Sandro Tonali

[FLUMPO235]

I’m a bit conflicted on this.

 

i hope he hasn’t got a gambling addiction, which by all accounts is a horrendous illness with very poor recovery rates. In that case there will also likely be other mental health conditions beneath the addiction. 
 

the other scenario is he has been extremely stupid but doesn’t have a gambling addiction. I hope it’s this scenario and his agent (if the twitter screenshots I have seen on here are real) has decided saying he has an addiction is better all round. 
 

where I’m conflicted is that if he has got a gambling addiction that has damaged his career this much and will likely now be in a much worse mental state from all of this. There really should be no talk of him playing anyway. As soon as he isn’t required to attend court in Italy, he should be being shipped straight off to a rehab facility to monitor and help him now.

hopefully he is getting the best treatment already and we just don’t know. But the agent can’t say he has a severe gambling addiction and him be expected to play anytime soon. The guys mental state will be shot to hell and needs immediate attention. To have all the money and support this guy has, and expect him to be sitting at home waiting to play our next game is nuts. 

 

[The College Dropout]

1 minute ago, The Prophet said:

Not that anyone is suggesting it, but binning him would seem pretty brain dead all round.

People are suggesting it, and it's stupid.

 

We should get him to extend his contract at the same £ value overall for sticking by him if his ban is 6+ months, which seems likely.

[SUPERTOON]

Just now, The College Dropout said:

People are suggesting it, and it's stupid.

 

We should get him to extend his contract at the same £ value overall for sticking by him if his ban is 6+ months, which seems likely.

I think the suggestion is based on if it’s a 3 year ban (not that it’s likely).

[Matt1892]

3 minutes ago, The Prophet said:

Not that anyone is suggesting it, but binning him would seem pretty brain dead all round.

That depends on the legal advice around where we would stand in terms of launching a legal claim against him and how that would translate as FFP.

 

If he is banned for a number of years which is possible then we should be exploring all options that leave the club in the best possible position.

[WilliamPS]

My guess is if he has bet on Milan games he will get a big two year ban, but this will then be reduced to one year for admitting guilt and cooperating. Probably can’t train until June next year or so.

 

Fagiolis is a one year ban reduced to 7 months for pleading guilty, so I’d take that as the precedent. 
 

It is a proper kick in the balls as Tonalis ceiling is a lot higher than Longstaffs or Joelintons. Tonali was supposed to be like Botman, Bruno and Isak and lift the quality level.

 

The club will just have to suck it up. The hierarchy will be livid as this basically costs £18m (wages plus the share of the transfer fee given it’s about a quarter of the contract length)

[GeordieDazzler]

Has a similar situation like this ever happened before?

 

I know there have been situations where people have been punished for leaking transfer knowledge ahead of the move.  But I can’t recall a start signing being effectively banned for a new club for something that’s seemingly happened prior to their move. 
 

It feels extremely unfair on us but we probably have just get on with things. 

[The Prophet]

Another good explainer from Horncastle.

 

I'd post the article but it's a long read.

[LiquidAK]

19 minutes ago, STM said:

He will get 8-12 months, we will back him and hope that when he comes back, he's the player we all hoped.

 

Yes he's made a mistake but he's young and rather our club was seen as supporting their players, than throwing them to the wolves.

This is it. Some of the responses here are grim, he's 23, I'm still a fucking idiot at 31

 

The club/Howe will support him, the fans should too. There's a cracking player in there and we can still come out of this thinking it was a great transfer in the end, there's plenty of time despite this annoying setback 

[Matt1892]

1 minute ago, WilliamPS said:

My guess is if he has bet on Milan games he will get a big two year ban, but this will then be reduced to one year for admitting guilt and cooperating. Probably can’t train until June next year or so.

 

Fagiolis is a one year ban reduced to 7 months for pleading guilty, so I’d take that as the precedent. 
 

It is a proper kick in the balls as Tonalis ceiling is a lot higher than Longstaffs or Joelintons. Tonali was supposed to be like Botman, Bruno and Isak and lift the quality level.

 

The club will just have to suck it up. The hierarchy will be livid as this basically costs £18m (wages plus the share of the transfer fee given it’s about a quarter of the contract length)

Did Fagiolis turn himself in though? Which played a part in the reduced ban?

 

Tonali didn’t do that.

[GeordieDazzler]

3 minutes ago, Matt1892 said:

That depends on the legal advice around where we would stand in terms of launching a legal claim against him and how that would translate as FFP.

 

If he is banned for a number of years which is possible then we should be exploring all options that leave the club in the best possible position.

I know Chelsea tried (I don’t think they succeeded) in getting FFP adjustments for the period of time they we’re technically under public ownership and couldn’t generate revenue. 
 

I wonder if they will at least argue a case that FFP adjustments could be made in a situation like this where the club isn’t at fault. Doubt we’d win it like. 

[Matt1892]

1 minute ago, LiquidAK said:

This is it. Some of the responses here are grim, he's 23, I'm still a fucking idiot at 31

 

The club/Howe will support him, the fans should too. There's a cracking player in there and we can still come out of this thinking it was a great transfer in the end, there's plenty of time despite this annoying setback 

You are not taking close to £10 million a year out of your employer though.

[Matt1892]

Just now, GeordieDazzler said:

I know Chelsea tried (I don’t think they succeeded) in getting FFP adjustments for the period of time they we’re technically under public ownership and couldn’t generate revenue. 
 

I wonder if they will at least argue a case that FFP adjustments could be made in a situation like this where the club isn’t at fault. Doubt we’d win it like. 

If we were to sack him and successfully launch a claim to sue him for losses, in the same way Chelsea did with Mutu, then it potentially would be added back in.

[LiquidAK]

2 minutes ago, Matt1892 said:

You are not taking close to £10 million a year out of your employer though.

You don't know that 

[JB]

He shouldn't just back sacked, he should be put in stocks outside the Gallowgate for the length of his ban.

[Earp]

32 minutes ago, Matt1892 said:

You are not taking close to £10 million a year out of your employer though.

Whilst the natural reaction is to want him out for the potential implications his actions may have for our club, if he was prepared to jeopardise his football career to gamble then he clearly needs help. The club and fans need to stay behind him.

[Mahoneys Tache]

All this stuff about it being an illness is lost on me. Maybe it, but an IQ above 80 should be enough to ensure that you bet on the horses or play roulette and don’t bet on football. It’s not bloody rocket science. Kid’s clearly made some unwise decisions that he needs to take responsibility for, same as Toney.

[GEFAFWISP]

6 minutes ago, Mahoneys Tache said:

All this stuff about it being an illness is lost on me. Maybe it, but an IQ above 80 should be enough to ensure that you bet on the horses or play roulette and don’t bet on football. It’s not bloody rocket science. Kid’s clearly made some unwise decisions that he needs to take responsibility for, same as Toney.

As we all know people with addictions always make sensible decisions. Top post.

[Shays Given Tim Flowers]

There is literally 0 evidence to doubt the gambling addiction. 

[The Prophet]

Regarding the sacking discussion. I know as a country we're a very pro-punishment when it comes to unlawful behaviour, but I just don't see the upside in terminating his contract.

 

Firstly the personal side. The lad is either an addict who needs rehabilitation or he's made a huge error of judgement, aged 23. He's now going to be punished with a long ban from from a profession with a short shelf-life and a permanent black mark against his name. I know he's in an extremely privileged industry, but to me at least, it still seems adequate. Given how introverted he appears, I imagine he's punishing himself more than anybody else right now. It definetly seems like a do the time, learn and come back stronger type scenario rather than further reprisal.

 

Taking the human element away and looking from the clubs perspective, you probably have to view it like a long-term injury. It's extremely unfortunate, but it's only a year of a five year contract. We've invested a huge sum of money in him, that we're unlikely to see again. We'd be foolish to write off the entire investment out of nothing more than anger and retaliation, when there's still so much potential upside when the lad gets back on the pitch.

[Hanshithispantz]

1 hour ago, James said:

this is why employers have a right to terminate staff if they fail to disclose something at an interview that will materially impact their ability to conduct their job.

Which is completely fair enough, terminating his contract would be insane though 

[Bally21]

1 hour ago, LiquidAK said:

This is it. Some of the responses here are grim, he's 23, I'm still a fucking idiot at 31

 

The club/Howe will support him, the fans should too. There's a cracking player in there and we can still come out of this thinking it was a great transfer in the end, there's plenty of time despite this annoying setback 

I can trump you here mind - I'm still a fucking idiot at 52 

[Hanshithispantz]

Like we don't need to treat him with kid gloves, he's fucked us with his behaviour, but the best thing for both parties is to support him the best we can and get him ready for when his ban ends. He should want to repay the club and hopefully comes back all the better for it.

 

As bad as the whole situation is, it's good he's been caught before things potentially spiral further out of hand, hopefully there's a bit of sense from the FA/ FIFA and they don't just ruin his entire career.

 

 

Edited October 19, 2023 by Hanshithispantz

[Dokko]

I'm guessing his ban length announcement is taking some time to come out as our legal team is in full swing. I'm hoping so many loops with different FAs, country rules etc... Are causing issues for them to give him something that can't be challenged at CAS level....and we have form.

[mighty__mag]

1 hour ago, Hanshithispantz said:

Well yeah if he is genuinely a gambling addict that's sort of the point.

 

It's an annoying situation and Tonali bears responsibility for his actions, which I'm sure he's very aware of atm, but some of these comments just don't align with reality.

 

Nobody in their right mind is going to open up to a potential employer about all of their darkest secrets, especially an addict.

 

Treating him with vitriol is pointless at best. He's fucked up, it's cost us, we all move on.

 

 

 

 

Completely take your point on board, but I guess I'm just pissed we're in the best position we've been in for years, and one of our players knowingly came here bringing a fuck load of baggage he was fully aware of.

 

My main hope is that it has absolutely no affect on the great start we've made and the rest of the team and club as a whole. 

 

I'll give it a rest now and await the outcome.

[Matt1892]

19 minutes ago, The Prophet said:

Regarding the sacking discussion. I know as a country we're a very pro-punishment when it comes to unlawful behaviour, but I just don't see the upside in terminating his contract.

 

Firstly the personal side. The lad is either an addict who needs rehabilitation or he's made a huge error of judgement, aged 23. He's now going to be punished with a long ban from from a profession with a short shelf-life and a permanent black mark against his name. I know he's in an extremely privileged industry, but to me at least, it still seems adequate. Given how introverted he appears, I imagine he's punishing himself more than anybody else right now. It definetly seems like a do the time, learn and come back stronger type scenario rather than further reprisal.

 

Taking the human element away and looking from the clubs perspective, you probably have to view it like a long-term injury. It's extremely unfortunate, but it's only a year of a five year contract. We've invested a huge sum of money in him, that we're unlikely to see again. We'd be foolish to write off the entire investment out of nothing more than anger and retaliation, when there's still so much potential upside when the lad gets back on the pitch.

I don’t see it as being pro punishment, I see it as wanting what is best for the success of this football club and us trying to manoeuvre against an already difficult situation that is designed to stop us being able to compete.

 

If the best thing for our short term success is him being sacked and pursued in court then that is what we should do.