Jump to content
IGNORED

Leeds fined 200k for spygate (Merged)


MC RISK77

Recommended Posts

I’ve said it before, yes no EFL ‘laws’ have been broken but imo it’s cheating, why then have the FL now made a regulation relating to such behaviour if they don’t believe it’s wrong? Then we have all those who say you are allowed to watch club training sessions etc, yes your quite right you can, but you’ll find as soon as the training gets into the serious stuff ie, starting 11, set piece work, tactical and formation work, you will be kindly asked to move on. If training sessions were available to all then why was this Leeds official caught hiding in a bush and not in a viewing area etc? (unless he was desperate for a shit of course) Answer? He was trespassing hence why the police were called. 

If this Leeds official got caught at Abbots Leigh just before we played Leeds and lost up there, there would be uproar on here and a a lot of different opinions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, BCFC11 said:

I’ve said it before, yes no EFL ‘laws’ have been broken but imo it’s cheating, why then have the FL now made a regulation relating to such behaviour if they don’t believe it’s wrong? Then we have all those who say you are allowed to watch club training sessions etc, yes your quite right you can, but you’ll find as soon as the training gets into the serious stuff ie, starting 11, set piece work, tactical and formation work, you will be kindly asked to move on. If training sessions were available to all then why was this Leeds official caught hiding in a bush and not in a viewing area etc? (unless he was desperate for a shit of course) Answer? He was trespassing hence why the police were called. 

If this Leeds official got caught at Abbots Leigh just before we played Leeds and lost up there, there would be uproar on here and a a lot of different opinions.

If the EFL think it’s wrong they should apply the law from  today, retrospective punishment to a change of rules is abhorrent. That road you went down 3 months ago was 60mph, council change it to 50 and then go back to their records and see 3 months ago you were doing 58?  I don’t understand why people don’t get this?

10 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

From bbc website:

”...The EFL found Leeds breached rules over treating teams with "good faith".

oh well that’s sorted then

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, RumRed said:

If the EFL think it’s wrong they should apply the law from tom today, retrospective punishment to a change of rules is abhorrent. That road you went down 3 months ago was 60mph, council change it to 50 and then go back to their records and see 6 months ago you were doing 58?  I don’t understand why people don’t get this?

The EFL obviously make some of it up as they go along.

I can only guess this is a clarification / specification of 

The EFL found Leeds breached rules over treating teams with "good faith".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

The EFL obviously make some of it up as they go along.

I can only guess this is a clarification / specification of 

The EFL found Leeds breached rules over treating teams with "good faith".

That really is a load of bollox when you see the shenanigans that happen within the 90 minutes.  Meaningless waffle and still no need for SL to stick his oar in.  Embarrassing on all sides.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, RumRed said:

If the EFL think it’s wrong they should apply the law from  today, retrospective punishment to a change of rules is abhorrent. That road you went down 3 months ago was 60mph, council change it to 50 and then go back to their records and see 3 months ago you were doing 58?  I don’t understand why people don’t get this?

oh well that’s sorted then

To expand on your analogy. If you were driving after 20 pints in 1964 it was perfectly ok. But if you drive after 20 pints in 1965, it was now against the law and therefore not ok. 

Most rational people would agree that even prior to drink driving being made ‘illegal’ it was still somewhat wrong and you shouldn’t really do it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, RumRed said:

That really is a load of bollox when you see the shenanigans that happen within the 90 minutes.  Meaningless waffle and still no need for SL to stick his oar in.  Embarrassing on all sides.

Absolutely.  What they did was wrong, but the way the EFL deal with things is very bizarre.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Harry said:

To expand on your analogy. If you were driving after 20 pints in 1964 it was perfectly ok. But if you drive after 20 pints in 1965, it was now against the law and therefore not ok. 

Most rational people would agree that even prior to drink driving being made ‘illegal’ it was still somewhat wrong and you shouldn’t really do it. 

True, but you wouldn’t have been punished for it.  I don’t understand the argument, yes ‘wrong’ but not illegal.  You play to the rules at the time?   If the rules are wrong you change them and convict from then.  

I’d hate some of you to be in charge of our criminal justice system.  Just because it’s sport doesn’t make it different.

If I get elected I’ll choose cider to be banned from 1804 under penalty of death, applied retrospectively.  

Seriously you cannot have retrospective laws, it’s a nonsense.

 

Please at least follow a simple argument.

 

That being said, they have fudged it with the meaningless caveat in the rules.  Leeds have bottled it imo and accepted the the slap on the wrist and agreeing to support the amendment.  Probably sensible but all the calling for points deductions, sad posturing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, RumRed said:

True, but you wouldn’t have been punished for it.  I don’t understand the argument, yes ‘wrong’ but not illegal.  You play to the rules at the time?   If the rules are wrong you change them and convict from then.  

I’d hate some of you to be in charge of our criminal justice system.  Just because it’s sport doesn’t make it different.

If I get elected I’ll choose cider to be banned from 1804 under penalty of death, applied retrospectively.  

Seriously you cannot have retrospective laws, it’s a nonsense.

 

Please at least follow a simple argument.

 

That being said, they have fudged it with the meaningless caveat in the rules.  Leeds have bottled it imo and accepted the the slap on the wrist and agreeing to support the amendment.  Probably sensible but all the calling for points deductions, sad posturing.

So you'd be happy with diving and wasting time etc on the pitch...same principle.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, wood_red said:

So if there is no law then you wouldn't get fined for it then? 

That's my point, they have made it up as they go along due some uproar from the public.

 

@spudski @Downend City are correct, there is legislation and then there is ‘common law’ applied by the judiciary. 

Don’t believe just because it’s not ‘in statute’ you can’t be punished. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, 29AR said:

@spudski @Downend City are correct, there is legislation and then there is ‘common law’ applied by the judiciary. 

Don’t believe just because it’s not ‘in statute’ you can’t be punished. 

So how would the rule that Leeds broke stand up in court in your opinion? I am not trying to have a go at all, I just don't seem to think they have broken one. Can we now ask Wolves to be punished for not telling the ref the ball hit their hand a couple of times as they didn't treat us with good faith? Did Fammy say he shouldn't have had a pen last week against QPR? My point is the EFL have just made something up to try and suit the agenda of others being outraged rather than just saying "they haven't done anything wrong and we will be changing rules within the game so it cannot happen again"

 

The EFL found Leeds breached rules over treating teams with "good faith".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, spudski said:

So you'd be happy with diving and wasting time etc on the pitch...same principle.

Again, against the rules.  What Leeds did was not.  (I also made the same point earlier).

This really isn’t difficult to understand.

< over that way rules

> over that way no rules

We can all agree it’s unsportsmanlike but in this case it’s not  actually an infraction.  This is not a grey area fella, it’s black and white.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, wood_red said:

So how would the rule that Leeds broke stand up in court in your opinion? I am not trying to have a go at all, I just don't seem to think they have broken one. Can we now ask Wolves to be punished for not telling the ref the ball hit their hand a couple of times as they didn't treat us with good faith? Did Fammy say he shouldn't have had a pen last week against QPR? My point is the EFL have just made something up to try and suit the agenda of others being outraged rather than just saying "they haven't done anything wrong and we will be changing rules within the game so it cannot happen again"

 

The EFL found Leeds breached rules over treating teams with "good faith".

Good post, how about our ‘ghost goal’?  Some very weird opinions on this thread with no basis.  I can only guess people have a blindspot when it comes to our club.  Dangerous precedent, be careful what you wish for.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, wood_red said:

So how would the rule that Leeds broke stand up in court in your opinion? I am not trying to have a go at all, I just don't seem to think they have broken one. Can we now ask Wolves to be punished for not telling the ref the ball hit their hand a couple of times as they didn't treat us with good faith? Did Fammy say he shouldn't have had a pen last week against QPR? My point is the EFL have just made something up to try and suit the agenda of others being outraged rather than just saying "they haven't done anything wrong and we will be changing rules within the game so it cannot happen again"

 

The EFL found Leeds breached rules over treating teams with "good faith".

It’s a good question and tough one to tackle. I’d start with (mostly)  nothing should be a crime without it being criminal (although there are examples of obvious gaps needing to be filled because you can’t legislate for all circumstances)... but, I’d say we take a step back this is not criminal, this is civil law between members of a league association, so it’s a different and less ‘strict’ I would say area where the effects of being found against are less profound. 

Personally, I think then it would stand up just fine. There is an implied code of ethics and implied code of conduct, of fair competition etc etc etc. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To put it simply: Derby caught Leeds and complained. Leeds admitted it saying it was usual, perhaps a common occurrence. As far as the FA are concerned one side is right and they can’t turn a blind eye to spying now that someone has complained. If they did who knows what lengths clubs will go to if the FA said there was nothing wrong. So they agreed there was an offence, made a rule to fit it and now everyone is clear. The next Club to be found guilty of anything similar will be even more severely punished I think. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, The King of Spain said:

Not much of a punishment is it, I wouldn’t get out of bed for £200k! 

I’d have to get into bed to earn that .

 

A young couple I knew were having terrible financial difficulties and risked losing their house .

They took the awful decision that in order to get money they so desperately  needed that Linda , his wife , should go on the game.

The first night she came back home and Mark asked how it was .

Humiliating , stressful and tiring was her reply .

The big question,

’ How much did you earn ? ‘ 

100 pounds and fifty pence .

Fifty pence ? 

Who the frick gave you fifty pence ?

They all did . 

:dunno:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, BessexRED said:

A £200k fine for standing on public path is quite incredible when you think about it really :laugh:

Actually, if Leeds had spied on every opponent until that point then the chances are there was some criminal trespass involved. I agree that if some intern has been sent down make some notes on a training session whilst stood on the pavement then Leeds shouldn't be punished and the rules should be changed. If Bielsa or anyone else has instructed that intern to trespass then it's a bit different

Anyway, don't really have a lot of sympathy for Leeds; the "everybody hates us and is trying to keep us down" narrative from Leeds fans is pathetic. Last season Leeds earned over £1million from TV matches, but apparently Sky hates them and has it in for them...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, BS4 on Tour... said:

Doing something that isn’t in the spirit of the game’ - is that a genuine rule?! How can that be applied? And if it is, it would apply to a zillion other ‘non offences’ - eg players skipping yards down the touchline every single time they take a throw-in - there would be fines for every club, every week....

Pretty much, players get booked for "unsportsmanlike behaviour"

Essentially the same thing with different wording.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, billywedlock said:

I did not follow all the detail on this, but did they person they caught cut the fence to gain entry ? That is an offence (no pun intended) as it was breaking and entry, however we then get into the area of industrial espionage, that is still very weak in the eyes of the law with new legislation due anytime. I doubt the FA could actually do much more particularly if information was gathered from outside of the perimeter  (so open to public) of the clubs involved. However, if they had been handed training schedules from inside the club being observed, (as a document) then there is far more gravity at play (some may recall Mclaren found with the detailed plans of a Ferrari and were fine £100M) . I am quite sure the FA took good advice, and the fine is more a gesture agreed between the lawyers due to the weak legality of any case. Morally wrong but there are also many ways to get overhead images and video , you just need the money to do it. With modern technology you might as well assume everyone knows everything about you. 

But then we lost an FA Cup tie when an ineligible player scored the winner. Fine of £70k . That was rather more blatant cheating yet yielded a farcical response. 

Was it bollocks.

Lampard's account differed to the police. There was no fence cutting that occurred- he would appear to have been mistaken- or could it have been 'mistaken'?

Don't believe all you see on Sky Sports especially when it involves famous managers. ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, BS4 on Tour... said:

They don’t get fined £200k though....

Because it's a different scenario. But one you chose.

"players skipping yards down the touchline every single time they take a throw-in"

If a player continuously takes the piss with stealing yards on a throw then he will be booked for unsportsmanlike behaviour. I've seen 5 players booked at once for not standing the full 10 yards back on a freekick- unsporting behaviour

You can't give Leeds a yellow card can you? Or perhaps you think a "do it again and you're out of the league" approach is better (nearest equivalence to a red card)

Maybe now you can see why the angle you chose was nonsense- this isn't a punishment to the player but to the club, a fine (and a pretty meagre - in the world of football- one at that) is not a particularly harsh punishment.

Players on the pitch are given discipline for unsporting behaviour in the form of a yellow card, if too many players are booked, the club gets a fine. So yes, a club could be fined for unsportsmanlike behaviour from players in a game too.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, JamesBCFC said:

Because it's a different scenario. But one you chose.

"players skipping yards down the touchline every single time they take a throw-in"

If a player continuously takes the piss with stealing yards on a throw then he will be booked for unsportsmanlike behaviour. I've seen 5 players booked at once for not standing the full 10 yards back on a freekick- unsporting behaviour

You can't give Leeds a yellow card can you? Or perhaps you think a "do it again and you're out of the league" approach is better (nearest equivalence to a red card)

Maybe now you can see why the angle you chose was nonsense- this isn't a punishment to the player but to the club, a fine (and a pretty meagre - in the world of football- one at that) is not a particularly harsh punishment.

Players on the pitch are given discipline for unsporting behaviour in the form of a yellow card, if too many players are booked, the club gets a fine. So yes, a club could be fined for unsportsmanlike behaviour from players in a game too.

 

Yeh ok.....let’s leave it there....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, billywedlock said:

sure as I said I never followed it well, in that case, quite honestly there is nothing to answer. Derby need to put up a solid and high fence. I believe a D.Trump has some expertise. 

Yeah Trumpton would be a sound adviser on this (on nothing else though). 

Think £200k about right personally. Reporting on this has been interesting though by the media- Lampard's questionable claims should have been scrutinised a bit better IMO. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, RumRed said:

True, but you wouldn’t have been punished for it.  I don’t understand the argument, yes ‘wrong’ but not illegal.  You play to the rules at the time?   If the rules are wrong you change them and convict from then.  

I’d hate some of you to be in charge of our criminal justice system.  Just because it’s sport doesn’t make it different.

If I get elected I’ll choose cider to be banned from 1804 under penalty of death, applied retrospectively.  

Seriously you cannot have retrospective laws, it’s a nonsense.

 

Please at least follow a simple argument.

 

That being said, they have fudged it with the meaningless caveat in the rules.  Leeds have bottled it imo and accepted the the slap on the wrist and agreeing to support the amendment.  Probably sensible but all the calling for points deductions, sad posturing.

Ultimately what has happened here is not criminal so the analogies over driving excessive speeds and cider prohibition are not valid. 

So, not criminal. Were any of the laws of the game broken? No. 

So not against the rules. 

Is it widely acknowledged by people in the professional game that spying on another teams training sessions ahead of a match is a tad out of order and not really a done thing? Yes. 

So, the punishment here is one where, had Leeds been caught spying only on Derby, they’d probably get a reprimand from the FA and warned about their conduct. 

What Bielsa has done, by coming out with his ridiculous presser saying he’s spied on every opponent this season, basically made the situation one where the FA couldn’t been seen to say “well, never mind, just don’t do it again please”. Given that this wasn’t a one-off, Bielsa dug his own grave by saying he’s a serial spy. There had to be a punishment that was more than a slap on the wrist. There couldn’t really be any other outcome without the FA looking weak. 

Bielsa should’ve kept schtum and Leeds would probably have just been told off. As it was, his ludicrous statement that he has OCD, so he needs to do it, doesn’t wash with me. He knows what he was doing was wrong, tried to excuse his behaviour by claiming OCD and has rightly been punished. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...