Four days later - should Saints still sack Tonda?

[Junior Mullet]

2 hours ago, saintant said:

Plus, imagine a scenario where replays clearly show that a player dived to win a match-winning penalty in the last seconds of a play-off semi final. There is no VAR to check the incident. Everybody just shrugs their shoulders and says 'that's football'. There is no nation wide recrimination of the player or his club. Nobody calls for them to be removed from the final and replaced by the club they defeated. Nobody calls for the player to face a lengthy ban. This whole saga has been blown up out of all proportion by pundits and journos who think nothing of blowing smoke up the arses of Man City with their 115 charges.

Reminded me of the time Henry handled the ball twice to keep it in play during a World Cup qualifier playoff vs the Irish.  Did it in extra time if I recall properly and lead directly to the goal that knocekd the Irish out.  Blatant cheating.  Consequences were huge but nobody gave a fuck because it was France and it was only the Irish. 

[OldNick]

1 hour ago, AlexLaw76 said:

We were removed from a knockout competition, in line with another team cheating in a knockout competition the same season.

I missed that , what was the team thrown out last season?

[Junior Mullet]

12 minutes ago, OldNick said:

I missed that , what was the team thrown out last season?

Swindon Town - played 2 ineligible players in League Cup.  Kicked out and Luton, whom they beat, took their place.

Grimsby played an inelligible player vs Man United in thier famous win this season but were only fined.  

Punishments on this are inconsistent and looked at on a case by case basis and so I don't accept that what happened to Swindon was nailed on precedent for us.  It simply isn't good precedent at all.

Edited 8 hours ago by Junior Mullet
I said rules rather than punishments

[sadoldgit]

30 minutes ago, sadoldgit said:

If you are referring to my previous comment on another thread about Huw Edwards, would you like to remind us, how many people did he kill? How many people do you know who have committed the crime of the century and walked away with a suspended sentence?

For those of you confused by this post, DelldaysBatmanAlex made a comment about what I consider to be “not to be the crime of the century.” BBC news-reader, Huw Edwards, was charged with being possession of child porn. A serious crime, yes, but not so serious that it was heard in a Crown Court. His case was dealt with in a Magistrate’ Court and he received a suspended sentence.

The case was covered on the first spot, reserved for the biggest news story of the day, every day for a week by the BBC. I commented on the fact that it was odd for such a story to received such prominence for so long (usually big stories move down the schedule in the programme after a few days coverage) and made the comment that it was hardly the crime of the century (which it wasn’t). A couple of the forum wets decided to ignore the context of the comment and proceeded, to this day, to pretend that I was inferring that being in possession of child porn is no big deal. Stating that there are more serious crimes, such as murder, is a statement of fact, it is not seeking to minimise the seriousness of other crimes. It is just putting criminal activity into context in terms of the seriousness of the matter and the sentencing guidelines involved. Consequently the less serious cases are heard in Magistrate’s courts and the more serious cases in Crown courts. The crime of the century is not going to be dealt with in a Magistrate’s court.
I have explained this several times before but clearly at least one individual still either refuses to understand my point or is too thick to understand it.

Given that this particular person seems to think that sexual assaults carried out by Asians/Muslims warrant more attention on a football forum than the same crimes carried out by white Englishmen, I would argue that any comment about my having a low bar be taken in that context.

My apologies for going off topic, but DelldaysBatmanAlex has previous when it comes to repeating bollox on here and needs to be corrected for the benefit of posterity. History tells us that a lie repeated often enough becomes fact.

 

 

[Saint86]

2 hours ago, AlexLaw76 said:

We were removed from a knockout competition, in line with another team cheating in a knockout competition the same season.

The EFL rules are discretionary re cup expulsions. I believe you are referring specifically to ineligible players here? Grimsby for example fielded an ineligible player vs man united in the EFL cup, their result (win) stood, but they were fined.

Swindon got kicked out of the EFL trophy for starting a player who was suspended for 7games and using a substitute that wasn't named on their team sheet. This one had a clear impact on the result (from kick off, and from the substitution), the game even had stoppage time when the officials realised - the multiple breaches and clear impact were the deciding factors.

Neither case is directly relatable to ours.

 

[BARCELONASAINT]

4 hours ago, Saint_lambden said:

The whole in/out discussion is a mute point - he'll be banned for at least a year by the FA. Having said that, it completely baffles me that people think, regardless of some miracle that he avoids a ban, he should stay on as manager. It's as if Boro losing the final flicked a switch in some people and they completely forgot and forgave everything. The man who instigated a campaign of systemic rule breaking, brought the club in to national/international shame and who intimidated young interns in to cheating, then having the audacity to complain to them about the output they were providing. I don't want that representing this football club, and neither should any self-respecting fan. 

The club are just waiting for the internal review (being done by an external party) to be complete and then they will take action in terms of suspensions/sackings, which cannot come soon enough so we can at least try to move on from this whole sorry saga. 

 

really, the rest of the world is laughing at the English. No one outside the UK thinks this is a serious matter, it goes on all the time abroad and is accepted (maybe not liked but accepted. It's only the bloody pathetic English making a mountain out of a molehill

[tdmickey3]

15 minutes ago, BARCELONASAINT said:

really, the rest of the world is laughing at the English. No one outside the UK thinks this is a serious matter, it goes on all the time abroad and is accepted (maybe not liked but accepted. It's only the bloody pathetic English making a mountain out of a molehill

Yep an utterly ridiculous reaction and an equally ridiculous punishment.

If we had not have been removed from playoff final the rabid frenzy over it would have not happened except from "Gibbo"🙄 and the snivelling victims form wearside.

[ChrisPY]

46 minutes ago, sadoldgit said:

For those of you confused by this post, DelldaysBatmanAlex made a comment about what I consider to be “not to be the crime of the century.” BBC news-reader, Huw Edwards, was charged with being possession of child porn. A serious crime, yes, but not so serious that it was heard in a Crown Court. His case was dealt with in a Magistrate’ Court and he received a suspended sentence.

The case was covered on the first spot, reserved for the biggest news story of the day, every day for a week by the BBC. I commented on the fact that it was odd for such a story to received such prominence for so long (usually big stories move down the schedule in the programme after a few days coverage) and made the comment that it was hardly the crime of the century (which it wasn’t). A couple of the forum wets decided to ignore the context of the comment and proceeded, to this day, to pretend that I was inferring that being in possession of child porn is no big deal. Stating that there are more serious crimes, such as murder, is a statement of fact, it is not seeking to minimise the seriousness of other crimes. It is just putting criminal activity into context in terms of the seriousness of the matter and the sentencing guidelines involved. Consequently the less serious cases are heard in Magistrate’s courts and the more serious cases in Crown courts. The crime of the century is not going to be dealt with in a Magistrate’s court.
I have explained this several times before but clearly at least one individual still either refuses to understand my point or is too thick to understand it.

Given that this particular person seems to think that sexual assaults carried out by Asians/Muslims warrant more attention on a football forum than the same crimes carried out by white Englishmen, I would argue that any comment about my having a low bar be taken in that context.

My apologies for going off topic, but DelldaysBatmanAlex has previous when it comes to repeating bollox on here and needs to be corrected for the benefit of posterity. History tells us that a lie repeated often enough becomes fact.

 

 

Huw Edwards has converted to Islam and taking over from Jordan Sibley as Head of PR?

(Sorry if I’ve misunderstood, it was a long post so just gave it a quick skim read)

[VectisSaint]

1 hour ago, OldNick said:

I missed that , what was the team thrown out last season?

Swindon the EFL Trophy.

[trousers]

3 hours ago, AlexLaw76 said:

We were removed from a knockout competition, in line with another team cheating in a knockout competition the same season.

 

1 hour ago, OldNick said:

I missed that , what was the team thrown out last season?

 

1 hour ago, Junior Mullet said:

Swindon Town - played 2 ineligible players in League Cup.  Kicked out and Luton, whom they beat, took their place.

So, in summary, a greater 'crime' but much less consequences...?

(Yes, I know... "Comparing apples and oranges"... Blah blah blah)

Edited 7 hours ago by trousers

[VectisSaint]

1 hour ago, Junior Mullet said:

Swindon Town - played 2 ineligible players in League Cup.  Kicked out and Luton, whom they beat, took their place.

Grimsby played an inelligible player vs Man United in thier famous win this season but were only fined.  

Punishments on this are inconsistent and looked at on a case by case basis and so I don't accept that what happened to Swindon was nailed on precedent for us.  It simply isn't good precedent at all.

Swindon who were also fined was after the  Grimsby incident, so yes it is actually the pre event. Swindon could justifiably argue that they were harshly treated because of Grimsby. But punishments do tend to increase for infringements on the basis that we tried a measly fine and clearly it wasn't enough so sick this up instead.

[Lord Duckhunter]

1 hour ago, sadoldgit said:

For those of you confused by this post, DelldaysBatmanAlex made a comment about what I consider to be “not to be the crime of the century.” BBC news-reader, Huw Edwards, was charged with being possession of child porn. A serious crime, yes, but not so serious that it was heard in a Crown Court. His case was dealt with in a Magistrate’ Court and he received a suspended sentence.

The case was covered on the first spot, reserved for the biggest news story of the day, every day for a week by the BBC. I commented on the fact that it was odd for such a story to received such prominence for so long (usually big stories move down the schedule in the programme after a few days coverage) and made the comment that it was hardly the crime of the century (which it wasn’t). A couple of the forum wets decided to ignore the context of the comment and proceeded, to this day, to pretend that I was inferring that being in possession of child porn is no big deal. Stating that there are more serious crimes, such as murder, is a statement of fact, it is not seeking to minimise the seriousness of other crimes. It is just putting criminal activity into context in terms of the seriousness of the matter and the sentencing guidelines involved. Consequently the less serious cases are heard in Magistrate’s courts and the more serious cases in Crown courts. The crime of the century is not going to be dealt with in a Magistrate’s court.
I have explained this several times before but clearly at least one individual still either refuses to understand my point or is too thick to understand it.

Given that this particular person seems to think that sexual assaults carried out by Asians/Muslims warrant more attention on a football forum than the same crimes carried out by white Englishmen, I would argue that any comment about my having a low bar be taken in that context.

My apologies for going off topic, but DelldaysBatmanAlex has previous when it comes to repeating bollox on here and needs to be corrected for the benefit of posterity. History tells us that a lie repeated often enough becomes fact.

 

 

Give it a rest you radish 

[trousers]

15 minutes ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

Give it a rest you radish 

Note to self: "Add 'radish' to next print run of bingo cards....

[beatlesaint]

1 minute ago, trousers said:

Note to self: "Add 'radish' to next print run of bingo cards....

I get serious Danny Dyer vibes from LD’s posts 🤣

[tdmickey3]

1 minute ago, beatlesaint said:

I get serious Danny Dyer vibes from LD’s posts 🤣

I think its more Victor Meldrew

[sadoldgit]

2 minutes ago, beatlesaint said:

I get serious Danny Dyer vibes from LD’s posts 🤣

The difference being that Dyer is a real cockney and LD is a plastic one.

[LegalEagle]

10 minutes ago, trousers said:

Note to self: "Add 'radish' to next print run of bingo cards....

is being a “radish” a bad thing? You could be a cabbage, a turnip or a wet lettuce. I wouldn’t mind being called a radish. 

[Lord Duckhunter]

5 minutes ago, sadoldgit said:

The difference being that Dyer is a real cockney and LD is a plastic one.

Radish isn’t cockney, anymore than I am or even claim to be. Other than that, good point well made, pillock. 

[Sheaf Saint]

32 minutes ago, trousers said:

Note to self: "Add 'radish' to next print run of bingo cards....

I just assumed it was an autocorrect fail 🤷‍♂️

[trousers]

Hmm....

 

[sfc4prem]

I always thought 'radish' was an insult used by Bolsheviks against other Bolshevik party activists as an accusation of them having White sympathies during and around the time of the Russian Civil War.

Never seen it used by an Inglés as an insult, but hey, first time for everything!

[trousers]

1 minute ago, sfc4prem said:

I always thought 'radish' was an insult used by Bolsheviks against other Bolshevik party activists as an accusation of them having White sympathies during and around the time of the Russian Civil War.

Never seen it used by an Inglés as an insult, but hey, first time for everything!

 

[beatlesaint]

6 minutes ago, trousers said:

Hmm....

 

Au contraire Rodney……I mean LD 🤣

[Midfield_General]

New article on BBC makes for fairly concerning reading regarding the state of the finances and more potentially to come.

If you were already £99m in debt (which, according to this, is what we currently owe in unpaid transfer fees), would you keep on the guy who had just potentially cost you £200m?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/articles/c8d82zn563vo

[OldNick]

Just now, Midfield_General said:

New article on BBC makes for fairly concerning reading regarding the state of the finances and more potentially to come.

If you were already £99m in debt (which, according to this, is what we currently owe in unpaid transfer fees), would you keep on the guy who had just potentially cost you £200m?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/articles/c8d82zn563vo

The word potentially is the main thing

[CSA96]

4 minutes ago, Midfield_General said:

New article on BBC makes for fairly concerning reading regarding the state of the finances and more potentially to come.

If you were already £99m in debt (which, according to this, is what we currently owe in unpaid transfer fees), would you keep on the guy who had just potentially cost you £200m?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/articles/c8d82zn563vo

My first response to that would be how much are we owed in unpaid transfer fees? More than enough to take care of the £99m presumably, given we have sold for higher values than we have purchased during transfer windows

[Saint86]

22 minutes ago, Midfield_General said:

New article on BBC makes for fairly concerning reading regarding the state of the finances and more potentially to come.

If you were already £99m in debt (which, according to this, is what we currently owe in unpaid transfer fees), would you keep on the guy who had just potentially cost you £200m?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/articles/c8d82zn563vo

Surely that would only emphasis the need to keep the best manager we've had in years and who had us on course for 113points (if our form post switching to a 4-2-3-1 was extrapolated over a season).

Also, the clubs finances (and owing £100M in fee installments as a second tier side) is not the fault of the 32year old mananger we appointed halfway through the most recent season.

And don't forget, we don't owe all that money this year. We presumably also have other installments coming in from player sales (such as TD and MF last summer). 

For info, I have made no effort all to fact check this...

Incoming fees:

The 2025 accounts show a £108M debt on outgoings installments. So Maguire's figure of £99M uses other data.

But equally, the MF and TD sales (and others), plus last summer's incoming purchases will all have impacted the numbers. But regardless, I doubt it's as bad as Maguire suggests.

Just looking at those numbers:
June 25:

Outgoing transfer instalments = £108.3M (total)
Outgoing transfer instalments = £63.1M (1 year - i.e., now cleared)

Incoming transfer instalments = £72.9M (total)
Incoming transfer instalments = £44.2M (1 year - i.e., now cleared)

Outstanding instalments = -£16.5M (money owed based on historic transfers).

Player trading profit last summer = between £60M and £80M.

So, re player transfers, we should be in the black when this years accounts get published?

Just as important as sorting out transfer liabilities, will be getting wages to a level that is sensible and sustainable for our situation as a parachute team.

Edited 5 hours ago by Saint86

[rallyboy]

The key difference here to other expulsions was that the EFL knew about an allegation BEFORE the two games and decided that the offence was not enough to stop the games being played.

They were happy with them being fair contests, right up until the hilarious moment when the clown of a Boro keeper watched a cross float right past him into the corner. 

Normally a mistake like that would be career-defining, but no, no, not for this fucker, he still had an even funnier moment in his locker, in fact I might watch it again in a mo to cheer me up, laughs always guaranteed.

And that wheezy unfit Boro team that went about 15 hours without scoring and had a defence that should be in a circus? Apparently they only lost because a kid nearly watched them.

 

 

[Graziano94]

Any danger of literally anything happening? 

[Pilchards]

I think they are going to make a decision on all these polls that are running.

The one here, Saint Martins page and the daily echo.

Maybe we could ask our friends in the north east if they could do a vote on their forum for him to stay or go?

[sadoldgit]

49 minutes ago, rallyboy said:

 

And that wheezy unfit Boro team that went about 15 hours without scoring and had a defence that should be in a circus? Apparently they only lost because a kid nearly watched them.

 

 

Sums the situation up perfectly.

Edited 4 hours ago by sadoldgit

[sadoldgit]

1 hour ago, sfc4prem said:

I always thought 'radish' was an insult used by Bolsheviks against other Bolshevik party activists as an accusation of them having White sympathies during and around the time of the Russian Civil War.

Never seen it used by an Inglés as an insult, but hey, first time for everything!

Out of insults with a reddish hue, I’m thinking better a “radish” than a “gammon.”

Edited 4 hours ago by sadoldgit
Typo

[gammon cheeks]

3 minutes ago, sadoldgit said:

Out of insults with a reddish hue, I’m thinking better a “radish” than a “gammon.”

What's wrong with gammon lol

[sadoldgit]

Killing time waiting for news…

I could technically be a Cockney. I was born in King’s College Hospital in Camberwell. The distance between the hospital and Bow Bells is about 3 miles as the crow flies. Given a favourable wind and in the dead of night, it might be possible to hear the bells from south of the river. 

Gawd blimey guv’nor, wha’ a load of old pony!
 

Edited 4 hours ago by sadoldgit

[Whitey Grandad]

5 minutes ago, sadoldgit said:

Killing time waiting for news…

I could technically be a Cockney. I was born in King’s College Hospital in Camberwell. The distance between the hospital and Bow Bells is about 3 miles as the crow flies. Given a favourable wind and in the dead of night, it might be possible to hear the bells from south of the river. 

Gawd blimey guv’nor, wha’ a load of old pony!
 

I was born in North Middlesex Hospital within kicking distance of White Hart Lane so a bit further away. My Nan, however, was born in Bromley by Bow in 1885 and was three years old and living in Whitechapel when Jack the Ripper was doing his business outside 😳

Leave orf mate, yer 'avin a barf encha.

[Maggie May]

1 hour ago, Midfield_General said:

New article on BBC makes for fairly concerning reading regarding the state of the finances and more potentially to come.

If you were already £99m in debt (which, according to this, is what we currently owe in unpaid transfer fees), would you keep on the guy who had just potentially cost you £200m?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/articles/c8d82zn563vo

This is the opinion of someone who knows absolutely nothing about what’s going on within the club.

[AlexLaw76]

1 minute ago, Maggie May said:

This is the opinion of someone who knows absolutely nothing about what’s going on within the club.

It is someone more informed than not having a clue.

 

[Saint86]

6 minutes ago, Maggie May said:

This is the opinion of someone who knows absolutely nothing about what’s going on within the club.

Maguire is interesting to listen to, and he's good at headlining certain data... but equally, he specifically headlines the worst data because that's what gets him air time and money.  Re Saints, he's neglected to mention potential incoming fee instalments seemingly (or the media that are quoting him have), and instead just highlighted what saints owe...

In reality, i'd suggest any team that's spent tens to hundreds of millions on transfers in the past 3years owes similar amounts.

It becomes an issue when there is no money coming in... Like Leicester or west ham, both of which have reportedly cashed in on future transfer instalments.

I think i am right in saying this interview took place with Blackmore / solent? in which case its another example of them jumping on a negative outlook and not doing even a basic 30min bit of research to look at saints liabilities and incomings, and either put proper questions to Maguire, or challenge Maguire for a more balanced outlook.

Edited 3 hours ago by Saint86

[saintant]

1 hour ago, rallyboy said:

The key difference here to other expulsions was that the EFL knew about an allegation BEFORE the two games and decided that the offence was not enough to stop the games being played.

They were happy with them being fair contests, right up until the hilarious moment when the clown of a Boro keeper watched a cross float right past him into the corner. 

Normally a mistake like that would be career-defining, but no, no, not for this fucker, he still had an even funnier moment in his locker, in fact I might watch it again in a mo to cheer me up, laughs always guaranteed.

And that wheezy unfit Boro team that went about 15 hours without scoring and had a defence that should be in a circus? Apparently they only lost because a kid nearly watched them.

 

 

Very good comment, particularly the word 'nearly' 🙂 Sums up the nonsense ott punishment quite succinctly. 

[saintant]

48 minutes ago, sadoldgit said:

Sums the situation up perfectly.

Snap, hadn't read this before I posted after 🙂

[Wade Garrett]

1 hour ago, rallyboy said:

The key difference here to other expulsions was that the EFL knew about an allegation BEFORE the two games and decided that the offence was not enough to stop the games being played.

They were happy with them being fair contests, right up until the hilarious moment when the clown of a Boro keeper watched a cross float right past him into the corner. 

Normally a mistake like that would be career-defining, but no, no, not for this fucker, he still had an even funnier moment in his locker, in fact I might watch it again in a mo to cheer me up, laughs always guaranteed.

And that wheezy unfit Boro team that went about 15 hours without scoring and had a defence that should be in a circus? Apparently they only lost because a kid nearly watched them.

 

 

That’s what really gets my goat about this - why make us play the games and then expel us?

No doubt in my mind that there was a Boro bias in all the proceedings but that doesn’t change the fact that Tonda massively cocked up and we were guilty as fuck.

[Saint Gifford]

His position is untenable. It’s as simple as that really.
 

Regardless of any thought, loyalty, ability, record, success, whatever. 

There clearly is one outcome, he has to go for the sake of Southampton FC. 

[hypochondriac]

3 minutes ago, Saint Gifford said:

His position is untenable. It’s as simple as that really.
 

Regardless of any thought, loyalty, ability, record, success, whatever. 

There clearly is one outcome, he has to go for the sake of Southampton FC. 

Nah. If the FA don't ban him and the players are still on board then keep him and let him continue to win.

[wild-saint]

14 minutes ago, Saint Gifford said:

His position is untenable. It’s as simple as that really.
 

Regardless of any thought, loyalty, ability, record, success, whatever. 

There clearly is one outcome, he has to go for the sake of Southampton FC. 

Can you tell me clear reasons why you think that’s is the case?

[Harry_SFC]

29 minutes ago, Saint Gifford said:

His position is untenable. It’s as simple as that really.
 

Regardless of any thought, loyalty, ability, record, success, whatever. 

There clearly is one outcome, he has to go for the sake of Southampton FC. 

What happens if he isn't banned, we sack him and get yet another dud replacement in and end up getting relegated. 

Would that be worth it? Granted it's a "what if" situation. But we know our track record for hiring managers is crap. Plus our squad is very likely to be weaker. 

So probably a worse squad and manager just to show we are doing the "right" thing. 

Edited 8 minutes ago by Harry_SFC

[AlexLaw76]

8 minutes ago, Harry_SFC said:

What happens if he isn't banned, we sack him and get yet another dud replacement in and end up getting relegated. 

Would that be worth it? Granted it's a "what if" situation. But we know our track record for hiring managers is crap. Plus our squad is very likely to be weaker. 

So probably a worse squad and manager just to show we are doing the "right" thing. 

He is going to do well to not get banned/keep his job. Very well

There is a reason why this taking a while, as it has gone legal internally due to what is being uncovered.