Tonda Eckert

[Lighthouse]

3 minutes ago, Nordic Saint said:

Jose Fonte would have been an ideal temporary appointment and he probably would have been happy to do it, but Sunderland have got him now. I've never really seen Lallana as managerial material.

He’s been a coach for like a month, how does that make him ideal or better than Lallana?

[Miltonaggro]

I was surprised by the club's stance towards the EFL when the case broke.  Admitting the accusation /causation, allowing two other counts, and then agreeing to an accelerated timescale for the hearing was an honourable if naive approach, certainly not what would have been expected of most of the clubs in our division in the mix for the mega money playoff on merit.  I anticipated the crisis strategy would be deny, set up a lengthy internal investigation (pad out), internally mitigate with those accused, and then threaten litigation if the punishment set by the regulator was excessive (external scrutiny).  Solak has repeat form for this in his business dealings.  SFC only seemed to wake up to reality at the 11th hour in the appeal hearing with the desparate panic to mobilise David Pannick.  Far too little far too late.  

My gut feeling is that this time around the response may be different, and there will have been discrete communication between the club and the FA that excessive punishment towards the manager won't be accepted without consequences.  We will find out soon enough.

[obelisk]

12 minutes ago, Miltonaggro said:

I was surprised by the club's stance towards the EFL when the case broke.  Admitting the accusation /causation, allowing two other counts, and then agreeing to an accelerated timescale for the hearing was an honourable if naive approach, certainly not what would have been expected of most of the clubs in our division in the mix for the mega money playoff on merit.  I anticipated the crisis strategy would be deny, set up a lengthy internal investigation (pad out), internally mitigate with those accused, and then threaten litigation if the punishment set by the regulator was excessive (external scrutiny).  Solak has repeat form for this in his business dealings.  SFC only seemed to wake up to reality at the 11th hour in the appeal hearing with the desparate panic to mobilise David Pannick.  Far too little far too late.  

My gut feeling is that this time around the response may be different, and there will have been discrete communication between the club and the FA that excessive punishment towards the manager won't be accepted without consequences.  We will find out soon enough.

I presume that the rushed mea culpa approach to the EFL's charges was designed to bring the overblown matter to a swift conclusion with a fine and a slap on the wrist. Trouble is the biased EFL kangaroo court had other ideas and served up the death penalty for what most of the football world sees as a trivial offence. I suspect that Solak has learned a very hard lesson that the blazers who run football cannot be trusted and will act accordingly.

[Turkish]

2 minutes ago, obelisk said:

I presume that the rushed mea culpa approach to the EFL's charges was designed to bring the overblown matter to a swift conclusion with a fine and a slap on the wrist. Trouble is the biased EFL kangaroo court had other ideas and served up the death penalty for what most of the football world sees as a trivial offence. I suspect that Solak has learned a very hard lesson that the blazers who run football cannot be trusted and will act accordingly.

Yep, Parsons even said to Gibbo, Sorry Steve, we'll admit we're guilty and pay the fine, or words to that effect. Clearly didn't realise what would follow with Middlesborough stirring it all up and pushing for the most severe penalty. It was even said in the media by Simon Jordan i think, that even they thought it was all a bit something of nothing umtil they realised they could get an advantage from it. 

[Nordic Saint]

10 minutes ago, Turkish said:

Yep, Parsons even said to Gibbo, Sorry Steve, we'll admit we're guilty and pay the fine, or words to that effect. Clearly didn't realise what would follow with Middlesborough stirring it all up and pushing for the most severe penalty. It was even said in the media by Simon Jordan i think, that even they thought it was all a bit something of nothing umtil they realised they could get an advantage from it. 

Yes, it was all about what advantage Middlesbrough could gain from it. Neither Ipswich nor Oxford  seemed particularly bothered, as they couldn't see any benefit from it and analysts watching other teams' training sessions wasn't considered anything out of the ordinary.

I still wonder whether it was a case of entrapment using  information provided by the junior analyst who went back to Middlesbrough after a brief stint at Southampton. 

Edited 9 hours ago by Nordic Saint

[revolution saint]

56 minutes ago, Miltonaggro said:

 

My gut feeling is that this time around the response may be different, and there will have been discrete communication between the club and the FA that excessive punishment towards the manager won't be accepted without consequences.  We will find out soon enough.

A lot of people seem to be saying stuff like this but, genuine question, what could we actually do?  We've pleaded guilty to the charges, there's already precedent in the punishment given to the Canadian Womens Manager but more importantly - I don't see what leverage we have.  Just feels like wishful thinking in the same way we didn't think we'd get chucked out of the playoffs.  I'm sure we'll appeal or have appealed if it feels excessive but don't think we'll do very much outside of that.
Hopefully the punishment isn't too severe.

[obelisk]

1 minute ago, revolution saint said:

there's already precedent in the punishment given to the Canadian Womens Manager

Didn't that amount to something like a 4 match ban?

[revolution saint]

1 minute ago, obelisk said:

Didn't that amount to something like a 4 match ban?

I think it was 12 months during which they played 6 games so depends which way you look at it.  The ban itself was talked about as a 12 month ban.  Regardless, that still doesn't really answer the question about what consequences we could enact if we feel the penalty is too excessive.

[Miltonaggro]

1 minute ago, revolution saint said:

A lot of people seem to be saying stuff like this but, genuine question, what could we actually do?  We've pleaded guilty to the charges, there's already precedent in the punishment given to the Canadian Womens Manager but more importantly - I don't see what leverage we have.  Just feels like wishful thinking in the same way we didn't think we'd get chucked out of the playoffs.  I'm sure we'll appeal or have appealed if it feels excessive but don't think we'll do very much outside of that.
Hopefully the punishment isn't too severe.

Football regulators are no different from any other commercial regulator in terms of their powers, and exceeding their powers / appearing to act subjectively.  A regulatory body is never above the law, so there is always recourse, a further independent level / test.  Essentially, that's the key thing, commercial or reputational damage due to the regulator exceeding their powers, or applying their powers inconsistently.  

[revolution saint]

Just now, Miltonaggro said:

Football regulators are no different from any other commercial regulator in terms of their powers, and exceeding their powers / appearing to act subjectively.  A regulatory body is never above the law, so there is always recourse, a further independent level / test.  Essentially, that's the key thing, commercial or reputational damage due to the regulator exceeding their powers, or applying their powers inconsistently.  

So a legal challenge that could drag on?  Yeah, I guess we could but personally I don't think we'd get very far and I don't think the FA will be too bothered either.

[Miltonaggro]

14 minutes ago, revolution saint said:

So a legal challenge that could drag on?  Yeah, I guess we could but personally I don't think we'd get very far and I don't think the FA will be too bothered either.

They would if they lost. 

[saintant]

1 hour ago, Nordic Saint said:

Yes, it was all about what advantage Middlesbrough could gain from it. Neither Ipswich nor Oxford  seemed particularly bothered, as they couldn't see any benefit from it and analysts watching other teams' training sessions wasn't considered anything out of the ordinary.

I still wonder whether it was a case of entrapment using  information provided by the junior analyst who went back to Middlesbrough after a brief stint at Southampton. 

Would be surprised if that wasn't the case. Everything about the whole charade pointed to a case of entrapment. I'm convinced Boro knew someone would be turning up that day to check out their training session and they had everything in place including their photographer armed with a powerful zoom lens - strange that he'd have that for a training session.

[trousers]

4 hours ago, The Wyvern said:

If we have appealed, does that suggest the punishment is quite severe? No point appealing otherwise. 

 

3 hours ago, trousers said:

That would be a logical conclusion... If it was, say, a 6 match ban and a fine, we'd have probably exhaled a sigh of relief and taken it on the chin...?

 

3 hours ago, AlexLaw76 said:

I expect what ever the club / Tonda received would have been appealed. Why the hell not

 

2 hours ago, Dman said:

Yep. If its 6 games, we might think we can reduce it to 3, for example. 

It there a potential risk that the FA could actually increase the punishment if we lost an appeal...? Dunno, just putting it out there as a potential reason for not appealing, were the punishment to be deemed relatively light...

Edited 7 hours ago by trousers

[saintant]

56 minutes ago, revolution saint said:

A lot of people seem to be saying stuff like this but, genuine question, what could we actually do?  We've pleaded guilty to the charges, there's already precedent in the punishment given to the Canadian Womens Manager but more importantly - I don't see what leverage we have.  Just feels like wishful thinking in the same way we didn't think we'd get chucked out of the playoffs.  I'm sure we'll appeal or have appealed if it feels excessive but don't think we'll do very much outside of that.
Hopefully the punishment isn't too severe.

International managers don't oversee around 60 or more matches in a single calendar year. It's completely different.

[egg]

3 minutes ago, saintant said:

Would be surprised if that wasn't the case. Everything about the whole charade pointed to a case of entrapment. I'm convinced Boro knew someone would be turning up that day to check out their training session and they had everything in place including their photographer armed with a powerful zoom lens - strange that he'd have that for a training session.

FFS, there was no entrapment. We sent a bloke to watch matches. That's on us, as is us getting caught, not the other clubs. 

[trousers]

2 minutes ago, saintant said:

International managers don't oversee around 60 or more matches in a single calendar year. It's completely different.

Yep, fear of repeating myself, but the Canadian women's manager missed the grand total of 3 competive matches during their 12 month ban. 

[Gloucester Saint]

On 11/09/2026 at 17:53, Farmer Saint said:

Not as bad as the blokes behind us, just made us watch a video of one of them shoving a Trebor mint up his mates arse on his stag do.

🎵 Trebor Mints are a minty bit stronger

Stick them up your arse and they’ll last a bit longer 🎵 

[egg]

1 hour ago, Turkish said:

Yep, Parsons even said to Gibbo, Sorry Steve, we'll admit we're guilty and pay the fine, or words to that effect. Clearly didn't realise what would follow with Middlesborough stirring it all up and pushing for the most severe penalty. It was even said in the media by Simon Jordan i think, that even they thought it was all a bit something of nothing umtil they realised they could get an advantage from it. 

I think that's more indicative of Parsons naivety than anything else. 

[saintant]

1 minute ago, egg said:

FFS, there was no entrapment. We sent a bloke to watch matches. That's on us, as is us getting caught, not the other clubs. 

I didn't say it was definitely entrapment I said it wouldn't surprise me. You say it definitely wasn't - just curious how you know that.

[trousers]

4 minutes ago, egg said:

FFS, there was no entrapment. We sent a bloke to watch matches. That's on us, as is us getting caught, not the other clubs. 

Whilst 'entrapment' is probably the wrong word, there's every chance that Middlesbrough knew we were intending going up there to observe their training, given they had someone on their books that was a friend/ex-colleague of the Southampton 'spy' and who worked at Saints himself in the relatively recent past...

Edited 7 hours ago by trousers

[egg]

Just now, trousers said:

Yep, fear of repeating myself, but the Canadian women's manager missed the grand total of 3 competive matches during their 12 month ban. 

Although, on average, an international women's team apparently plays 8-12 games a year. For me, that's the benchmark, but with a discount for our co-operation (presumably/hopefully) with the FA.

I can't see anything north of 8 games being justified, and see this penalty coming down to whether it's period of time or games penalty, based around the Canadian precedent. 

[egg]

Just now, saintant said:

I didn't say it was definitely entrapment I said it wouldn't surprise me. You say it definitely wasn't - just curious how you know that.

Because we sent people there. It's not complicated. 

[egg]

1 minute ago, trousers said:

Whilst 'entrapment' is probably the wrong word, there's every chance that Middlesbrough knew we were intending going up there to observe their training, given they had someone on their books that was a friend/ex-colleague of the Southampton 'spy'...

Maybe, but what's that got to do with what we did? That they may have been expecting us is utterly irrelevant. 

[saintant]

1 minute ago, egg said:

Because we sent people there. It's not complicated. 

That proves nothing.

[saintant]

4 minutes ago, egg said:

Although, on average, an international women's team apparently plays 8-12 games a year. For me, that's the benchmark, but with a discount for our co-operation (presumably/hopefully) with the FA.

I can't see anything north of 8 games being justified, and see this penalty coming down to whether it's period of time or games penalty, based around the Canadian precedent. 

Why should Tonda get north of 8 games? We play around 60 games in a calendar year - as you say, an international women's team plays 8-12.

Edited 7 hours ago by saintant

[trousers]

1 minute ago, egg said:

Maybe, but what's that got to do with what we did? That they may have been expecting us is utterly irrelevant. 

Fair point...  although, as a tangential curiousity, there's every chance we might have 'got away with it' if Middlesbrough didn't have this supposed "inside information" on our activities (doesn't alter anything though, I agree)

[egg]

2 minutes ago, saintant said:

That proves nothing.

Eh? I'm not trying to prove anything! The facts are known. We admitted sending a bloke on 3 occasions, and caught once. That has nothing whatsoever with the conduct of other clubs. It's our admission of our actions. 

[egg]

2 minutes ago, saintant said:

Why should Tonda get north of 8 games? We play around 60 games in a calendar year - as you say, an international women's team plays 8-12.

I'm not sure you're reading too well. I said I can't see anything north of 8 games being justified. The FA, however, may feel otherwise. 

[Badger]

9 minutes ago, Gloucester Saint said:

🎵 Trebor Mints are a minty bit stronger

Stick them up your arse and they’ll last a bit longer 🎵 

Which game are you going to launch that one at ? 

We’ll soon pick it up and join in.

[Lighthouse]

Any attempt by Saints to even whisper anything resembling ‘entrapment’ in this case would be laughed out of court.

[egg]

1 minute ago, Lighthouse said:

Any attempt by Saints to even whisper anything resembling ‘entrapment’ in this case would be laughed out of court.

Yep, but having failed to cooperate initially with the EFL, hiring non sports specialist solicitors, a non sports specialist barrister who was replaced prior to the appeal, and calling the kid (who should have been so distressed he couldn't possibly have attended), approaching the matter on the basis that a fine was a given, etc, I don't have a whole lot of faith. 

[trousers]

By the way, I can't remember the exact wording, but whatever happened to the Saints offer to assist with the setting up of a 'commision' to investigate all the other spying activities that we were alluding to in our initial statement? You'd have thought the EFL would have been as keen as mustard to weed out any such other cases, as would we....?

Edited 7 hours ago by trousers

[sfc4prem]

2 hours ago, obelisk said:

I presume that the rushed mea culpa approach to the EFL's charges was designed to bring the overblown matter to a swift conclusion with a fine and a slap on the wrist. Trouble is the biased EFL kangaroo court had other ideas and served up the death penalty for what most of the football world sees as a trivial offence. I suspect that Solak has learned a very hard lesson that the blazers who run football cannot be trusted and will act accordingly.

We all know too well the suits that head these leagues are a bunch of cockwombles. Hopefully Solak is now of the same mind.

[Teamsaint1]

28 minutes ago, Lighthouse said:

Any attempt by Saints to even whisper anything resembling ‘entrapment’ in this case would be laughed out of court.

I wouldn't call it entrapment, but they knew it was likely to happen, allowed it to happen,and milked it for all it was worth in a trial by media run by their connections.

We committed the offence , they really didn't behave terribly well.

[SouthWalesSaints]

Watch the full episode of The Jeff Stelling Show with Tony Pulis on OLBG's YouTube channel NOW 👇

Another one admitting spying.  Everyone’s at it. 

[RedArmy]

40 minutes ago, trousers said:

By the way, I can't remember the exact wording, but whatever happened to the Saints offer to assist with the setting up of a 'commision' to investigate all the other spying activities that we were alluding to in our initial statement? You'd have thought the EFL would have been as keen as mustard to weed out any such other cases, as would we....?

Fuck them, we should save it in our back pocket for April and May. Cause them some more chaos. 

[LordHester]

2 hours ago, revolution saint said:

There's already precedent in the punishment given to the Canadian Womens Manager.

There's already more relevant precedent in how the FA dealt with Bielsa in 2019. It's the EFL rules that changed, not the FA's.

[AlexLaw76]

25 minutes ago, LordHester said:

There's already more relevant precedent in how the FA dealt with Bielsa in 2019. It's the EFL rules that changed, not the FA's.

That is not really a precedent as Bielsa did not break any rules 

[Football Special]

1 hour ago, saintant said:

Would be surprised if that wasn't the case. Everything about the whole charade pointed to a case of entrapment. I'm convinced Boro knew someone would be turning up that day to check out their training session and they had everything in place including their photographer armed with a powerful zoom lens - strange that he'd have that for a training session.

Always made me laugh they tried claiming they had identified him from buying a coffee in the golf club 🤣 

They knew exactly who he was, their ex analyst "whistleblower" told them. 

[Football Special]

6 minutes ago, AlexLaw76 said:

That is not really a precedent as Bielsa did not break any rules 

Why did he pay 200k fine? 

[Football Special]

1 hour ago, SouthWalesSaints said:

Watch the full episode of The Jeff Stelling Show with Tony Pulis on OLBG's YouTube channel NOW 👇

Another one admitting spying.  Everyone’s at it. 

I know someone who has worked at three professional clubs including a current Premier league one, he just laughed saying within the game everyone knows all sorts of stuff like this goes on 

[Turkish]

6 minutes ago, Football Special said:

Always made me laugh they tried claiming they had identified him from buying a coffee in the golf club 🤣 

They knew exactly who he was, their ex analyst "whistleblower" told them. 

and they described it as leaving a paper trail 😂

The sky coverage was beyond a joke, a reporter on site, here is the tree, he fled this way, through here, and so on, it was hilarious if it wasnt us.

Yes they knew who he was and i wouldn't be at all surprised if they knew he was going to be there.

[LordHester]

17 minutes ago, AlexLaw76 said:

That is not really a precedent as Bielsa did not break any rules 

As I said in the post, the EFL rules have changed, not the FA's. The club have been charged under the EFL's rules; Tonda will be charged under the FA's.

[EssEffCee]

11 minutes ago, Football Special said:

Why did he pay 200k fine? 

That was the fine Leeds got for the 'good faith' rule.

[VectisSaint]

49 minutes ago, LordHester said:

There's already more relevant precedent in how the FA dealt with Bielsa in 2019. It's the EFL rules that changed, not the FA's.

The FA did not charge Bielsa in 2019. The only charge was by the EFL against Leeds. You can't claim Bielsa as a precedent if no charge was brought. 

[egg]

33 minutes ago, VectisSaint said:

The FA did not charge Bielsa in 2019. The only charge was by the EFL against Leeds. You can't claim Bielsa as a precedent if no charge was brought. 

And even then, completely different facts. Bielsa isn't a comparable. The Canada case is.

[LordHester]

4 minutes ago, egg said:

And even then, completely different facts. Bielsa isn't a comparable. The Canada case is.

The FA didn't charge Bielsa; and you'd think the club will be drawing attention to that in mitigation of any ban now – nothing has changed in the FA's rules.

I'm interested why you think the Canada case is comparable - the charge was brought by a completely different organisation? And wasn't it also in relation to a specific ban against the use of drones?

[The Wyvern]

If we don’t like the Fa’s punishment, is there anything we can actually do? Independent sports arbitration? 
 

One thing that has been clear throughout all this is no-one has a clue, as fans we’re completely guessing at random. 

[Football Special]

1 hour ago, Turkish said:

and they described it as leaving a paper trail 😂

The sky coverage was beyond a joke, a reporter on site, here is the tree, he fled this way, through here, and so on, it was hilarious if it wasnt us.

Yes they knew who he was and i wouldn't be at all surprised if they knew he was going to be there.

Fucking paper trail 🤣 they really took the piss. 

I remember the sky reporter stood by the tree talking about this vital bit of evidence uncovered by golf club staff tieing the suspect back to Saints,  skills  Inspector Poirot would have been proud of. 

They went so far out of their way with bullshit desperate to stitch us up when we were perfectly capable of doing that ourselves , wish some of the Saints journalists had a least questioned some of the nonsense more. 

[Verbal]

One thing I can not quite get my head around: if spying is such an offence that it's considered reasonable to penalise a club for potentially £100m+, and damage the career of a manager, why isn't the practice simply outlawed?

What makes it a gargantuan crime to spy within the last three days before a game, but completely fine and dandy on the fourth day before a game?

Edited 4 hours ago by Verbal