All Activity

No the ban ends end of June 27/28 (which is the FA definition of end of season). Besides we will be in the PL by then so the playoffs would be irrelevant.

Agreed. Underlying the document is a feeling that the FA insider the EFL to have wildly overstepped the mark and that their commission was somewhat amateurish. Dragon's statement seems to have the same view. I said all along that the FA would be very interested in the matter of bullying/coersion. If they had found any evidence of this they would have been serious aggravating factors for the sanctions. That they didn't find any evidence largely enabled them to give out a fairly minimal sanction. It was clearly bad form of the EFL to make this a matter of concern with no substantive evidence (and indeed to issue reprimands against SFC specifically for this). I won't say told you so.

That's where ChatGPT comes in useful 😁 The FA wanted a substantially tougher punishment, and Eckert’s lawyers successfully argued for a much lighter outcome. But he wasn’t cleared: he admitted all three charges. The panel’s favourable view of his evidence and remorse was central, alongside the argument that an immediate ban would further punish Saints and its supporters. Stage Punishment FA’s proposed starting point At least nine months banned, before reductions FA’s requested final punishment At least three months banned from all football activity, plus a fine Panel’s starting point 16-week ban and £75,000 fine After mitigation Ban reduced to nine weeks After credit for admitting the charges Ban reduced to six weeks, fine reduced to £28,000 Final outcome Six-week ban fully suspended until 30 June 2028, £28,000 fine and reprimands So he serves no immediate ban. The suspended ban can be activated if he commits another rules breach involving observing another club’s training or using information from such observation. It isn’t triggered by just any unrelated misconduct. His representation was Paul Harris KC and Natalie Nguyen, instructed by Centrefield LLP. Their key successes were: The panel accepted that he didn’t know the observations breached the rules or were considered morally wrong, based partly on his previous experience in Germany and Italy. That reduced his culpability; it didn’t excuse the breaches. It rejected the FA’s attempt to hold him personally responsible for the pressure junior staff felt. It rejected the suggestion that these incidents proved a systematic, organised spying operation. It accepted substantial mitigation, particularly his genuine remorse. Crucially, it suspended the ban because removing Saints’ head coach would effectively impose another punishment on the club, supporters and stakeholders, after the play-off expulsion and four-point deduction. The interesting snippets A striking difference between panels: the earlier EFL proceedings were unimpressed with aspects of his evidence. This panel found him exceptionally impressive, particularly when giving evidence in person. His credibility plainly mattered. The FA called no live witnesses. Eckert was the only person to give live evidence, although the panel had extensive written evidence and earlier transcripts. Where accounts conflicted, that helped his lawyers challenge allegations based on what others had been told. Staff really did feel pressure. The panel accepted that, including fears linked to a previous analyst’s dismissal. It simply found insufficient evidence to attribute that pressure personally to Eckert. The Middlesbrough preparation meeting lasted around eight hours. He said the request about Hackney took only minutes within it. The earlier appeal ruling said the Ipswich footage allowed Saints to predict the exact starting XI. This panel made clear that whether information was useful didn’t reduce the seriousness of the offences. Saints disclosed the Oxford and Ipswich incidents themselves during the investigation prompted by Middlesbrough. The “he’ll lose his job” argument was fairly firmly rebuffed. The panel said the owner’s public comments were ambiguous and the club hadn’t supplied definitive evidence that it would dismiss him.

Not just the ITK ones but some absolute bull-shitters who bathed in the catastrophising panick amongst each other "we all know he's definitely going to be banned" "obviously, we all know that" None of them had a bloody clue Anyway I'm sure some are disappointed but its great news and sets us up nicely for Sunday

It’s the PL who will punish them

Fuck the EFL and Fuck off Pompey nice and loud on Sunday!

Absolutely delighted. Common sense prevailed for once. Was certain they’d throw the book at our beautiful boy, very happy to be massively wrong!

It also makes it much more complicated for FA to give City a soft punishment.

Good result. That's an end to that huge distraction. Wonder if we'll see a bit of a bounce from this On Sunday. Hope so.

Sending the YouTube shorts version in case you want to leave it on loop

So much redacted in the full PDF from FA. Hurting my small brain trying to make sense of it.

Just goes to show what a ridiculous decision it was to kick us out of that final. The EFL are corrupt as fuck. Let's hope this news gives everyone a lift and we can smash those fuckers on Sunday.

Mark McAdam was absolutely brilliant there on Sky Sports News. No sensational bullshit, just facts. Great journalism

Basically couldn't give him longer, as in his Saints contract a long ban meant getting sacked, and they didn't want that.

MB still around ?

Sky Sports News reporter just said he'd spoken to a number of managers in the EFL who felt exclusion from the Playoffs was a harsh punishment. I thought Neil Harris said all 71 managers in the EFL wanted Tonda banned?

Having skimmed the FA's written reasons, it appears Tonda played a blinder throughout proceedings - ably supported by competent legal counsel. Time to look forward rather than back, but it does make me wonder whether Paul Harris KC could've had the EFL on toast...

Relief to get that sorted. Given how harsh the punishment had already been I was worried we'd be treated as a punching bag once again.

5-0

Nice little side bar from the full FA statement, in our written statement we keep spelling it Middlesborough (with an extra o) which they hate up there - and the FA repeatedly add “(sic)” after to show we’ve misspelt it. Then later on in the FA’s own description they refer to them “Middleborough”

I was going to say similar, must have cost us an absolute fortune.

One of the slum dwellers wants Gibbo to make a statement 🤣

I believe it is these 3?

Parsons should be footing a large portion of any such costs