Tonda Eckert

[Badger]

1 hour ago, hypochondriac said:

Nope. Just bringing the game into disrepute I believe.

Which is vague enough to cover a multitude of things, almost anything the FA want (ie bad treatment of junior staff) could  be considered as damaging to the game’s reputation even if it doesn’t flout any employment  laws. 

Edited 4 hours ago by Badger

[Disco Stu]

2 hours ago, AlexLaw76 said:

Not sure there is a precedent there

Agreed. The Bielsa case amounted to the exploitation of a regulatory loophole whereas the FA will consider Eckert's case a deliberate violation of rules put in place by the EFL.

Also, the perceived severity of the EFL punishment on the club will be immaterial to the FA's personal charges against Eckert. Any collateral damage caused by the fallout will likely be considered irrelevant by the KC and two football "experts" chosen to decide a punishment. You can be pretty sure the FA will put forward the case that a severe precedent should be set.

[Badger]

41 minutes ago, egg said:

Phone - tech, we weren't invited, thus intrusion.

Our legal team ballsed it up first time round by, amongst other things, not recognising the seriousness. They won't be that stupid this time. 

Do we know the extent of involvement of our ‘legal team’ ?

I don’t think any of us kniw the process and how it’s conducted. Tonda is said to have been interviewed or spoken with the FA. What format does this take ? Is he essentially cross examined or just asked to state his understanding of what happened? 
 

Whichever way it’s handled does he go into that alone to discuss it/answer questions, or is he flanked by SFC legal team (hopefully more keyed up than the initial hearing seemed to be) guiding him. Does the club get chance to submit anything as well ? 

Anyone on here know ? 

Our handling of the initial episode wasn’t great, hope this has been properly overseen and not just by a bloke who used to sell Dysons. 

[Football Special]

1 hour ago, egg said:

Phone - tech, we weren't invited, thus intrusion.

Our legal team ballsed it up first time round by, amongst other things, not recognising the seriousness. They won't be that stupid this time. 

So if Leeds recorded on old fashioned notepad thats ok but phone makes it worse?  Don't think we broke into premises rather watching from the outside so limits the intrusion,  there is plenty of mitigation to argue relevant precedent , fact is EFL introduced rule that doesn't actually apply to other FA Competitions so that could be relevant in context. 

[hypochondriac]

58 minutes ago, Badger said:

Which is vague enough to cover a multitude of things, almost anything the FA want (ie bad treatment of junior staff) could  be considered as damaging to the game’s reputation even if it doesn’t flout any employment  laws. 

I can't remember the specifics but I don't think bullying has ever been mentioned. I've seen no evidence that he's done that, simply that he sanctioned spying.

[Willo of Whiteley]

Bruno Fernandes brings the game into disrepute with his diving.

It’s the most vague term going.

[trousers]

11 hours ago, Lee On Solent Saint said:

This will all be about the perceived nature of the bullying that was allegedly involved. The FA will want to be seen as making a stand against individuals who are supposed to be carrying out this behaviour. If they believe he has bullied club employees into spying on opponents then I think they will look to make an example of him. 

 

11 hours ago, saintant said:

Where is the evidence of bullying? Isn't Salt still working for the club? Don't see bullying being an issue.

 

2 hours ago, hypochondriac said:

Nope. Just bringing the game into disrepute I believe.

Which, IIRC, is exactly the same FA charge that Bielsa faced, and got a slap on the wrist (from the FA). 

I still maintain that the EFL rule change should have nothing to do with how the FA deal with this. Both Bielsa and Eckert "brought the game into disrepute", regardless of what rules the EFL happened to have in place at the time, and that's all the FA should be focusing on. 

In my humble opinion of course. 

[hypochondriac]

27 minutes ago, trousers said:

 

 

Which, IIRC, is exactly the same FA charge that Bielsa faced, and got a slap on the wrist (from the FA). 

I still maintain that the EFL rule change should have nothing to do with how the FA deal with this. Both Bielsa and Eckert "brought the game into disrepute", regardless of what rules the EFL happened to have in place at the time, and that's all the FA should be focusing on. 

In my humble opinion of course. 

Yes I said that a few months ago but I can see an argument where they argue that Bielsa technically didn't break the rules because there were no rules to break. By breaking the rule now, you could argue that breaking the newly formulated rules themselves would constitute the bringing the game into disrepute charge. Not saying I agree with it but surely that's how it will be interpreted.

[hypochondriac]

2 hours ago, Badger said:

Which is vague enough to cover a multitude of things, almost anything the FA want (ie bad treatment of junior staff) could  be considered as damaging to the game’s reputation even if it doesn’t flout any employment  laws. 

Alfie house has confirmed that the three charges relate to the specific acts of spying on three occasions and nothing to do with conduct with staff.

[trousers]

5 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

Yes I said that a few months ago but I can see an argument where they argue that Bielsa technically didn't break the rules because there were no rules to break. By breaking the rule now, you could argue that breaking the newly formulated rules themselves would constitute the bringing the game into disrepute charge. Not saying I agree with it but surely that's how it will be interpreted.

Alas, I fear you're probably correct, even though (in my view) it would illogical to treat them differently, given the EFL rule is nothing to do with the FA. Hence why Bielsa also faced with the same "disrepute" charge, surely?

In other words, if a pre-requisite of the FA being able to accuse a manager of "bringing the game into disrepute" is the pre-existence of a rule they've broken in whichever league they happen to be managing in, then how were they able to bring a disrepute charge against Bielsa in the first place? 

(On reflection, I guess the answer to this is that he was in breach of the lesser EFL 'general misconduct' rule, which pre-dated the spying rule... Bugger... Just blown my own argument out of the water... Probably... )