most concerning line of the article for me is however is, “If you are a player of Southampton that really has quality to play in Premier League, I'm pretty sure you'll play in Premier League this season or the next." Whilst we expected it, that is a very clear message the playing staff will be far inferior next season.

No, it's a very clear message that we plan to win promotion next season.

[hypochondriac]

Great interview and first piece of good news in a while. Fight back starts here and sounds like if they try to ban Tonda we will try to make things as difficult as possible for them.

[whelk]

2 minutes ago, obelisk said:

"Extraordinary scandal"? Roan needs to get a grip. Totally blown out of proportion.

Roan is such a pompous arse

[obelisk]

I'd love to be a fly on the wall when "Gibbo" meets Dragan next season.

[Sheaf Saint]

3 minutes ago, obelisk said:

I'd love to be a fly on the wall when "Gibbo" meets Dragan next season.

[Saint NL]

Feels like a turning point between being the losers and feeling sorry for ourselves and regrouping. 

[Football Special]

10 minutes ago, whelk said:

Roan is such a pompous arse

He's part of the same media that invested so much time into whipping this up , makes me laugh how many Boro fans immediately responding in comments on social media outraged that he hasn't sacked the cheating Ekhert, they're still trying to tell everyone what to do, just fuck off and leave us alone you mental stalkers 

[lambtiss]

14 hours ago, Lee On Solent Saint said:

Did they ask Rishi Sunak to write that statement? True Polictian's reply.

More Starmer than Sunak

[egg]

18 minutes ago, Thripp87 said:

Finally some meaningful clarity and some words from someone in power. 

I like the fact he acknowledges our response was naive and compares our lawyers being ineffective in comparison to Middlesbrough’s. Parson’s should be held accountable here.
I remain concerned about Tonda staying on, especially if he has a ban later on. It is not the approach I would take, but at least he has made a decision which we now need to get behind.

The most concerning line of the article for me is however is, “If you are a player of Southampton that really has quality to play in Premier League, I'm pretty sure you'll play in Premier League this season or the next." Whilst we expected it, that is a very clear message the playing staff will be far inferior next season.

I'm not sure how the lawyers advice falls on Parsons. Someone decided to swerve Paris Smith, and instead instructed the firm who represented Notts Forest in their PSR disciplinary defence.  That was a solid piece of judgement. Its from there it seemed to go downhill. It's fair to assume that the solicitors recommended Counsel, and picking a criminal specialist for a sports disciplinary of this magnitude was mental. Whatever Parsons may have got wrong, he can't be blamed for the legal advice and approach. 

[egg]

17 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

Great interview and first piece of good news in a while. Fight back starts here and sounds like if they try to ban Tonda we will try to make things as difficult as possible for them.

Yep. The club would have been better advised not to bother putting out that nonsense yesterday, and just left it to Solak. 

[trousers]

 

 

[hypochondriac]

10 minutes ago, egg said:

Yep. The club would have been better advised not to bother putting out that nonsense yesterday, and just left it to Solak. 

I reckon they composed that a while ago ready to go for when  the findings were released. Agree though it wasn't great- this was miles better and more human.

Edited 6 hours ago by hypochondriac

[hypochondriac]

I know it won't happen but would be funny if they gave him a six month ban and we got him to manage in Turkey or France for 6 months.

[Turkish]

Right Dragon has spoken. Tonda and his team are staying, he’s apologised. Stop whinging and whining get behind them you bunch of drips. siege mentality all season

Good times create weak men, weak men create bad times, bad times create strong men.

Stop being fannies and get on with it now

[egg]

10 hours ago, Whitey Grandad said:

What?

Don't you understand? It's enough that he at one time was employed by Middlesbrough. Any connection,  no matter how tenuous, is enough that he should have turned down the appointment. 

I can't agree with that. The approach to panels and arbitrations is the same as it is for the judiciary.

Judges frequently hear cases involving former partners or colleagues from their firms if they were solicitors, or colleagues from chambers if they were barristers, even former trainees/pupils of theirs, their mates, etc. None of that ordinarily gives the judge a sufficient interest in the case to have to recuse themselves.

Sure, I get how it looks, but this Winnie lad kicking ball for Boro a million years ago does not get close to being challengeable. 

[egg]

10 hours ago, Whitey Grandad said:

What?

Don't you understand? It's enough that he at one time was employed by Middlesbrough. Any connection,  no matter how tenuous, is enough that he should have turned down the appointment. 

Duplicate. 

Edited 5 hours ago by egg

[Addict54]

11 minutes ago, Turkish said:

Right Dragon has spoken. Tonda and his team are staying, he’s apologised. Stop whinging and whining get behind them you bunch of drips. siege mentality all season

Good times create weak men, weak men create bad times, bad times create strong men.

Stop being fannies and get on with it now

100%

[tdmickey3]

11 minutes ago, Turkish said:

Right Dragon has spoken. Tonda and his team are staying, he’s apologised. Stop whinging and whining get behind them you bunch of drips. siege mentality all season

Good times create weak men, weak men create bad times, bad times create strong men.

Stop being fannies and get on with it now

👏

[trousers]

15 minutes ago, Turkish said:

Right Dragon has spoken. Tonda and his team are staying, he’s apologised. Stop whinging and whining get behind them you bunch of drips. siege mentality all season

Good times create weak men, weak men create bad times, bad times create strong men.

Stop being fannies and get on with it now

 

[trousers]

19 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

I know it won't happen but would be funny if they gave him a six month ban and we got him to manage in Turkey or France for 6 months.

Ha, indeed... I've thought all along this could be one possible outcome... An actual benefit of the multi-club system maybe...?  (assuming FIFA didn't get involved too of course)

Edited 5 hours ago by trousers

[hippo]

One thing I love about that from Dragan is that he’s not trying to pander to the wider football moralist world (Henry Winter and other grandstanding emotional hypocritical journalists who work for phone hackers and nonces) to score a few brownie points. 

[obelisk]

A siege mentality, 6 points from "Gibbo"'s cry-babies and then automatic promotion with a record points total is what the coming season demands.

[woksaintly]

Whoever controls the message drives the agenda. Who is in charge of PR?.Yesterdays feeble attempt said nothing other than slight our legal team over the choice of the Appeal board. This was better but too late

[WALK DMC]

Dragon's repeated references to building a team for next season sounds as though the season ticket renewal letters are about to be sent out. 

[SaintLondon]

Anyone else notice how The Athletic made their hit pieces on all of this free to read? I know I'm being sensitive but I really do feel their is a genuine effort in the media to keep this dragging along and to continue to create hostility towards the club. We've been punished. Get over it and move on. 

I think it's a bit mad that no heads will roll in the fallout of this, I think it's harder to suggest that there is going to be a culture shift when all the same people are there.

Anyway, I'm pleased Dragan has spoken and whether one agrees with him or not, it's nice to see some decision making and leadership. 

Roll on next season, I guess.