Vandalism and the Stats You Haven't Seen Yet

The Gooner idiot who vandalised The Tottenham Hotspur Stadium should be charged with criminal damage in my view in accordance with the Criminal Damage Act 1972.

The definitive sentencing guidelines for Arson and Criminal Damage were issued on 3rd July 2019.

Threats to destroy or damage property:

Offence range: Discharge – 4 years’ custody and maximum 10 years custody.

The possible sentencing for someone who has caused damage to property would depend on several factors, including the severity of the damage, the individual's criminal history, and the specific circumstances of the case.

Some potential legal consequences they might face are:

1. Criminal Charges

2. The unsavory individual could be charged with offences related to property damage, such as criminal damage or criminal mischief, under the Criminal Damage Act 1971. The severity of the charge would depend on the extent of the damage.

3. 
   

4. Fines

5. The court may order the person to pay fines as a penalty for the damage caused. The amount of the fine would vary based on the circumstances and the court's discretion.

6. 
   

7. Restitution

8. The individual might be required to pay restitution to cover the cost of repairing the damage to the stadium, which, in this case, was reported as £200,000. Obviously, if you have seen him, he won't have that sort of money.

9. 
   

10. Community Service

11. The court could order the person to perform a certain number of community service hours as a way to make amends for the damage.

12. 
    

13. Probation

14. The individual might be placed on probation, during which they would be required to follow specific conditions set by the court, which may include regular check-ins with a probation officer and compliance with certain restrictions.

15. 
    

16. Imprisonment

17. Depending on the severity of the damage and other circumstances, the individual could potentially face a prison sentence. The length of the sentence would be determined by the court, considering the seriousness of the offence.

18. 
    

19. Civil Lawsuits

20. In addition to potential criminal penalties, the owner of the stadium could file a civil lawsuit to seek compensation for the damage. The individual could be ordered to pay damages in a civil court. In this case, it is not feasible against an individual who doesn't have that sort of money.

The sentencing would be determined by the court based on the evidence presented, the severity of the damage, and the applicable UK laws.

We don't know the specifics of the case so it is difficult to determine what may happen, but it will be at the discretion of the judge.

OK, on to our magnificent start to the season and a delve into some revealing statistics.

Player Defensive Actions

Team Tackles

Team Tackles Won

No team has won more tackles than Tottenham.

Tackles in the Final Third

Player Tackles

• Pedro Porro is 20th with 21 tackles (13 won)
• Cristian Romero is 24th with 20 tackles (16 won).

In addition: 

• 70th   Pape Matar Sarr 13 tackles (10 won)
• 75th   Micky Van de Ven 13 tackles (10 won)
• 94th   Dejan Kulusevski 11 tackles (5 won)
• 110th James Maddison 10 tackles (4 won)
• 243rd Richarlison 4 tackles (2 won)
• 255th Ben Davies 3 tackles (3 won) 100%
• 260th Heung-min Son 3 tackles (2 won)
• 274th Ivan Perišić 3 tackles (2 won)
• 281st Manor Solomon 3 tackles (3 won) 100%
• 307th Pierre-Emile Højbjerg 2 tackles (1 won)
• 328th Oliver Skipp 2 tackles (1 won)
• 345th Emerson Royal 1 tackle (1 won) 100%

% Success Tackling Dribblers

• 3rd   Micky Van de Ven for tackling dribblers 7/8 87.5%
• 11th Yves Bissouma 15/19 78.9%
• 13th Cristian Romero 10/13 76.9%

Player Blocks

• 1st     Pedro Porro 21
• 27th   Yves Bissouma 12
• 37th   Cristian Romero 11
• 81st   Pape Matar Sarr 8
• 101st Richarlison 8

Passes Blocked

• 1st     Pedro Porro 16
• 22nd  Yves Bissouma 9
• 64th   Cristian Romero 6
• 71st   Richerlison 6
• 91st   Pape Matar Sarr 5
• 95th   Destiny Udogie 5
• 141st Manor Solomon 4

Player Interceptions