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 22 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... )

[AlexLaw76]

The time taken is fucking ridiculous.

As someone mentioned above, if this was deemed such a bad offence, how was Tonda allowed to start the season and help get us off to a great start. Surely there won’t be a significant ban coming??

He clearly won’t get away with it but anything other than a fine and/or a few games (maybe some more suspended) would be insane

But who knows in football. I never expected us to get booted from the playoff final the evening of additional tickets released to Saints.

[hypochondriac]

53 minutes ago, AlexLaw76 said:

The time taken is fucking ridiculous.

As someone mentioned above, if this was deemed such a bad offence, how was Tonda allowed to start the season and help get us off to a great start. Surely there won’t be a significant ban coming??

He clearly won’t get away with it but anything other than a fine and/or a few games (maybe some more suspended) would be insane

But who knows in football. I never expected us to get booted from the playoff final the evening of additional tickets released to Saints.

I think that depends what they give him. I'm sure at least part of the delay is that we will have appealed and hopefully pushed back quite forcefully. Like you say though I never expected the original punishment so everything is up for grabs.

[EssEffCee]

Isn't the charge 'general misconduct' rather bringing the game into disrepute? In which case I can see why Tonda breaking a specific rule is more relevant than the Biesla case. Biesla wasn't charged at all btw.

Also I'm not sure why people are convinced that if he gets say a 6 month ban we'll bring in a temporary manager. Potential for disaster written all over it.

[DellBlockH]

Any lengthy ban would effectively make Eckert unemployed and unemployable in his chosen profession. This opens a whole can of worms about restraint of trade. The club may have had to agree not to use civil litigation against the EFL and may have a similar agreement with the FA. But surely an individual cannot be barred from seeking redress in the civil courts if he/she believes a decision affecting their livelihood is unjust?

I'm not a lawyer (obviously) but it can't be natural justice to stop a man earning a living for something so relatively minor. Examples I can think of where regulatory bodies can do this are teachers when they shag the pupils, solicitors when they steal clients' money and doctors when they kill their patients. A bit of observation of training hardly comes into that sort of seriousness.

[hypochondriac]

44 minutes ago, EssEffCee said:

Isn't the charge 'general misconduct' rather bringing the game into disrepute? In which case I can see why Tonda breaking a specific rule is more relevant than the Biesla case. Biesla wasn't charged at all btw.

Also I'm not sure why people are convinced that if he gets say a 6 month ban we'll bring in a temporary manager. Potential for disaster written all over it.

True. He was actually charged with:

Three breaches of FA Rule E3.1.

Rule E3.1 is the FA’s broad misconduct rule. In essence, it says a participant must not act in a way that is improper, brings the game into disrepute, or involves threatening, abusive, indecent or insulting behaviour.

It is alleged that he acted in an improper manner and/or brought the game into disrepute by directing and/or authorising the observation of opposition training sessions before Southampton played:

Oxford United — December 2025
Ipswich Town — April 2026
Middlesbrough — May 2026

 

[LegalEagle]

A six game touchline ban and a chunky fine would be my guess. Something touched on above relates to trying to ban him from the game. That undoubtedly breaches all kinds of employment laws and the Human Rights Act. He hadn’t committed a criminal offence. He’s breached a rule or two of a private company with its own rules. That is fine territory and a smack on the wrists.

[revolution saint]

9 game ban making him eligible to face 'Boro as his first game back.  SKY will love it.

[saintant]

1 hour ago, hypochondriac said:

I think that depends what they give him. I'm sure at least part of the delay is that we will have appealed and hopefully pushed back quite forcefully. Like you say though I never expected the original punishment so everything is up for grabs.

How can we appeal before the punishment has been announced?

[hypochondriac]

7 minutes ago, saintant said:

How can we appeal before the punishment has been announced?

Presumably the announced punishment will be after the appeal. Look at Man City for example...

[Nordic Saint]

1 hour ago, EssEffCee said:

Isn't the charge 'general misconduct' rather bringing the game into disrepute? In which case I can see why Tonda breaking a specific rule is more relevant than the Biesla case. Biesla wasn't charged at all btw.

Also I'm not sure why people are convinced that if he gets say a 6 month ban we'll bring in a temporary manager. Potential for disaster written all over it.

In fact, Bielsa was given the FIFA Fair Play Award at the end of his 'spygate' season.

[LiberalCommunist]

When we score the forth goal against Wrexham, Tonda needs to run on the pitch and rule out the goal for a possible infringement that occurred sometime previously. This will absolve him of all crimes and land him the golden boot of fair-play ending all this drama. 

 

Simple. 

[Turkish]

1 hour ago, hypochondriac said:

True. He was actually charged with:

Three breaches of FA Rule E3.1.

Rule E3.1 is the FA’s broad misconduct rule. In essence, it says a participant must not act in a way that is improper, brings the game into disrepute, or involves threatening, abusive, indecent or insulting behaviour.

It is alleged that he acted in an improper manner and/or brought the game into disrepute by directing and/or authorising the observation of opposition training sessions before Southampton played:

Oxford United — December 2025
Ipswich Town — April 2026
Middlesbrough — May 2026

 

AI is predicting a ban of 3 months to a year. It's saying that fact it involved coercion and it was premeditated make it worse.  The longer it drags on the more concerned i am that they're going to throw the book at him. They'll want to make an example as they often do with smaller clubs. It's crazy that such a stupid, amateurish thing to do has caused this. It's not like we even gained anything from it either. Chelsea and Man City have won titles from breaking rules, other clubs have stayed up by doing it and just taking a points deduction, we and potentially Tonda have had our arses handed to us for no gain whatsoever

Edited 7 hours ago by Turkish

[beatlesaint]

37 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

Presumably the announced punishment will be after the appeal. Look at Man City for example...

Just using your plucked out of the sky assumption when do you believe Tonda and the club were informed of the punishment that they are currently under the cover of darkness appealing?

[Whitey Grandad]

55 minutes ago, Turkish said:

AI is predicting a ban of 3 months to a year. It's saying that fact it involved coercion and it was premeditated make it worse.  The longer it drags on the more concerned i am that they're going to throw the book at him. They'll want to make an example as they often do with smaller clubs. It's crazy that such a stupid, amateurish thing to do has caused this. It's not like we even gained anything from it either. Chelsea and Man City have won titles from breaking rules, other clubs have stayed up by doing it and just taking a points deduction, we and potentially Tonda have had our arses handed to us for no gain whatsoever

Coercion?

[Ted Bates Statue]

No point worrying about it until it happens. The team is up and running nicely now and we're keeping pace with the leaders. If the verdict is a ban we'll be well placed to withstand it and weather the storm.

Once it was confirmed that the investigation wasn't for an aggravated breach, it signalled to me that Tonda wouldn't be banned for a prolonged period. For a handful of matches (I reckon 3) he'll sit in the stand and will still get to address the team at HT. 

If Larin's reaction to Bristol City's ref (literally one of their own) was anything to go by, we will be more than capable of handling a little extra adversity. 

[The Oggmonster]

26 minutes ago, Ted Bates Statue said:

No point worrying about it until it happens. The team is up and running nicely now and we're keeping pace with the leaders. If the verdict is a ban we'll be well placed to withstand it and weather the storm.

Once it was confirmed that the investigation wasn't for an aggravated breach, it signalled to me that Tonda wouldn't be banned for a prolonged period. For a handful of matches (I reckon 3) he'll sit in the stand and will still get to address the team at HT. 

If Larin's reaction to Bristol City's ref (literally one of their own) was anything to go by, we will be more than capable of handling a little extra adversity. 

Hope not

[Pengi]

1 hour ago, Whitey Grandad said:

Coercion?

Pressure put on the interns to spy but was that from Tonda or someone else?

[Britannia]

Authorising something and being the person guilty of coercion are different things, may not be the same person.

[hypochondriac]

5 minutes ago, Pengi said:

Pressure put on the interns to spy but was that from Tonda or someone else?

Alfie House seemed quite clear on the Total Saints Podcast yesterday that it was the three instances of spying that he was charged with, nothing to do with behaviour towards other members of staff or interns. 

[Nordic Saint]

2 hours ago, Turkish said:

AI is predicting a ban of 3 months to a year. It's saying that fact it involved coercion and it was premeditated make it worse.  The longer it drags on the more concerned i am that they're going to throw the book at him. They'll want to make an example as they often do with smaller clubs. It's crazy that such a stupid, amateurish thing to do has caused this. It's not like we even gained anything from it either. Chelsea and Man City have won titles from breaking rules, other clubs have stayed up by doing it and just taking a points deduction, we and potentially Tonda have had our arses handed to us for no gain whatsoever

It's not fair, but scapegoating is well and truly targeting Saints. Clubs like Man City and Chelsea are just too big and strong to be made scapegoats. That's how scapegoating works.

A vulnerable target becomes a focus for hostility. Everyone's misdemeanors are then neatly wrapped up and paid for by the severe punishment of the scapegoat. It makes everyone feel better about themselves except, of course, the scapegoat.

 

Edited 4 hours ago by Nordic Saint

[Verbal]

2 hours ago, Turkish said:

AI is predicting a ban of 3 months to a year. It's saying that fact it involved coercion and it was premeditated make it worse.  The longer it drags on the more concerned i am that they're going to throw the book at him. They'll want to make an example as they often do with smaller clubs. It's crazy that such a stupid, amateurish thing to do has caused this. It's not like we even gained anything from it either. Chelsea and Man City have won titles from breaking rules, other clubs have stayed up by doing it and just taking a points deduction, we and potentially Tonda have had our arses handed to us for no gain whatsoever

I share your concern, but I'm going to stick someone else's neck out and say AI is shit. As far as I can see, coercion is not on the charge sheet; and how can the decision to spy be anything other than 'premeditated'? Or is AI suggesting that a lesser charge might be that Tonda pocket-dialled the order?

[hypochondriac]

5 minutes ago, Verbal said:

I share your concern, but I'm going to stick someone else's neck out and say AI is shit. As far as I can see, coercion is not on the charge sheet; and how can the decision to spy be anything other than 'premeditated'? Or is AI suggesting that a lesser charge might be that Tonda pocket-dialled the order?

I assume they mean the level of planning and coordination involved (like dressing up in Eastleigh training gear) as opposed to just rocking up and someone sending some footage to SFC from the training. 

[Football Special]

1 hour ago, Verbal said:

I share your concern, but I'm going to stick someone else's neck out and say AI is shit. As far as I can see, coercion is not on the charge sheet; and how can the decision to spy be anything other than 'premeditated'? Or is AI suggesting that a lesser charge might be that Tonda pocket-dialled the order?

AI is shit 

Wouldnt put it past the FA to ask Co-Pilot to work it all out for them though 

Edited 3 hours ago by Football Special

[Whitey Grandad]

20 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

Alfie House seemed quite clear on the Total Saints Podcast yesterday that it was the three instances of spying that he was charged with, nothing to do with behaviour towards other members of staff or interns. 

Why single out Tonda? Surely the club as a whole must take responsibility for this and it has already been heavily punished. 

[SouthWalesSaints]

AI said we wouldn't get kicked from the playoffs. 

[Whitey Grandad]

Just now, SouthWalesSaints said:

AI said we wouldn't get kicked from the playoffs. 

And so did I. What does that tell you? 

[Bob60]

2 minutes ago, Whitey Grandad said:

And so did I. What does that tell you? 

Your actually AI🤯

[egg]

44 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

Alfie House seemed quite clear on the Total Saints Podcast yesterday that it was the three instances of spying that he was charged with, nothing to do with behaviour towards other members of staff or interns. 

The circumstances around the spying will doubtless be a factor. 

[egg]

22 minutes ago, SouthWalesSaints said:

AI said we wouldn't get kicked from the playoffs. 

It didn't for me, and made the obvious point that there was no other sporting sanction (points wouldn't bite if we went up) so exclusion from the play offs picked itself as the only available sporting sanction. 

[VectisSaint]

17 hours ago, hypochondriac said:

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.

I refer your honour to the following, specifically paras 27 and 40. The word bullying is not used, but that's what is meant or implied. It was specifically the reason for the reprimand that we were given, which has often been overlooked.

https://images.gc.eflservices.co.uk/0a0e87d0-5538-11f1-ab88-f930a57d19ce.pdf

[richardc]

3 hours ago, Turkish said:

AI is predicting a ban of 3 months to a year. It's saying that fact it involved coercion and it was premeditated make it worse.  The longer it drags on the more concerned i am that they're going to throw the book at him. They'll want to make an example as they often do with smaller clubs. It's crazy that such a stupid, amateurish thing to do has caused this. It's not like we even gained anything from it either. Chelsea and Man City have won titles from breaking rules, other clubs have stayed up by doing it and just taking a points deduction, we and potentially Tonda have had our arses handed to us for no gain whatsoever

My AI has officially gone full Terminator mode and threatened to hunt him down and kill him for his disgraceful life choices.

[VectisSaint]

29 minutes ago, Whitey Grandad said:

Why single out Tonda? Surely the club as a whole must take responsibility for this and it has already been heavily punished. 

Tonda is the one charged by the FA (charged *3  with bringing the game into disrepute). The Club accepted responsibility by way of the EFL Charges, and the EFL are not authorised to charge or punish individuals, only the FA have this authority.

Personally I tend to agree with you that the club should have taken more responsibility, it seems to me Tonda has taken the rap in order to protect not only subordinates, but also his bosses.

[egg]

1 minute ago, VectisSaint said:

Tonda is the one charged by the FA (charged *3  with bringing the game into disrepute). The Club accepted responsibility by way of the EFL Charges, and the EFL are not authorised to charge or punish individuals, only the FA have this authority.

Personally I tend to agree with you that the club should have taken more responsibility, it seems to me Tonda has taken the rap in order to protect not only subordinates, but also his bosses.

Are you suggesting that the top down orders were from above Tonda?

[hypochondriac]

10 minutes ago, VectisSaint said:

I refer your honour to the following, specifically paras 27 and 40. The word bullying is not used, but that's what is meant or implied. It was specifically the reason for the reprimand that we were given, which has often been overlooked.

https://images.gc.eflservices.co.uk/0a0e87d0-5538-11f1-ab88-f930a57d19ce.pdf

Nothing like that was ever mentioned by the FA though and delegated to the intern does not state that this was done by Eckert directly. Ultimately he is responsible but the distinction still matters. 

Edited 3 hours ago by hypochondriac

[obelisk]

Meanwhile the rest of the football world looks on and laughs at the ridiculous overreaction to a spot of scouting. Anything more than a suspended slap on the wrists and I'd hope Dragan drags the FA Man City/Chelsea style appeals for years to come.

[SNOWY]

He was given an eight-match ground ban, a four-match touchline ban and a £250 fine.

Footage of Lashenko shouting at the referee and being held back by players was circulated on social media following the club's match last autumn.

The FA's independent Regulatory Commission found him guilty of two breaches for threatening behaviour in and/or around the field of play and for improper language and/or behaviour in and/or around the changing room.

 

 

Ignore the fine as this was non-league but I would consider threatening behavior towards a referee as far more serious than spying on opponents

[Sir Ralph]

38 minutes ago, SNOWY said:

He was given an eight-match ground ban, a four-match touchline ban and a £250 fine.

Footage of Lashenko shouting at the referee and being held back by players was circulated on social media following the club's match last autumn.

The FA's independent Regulatory Commission found him guilty of two breaches for threatening behaviour in and/or around the field of play and for improper language and/or behaviour in and/or around the changing room.

 

 

Ignore the fine as this was non-league but I would consider threatening behavior towards a referee as far more serious than spying on opponents

Don’t be rationale - the fa aren’t following precedents they have already set. They are making this up as they go along

[Graffito]

1 hour ago, VectisSaint said:

I refer your honour to the following, specifically paras 27 and 40. The word bullying is not used, but that's what is meant or implied. It was specifically the reason for the reprimand that we were given, which has often been overlooked.

https://images.gc.eflservices.co.uk/0a0e87d0-5538-11f1-ab88-f930a57d19ce.pdf

Bit of a leap from what’s said in 27 and 40 to saying this means bullying (by TE or anybody else). It does not, in my opinion. They refer to evidence from the intern about how he felt. There’s no reference to any other evidence, from TE or anybody else, in those two paragraphs. If anything the paragraphs imply that there were inadequate procedures in place to enable junior staff to report concerns.

I’d also point out that the Intern has accepted a permanent job with the club.
 

I think the bullying tag attached to TE has been largely the press and media. If I were TE I’d be well pissed off with it.

 

[Disco Stu]

1 hour ago, SNOWY said:

He was given an eight-match ground ban, a four-match touchline ban and a £250 fine.

Footage of Lashenko shouting at the referee and being held back by players was circulated on social media following the club's match last autumn.

The FA's independent Regulatory Commission found him guilty of two breaches for threatening behaviour in and/or around the field of play and for improper language and/or behaviour in and/or around the changing room.

 

 

Ignore the fine as this was non-league but I would consider threatening behavior towards a referee as far more serious than spying on opponents

Is violence and racism worse than spying? Of course it is. But the most important thing in the eyes of those in powerful positions is money which is why they'll treat an offense that throws the integrity of a result into doubt more seriously.

Edited 1 hour ago by Disco Stu

[Verbal]

2 hours ago, SouthWalesSaints said:

AI said we wouldn't get kicked from the playoffs. 

 

2 hours ago, Whitey Grandad said:

And so did I. What does that tell you? 

 

2 hours ago, Bob60 said:

Your actually AI🤯

And you're shit?