Tonda Eckert

[WinglessWonder]

2 minutes ago, Turkish said:

There wasn’t a offence for this when Bielsa got charged. This has been done to death. We might not like it but that’s the facts 

You are referring to the EFL rule that was brought in following Bielsa's misdemeanours. The EFL fined Leeds Utd and subsequently brought in a new rule (albeit without clearly laying out potential sanctions). This saw Saints removed from the playoffs and docked points for next season. 

The FA rule that Eckert was charged under had been in place for over 20 years. It is the same one that saw Bielsa receive a warning & fine and has not been updated since...

 

 

 

[Window Cleaner]

3 minutes ago, Wade Garrett said:

Eckert said it wasn’t knowingly, same as Bielsa did.

Well he would say that wouldn't he.

He knew, those around him knew .

He is also a repeat offender with the FA, not for the same offence t'is true.

 

[hypochondriac]

1 minute ago, WinglessWonder said:

You are referring to the EFL rule that was brought in following Bielsa's misdemeanours. The EFL fined Leeds Utd and subsequently brought in a new rule (albeit without clearly laying out potential sanctions). This saw Saints removed from the playoffs and docked points for next season. 

The FA rule that Eckert was charged under had been in place for over 20 years. It is the same one that saw Bielsa receive a warning & fine and has not been updated since...

 

 

 

People are talking past each other. I think the point being made was that the FA have charged Tonda at least in part because he has broken an EFL rule which didn't exist when Bielsa sanctioned spying. 

[die Mannyschaft]

2 hours ago, DT said:

Classy guy, Charlie Austin.

 

Austin was found guilty of assault in 2013 after he punched a man who had accused him of taking drugs in a Swindon nightclub toilet cubicle.^[77] He was fined £1,801 and ordered to pay £1,320 in costs.^[77][78]

Another chav crap player.

[WinglessWonder]

4 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

People are talking past each other. I think the point being made was that the FA have charged Tonda at least in part because he has broken an EFL rule which didn't exist when Bielsa sanctioned spying. 

The FA charges concern misconduct as an employee of an FA-affiated club. They are not governed by the EFL's rules so it makes no difference that the league brought in the new rule post-Bielsa. 

I guess we will find out the punishment soon but I'm not expecting anything more severe than a short touchline ban, possibly suspended. Hopefully my hunch is right!

[hypochondriac]

Just now, WinglessWonder said:

The FA charges concern misconduct as an employee of an FA-affiated club. They are not governed by the EFL's rules so it makes no difference that the league brought in the new rule post-Bielsa. 

I guess we will find out the punishment soon but I'm not expecting anything more severe than a short touchline ban, possibly suspended. Hopefully my hunch is right!

But isn't part of the misconduct the fact that he has broken EFL rules? I would assume so. Had the rule not existed post Bielsa then presumably the FA would not be charging him personally. 

[TheSoundman]

10 minutes ago, Wade Garrett said:

Eckert said it wasn’t knowingly, same as Bielsa did.

But saying you don't know the rules doesn't exonerate you. TE broke the rules, there's no argument there (even if it is a stupid rule and we gained no benefit).

There were no rules when Bielsa did it - maybe he knew it, maybe he didn't - but he was only guilty of poor sportsmanship.

 

[WinglessWonder]

Just now, hypochondriac said:

But isn't part of the misconduct the fact that he has broken EFL rules? I would assume so. Had the rule not existed post Bielsa then presumably the FA would not be charging him personally. 

It's my understanding that the FA investigation is aimed at individuals who have broken FA rules, not individual competition rules (particularly ones that concern conduct of clubs rather than that of individuals). Like I say, I might be wholly inaccurate but hopefully not!

[Starksj1995]

2 hours ago, Turkish said:

He said it yesterday so today. MB is pretty reliable so i'd trust this.

He right on this the. You

think 

[hypochondriac]

Just now, WinglessWonder said:

It's my understanding that the FA investigation is aimed at individuals who have broken FA rules, not individual competition rules (particularly ones that concern conduct of clubs rather than that of individuals). Like I say, I might be wholly inaccurate but hopefully not!

But the breaking of the EFL rule is at least in part what has caused him to break the FA rule surely? Otherwise there's no reasonable explanation for why Bielsa was not charged by the FA under the same law. 

[die Mannyschaft]

22 minutes ago, TheSoundman said:

Arguably (puts tin hat on), Eckert's breach is worse than Bielsa's.

The FA are charging TE with disrepute and misconduct. Eckert 'knowingly breached an EFL rule that was in place, Bielsa didn't breach any rules because there weren't any.

On that basis you could easily argue for a stronger punishment for TE (if you wanted to).

I think that's the issue now Tonda and or Saints are in another situation of breaking new rules. Fully expect FA to do a EFL and set a precedent of a big ban. Take into account the media and pundits no one has said anything about City and even Argentina has died down.

Saints will just have got take the Tonda ban which I cant see being less than half the season.

If Saints had sacked Tonda before 2nd Semi or even 1st semi then no one would be interested.  But now stuck with this story for 50 years.

 

 

[WinglessWonder]

3 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

But the breaking of the EFL rule is at least in part what has caused him to break the FA rule surely? Otherwise there's no reasonable explanation for why Bielsa was not charged by the FA under the same law. 

No, the FA has charged him with a breach of one of their own laws. Bielsa was charged by the FA under the same law which is what saw him receive a warning (I don't believe there was a separate fine issued but I may be wrong).

[hypochondriac]

6 minutes ago, WinglessWonder said:

No, the FA has charged him with a breach of one of their own laws. Bielsa was charged by the FA under the same law which is what saw him receive a warning (I don't believe there was a separate fine issued but I may be wrong).

I know they've charged him with a breach of one of their own laws. But the reason he has breached that law is at least in part because of the EFL law he has broken. I feel like I'm repeating myself.  Bielsa's spying was more egregious and the only real difference between the two is that Tonda has broken an EFL law and Bielsa didn't. 

Edited 39 minutes ago by hypochondriac

[WinglessWonder]

2 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

I know they've charged him with a breach of one of their own laws. But the reason he has breached that law is at least in part because of the EFL law he has broken. I feel like I'm repeating myself.  Bielsa's spying was more egregious and the only real difference between the two is that Tonda has broken an EFL law and Bielsa didn't. 

You are repeating yourself but that isn't making it any more accurate! The change to the EFL rules has no bearing on the FA investigation per se; as with Bielsa they are investigating a misconduct charge under their own rules system 

[Window Cleaner]

Some might argue that professing limited knowledge of the rules that govern your profession is an offence in itself. Especially as you'd been in it for a while with several clubs. 

Professionnal discipline bodies don't like being lied to.

 

 

[hypochondriac]

Just now, WinglessWonder said:

You are repeating yourself but that isn't making it any more accurate! The change to the EFL rules has no bearing on the FA investigation per se; as with Bielsa they are investigating a misconduct charge under their own rules system 

If what you are suggesting is true then when Tonda finds out his punishment and it's harsher than the warning Bielsa was given how could that possibly be justified? What is the difference between the two that makes the punishment significantly worse than the warning received by Bielsa if not the breaking of the EFL law?

[hypochondriac]

Just now, Window Cleaner said:

Some might argue that professing limited knowledge of the rules that govern your profession is an offence in itself. Especially as you'd been in it for a while with several clubs. 

Professionnal discipline bodies don't like being lied to.

 

 

Not as a manager/head coach he hasn't. 

[WinglessWonder]

1 minute ago, hypochondriac said:

If what you are suggesting is true then when Tonda finds out his punishment and it's harsher than the warning Bielsa was given how could that possibly be justified? What is the difference between the two that makes the punishment significantly worse than the warning received by Bielsa if not the breaking of the EFL law?

There is no justification for a more severe ban which is why I am not expecting one. At most the FA might focus on the "bullying" which would exacerbate matters but it's highly unlikely that this would result in a lengthy ban (in my opinion of course!)

[Fabrice29]

56 minutes ago, sadoldgit said:

The biggest factor here is that every club has access to every game that the opposition plays. How many clubs change the way they play all of the time? How many new fangled set pieces do they use? 
Every man and his dog knew exactly how Russell Martin’s team would be set up and play without looking at a training session 72 hours before a match. Everyone knows what a team is going to be an hour before the game. 
As has been said a hundred times, the EFL are the only league management organisation who have this rule. Why? Because it is a load of bollox and they reacted badly to a previous Spygate episode.

Why do it then? All I can imagine is that Eckert is on the spectrum and has an obsession with detail that goes beyond what most of us would consider reasonable.

To state the obvious, matches last for 90 minutes plus. If you can’t work out how to beat the opposition as the game develops then perhaps coaching isn’t for you.

The kicker for me is the number of sensible seasoned pros who have come and said that this really isn’t a big deal. It really isn’t and if it was it would be banned world wide and this probably would never have happened.

 

 

actually cba 😂 ignore me (insert all your gladly jokes)

Edited 27 minutes ago by Fabrice29

[hypochondriac]

1 minute ago, WinglessWonder said:

There is no justification for a more severe ban which is why I am not expecting one. At most the FA might focus on the "bullying" which would exacerbate matters but it's highly unlikely that this would result in a lengthy ban (in my opinion of course!)

Lets see then. I think even the most positive fans I think would be surprised if it wasn't significantly more serious than being effectively let off with a warning. 

[hypochondriac]

Think it's fair to say it looks unlikely that this is coming out today. Anything further @MB?

[TheSoundman]

3 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

If what you are suggesting is true then when Tonda finds out his punishment and it's harsher than the warning Bielsa was given how could that possibly be justified? What is the difference between the two that makes the punishment significantly worse than the warning received by Bielsa if not the breaking of the EFL law?

If you exclude the fact that an EFL rule was broken, then it wasn't worse that Bielsa, in fact Bielsa's transgression was far worse.

But... we are little old Southampton and our place in football is to be made an example of.

Chelsea can admit loads of historic offences and get a petty cash fine, Argentina can show political banners / commit GBH and turn their back on the deserved winners, hell Infantino can even try to sell the World Cup and they can't even get Man City's many offences over the line to judge... but hey, lets make an example of Southampton. Big enough to be heard of but too small to fight back.

Football really is fucked.

[LaptopSaint]

7 hours ago, Matthew Le God said:

All the tactical work is done in those final 3 days before a game. That is standard practice in the sport and why those 72 hours of training are viewed as more important. In the time before those 72 hours it is recovery sessions for the previous games and general training drills. 

Yeah, clubs hate it when any of the work they do in the last 72 hours is made public. Massive disadvantage. It’s why Arsenal’s last session before the champions league final was streamed live on YouTube 

[James]

12 minutes ago, TheSoundman said:

If you exclude the fact that an EFL rule was broken, then it wasn't worse that Bielsa, in fact Bielsa's transgression was far worse.

But... we are little old Southampton and our place in football is to be made an example of.

Chelsea can admit loads of historic offences and get a petty cash fine, Argentina can show political banners / commit GBH and turn their back on the deserved winners, hell Infantino can even try to sell the World Cup and they can't even get Man City's many offences over the line to judge... but hey, lets make an example of Southampton. Big enough to be heard of but too small to fight back.

Football really is fucked.

100%. Yet a surprising number of our fans believe we’ve got it coming and that the combined punishment will be well deserved. Absolutely absurd.

[WinglessWonder]

15 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

Lets see then. I think even the most positive fans I think would be surprised if it wasn't significantly more serious than being effectively let off with a warning. 

If it is more than 10 games (which I believe is the largest sanction handed out for misconduct charge under the organisation's rules) then the FA would be opening themselves up to a legal challenge.

[James]

As an aside, relatively little was made of this during the World Cup: https://www.bbc.com/sport/football/articles/c872pv2r5y4o

 

[hypochondriac]

15 minutes ago, TheSoundman said:

If you exclude the fact that an EFL rule was broken, then it wasn't worse that Bielsa, in fact Bielsa's transgression was far worse.

But... we are little old Southampton and our place in football is to be made an example of.

Chelsea can admit loads of historic offences and get a petty cash fine, Argentina can show political banners / commit GBH and turn their back on the deserved winners, hell Infantino can even try to sell the World Cup and they can't even get Man City's many offences over the line to judge... but hey, lets make an example of Southampton. Big enough to be heard of but too small to fight back.

Football really is fucked.

That's my point. Had Bielsa been harshly treated under the same rule break then you could say Tonda would be bang to rights and deserves harsh treatment to a greater degree. What Bielsa did was actually worse and the only difference between the two that I can see is that Tonda broke the EFL rule (unless there is something proven around bullying but I don't believe he has been charged with that and nor do I believe that it actually happened.)

[hypochondriac]

2 minutes ago, WinglessWonder said:

If it is more than 10 games (which I believe is the largest sanction handed out for misconduct charge under the organisation's rules) then the FA would be opening themselves up to a legal challenge.

Hopefully it's less but even five games would make no sense if we are to follow your logic about the EFL rule break being an irrelevance. 

[James]

1 minute ago, WinglessWonder said:

If it is more than 10 games (which I believe is the largest sanction handed out for misconduct charge under the organisation's rules) then the FA would be opening themselves up to a legal challenge.

I think it’ll be at least 10 games - it’ll be a harsh sanction - but we’ve been hit hard as a result of this as we are an easy target. I can’t see us being let off lightly and there isn’t much of a precedent. The FA have already broken the closest precedent when they charged Tonda having let Bielsa off. I’m more intrigued to see what happens next, do we get a new manager or limp on with Lallana until the ban is served? I hope the former to be honest. It’s concerning that the Club seemingly haven't received an indication of what the sanction will be and even when it’ll be communicated so fully expecting us to be blindsided by this and have no plan. I think a 10 game ban would take us past the Pompey home game.