Leeds and potential legal action

[Crabbycanary3 994]

Bielsa did not ask to watch the training sessions because he knew he'd be told to do one. So, he circumvented that by sending someone under his own volition. He knew it would kick up a storm, if he was found out. He was. It has.

His body language, when interviewed, amounted to him staring at the ground for 95% of the interview, whilst his interpreter did his job. 

[Woodman 92]

That's his general demeanour though Crabby, generally avoiding eye contact when interviewed.  He's a dream for Sky and Talksport as he comes across as a bit eccentric and very different from anyone else in the English game.  I did enjoy his interviews at the start of the season when he was really trying to answer questions in English, but as the season's gone on, I find myself liking him less and less - probably because its us and them duelling at the top of the table. All that sitting on an upturned bucket to watch the game - what's that all about!?

[Branston Pickle 3,659]

I’m really not remotely interested in it being Leeds - it could be anyone, even us.  I’d still consider it odd/want to know quite what was going on and whether it was ‘right’.  (I can imagine Leeds (and Binners) supporters being at the front of the queue squealing about it had been us.)

[It's Character Forming 1,161]

Googling this story just now, it's pretty much dead due to lack of developments, the EFL said they were looking into it on the 15th and nothing has happened since.  Except for a lot of hand-wringing on this thread about the fact that City have had the temerity to join a bunch of clubs to ask the EFL to do that.  And I found an article by Stuart Pearce saying he thinks the Derby/Leeds game should be awarded to Derby as a 2-0 win. 

 

It was covered earlier, but the relevant League rule is the obligation for clubs to act towards each other with "the utmost good faith".  I'd say it's pretty clear that spying on someone is not acting with "the utmost good faith" towards them, but there you go.  We'll see what the League say in due course.  As people have discussed, the likelihood is that it'll be a fine, not a points deduction, and effectively a slap on the wrist, which I think would be sensible to establish the point that it's not allowed.

[Feedthewolf 4,846]

Bielsa was effectively taking the rap himself, to try to exonerate the club as an entity from any wrongdoing. Wish they'd just hurry up and slap his wrists so we can stop all this speculation!

[Grando 260]

Bielsa will get a £20,000 fine, I predict. Or something similar. And the Leeds fans will be outraged when we go up there because we've had the temerity to do exactly the thing that they would've done if the situation had been reversed - that is call them on their questionable behaviour. 

[Nuff Said 5,141]

1 hour ago, It's Character Forming said:

It was covered earlier, but the relevant League rule is the obligation for clubs to act towards each other with "the utmost good faith".  I'd say it's pretty clear that spying on someone is not acting with "the utmost good faith" towards them, but there you go.  We'll see what the League say in due course.  As people have discussed, the likelihood is that it'll be a fine, not a points deduction, and effectively a slap on the wrist, which I think would be sensible to establish the point that it's not allowed.

Equally, "professional" fouls, surrounding the referee to disagree with a decision, gesturing to indicate that a card should be given, painting away dressing rooms pink and delaying returning after half-time are not in "utmost good faith". I don't see much hand-wringing about them.

[It's Character Forming 1,161]

56 minutes ago, Nuff Said said:

Equally, "professional" fouls, surrounding the referee to disagree with a decision, gesturing to indicate that a card should be given, painting away dressing rooms pink and delaying returning after half-time are not in "utmost good faith". I don't see much hand-wringing about them.

 

Actually I do think there's plenty of people who are unhappy about professional fouls, surrounding the ref, gesturing about cards.... in the few years, there has been an proper attempt by the authorities to deal with them all and for example it's now rare in the English game to see a player make the card gesture, which was pretty common, but doesn't happen now.  As for professional fouls, it's a constant battle, but that's what Hanley was sent off for wasn't it ?  And creative players clearly get much more protection from the ref than was the norm back in the 70s/80s (although it's noticeable there is less protection in the Champs than in the Prem).  So you can't say it's being ignored.  And I'm dubious whether coming out a couple of minutes late is actually something that helps a team - in any case it's something for the ref to deal with at the time if he has an issue with it, not something to do with the dealings between clubs.

 

Painting the dressing room pink is a bit of a silly comparison, would any away team admit it has actually affected them ?  They could complain if they wanted. 

 

I think the other area where this rule would be relevant is where a club is trying to poach a manager from another club and makes an approach when they've been told not to.  Again that's something that the authorities should try to stop as far as they can.

 

And the fact that football as a professional sport has problems in other areas is not a reason to ignore bad behaviour in this area !

[westcoastcanary 173]

4 hours ago, PurpleCanary said:

My guess is the authorities will say there is a good reason why clubs have training grounds on private land, and that private should stay private.

And are those "reasons" the ones you gave in your previous post Purple? I mean the ones which simply don't stand up given the fact that this type of information gathering goes on routinely in such countries as Germany, Spain and Italy, where none of your speculations about the undesirable consequences of allowing it are in any way borne out. Which countries, pray, have produced the most innovative coaches? Given birth to the major tactical revolutions? Have clubs run by people who long ago recognised the virtues of the "continental" (sic) structure of Director of Football/Head Coach as opposed to the lunacy of "the British way"? 

[Peanuts 150]

21 hours ago, westcoastcanary said:

Peanuts, where on earth did you get that idea? Nobody, not the FA, not the EFL, nor anyone else has ever suggested that EFL clubs signed up to anything of the sort. The EFL and FA have both said they are looking into whether what Leeds have done is any sort of contravention of any rules, agreements, "charters" or whatever. In other words, they think it might be interpreted as contravening some commitment by clubs to some vaguely worded principal to do with standards. The best guess would be, at most, some catch all similar to "bringing the game into disrepute" which can be thrown at anything the authorities haven't previously considered specifically legislating against. 

https://www.efl.com/news/2019/january/efl-statement-leeds-united-and-derby-county/

Quote

The EFL has now determined that it is appropriate to consider this matter in the context of a number of EFL regulations whilst also noting that the alleged actions appear to contravene the Club’s Charter that all EFL clubs agreed to in summer 2018.

The regulations they refer to are of the general bringing the game into disrepute sort that you mention, but they then go on to clearly state that the "alleged actions appear to contravene the Club's Charter". It's a perfectly reasonable reading of that statement to conclude that the charter contained an agreement not to do this kind of opposition research and in fact it makes sense for clubs to agree this for the reasons I gave. 

[Aggy 755]

5 hours ago, It's Character Forming said:

Painting the dressing room pink is a bit of a silly comparison, would any away team admit it has actually affected them ?  They could complain if they wanted. 

The effect an action actually has is irrelevant for the purposes of establishing whether the action was carried out in “utmost good faith”. How can you prove that Leeds’ “spying” actually had any effect? 

If the sole supposed purpose of painting the away dressing room pink was to give the home team an advantage, how is that acting in utmost good faith? 

[Nuff Said 5,141]

6 hours ago, It's Character Forming said:

Painting the dressing room pink is a bit of a silly comparison, would any away team admit it has actually affected them ?  They could complain if they wanted. 

It’s not a comparison, I was (trying to) make the point with a list off the top of my head that there’s lots of gamesmanship going on. Some less obviously effective than others.

[BroadstairsR 2,168]

"How can you prove that Leeds’ “spying” actually had any effect?" 

That begs the question; why do it in the first place then? It's small margins in this (and any) league. Frank Lampard would not agree with that statement for a starters.

This scandal will almost certainly effect Leeds on the field.

Their history is one of controversy and cheating .... yes Bryan Clough got that right and despite their fan's blinkered response all at the club will be effected negatively from manager to players. Remind me of their last result.

I view this 'spying' upon other club's training secrets in order to gain advantage in a football match more seriously than some seem to do ... and I'm not just referring to the Leeds fans here.

 

Football is , of course rife with cheating on and off the field and whilst the FA attempts to instigate rulings (FFP, foreigners in the  squad) and techniques (such as retrospective punishments via VAR) it is very inconsistent, gives way to the bigger clubs and can often be accused of moving at a snail's pace. This now is yet another variation of cheating.

I believe the club should be severely punished, although that's a forlorn hope. No law of the land was broken here it seems, but we are talking about ethical behaviour that contravenes the the reputation of a sport with a diminishing reputation for good old fashioned "fair play." Remember that?

 

In any case it will disrupt their progress and I would not be at all surprised if the strange Mr.Bielsa(?) looks for pastures new. He above all others in this sorry business is the most culpable.

 

 

Edited January 24, 2019 by BroadstairsR

[Aggy 755]

Broadstairs, I made the comment you’ve quoted to draw the comparison with painting the away changing room walls pink more than anything - an earlier poster had dismissed that as insignificant because they didn’t think it ‘actually had an effect’ and therefore shouldn’t be seen as the club not acting in good faith. 

My point really, was where do you draw the line; deliberately changing the colour of the away dressing room to try and affect the opposition and gain an on-field advantage is still not an act of ‘utmost good faith’. So should we be fined for that?

To answer your question (why do it at all then?) I do think they probably have got small advantages on occasion from viewing other teams train. I’ve said earlier though that I’d expect a professional football team at the second level of English football to be able to adapt on the field quite quickly though - if the move you’ve been working on all week isn’t working because the opposition have set up differently, then change your plan. 

Let’s remember that if neither team “spies” on the other, your pre-match preparations can only ever be, at best, an informed guess. The opposition could set up completely differently anyway, so you’d have to change on the field then as well.

It isn’t the case that every team who doesn’t have their training sessions watched wins every game.

In saying that, whatever your thoughts on the “spying”, it is clear that it has given Leeds a lot of unwanted attention and hopefully it will indeed disrupt their progress and affect their performances on the pitch.

[BroadstairsR 2,168]

Fair enough Aggy I certainly over-reacted to your comment.

 

It just that  there has seem to have been one or two comments in this thread that want to dismiss the incident too lightly to  my liking.

 

I consider it a serious breach of etiquette (such that it exists in  the professional game today.)

Leeds certainly  hoped to gain unfair advantage  otherwise why go to all that   trouble.

Edited January 24, 2019 by BroadstairsR

[splendidrush 700]

1 hour ago, Aggy said:

 

In saying that, whatever your thoughts on the “spying”, it is clear that it has given Leeds a lot of unwanted attention and hopefully it will indeed disrupt their progress and affect their performances on the pitch.

I think I agree with this, it won't necessarily be Norwich or Derby that beat them but a Hull or Bristol City where there'll be less media spotlight. Dare I suggest that Leeds will be in the playoffs?