Sandro Tonali

[Cronky]

I'm hoping the FA investigation is just a formality. If he continued to bet after joining us, then surely that's part of the same offence, and he shouldn't be punished twice for the same crime.

[Nobody]

3 hours ago, Ghandis Flip-Flop said:

But Chelsea overpay for everyone, also Benfica anre notoriously hard negotiators and Caicedo only went for over £100M due to a daft bidding war.

 

For context Fernandez's fellow World Cup winning midfielder went for £35M to Liverpool

 

 

 

Aye, but he had a release clause, so that £35m isn't really a fair reflection of the narket neither. 

 

[GideonShandy]

7 hours ago, La Parka said:

Worst signing wrapped up

Not very promising, but everyone was saying that about Joelinton two years ago.

[Unbelievable]

I think even with Sandro not playing another game the likes of Havertz and Mount provide some stern competition for that accolade

[Gawalls]

9 hours ago, Cronky said:

I'm hoping the FA investigation is just a formality. If he continued to bet after joining us, then surely that's part of the same offence, and he shouldn't be punished twice for the same crime.

Can’t be part of the same offence - he was banned by the Italian authorities, an investigation in the country is new offences.

[RS]

Being told this investigation will take around 10 months and will lead to an 8 month ban at the end of it.
 

[Gawalls]

14 hours ago, alexf said:

Starting to feel a bit like a witch hunt. I mean even if he had, his punishment is longer than anyone else has got before.

If he was betting AFTER being given the punishment then I could understand the talk of adding on time, but to try and make it a "separate offence" is just ridiculous. 

“Witch hunt”? - let’s not start blaming others, we’re all adults and we know rules, especially in our professions. If we break those rules we know the consequences and need to own it. You can blame Tonali, you can blame Milan - you can even blame Newcastle if you like but you can’t blame the authorities for upholding the rules.

[duo]

FA just need to give this lad a break. He did wrong, he has been punished.  Move on. I could understand if his ban only applied to Italy but it is a world wide ban. Can't punish someone twice for the same crime.

[Gawalls]

12 hours ago, Yorkie said:

Any additional ban on top of the fucking worldwide football ban (i.e. including any football for which the FA is the authority) would be absolutely risible. There could be no justification for that whatsoever; a ten-month suspension already more than pays any debts apparently owed to English football. 

Again I don’t agree - you break the rules in Italy so you get punished by Italians then you move to England and’s break the rules again and again get punished by British authorities. How can this have “no justification whatsoever”.

[Groundhog63]

10 hours ago, Checko said:

Milan were definitely keen to sell him, but then they are owned by American moneyballers now, so while selling a local fan favourite could be sus, it could also just be they thought it was a good price and moneyballers gonna moneyball.

 

https://www.goal.com/en-gb/lists/ac-milan-europe-masters-moneyball-destined-to-fail/blt984a0d51702e6c9d#csf15a588fc393a646

 

9 hours ago, ToonCanuck said:

actualy its a chinese group that owns 70% of ac milan,sadly.

 

Plus, that web page is almost Chroniclesque

[Ghandis Flip-Flop]

9 minutes ago, Gawalls said:

Again I don’t agree - you break the rules in Italy so you get punished by Italians then you move to England and’s break the rules again and again get punished by British authorities. How can this have “no justification whatsoever”.

Because the question should be what is the purpose of any ban/punishment? Is it to highlight something and allow people to learn from it or is it just to be punitive and scare others suffering from similar into utter silence, rather than seeking help?

 

let’s be real about this here, he isn’t murdering anyone. The way some people go on you’d think he was the reincarnation of Jeffrey Dahmer. These gambling bans have really highlighted the inconsistencies or biases which the footballing authorities have. Shorter bans for missing drugs tests, racist abuse or assaulting fans/ officials.

 

 

 

[Groundhog63]

Should be like America where you get sent to jail for 175 years

[Yorkie]

18 minutes ago, Gawalls said:

Again I don’t agree - you break the rules in Italy so you get punished by Italians then you move to England and’s break the rules again and again get punished by British authorities. How can this have “no justification whatsoever”.

 

I'm talking specifically about a hypothetical scenario in which any punishment from the FA comes into force after his punishment from Italy is concluded, thereby extending the ban. How could there be any justification for that? Any retribution that the FA would be seeking via their own sanctions is already being discharged by the existing ones. It's basically double jeopardy. 

 

Also what @Ghandis Flip-Flop said. It's overzealous as it is, let alone with an extension. 

[Checko]

He hasn't committed one general offense of betting on football - every single individual bet is a separate offence.

 

The Italian FA can deal with any offences [bets] in Italy and apply a punishment. The FA can look into any extra potential offences in England.

 

And they should do to be honest. It's a general principle of law that you can't just pick and choose who they apply to. That just allows corruption.

 

Bit like if someone got punished for speeding offences in Italy, they move to the UK and get caught speeding here, they can't go 'well you can't punish me for speeding now, I've already been punished for when I was speeding back in Italy.'

 

If there are more offences though it could be that punishments already imposed are taken into account when deciding what new punishment is appropriate.

[Ghandis Flip-Flop]

You are conflating breaking sporting regulations with actual criminal law. And why what you’re suggesting is wrong if you wish to use that poor analogy. Is because he is already banned from football activity, it would be like having someone spend years on remand in custody and then not taking that into consideration when deciding their custodial sentence after their trial. (Which just for clarity it does, eg if they’re sentenced for 18 months, but have spent 12 months on remand. Their actual sentence is 6 months in prison)

[GEFAFWISP]

It also misses the fact he's got a worldwide ban, not Italy specific, further ruining the analogy.

[macphisto]

I don't think he will but if he did get a longer ban then I'd just write him off. I was looking at this season as a bedding-in season as he got used to the league and team where we would start to see the best of him from 2024/25 onwards. The whole process has now been delayed by a year. He can train as much as he wants but it's not the same as playing games so I now don't expect to see the best of him until 2025/26. If any ban extended this process then he's just not worth the hassle. 

[LiquidAK]

Glad Howe and Ashworth have publicly bodied certain takes, we'll support him and he'll come back raring to go.

 

[Hanshithispantz]

1 hour ago, Gawalls said:

Again I don’t agree - you break the rules in Italy so you get punished by Italians then you move to England and’s break the rules again and again get punished by British authorities. How can this have “no justification whatsoever”.

But the Italian FA's punishment has carried over to England. If any punishment isn't concurrent then it's obviously ridiculous, there's no reason to try to destroy his career.

 

Edit: If the FA decide his breaches in the UK are worthy of more than a 10-month ban then fair enough. You would extend the ban by the difference. He would have to basically be found match fixing to justify any extention though, given the benchmark set by Toney.

 

EDIT 2: Yorkie's already made my point in a better way, it's basically double jeopardy.

 

 

Edited November 4, 2023 by Hanshithispantz

[La Parka]

Sell him to Saudi once worldwide ban ends. 

 

Can't gamble there. 

 

 

Honestly feel a bit bad as obviously has serious illness/issues.

 

 

Edited November 4, 2023 by La Parka

[Checko]

1 hour ago, Ghandis Flip-Flop said:

You are conflating breaking sporting regulations with actual criminal law. And why what you’re suggesting is wrong if you wish to use that poor analogy. Is because he is already banned from football activity, it would be like having someone spend years on remand in custody and then not taking that into consideration when deciding their custodial sentence after their trial. (Which just for clarity it does, eg if they’re sentenced for 18 months, but have spent 12 months on remand. Their actual sentence is 6 months in prison)

I disagree, it's still law, civil or criminal. The point of the analogy is just that if you commit offences and get punished for those offences, you can't commit more offences later with immunity. The FA seem to be looking into this to see if there are any new offences that haven't been covered.

 

The example you give of being on remand/time already served - that's missing my point IMO: You seem to be making an argument about appropriate sentencing for an offence, & I don't disagree with it, but my point was that if there's then a new offence it still needs to be looked into.

 

So in your example, your fella on remand doesn't get a free shot to commit more crimes later just because he's already getting punished for the first ones.

 

Here there's been an investigation into specific betting offences.

 

There has been punishment given for those specific betting offences.

 

If there are then more betting offences committed afterwards that weren't dealt with by that investigation and punishment, you can't just ignore them because he's already been punished for previous similar offences. That's what I'm saying.

 

So I don't think the FA can do him for the things he's already been punished for [i.e double jeopardy]. But if he has potentially committed new offences outside the scope of his current ban then they have to be looked into.

 

Also I'm not saying his ban should necessarily be increased. As I said: "If there are more offences though it could be that punishments already imposed are taken into account when deciding what new punishment is appropriate."

 

If there are more offences & the FA charge him, they absolutely might take the current punishment into account. Eg. they could punish him with a fine & suspended ban. But that's a sentencing issue based on the facts of the case, you need to go through the proper process to get to that point.

 

Imagine if the FA does investigate and it turns out he bet on Milan to beat us in the Champions League...

 

 

Edited November 4, 2023 by Checko

[Gawalls]

1 hour ago, Hanshithispantz said:

But the Italian FA's punishment has carried over to England. If any punishment isn't concurrent then it's obviously ridiculous, there's no reason to try to destroy his career.

 

Edit: If the FA decide his breaches in the UK are worthy of more than a 10-month ban then fair enough. You would extend the ban by the difference. He would have to basically be found match fixing to justify any extention though, given the benchmark set by Toney.

 

EDIT 2: Yorkie's already made my point in a better way, it's basically double jeopardy.

 

 

 

Totally agree with the concurrency and the extending - it’s the “witch hunt” claims I have an issue with.

[Hanshithispantz]

27 minutes ago, Checko said:

I disagree, it's still law, civil or criminal. The point of the analogy is just that if you commit offences and get punished for those offences, you can't commit more offences later with immunity. The FA seem to be looking into this to see if there are any new offences that haven't been covered.

 

The example you give of being on remand/time already served - that's missing my point IMO: You seem to be making an argument about appropriate sentencing for an offence, & I don't disagree with it, but my point was that if there's then a new offence it still needs to be looked into.

 

So in your example, your fella on remand doesn't get a free shot to commit more crimes later just because he's already getting punished for the first ones.

 

Here there's been an investigation into specific betting offences.

 

There has been punishment given for those specific betting offences.

 

If there are then more betting offences committed afterwards that weren't dealt with by that investigation and punishment, you can't just ignore them because he's already been punished for previous similar offences. That's what I'm saying.

 

So I don't think the FA can do him for the things he's already been punished for [i.e double jeopardy]. But if he has potentially committed new offences outside the scope of his current ban then they have to be looked into.

 

Also I'm not saying his ban should necessarily be increased. As I said: "If there are more offences though it could be that punishments already imposed are taken into account when deciding what new punishment is appropriate."

 

If there are more offences & the FA charge him, they absolutely might take the current punishment into account. Eg. they could punish him with a fine & suspended ban. But that's a sentencing issue based on the facts of the case, you need to go through the proper process to get to that point.

 

Imagine if the FA does investigate and it turns out he bet on Milan to beat us in the Champions League...

 

 

 

I get what you're saying but I just don't think criminal cases fit at all like.

 

For one, in actual criminal cases there's generally a limit to the scope of investigation isn't there?

 

Like of someone was found to have burgled 7 ASDAs and was charged, would the police then sift through his life just to find out if he'd burgled more? He lived in Leeds for a couple of years, maybe they should run an intense investigation of burgleries down there during his time spent? Maybe he also killed someone? He's a wrongun after all.

 

 

 

 

Edited November 4, 2023 by Hanshithispantz

[alexf]

My "witch hunt" claim was on the assumption they gave him an extended ban just because they weren't the ones who discovered his initial betting. You can just keep redrawing the line now after he has already been caught. He already has a blanket ban across whole of football that is more than sufficient to cover his "crime". So if they discovered he was still betting on Milan for example after joining us, adding time to his sentence would feel incredibly unnecessary and would stink of just wanting to exert their authority and kick someone while they are down. Easy target so to speak.

 

If it was discovered he had influenced games over here then that's a different crime and probably deserves a longer sentence due to the severity.

[Upthemags]

2 hours ago, Gawalls said:

Again I don’t agree - you break the rules in Italy so you get punished by Italians then you move to England and’s break the rules again and again get punished by British authorities. How can this have “no justification whatsoever”.

This is an inaccurate characterization, though, and is not true of European law generally.

 

You break the football rules in Italy, you get punished not only by the Italians, but also the English... In other words, the English ban has already come down, and now the question is whether there will be a second English ban. To me, that reeks of double jeopardy.

 

In European law, there is a prohibition against double jeopardy that extends across national borders. So it's not as cut and dried as it might seem.