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 3 hours 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?

[Thereisonlyonemickychannon]

53 minutes ago, tdmickey3 said:

The FA couldn't give a shit about that.

The FA are going to stuff us, I feel it.

[Window Cleaner]

35 minutes ago, S-Clarke said:

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.

But in the words of Koko the Lord High Executioner, Let the punishment fit the crime.

Chelsea's offences are in the main financial, so a financial penalty . Our offences are sporting, so a sporting penalty.

[Turkish]

8 minutes ago, Thereisonlyonemickychannon said:

The FA are going to stuff us, I feel it.

Yep i've got that feeling too, they tend to come down hard on the clubs they can do it too. 

[CB Fry]

I'm looking forward to the forum crashing as that's when I will know the punishment has been handed down.

[Saint86]

1 hour ago, Stripey McStripe Shirt said:

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

That is my working assumption.

[Window Cleaner]

6 minutes ago, Turkish said:

Yep i've got that feeling too, they tend to come down hard on the clubs they can do it too. 

 

15 minutes ago, Thereisonlyonemickychannon said:

The FA are going to stuff us, I feel it.

They aren't going to "stuff us", they may punish the principal perpetrator of the offences.

We could have suspended him at the outset and not be grannying 2 months later.

Edited 1 hour ago by Window Cleaner

[DT]

2 minutes ago, Window Cleaner said:

 

They aren't going to "stuff us", they may punish the principal perpetrator of the offences.

We could have suspended him at the outset and not be grannying 2 months later.

'Grannying'? Is this about Wayne Rooney? 😉

[hypochondriac]

Fair to say it's unlikely to come today now. 

[tdmickey3]

Just now, hypochondriac said:

Fair to say it's unlikely to come today now. 

Saturday about 2pm

[Wade Garrett]

44 minutes ago, Window Cleaner said:

But in the words of Koko the Lord High Executioner, Let the punishment fit the crime.

Chelsea's offences are in the main financial, so a financial penalty . Our offences are sporting, so a sporting penalty.

We’ve had a sporting penalty.

Fucking big one as well.

Chelsea’s financial offence gave them a sporting advantage for years.  Don’t really see your point.

[macca155]

Whatever it is, I reckon we need to just suck it up and get the season started on the right footing.

I know the forum will be alive to the injustice, and will want the club to lawyer up, but I reckon that will be counter productive.

If it's a lengthy ban,so be it. No doubt the club have a contingency plan for that.

We all need closure on this fiasco. We can't let it destabilise the team on the pitch, otherwise it will cause even more damage this season. 

The other sides will be going for the jugular, while we are at our weakest. They know Saints will be a dangerous side, once they are out of survival mode.

Need to give someone a slap early doors, to avoid that. 

[West Dean FC Legend]

16 minutes ago, tdmickey3 said:

Saturday about 2pm

I would say 5:29pm....

[Lighthouse]

2 hours ago, saintant said:

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 🙂

Every club has delusional moon howlers spouting partisan nonsense on internet forums, I can’t say I’d pay any attention to that.

[Stripey McStripe Shirt]

5 minutes ago, Lighthouse said:

Every club has delusional moon howlers spouting partisan nonsense on internet forums, I can’t say I’d pay any attention to that.

What are you implying?

[Lighthouse]

5 minutes ago, Stripey McStripe Shirt said:

What are you implying?

That ‘Boro’ don’t have an issue, beyond the stuff a bunch of nobodies are posting on an internet message board. The actual club aren’t pressing for any kind of action against Tonda, unless I’ve missed something.

[saintant]

17 minutes ago, macca155 said:

Whatever it is, I reckon we need to just suck it up and get the season started on the right footing.

I know the forum will be alive to the injustice, and will want the club to lawyer up, but I reckon that will be counter productive.

If it's a lengthy ban,so be it. No doubt the club have a contingency plan for that.

We all need closure on this fiasco. We can't let it destabilise the team on the pitch, otherwise it will cause even more damage this season. 

The other sides will be going for the jugular, while we are at our weakest. They know Saints will be a dangerous side, once they are out of survival mode.

Need to give someone a slap early doors, to avoid that. 

Have to disagree. If the punishment is excessive we need to go in fair but hard with the best lawyers available. Look at how leniently the FA have treated Chelsea. We need to be standing up for ourselves not meekly allowing them to dish out severe punishment that will disrupt our club.

[LordHester]

1 hour ago, Window Cleaner said:

But in the words of Koko the Lord High Executioner, Let the punishment fit the crime.

Chelsea's offences are in the main financial, so a financial penalty . Our offences are sporting, so a sporting penalty.

Not sure you can so easily separate finances and sport; as if Chelsea weren't in some way looking to achieve and sporting advantage through financial means.

[James]

28 minutes ago, LordHester said:

Not sure you can so easily separate finances and sport; as if Chelsea weren't in some way looking to achieve and sporting advantage through financial means.

Exactly. Chelsea made illegal payments in connection with Eden Hazard’s transfer. Would he have signed for them absent those payments? Who knows but, if I’m remembering rightly, it’s fair to say that most of the wider football community was surprised Hazard had chosen to move to Chelsea at a time when most of the top clubs in Europe wanted to sign him. During the 7 years Chelsea had Hazard in their team they won 2 league titles, an FA Cup, a League Cup and 2 Europa Leagues. Would they have won those trophies without Hazard? Again, who knows but having one of the best players in world football clearly will have helped. That’s before you even get to the circa. £100m transfer profit they made selling him on to Real Madrid or the countless other players they signed using these illegal tactics. To categorise all this as purely a financial breach is kind of missing the point. The FA is wilfully missing the point to avoid having to sanction Chelsea to harshly but even a basic read of the facts tells you they gained a huge sporting advantage from these practices. As has been said vis a vis our conduct, if they didn’t think it’d bring them success on the pitch then why did they do it? 

Edited 28 minutes ago by James

[Secret Site Agent]

The way I see it is this.

'First case your honour, Chelsea Dave is accused of 15 counts of fraud against numerous companies to achieve a competitive advantage, companies have gone bust, people are out of work, and they continued to do it until a new management team realised how decidedly calcareous their position is, so they pleaded guilty and helped the police whilst the investigation was ongoing.'

Judge: 'Based on what I see and with coming forward, my sentence is 2 years suspended sentence and £10 fine. NEXT'.

 

'Second case is Southampton Pete.  He was caught filming his competitors so he could gain a competitive advantage in the industry, but unfortunately didn't gain anything as they were unable to use the information incorrectly.'

Judge: 'Based on what I see, they deserve a life sentence with no chance of parole for 15 years, and a £200 million pound fine and they should consider themselves lucky that the death sentence has been repealed.'

 

When challenged why, the judge pointed out that Tottenham Stan had almost been punished, West Ham Ron had been punished and punishing Chelsea Dave would upset the status quo, where as Southampton Pete no body would mind if he was knocked down a peg or two.

[saintant]

28 minutes ago, James said:

Exactly. Chelsea made illegal payments in connection with Eden Hazard’s transfer. Would he have signed for them absent those payments? Who knows but, if I’m remembering rightly, it’s fair to say that most of the wider football community was surprised Hazard had chosen to move to Chelsea at a time when most of the top clubs in Europe wanted to sign him. During the 7 years Chelsea had Hazard in their team they won 2 league titles, an FA Cup, a League Cup and 2 Europa Leagues. Would they have won those trophies without Hazard? Again, who knows but having one of the best players in world football clearly will have helped. That’s before you even get to the circa. £100m transfer profit they made selling him on to Real Madrid or the countless other players they signed using these illegal tactics. To categorise all this as purely a financial breach is kind of missing the point. The FA is wilfully missing the point to avoid having to sanction Chelsea to harshly but even a basic read of the facts tells you they gained a huge sporting advantage from these practices. As has been said vis a vis our conduct, if they didn’t think it’d bring them success on the pitch then why did they do it? 

This frames the whole sorry saga perfectly. For whatever reason the FA are playing silly buggers with our club and they need to quickly make public the sanctions they have decided against Tonda. Maybe they realise how stupid they'll look if they come down hard on him after the absolute farce of the Chelsea case.