Tonda Eckert

[hypochondriac]

1 minute ago, Doctoroncall said:

Didn’t the FA charge him days afterwards?

Yes I believe so. If the reports are correct then he isn't contesting the charges. I'm not sure why they would then have to have another hearing with him. Surely that would only be the case if it goes to appeal.

[Mozz]

6 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

I thought he'd already been interviewed extensively for hours?

Yes.  By the FA to inform their decision as to whether to bring a misconduct charge.  I presume the content of their interview with him would be included within their evidence to the commission.

[Mozz]

3 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

Yes I believe so. If the reports are correct then he isn't contesting the charges. I'm not sure why they would then have to have another hearing with him. Surely that would only be the case if it goes to appeal.

If the charges are admitted, the commision would still be required, it would just move straight to the second paragraph below:

"The Regulatory Commission will consider its decision in private, and first consider whether or not the Charge of Misconduct is proved. If it is so proved, then the Regulatory Commission shall inform the person or Club subject to the Charge of this decision and invite them to raise matters in mitigation.

However, if the Charge is admitted the Regulatory Commission shall deem it proved and move straight to considering submissions as to mitigation. Having heard such submissions as to mitigation, the Regulatory Commission shall retire to consider the appropriate sanction."

[Ted Bates Statue]

On 25/07/2026 at 19:34, HarvSFC said:

Looking at other bans, non spying related, but ones that I would consider more serious. Osmajic, the Preston striker. He received an 8 match ban for biting an opponent two years ago. He then received a 9 match ban after being found guilty of racially abusing Mejbri last year.

Luis Suarez received a 10 match ban from the FA for biting Ivanovic. The only bite he did in England, but he had a history for it. He also received an 8 match ban for racially abusing Evra.

With those incidents on the pitch, bringing the game into far more disrepute than an intern with a camera, I'd find it absurd if Eckert was banned for longer. 

Exactly, all these examples were deemed as aggravated breaches of the basic rule which Tonda was charged under, so it would be really quite something for him to be slapped with a comparable (or worse) ban.

[Nordic Saint]

2 hours ago, Mozz said:

If the charges are admitted, the commision would still be required, it would just move straight to the second paragraph below:

"The Regulatory Commission will consider its decision in private, and first consider whether or not the Charge of Misconduct is proved. If it is so proved, then the Regulatory Commission shall inform the person or Club subject to the Charge of this decision and invite them to raise matters in mitigation.

However, if the Charge is admitted the Regulatory Commission shall deem it proved and move straight to considering submissions as to mitigation. Having heard such submissions as to mitigation, the Regulatory Commission shall retire to consider the appropriate sanction."

As far as I can see, from a quick online search, the FA regulatory commission will get its members, who determine the punishment, from the same source that the EFL Commission did - they might even be the same people - Sport Resolutions. Even if any of the panel members are different, they are hardly likely to disagree with the previous commission drawn from exactly the same agency. They're not going to bite the hand that feeds them.

So, it's a double whammy. Has this ever happened before?

Edited 2 hours ago by Nordic Saint

[Pamplemousse]

Just having a look at some of the FA disciplinary decisions, I've noted a certain F. Benali appears as a commission member... 

 

That would even things up, considering the EFL panel was heavily linked with Middlesbrough

Edited 3 hours ago by Pamplemousse

[Nordic Saint]

21 minutes ago, Pamplemousse said:

Just having a look at some of the FA disciplinary decisions, I've noted a certain F. Benali appears as a commission member... 

 

That would even things up, considering the EFL panel was heavily linked with Middlesbrough

These are the requirements for an FA independent judicial panel  member: "ESSENTIAL ATTRIBUTES REQUIRED The essential attributes required are: 2 • A qualified solicitor or barrister with a minimum of 15 years post-qualification experience. King’s Counsel level desirable but not mandatory; • Experience as a judge, arbitrator, disciplinary tribunal member or similar; • A demonstrable knowledge of sports regulation and the applicable law; • A significant understanding of the regulatory framework for English football; • Recent, relevant experience of involvement in sports disciplinary matters"

Basically, the FA just contact the same agency the EFL did - Sport Resolutions -and ask them to provide 3 panel members. Sport Resolutions would expect them to support the views of the 3 members they provided for the EFL commission, and they could very well send the same people.

This lack of independence of the FA panel from the EFL panel leads me to expect another draconian punishment. I hope I'm wrong, because it all seems very unfair.

Edited 2 hours ago by Nordic Saint

[Sheaf Saint]

10 minutes ago, Nordic Saint said:

This lack of independence of the FA panel from the EFL panel leads me to expect another draconian punishment. I hope I'm wrong, because it all seems very unfair.

Or it could go the other way. They might decide that their previous ruling against the club has already had significant punitive effects on Tonda individually, and that any further harsh penalties they could impose would be excessive.

[Saint86]

1 hour ago, Nordic Saint said:

As far as I can see, from a quick online search, the FA regulatory commission will get its members, who determine the punishment, from the same source that the EFL Commission did - they might even be the same people - Sporting Resolutions. Even if any of the panel members are different, they are hardly likely to disagree with the previous commission drawn from exactly the same agency. They're not going to bite the hand that feeds them.

So, it's a double whammy. Has this ever happened before?

Wouldn't be very impartial now would it... Would be an immediate appeal that we'd likely win if we properly contested it.

[Nordic Saint]

18 minutes ago, Saint86 said:

Wouldn't be very impartial now would it... Would be an immediate appeal that we'd likely win if we properly contested it.

Sport Resolutions recruit the FA appeal board members. You can't escape from them.

Edited 2 hours ago by Nordic Saint

[egg]

1 minute ago, Sheaf Saint said:

Or it could go the other way. They might decide that their previous ruling against the club has already had significant punitive effects on Tonda individually, and that any further harsh penalties they could impose would be excessive.

Also, I think leniency for Tonda because of the EFL sanction of the club is very unlikely. They're two distinct issues.

My best guess is an 8 or so game ban to give some kind of parity with the Canada penalty. Anything more would be ott and down the other side. 

[Saint86]

8 minutes ago, Nordic Saint said:

The appeal would only go to panel members also provided by Sport Resolutions. You can't escape from them.

The appeal ultimately goes to the FA appeal board though? Which is headed by a legally qualified chairman, then two additional members (such as football administrators, former players, former managers etc). Crucially, none of the panel members must have any link to the case, so they shouldn't be from the same organisation that arbitrated it for the EFL as quite clearly they have a vested interested in not contradicting their colleagues (and potentially opening up a further civil case over the resultant sanction handed down in the EFL case). Surely, Saints would have grounds for a civil lawsuit if the FA breach the impartiality requirement?

Edited 2 hours ago by Saint86

[TheAlehouseBrawlers]

Let’s be honest, it all depends on if any of the panel are good buddies with Gibbo

[VectisSaint]

1 hour ago, Nordic Saint said:

As far as I can see, from a quick online search, the FA regulatory commission will get its members, who determine the punishment, from the same source that the EFL Commission did - they might even be the same people - Sport Resolutions. Even if any of the panel members are different, they are hardly likely to disagree with the previous commission drawn from exactly the same agency. They're not going to bite the hand that feeds them.

So, it's a double whammy. Has this ever happened before?

But they are not reviewing the same thing. They are looking at (3) charges against Tonda of bringing the game into disrepute. 

[Weston Super Saint]

4 hours ago, Sir Ralph said:

. I can’t see them punishing the club so hard and letting Tonda off. 
 

 

They literally gave the only punishment available once we admitted to cheating - removal from the competition.

What is over the top about it?

[LiberalCommunist]

Quote

They literally gave the only punishment available once we admitted to cheating

At least we now know exactly what cheating is. Be a real nightmare if that was even slightly subjective. 

[benjii]

3 minutes ago, LiberalCommunist said:

At least we now know exactly what cheating is. Be a real nightmare if that was even slightly subjective. 

Makes you wonder why the punishment isn't specified in the rule book, if it's the only one available. 

[Whitey Grandad]

45 minutes ago, Weston Super Saint said:

They literally gave the only punishment available once we admitted to cheating - removal from the competition.

What is over the top about it?

That wasn't the only punishment available.  Literally. 

[StrangelyBrown]

Anyone know when the verdict is due? Something I heard suggested it would be today...

The FA really are dragging their heels on this, which is shameful from a supposedly professional organisation.

[Lighthouse]

1 hour ago, Saint86 said:

Wouldn't be very impartial now would it... Would be an immediate appeal that we'd likely win if we properly contested it.

On what basis?

[AlexLaw76]

Just now, StrangelyBrown said:

Anyone know when the verdict is due? Something I heard suggested it would be today...

The FA really are dragging their heels on this, which is shameful from a supposedly professional organisation.

dragging their heels? It was only yesterday Tonda had a right to reply...

[Danbert]

57 minutes ago, LiberalCommunist said:

At least we now know exactly what cheating is. Be a real nightmare if that was even slightly subjective. 

Maradona definitely didn't cheat and Argentina were quite rightly not expelled from the '96 World Cup. Cheating is objective and only happens when people film training sessions from public places and literally the only possible punishment is expulsion from the competition 🤪

https://www.thesun.co.uk/sport/13345522/diego-maradona-cheat-england-referee/

[StrangelyBrown]

30 minutes ago, AlexLaw76 said:

dragging their heels? It was only yesterday Tonda had a right to reply...

Confused - was that aimed at something I didn't say?

[sadoldgit]

32 minutes ago, AlexLaw76 said:

dragging their heels? It was only yesterday Tonda had a right to reply...

They have been dragging their heels in dealing with it haven’t they?

[AlexLaw76]

1 minute ago, sadoldgit said:

They have been dragging their heels in dealing with it haven’t they?

No idea. Not heard a peep from the club, or any related journo's, regarding is issue what so ever with the timelines.