Leeds fined 200k for spygate (Merged)

[Harry]

Triple post!

[Up The City!]

Have I accidentally come onto the Leeds forum? 

[RedLionLad]

24 minutes ago, Up The City! said:

Have I accidentally come onto the Leeds forum? 

Yes. Get a tissue !

[Mr Popodopolous]

11 hours ago, Harry said:

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. 

I wouldn't be so sure.

This is a man who purportedly has gone jogging in the middle of the night when he managed in Argentina with tactical tapes on- so I wouldn't really be so sure. Mind you, the English mainstream football media can be quite insular- Rowett at Stoke probably seen as the more astute appointment by a fair few- certainly a more stable one though! .

Quote

 

Never one to do anything by halves, Bielsa finds it impossible to switch off. A frequent de-stress technique is to go for a run. At 2am. While listening to his favourite coaching mix tape detailing the 22 formations he believes are possible on a football pitch.

So engrossed was Bielsa while running through the grounds of Argentina’s Ezeiza training complex in early 1999, he couldn’t hear local police shouting at him. Finally noticing a dozen guns pointed at him, he hid behind a tree, pleading: “Don’t shoot! I’m Bielsa!”

 

Read more at https://www.fourfourtwo.com/features/explaining-marcelo-bielsa-how-argentine-came-influence-footballs-greatest-managers#1piDikf4RVHyQOHV.99 

 

[Up The City!]

4 hours ago, RedLionLad said:

Yes. Get a tissue !

I just can't understand the Leeds love in in all these comments. If it came out that they had watched our training sessions before we played them and lost to them which seems highly likely then this place would be up in arms.

[Spike]

21 hours ago, chipdawg said:

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...

1

Sounds like a few comments I've read on here too if we're being fair...

[Harry]

46 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

I wouldn't be so sure.

This is a man who purportedly has gone jogging in the middle of the night when he managed in Argentina with tactical tapes on- so I wouldn't really be so sure. Mind you, the English mainstream football media can be quite insular- Rowett at Stoke probably seen as the more astute appointment by a fair few- certainly a more stable one though! .

 

I couldn’t care if he has to listen to his tapes whilst tugging himself off. It’s still no excuse for doing something that is frowned upon. 

As I said, most in pro football understand that this sort of thing is not really acceptable (even though it’s not illegal). To engage in this behaviour because he needs to de-stress is a pathetic excuse. 

[Mr Popodopolous]

21 minutes ago, Harry said:

I couldn’t care if he has to listen to his tapes whilst tugging himself off. It’s still no excuse for doing something that is frowned upon. 

As I said, most in pro football understand that this sort of thing is not really acceptable (even though it’s not illegal). To engage in this behaviour because he needs to de-stress is a pathetic excuse. 

Reckon we're cross purposes here. I'm suggesting he's OCD, not condoning spygate.

Broadly speaking though...football has an interestingly selective moral code depending which country it's in. Fairly sure this happens abroad, on the flipside other FA's have games or crowd sections behind closed doors for racial abuse e.g.- like I say different moral codes depending where you are. 

[chipdawg]

1 hour ago, Spike said:

Sounds like a few comments I've read on here too if we're being fair...

True, but we weren't put on TV 19 times last season by an organisation that "hates us and wants to see us fail"

[Cjay]

On 19/02/2019 at 11:44, chipdawg said:

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...

You could look at that another way.

£1mil for the amount of times Sky puts us on tele is peanuts, i dont know about now but earlier this season we had been on Sky 14 15 times i think it was, more then any side in English football, but we would have got less then a team in the Prem on tele once.

There is the disruption it causes for our fans, the players, having to travel later if the game was moved to a night time kickoff that sort of thing.

I dont really subscribe to the conspiracy theories but i do think there was an agenda over Spygame and it was pushed by Sky, its interesting the newer pundits, the ones more likely less comfortable in there jobs were very keen to tell everyone how awful it was, Andrews, Jenas etc. But the golden boys of Sky, Neville and Carragher who dont need to toe the company line were very vocal in there defence, coincidence?

Jim White one of Skys top men was very pushy, every chance he got he brought it up and told everyone how awful it was, not just on Sky but on Talksport and twitter. 

Would this have happened if it was the other way round?

Frank Lampard (who sky love, we all know that) say he was the one who did it, would Sky have been so keen to push it on there news for days? WOuld Sky journalists have been so keen to question every person vaguely related to football that they could then? Would the EFl have allowed your owner to get away with what he said? Would the EFl have judged Derby so harshly and done to Derby what they did to us last week, made a statement saying nothing just before a big game.

Sky does need LUFC, thats not arrogance, we bring in the highest viewing figures, thats why we are on so often, and as that is what media companies are judged on then they absolutely do need us to remain in the EFL, the EFL needs Leeds and other bigger clubs to remain in the Championship.

Not saying there is a conspiracy theory, but the way "Spygate" was handled has been roundly criticsed by many many peple in the media and in football, i think on thos occassion we were judged far harsher then other clubs would have been and people were allowed to say things they wouldnt have been had it been another club.

Incidentally, there were no pliers, that was a lie, there were no police on Derbys training ground, that was a lie confirmed by the police, there is no suggestion anything illegal ever took place either football wise or society wise ie trespassing, and yet we have had the media issuing accusations about trespassing, illegal payments, pliers etc. 

 

 

[Mr Popodopolous]

19 minutes ago, Cjay said:

You could look at that another way.

£1mil for the amount of times Sky puts us on tele is peanuts, i dont know about now but earlier this season we had been on Sky 14 15 times i think it was, more then any side in English football, but we would have got less then a team in the Prem on tele once.

There is the disruption it causes for our fans, the players, having to travel later if the game was moved to a night time kickoff that sort of thing.

I dont really subscribe to the conspiracy theories but i do think there was an agenda over Spygame and it was pushed by Sky, its interesting the newer pundits, the ones more likely less comfortable in there jobs were very keen to tell everyone how awful it was, Andrews, Jenas etc. But the golden boys of Sky, Neville and Carragher who dont need to toe the company line were very vocal in there defence, coincidence?

Jim White one of Skys top men was very pushy, every chance he got he brought it up and told everyone how awful it was, not just on Sky but on Talksport and twitter. 

Would this have happened if it was the other way round?

Frank Lampard (who sky love, we all know that) say he was the one who did it, would Sky have been so keen to push it on there news for days? WOuld Sky journalists have been so keen to question every person vaguely related to football that they could then? Would the EFl have allowed your owner to get away with what he said? Would the EFl have judged Derby so harshly and done to Derby what they did to us last week, made a statement saying nothing just before a big game.

Sky does need LUFC, thats not arrogance, we bring in the highest viewing figures, thats why we are on so often, and as that is what media companies are judged on then they absolutely do need us to remain in the EFL, the EFL needs Leeds and other bigger clubs to remain in the Championship.

Not saying there is a conspiracy theory, but the way "Spygate" was handled has been roundly criticsed by many many peple in the media and in football, i think on thos occassion we were judged far harsher then other clubs would have been and people were allowed to say things they wouldnt have been had it been another club.

Incidentally, there were no pliers, that was a lie, there were no police on Derbys training ground, that was a lie confirmed by the police, there is no suggestion anything illegal ever took place either football wise or society wise ie trespassing, and yet we have had the media issuing accusations about trespassing, illegal payments, pliers etc. 

 

 

This for me is a particularly interesting aspect- Lampard was rather 'mistaken' let's say which obviously the media ran with and certainly did not go back and challenge on when his 'mistaken' beliefs were debunked by Derbyshire police...

From what I've read in a variety of sources i.e. not Sky or Lampard, police turned up and told the guy to move on- amazing how fake news can spread though.

[chipdawg]

2 hours ago, Cjay said:

You could look at that another way.

£1mil for the amount of times Sky puts us on tele is peanuts, i dont know about now but earlier this season we had been on Sky 14 15 times i think it was, more then any side in English football, but we would have got less then a team in the Prem on tele once.

There is the disruption it causes for our fans, the players, having to travel later if the game was moved to a night time kickoff that sort of thing.

I dont really subscribe to the conspiracy theories but i do think there was an agenda over Spygame and it was pushed by Sky, its interesting the newer pundits, the ones more likely less comfortable in there jobs were very keen to tell everyone how awful it was, Andrews, Jenas etc. But the golden boys of Sky, Neville and Carragher who dont need to toe the company line were very vocal in there defence, coincidence?

Jim White one of Skys top men was very pushy, every chance he got he brought it up and told everyone how awful it was, not just on Sky but on Talksport and twitter. 

Would this have happened if it was the other way round?

Frank Lampard (who sky love, we all know that) say he was the one who did it, would Sky have been so keen to push it on there news for days? WOuld Sky journalists have been so keen to question every person vaguely related to football that they could then? Would the EFl have allowed your owner to get away with what he said? Would the EFl have judged Derby so harshly and done to Derby what they did to us last week, made a statement saying nothing just before a big game.

Sky does need LUFC, thats not arrogance, we bring in the highest viewing figures, thats why we are on so often, and as that is what media companies are judged on then they absolutely do need us to remain in the EFL, the EFL needs Leeds and other bigger clubs to remain in the Championship.

Not saying there is a conspiracy theory, but the way "Spygate" was handled has been roundly criticsed by many many peple in the media and in football, i think on thos occassion we were judged far harsher then other clubs would have been and people were allowed to say things they wouldnt have been had it been another club.

Incidentally, there were no pliers, that was a lie, there were no police on Derbys training ground, that was a lie confirmed by the police, there is no suggestion anything illegal ever took place either football wise or society wise ie trespassing, and yet we have had the media issuing accusations about trespassing, illegal payments, pliers etc. 

 

 

I'm not into conspiracy theories but here's a conspiracy theory

I had sympathy for Leeds after the initial 'scandal'; not sure you can have a go at someone for standing on a public highway and watching some football training and if Derby were so precious about it, they probably should have put a fence up or something.

However, there is no way that every team in the championship has a publicly accessible training ground, so that (in my opinion) is a different kettle of fish. There must have been some trespass or skullduggery involved. The fine is a big one though.

I appreciate that all the changed kick off times are shit for the fans (I work in Leeds and lived there for nearly a decade, so I know a lot of Leeds fans) but the point I was making is that even paying a £200k fine, Leeds probably make more from tv money than most clubs in the division. 

I just find the idea of a conspiracy theory against any team pretty unbelievable but for that conspiracy to be against the jewel in Sky's championship crown is laughable

I do agree though that the deification of Frank Lampard (who is doing a bang average job in my opinion) by Sky is pathetic 

[Cjay]

2 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

This for me is a particularly interesting aspect- Lampard was rather 'mistaken' let's say which obviously the media ran with and certainly did not go back and challenge on when his 'mistaken' beliefs were debunked by Derbyshire police...

From what I've read in a variety of sources i.e. not Sky or Lampard, police turned up and told the guy to move on- amazing how fake news can spread though.

Its that that bugs me most tbh, forgetting the did we didnt we watch training grounds.

Its how we have allowed the media to push totally unfounded and damaging allegations to just go on unchallenged, we could probably take legal action if so inclined.

You cant go around implying illegal activities took place without proof, I'm surprised we didnt persue that.

Keown was on about how he had a ladder, dont know where he got that from (the idea not the ladder).

[TonyTonyTony]

I personally think this is a joke. Not in the spirit of the game ? Yet every weekend teams play act, try to cheat the officials and timewaste and nothing happens. 

Whilst I feel Leeds we’re a bit naughty - it’s like speeding on the motorway. Everybody probably does it but just don’t get caught.

[Davefevs]

20 hours ago, Harry said:

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. 

Agree.

Think Bielsa thought he was being clever by putting together his press conference, trying to make it look as if he knew so much about his opponents that spying wasn’t adding anything.  By saying he’d done it all season to each club, he made it worse.

[Cjay]

6 minutes ago, chipdawg said:

I'm not into conspiracy theories but here's a conspiracy theory

I had sympathy for Leeds after the initial 'scandal'; not sure you can have a go at someone for standing on a public highway and watching some football training and if Derby were so precious about it, they probably should have put a fence up or something.

However, there is no way that every team in the championship has a publicly accessible training ground, so that (in my opinion) is a different kettle of fish. There must have been some trespass or skullduggery involved. The fine is a big one though.

I appreciate that all the changed kick off times are shit for the fans (I work in Leeds and lived there for nearly a decade, so I know a lot of Leeds fans) but the point I was making is that even paying a £200k fine, Leeds probably make more from tv money than most clubs in the division. 

I just find the idea of a conspiracy theory against any team pretty unbelievable but for that conspiracy to be against the jewel in Sky's championship crown is laughable

Its interesting how these people were outraged and "this doesnt go on in England", if thats the case why do the big clubs have areas totally inaccessible to the public in any way? As you pointed out many clubs do, so why pretend it doesnt happen?

From what Phil Hay has said we didnt actually watch every club, Bielsa was talking a worst case scenario, Phil said he heard that it was maybe 10 clubs. Again as you say it isnt possible to watch some teams, we probably tried and couldn't, i dont think we would have gotten away with a fine if there was proof of anything illegal. 

Understand that, in footballing terms £200k isnt much really, its more the disproportionate nature of it, £200k for standing watching some training sessions, Suarez got half that for assaulting 2 opponents by biting them for example, Russia got fined what £20k for racist fans.

At the same time though if a club is "the jewel in The Championships crown" you dont want to lose that jewel do you? 

Some of our fans are convinced by it, Spygate was the first time i ever thought there was anything in it tbh.

[Mr Popodopolous]

10 minutes ago, Cjay said:

Its that that bugs me most tbh, forgetting the did we didnt we watch training grounds.

Its how we have allowed the media to push totally unfounded and damaging allegations to just go on unchallenged, we could probably take legal action if so inclined.

You cant go around implying illegal activities took place without proof, I'm surprised we didnt persue that.

Keown was on about how he had a ladder, dont know where he got that from (the idea not the ladder).

Tbh it is Keown!

Yeah though, a lot of less than factual output about this...I don't go for this being a conspiracy theory but the rigour of the journalism was interesting to see.

[Harry]

12 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Reckon we're cross purposes here. I'm suggesting he's OCD, not condoning spygate.

Broadly speaking though...football has an interestingly selective moral code depending which country it's in. Fairly sure this happens abroad, on the flipside other FA's have games or crowd sections behind closed doors for racial abuse e.g.- like I say different moral codes depending where you are. 

No, it’s not cross purposes. We’re on the same page Pops. 

You are saying he’s OCD. I’m agreeing and saying he’s wrong to use that as an excuse for doing something he knows was wrong. 

As I mentioned earlier, I think had this been a one-off, just the Derby affair, then I think he’d have been given a warning. The fact he’s come out and said he does it to everyone because he needs to satisfy his condition, means this was not just one misdemeanour, but a much larger problem, and hence had to suffer a larger punishment. He’s brought it on himself. Should’ve just kept schtum. 

[Harry]

3 hours ago, Cjay said:

Its interesting how these people were outraged and "this doesnt go on in England", if thats the case why do the big clubs have areas totally inaccessible to the public in any way? As you pointed out many clubs do, so why pretend it doesnt happen?

From what Phil Hay has said we didnt actually watch every club, Bielsa was talking a worst case scenario, Phil said he heard that it was maybe 10 clubs. Again as you say it isnt possible to watch some teams, we probably tried and couldn't, i dont think we would have gotten away with a fine if there was proof of anything illegal. 

Understand that, in footballing terms £200k isnt much really, its more the disproportionate nature of it, £200k for standing watching some training sessions, Suarez got half that for assaulting 2 opponents by biting them for example, Russia got fined what £20k for racist fans.

At the same time though if a club is "the jewel in The Championships crown" you dont want to lose that jewel do you? 

Some of our fans are convinced by it, Spygate was the first time i ever thought there was anything in it tbh.

When using examples of fines for players biting others and fans being racist, you are comparing apples with oranges. 

Suarez’s misdemeanours were dealt with by the FA in one instance and FIFA in another. He’s one man and it was different authorities handing out the decisions. 

For Russian fan racism, again, it is a different authority, FIFA, who investigated and decided on that matter. Plus, the behaviour of fans is totally different to the behaviour of clubs, and so is a non-comparitor. 

I’ve read some people compare it to players feigning injury on the pitch. Again, it’s a ridiculous comparison. The actions of one player on the pitch can not be compared to the actions of a club as a whole. 

When a club acts irresponsibly, the punishment will always be heavier than when an individual player does so, because the club is supposed to act as the beacon of integrity and set the correct tone. Poor behaviour at ‘club’ level is not something authorities can tolerate. 

Anyway, onto your conspiracy about some media being anti-Leeds. Well, maybe it’s not a conspiracy. Maybe most people realise that for decades now you’ve had dirty teams, dirty fans, dirty managers and dirty owners. Perhaps they actually just genuinely dislike you due to the decades of witnessing a horrible club. 

[Mr Popodopolous]

41 minutes ago, Harry said:

No, it’s not cross purposes. We’re on the same page Pops. 

You are saying he’s OCD. I’m agreeing and saying he’s wrong to use that as an excuse for doing something he knows was wrong. 

As I mentioned earlier, I think had this been a one-off, just the Derby affair, then I think he’d have been given a warning. The fact he’s come out and said he does it to everyone because he needs to satisfy his condition, means this was not just one misdemeanour, but a much larger problem, and hence had to suffer a larger punishment. He’s brought it on himself. Should’ve just kept schtum. 

Yeah his press conference wasn't the smartest move, albeit was tactically interesting. Think the punishment was about par tbh. He's OCD though, I do think so- one of his nicknames I believe was 'El Loco'- basically means crazy.

On moral codes, reading Cjay's post he chose international examples, but closer to home.

Well, it is interesting that the periodic/sporadic Chelsea anti-Semitism issue, Millwall racial chanting vid v Everton, banana thrown at Aubameyang, plus of course the Millwall stabbing v Everton. Plus smaller incidents dotted about.

Well, FA and EFL weak as piss there. It clearly isn't a conspiracy but they are weak on these issues it seems- Spygate a softer target.

 

[downendcity]

5 hours ago, Cjay said:

Its that that bugs me most tbh, forgetting the did we didnt we watch training grounds.

Its how we have allowed the media to push totally unfounded and damaging allegations to just go on unchallenged, we could probably take legal action if so inclined.

You cant go around implying illegal activities took place without proof, I'm surprised we didnt persue that.

Keown was on about how he had a ladder, dont know where he got that from (the idea not the ladder).

 

5 hours ago, Davefevs said:

Agree.

Think Bielsa thought he was being clever by putting together his press conference, trying to make it look as if he knew so much about his opponents that spying wasn’t adding anything.  By saying he’d done it all season to each club, he made it worse.

I think this is the key issue about this whole affair.

The press conference fuelled the flames, at a time when the media was running with the story and other clubs were making noises about Leeds' actions. If Bielsa had been a bit contrite and apologised it might well have blown over , but he almost implied that he had done the same thing throughout his career, that spying was  apart of his management armoury  and he couldn't see the problem with it.

With those statements, had the EFL done nothing, there was the real possibility that further down the road another incident would be revealed, with "spying" on another club, and everyone would even more up in arms that nothing was done after the first incident.

P..S. Agree with other posters, that it is a shame that  the EFL don't pursue other issues with the same vigour and penalties.

However, it is relatively all to easy to make an example of a club with a "big" fine , that doesn't really "punish"  them that much, compared to , for example, making points deductions for persistent diving, or referees awarding penalties when defenders hold an opposition player in the penalty area at corners and free kicks.

[Harry]

15 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Yeah his press conference wasn't the smartest move, albeit was tactically interesting. Think the punishment was about par tbh. He's OCD though, I do think so- one of his nicknames I believe was 'El Loco'- basically means crazy.

On moral codes, reading Cjay's post he chose international examples, but closer to home.

Well, it is interesting that the periodic/sporadic Chelsea anti-Semitism issue, Millwall racial chanting vid v Everton, banana thrown at Aubameyang, plus of course the Millwall stabbing v Everton. Plus smaller incidents dotted about.

Well, FA and EFL weak as piss there. It clearly isn't a conspiracy but they are weak on these issues it seems- Spygate a softer target.

 

Maybe he was called ‘crazy’ because he didn’t give a hoot about the rules? 

In regard to the other examples you mention where little seems to have been done - all of these are ‘fan’ issues. As I said in an earlier post, where a ‘club’ has done something wrong, the fault lies strictly with them, and so the punishment will be more severe. 

Where ‘fan’ problems occur, this cannot be labelled as a ‘club’ issue. So why would a club receive a huge fine? Yes, actions need to be taken and resolved but it can’t be a 100% club issue if a fan is a cock. 

[Mr Popodopolous]

19 minutes ago, Harry said:

Maybe he was called ‘crazy’ because he didn’t give a hoot about the rules? 

In regard to the other examples you mention where little seems to have been done - all of these are ‘fan’ issues. As I said in an earlier post, where a ‘club’ has done something wrong, the fault lies strictly with them, and so the punishment will be more severe. 

Where ‘fan’ problems occur, this cannot be labelled as a ‘club’ issue. So why would a club receive a huge fine? Yes, actions need to be taken and resolved but it can’t be a 100% club issue if a fan is a cock. 

Nope, he's known to be shall we say eccentric- has a rep for it. Nothing to do with flouting regulations historically.

 https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-6604845/No-wonder-call-Leeds-boss-Marcelo-Bielsa-El-Loco.html

Clubs can be punished for fan behaviour actually. Admittedly harder to justify in these cases as the numbers were smaller.

In Italy for example, Inter played a game behind closed doors for racial abuse of Koulibaly- this was around Christmas and a 2nd game in which the Curva was shut- so yes clubs can be punished for behaviour of fans. Sterling was another I forgot about, though in the EFL there has been little (though there was a spot of other v Swansea here and there was potentially trouble at Bury-Lincoln and handbags at Forest Green-Bury)- even Millwall-Everton was under auspices of FA thinking about it due to it being a Cup game. UEFA behind closed doors games for racist chanting a higher profile example. Is UK law different in that respect, I don't know.

The difference is though that UEFA and to an extent the Italian FA actually use powers open to them- our FA, EPL and EFL do not seem to. Piss weak. Which side is right is a different debate.

[BS4 on Tour...]

So Ipswich and Norwich today received a combined fine of less than £50k for failing to control their players in their recent ‘derby’ match - kinda shows how harsh the Leeds fine was....two teams behaving badly in front of thousands of impressionable kids get fines of £20k and £25k - and a geezer sticking his snout through various bushes around the country draws a fine of £200k for his club....

[Harry]

1 hour ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Nope, he's known to be shall we say eccentric- has a rep for it. Nothing to do with flouting regulations historically.

 https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-6604845/No-wonder-call-Leeds-boss-Marcelo-Bielsa-El-Loco.html

Clubs can be punished for fan behaviour actually. Admittedly harder to justify in these cases as the numbers were smaller.

In Italy for example, Inter played a game behind closed doors for racial abuse of Koulibaly- this was around Christmas and a 2nd game in which the Curva was shut- so yes clubs can be punished for behaviour of fans. Sterling was another I forgot about, though in the EFL there has been little (though there was a spot of other v Swansea here and there was potentially trouble at Bury-Lincoln and handbags at Forest Green-Bury)- even Millwall-Everton was under auspices of FA thinking about it due to it being a Cup game. UEFA behind closed doors games for racist chanting a higher profile example. Is UK law different in that respect, I don't know.

The difference is though that UEFA and to an extent the Italian FA actually use powers open to them- our FA, EPL and EFL do not seem to. Piss weak. Which side is right is a different debate.

Yes of course clubs can receive punishment for fan behaviour but it’s not on the same page or even the same ballpark as a club wronging another club. 

Fan behaviour can only be levelled at clubs if the club is failing to act on known problems. If a fan hurls racial abuse, and the club finds and bans that fan, then they’ve done their job. 

This Bielsa incident is not on the same level. It’s not fan to fan or fan to player or even player to fan, it’s club to club. 

Anyone making comparisons to racist chanting, players diving, deliberate handballs etc is comparing two non-comparable events. Bielsa’s misdemeanours can only be taken on their own merit, as there is no prior context to refer to. As said, if the Derby incident was a one-off, I’m certain there wouldn’t have been uproar from half the league and there would’ve only been a slap on the wrist. As it is, he’s admitted to snooping at all opponents, so he’s not done 1 thing wrong, he’s admitted to possibly nearly 30 incidents. That’s why it’s a harsh looking fine. Leeds fans need to blame Bielsa for this, not anyone else - they need to quit with the victim mentality. Had they ran themselves correctly as a football club they’d have been in the Prem years ago. No one else to blame but themselves. 

[Mr Popodopolous]

7 minutes ago, Harry said:

Yes of course clubs can receive punishment for fan behaviour but it’s not on the same page or even the same ballpark as a club wronging another club. 

Fan behaviour can only be levelled at clubs if the club is failing to act on known problems. If a fan hurls racial abuse, and the club finds and bans that fan, then they’ve done their job. 

This Bielsa incident is not on the same level. It’s not fan to fan or fan to player or even player to fan, it’s club to club. 

Anyone making comparisons to racist chanting, players diving, deliberate handballs etc is comparing two non-comparable events. Bielsa’s misdemeanours can only be taken on their own merit, as there is no prior context to refer to. As said, if the Derby incident was a one-off, I’m certain there wouldn’t have been uproar from half the league and there would’ve only been a slap on the wrist. As it is, he’s admitted to snooping at all opponents, so he’s not done 1 thing wrong, he’s admitted to possibly nearly 30 incidents. That’s why it’s a harsh looking fine. Leeds fans need to blame Bielsa for this, not anyone else - they need to quit with the victim mentality. Had they ran themselves correctly as a football club they’d have been in the Prem years ago. No one else to blame but themselves. 

Like I say Italian FA with Inter and UEFA often generally- well this would be a greater wrong (racist chanting) to them than this I presume. Goes back to my point about different countries, different priorities for Governing bodies. Mind you the racial issue in Italy at football is a lot worse. They've got some big problems in general.

On that theme, Chelsea could face punishment as per the tweet by Dan Levene- No English club has been disciplined in this way by UEFA for this type of offence in a generation- think West Ham had to play a UEFA game behind closed doors in the 1980's, so it is quite significant.

On the final note, I agree broadly- yes it needs to be judged on its own merits, yes there is no precedent or should that be was none until this case and yes they deserve the fine. Can't be denied though that the FA, EPL and EFL are weaker on this than UEFA or at times the Italian FA. Actually would consider the fine to be quite fair looking in from outside. Of course on the being punished for fans behaviour point, if it is a small number then it is a small number too many and yes clubs should ban/punish them, perhaps in Italy or some of these European venues it is a lot more widespread.

[Cjay]

On 20/02/2019 at 22:21, Harry said:

When using examples of fines for players biting others and fans being racist, you are comparing apples with oranges. 

Suarez’s misdemeanours were dealt with by the FA in one instance and FIFA in another. He’s one man and it was different authorities handing out the decisions. 

For Russian fan racism, again, it is a different authority, FIFA, who investigated and decided on that matter. Plus, the behaviour of fans is totally different to the behaviour of clubs, and so is a non-comparitor. 

I’ve read some people compare it to players feigning injury on the pitch. Again, it’s a ridiculous comparison. The actions of one player on the pitch can not be compared to the actions of a club as a whole. 

When a club acts irresponsibly, the punishment will always be heavier than when an individual player does so, because the club is supposed to act as the beacon of integrity and set the correct tone. Poor behaviour at ‘club’ level is not something authorities can tolerate. 

Anyway, onto your conspiracy about some media being anti-Leeds. Well, maybe it’s not a conspiracy. Maybe most people realise that for decades now you’ve had dirty teams, dirty fans, dirty managers and dirty owners. Perhaps they actually just genuinely dislike you due to the decades of witnessing a horrible club. 

True, but this works on the assumption that the club (Leeds in this case) had prior knowledge of the event.

According to Bielsa himself this wasnt the case, he categorically stated that he and he alone was responsible.

It was reported that the "spy" was one of Bielsa's people and that person acted on the instructions of the manager with nobody further up the clubs hierarchy aware of this.

So unless the EFL have knowledge to the contrary how can they punish the club for the actions of its employees which is what they have done?

If they can do that then the that opens a huge can of worms.

The "good faith" rule is totally ridiculous as it has many many meanings to different people and followed to the letter anything that isnt "sincere and honest" should be punishable and that includes actions from individual players on the pitch in the same way they punished the club for the actions of its employees off of it in our case.

Unless the EFL have proof LUFC as an organisation was responsible then i dont see how they can punish the club.

If they can then other clubs should be punished for the behaviour of there employees in the same manner.

The argument for the whole punishment was that we gained an unfair advantage.

But nobody can say hand on heart that resulted in points which is what counts.

WBA however just the other week as a club did benifit from an employee not acting in "good faith" with Dwight Gayle, that cost another team 2 points and WBA gained 2 points through cheating, no half measures no controversy, it was cheating and illegal.

Gayle got a ban, WBA were not punished, yes they lose Gayle but they still keep those 2 points, will Gayle missing be the difference in the two games after and end up costing WBA promotion? Unlikely, but what if WBA win the league or get automatic by 2 points? Or say they finish 6th 2 points ahead of Bristol City in 7th.

The EFL punish LUFC as an organisation for a vague rule thats open to interpretation, but WBA can cheat there way to 2 points that could be crucial to them and get away with it?

Not the fault of WBA Fc what Gayle did, but as far as we know LUFC were unaware of what Bielsa did to.

[Cjay]

23 hours ago, downendcity said:

 

I think this is the key issue about this whole affair.

The press conference fuelled the flames, at a time when the media was running with the story and other clubs were making noises about Leeds' actions. If Bielsa had been a bit contrite and apologised it might well have blown over , but he almost implied that he had done the same thing throughout his career, that spying was  apart of his management armoury  and he couldn't see the problem with it.

With those statements, had the EFL done nothing, there was the real possibility that further down the road another incident would be revealed, with "spying" on another club, and everyone would even more up in arms that nothing was done after the first incident.

P..S. Agree with other posters, that it is a shame that  the EFL don't pursue other issues with the same vigour and penalties.

However, it is relatively all to easy to make an example of a club with a "big" fine , that doesn't really "punish"  them that much, compared to , for example, making points deductions for persistent diving, or referees awarding penalties when defenders hold an opposition player in the penalty area at corners and free kicks.

I do think the press conference was a mistake in hindsight and the sensible thing to do was say "I'm sorry, yes i did this, i didnt realise it wasnt acceptable".

But i do admire Bielsa for it in a way, he doesnt see it as wrong, i still think he is bemused by the whole situation. As other professionals have pointed out it does go on abroad and similar stuff goes on here on the sly, Pulis admitted getting inside information in the past, its accepted as a private thing that happens and people know it does but dont talk about it, many ex pros have said that in this country.

The EFL had to do something, but they knew they couldn't be to harsh because of the vagueness of the ruling, to harsh and we'd have taken them to court and more then likely won, a points deduction especially was never going to happen.

Far more blatant cheating goes on every week in football.

[Davefevs]

11 minutes ago, Cjay said:

True, but this works on the assumption that the club (Leeds in this case) had prior knowledge of the event.

According to Bielsa himself this wasnt the case, he categorically stated that he and he alone was responsible.

It was reported that the "spy" was one of Bielsa's people and that person acted on the instructions of the manager with nobody further up the clubs hierarchy aware of this.

So unless the EFL have knowledge to the contrary how can they punish the club for the actions of its employees which is what they have done?

If they can do that then the that opens a huge can of worms.

The "good faith" rule is totally ridiculous as it has many many meanings to different people and followed to the letter anything that isnt "sincere and honest" should be punishable and that includes actions from individual players on the pitch in the same way they punished the club for the actions of its employees off of it in our case.

Unless the EFL have proof LUFC as an organisation was responsible then i dont see how they can punish the club.

If they can then other clubs should be punished for the behaviour of there employees in the same manner.

The argument for the whole punishment was that we gained an unfair advantage.

But nobody can say hand on heart that resulted in points which is what counts.

WBA however just the other week as a club did benifit from an employee not acting in "good faith" with Dwight Gayle, that cost another team 2 points and WBA gained 2 points through cheating, no half measures no controversy, it was cheating and illegal.

Gayle got a ban, WBA were not punished, yes they lose Gayle but they still keep those 2 points, will Gayle missing be the difference in the two games after and end up costing WBA promotion? Unlikely, but what if WBA win the league or get automatic by 2 points? Or say they finish 6th 2 points ahead of Bristol City in 7th.

The EFL punish LUFC as an organisation for a vague rule thats open to interpretation, but WBA can cheat there way to 2 points that could be crucial to them and get away with it?

Not the fault of WBA Fc what Gayle did, but as far as we know LUFC were unaware of what Bielsa did to.

Should’ve just banned Bielsa then....perhaps from the touchline with no contact with the bench for the rest of the season!!! 

[downendcity]

24 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

Should’ve just banned Bielsa then....perhaps from the touchline with no contact with the bench for the rest of the season!!! 

However, clubs have been, and continue to be  punished for failing to control their players, (and  fans, when fans  cause trouble), so there is a precedent of sorts, i.e. ultimately the club carries ultimate responsibility for the actions of it's employees when they are acting on behalf of the club.

The information Bielsa was obtaining was to enable his club to gain an advantage over the opposition. Banning Bielsa would have been a more severe punishment, and perhaps it might have been an option, or an additional penalty, had the club been aware of what Bielsa was up to and condoned his actions.