Tonda Eckert

[Starksj1995]

Is Monday the day we finally hear from the FA 

[obelisk]

6 hours ago, Starksj1995 said:

Is Monday the day we finally hear from the FA 

If the FA follow the Chelsea route then it'd be a suspended sanction in a few years time. But then it isn't Chelsea or City so the FA blazers will probably want to kick one of the smaller fry.

[Charlie Wayman]

10 hours ago, bugenhagen said:

I think with all rules, there are some you never break (or consider breaking) either becuse of your moral, ethics or the severe punishment.

Then there are some it's a little more easy to break, or that we sometimes consider breaking. Risk vs. reward and the likelyhood of getting caught.

Some people on here would never consider spying on another team, as it is breaking a rule, and their moral compass would say no. Others would say: it's no big deal, "everybody" does it.

The people at SFC clearly thought that the reward was bigger than the risk. They would not have done that if they knew that the punishment would be to be thrown out of the playoffs, and a 3 points deduction for every game in the Championship.

The problem we face when discussing this topic here is that some of us have respect for  this rule, while others of us don't.

Anyways, the punishment given in our case will make sure that nobody does this again, even if they respect the rule or not.

No point in having a rules based sytem of governance if one can decide which rules to follow and which ones can be ignored because there is no enforcement or consequences.

[obelisk]

20 minutes ago, Charlie Wayman said:

No point in having a rules based sytem of governance if one can decide which rules to follow and which ones can be ignored because there is no enforcement or consequences.

When a rules based system of governance tells participants that they mustn't do something "improper" without defining what it means or what sanctions might apply for being improper then I'd suggest that those making up the rules probably did so after a long boozy lunch.

[AlexLaw76]

11 minutes ago, obelisk said:

When a rules based system of governance tells participants that they mustn't do something "improper" without defining what it means or what sanctions might apply for being improper then I'd suggest that those making up the rules probably did so after a long boozy lunch.

It was defined, you cannot scout a team without permission within 72 hours of a fixture. He acted 'improper' in relation to following these footballing rules/laws.

[obelisk]

1 minute ago, AlexLaw76 said:

It was defined, you cannot scout a team without permission within 72 hours of a fixture. He acted 'improper' in relation to following these footballing rules/laws.

That's an EFL rule. No other league has it by the way. I'm perfectly aware that Eckert has admitted improper behaviour and he'll no doubt get a kicking from the FA blazers for it.

I'm referring to the catch-all FA Rule 3.1 and my point is a general one relating to it. What is or is not "improper" can be open to interpretation. It's a fairly simply point.

[AlexLaw76]

Just now, obelisk said:

That's an EFL rule. No other league has it by the way. I'm perfectly aware that Eckert has admitted improper behaviour and he'll no doubt get a kicking from the FA blazers for it.

I'm referring to the catch-all FA Rule 3.1 and my point is a general one relating to it. What is or is not "improper" can be open to interpretation. It's a fairly simply point.

It is an EFL rule and it is irrelevant that no other league has it. The league we are in does.

all of these things have to had a degree of interpretation and wiggle room, otherwise the rulebook will b e 1092387492387429384 pages long as every detailed potential breach will need to be codified. I am sure you know this

[hypochondriac]

Come on you bastards tell us what we are looking at today.

[obelisk]

Ok then, does the FA letting Chelsea off the hook after years of improper wrangling behind the scenes bring the game into disrepute? I'd suggest it does but who could bring charges against the FA? 

The only reason we're having these pointless exchanges is because the FA are dragging their feet after a jolly to the world cup. It'll be good to return to the football.

[Saint NL]

Sounds like the FA are going to give egghead Infantino a vote of no confidence. So the poor secretary will be busy typing out that email so our verdict will be delayed again 😢

[Nordic Saint]

On 14/12/2025 at 16:12, AlexLaw76 said:

Agree

Tonda won’t be our manager next season. 

I'm not sure who's more desperate for Tonda to be sacked: Boro fans, Pompey fans or Alex Law.

[Teamsaint1]

2 minutes ago, Nordic Saint said:

I'm not sure who's more desperate for Tonda to be sacked: Boro fans, Pompey fans or Alex Law.

Like many people, I'm struggling to work out what boro's issue actually is now. I guess like the skates they don't need an actual issue though....

[Lighthouse]

1 minute ago, Teamsaint1 said:

Like many people, I'm struggling to work out what boro's issue actually is now. I guess like the skates they don't need an actual issue though....

Do they have an issue? I’ve not actually seen anything reported.

[Ted Bates Statue]

17 minutes ago, Nordic Saint said:

I'm not sure who's more desperate for Tonda to be sacked: Boro fans, Pompey fans or Alex Law.

TBF for a while I think he might have stepped down to let Tonda's football do the talking, during that short-but-sweet period where we went 21 matches unbeaten

[saintant]

12 minutes ago, Lighthouse said:

Do they have an issue? I’ve not actually seen anything reported.

Presumably you've never visited one of their online fans forums. They don't like us much despite the fact that they were given a spot in the play-off final because of our stupidity - you'd have thought they'd be grateful for that gift from us 🙂

[Stripey McStripe Shirt]

I assume they're waiting til after the Colchester game to cause maximum damage to the league campaign.

[DT]

I hope we're sounding out Eddie Howe before Staveley's West Ham nab him.

Can't help feeling the FA will want to go all billy big balls against little old Southampton and amidst the general witch huntery surrounding Infantino and the village cricket cheating scandal. Thought it would be 6 games ban but if it's 10 what would stop us getting Howe in as short term coach/advisor, in a perfect world?

Fantasyish I know but just a thought

[hypochondriac]

@MBany update ?

[Starksj1995]

We have to hear something this week season starts Saturday 

[tdmickey3]

5 minutes ago, Starksj1995 said:

We have to hear something this week season starts Saturday 

The FA couldn't give a shit about that.

Edited 42 minutes ago by tdmickey3

[Pengi]

Interesting article in the Athletic regarding the ‘leniency’ of the FA towards Chelsea. Article is behind a paywall so here are some clips: It’s some result for them if you consider the scale of offending — financial chicanery, dodgy deals, cheating, whatever you wish to call it — that was brought before the English Football Association (FA) without, ultimately, leading to anything more than a £10million ($13.4m) fine.

It goes on to compare the treatment of Chelsea with Everton, Forest, 

So let’s recap what exactly Chelsea did to warrant their 74 disciplinary charges and decide for yourself whether it was less or more serious than the disciplinary cases involving the clubs who, coincidentally, aren’t regarded as part of the Premier League’s ‘Big Six’.

There was, to quote the FA’s judgment, clear evidence that Chelsea had “deliberately flouted” the system in a way that “reveals a shameful and arrogant disregard for the rules of the game, and which has done so much to bring the game of football, and the name of CFC, into disrepute”.

[wild-saint]

31 minutes ago, Stripey McStripe Shirt said:

I assume they're waiting til after the Colchester game to cause maximum damage to the league campaign.

Day before the first league game so the 6 month ban lasts for the longest period of missed matches id imagine plus maximum amount of disruption for the club. 

[Turkish]

11 minutes ago, Pengi said:

Interesting article in the Athletic regarding the ‘leniency’ of the FA towards Chelsea. Article is behind a paywall so here are some clips: It’s some result for them if you consider the scale of offending — financial chicanery, dodgy deals, cheating, whatever you wish to call it — that was brought before the English Football Association (FA) without, ultimately, leading to anything more than a £10million ($13.4m) fine.

It goes on to compare the treatment of Chelsea with Everton, Forest, 

 

So let’s recap what exactly Chelsea did to warrant their 74 disciplinary charges and decide for yourself whether it was less or more serious than the disciplinary cases involving the clubs who, coincidentally, aren’t regarded as part of the Premier League’s ‘Big Six’.

There was, to quote the FA’s judgment, clear evidence that Chelsea had “deliberately flouted” the system in a way that “reveals a shameful and arrogant disregard for the rules of the game, and which has done so much to bring the game of football, and the name of CFC, into disrepute”.

Chelseas annual revenue is 490m, so a 10m fine is just over 2% of their annual revenue, which just puts into perspective how pathetic it is.

[S-Clarke]

7 minutes ago, Turkish said:

Chelseas annual revenue is 490m, so a 10m fine is just over 2% of their annual revenue, which just puts into perspective how pathetic it is.

Meanwhile we were denied the opportunity to compete for £200m+, a promotion - which put the club in a position which impacted the value of the club longer term, limited our growth and we still have a 6 month (potential) ban from football hanging over our manager.

We must have done so many financial dodgy dealings and transfers, pains me to say! Oh wait, we just sent a kid into a bush with an iPhone. Yeah, makes sense.

[LordHester]

2 hours ago, Charlie Wayman said:

No point in having a rules based sytem of governance if one can decide which rules to follow and which ones can be ignored because there is no enforcement or consequences.

Do you want to tell FIFA that?