Jump to content
Note to existing users - password reset is required Read more... √ó
dylanisabaddog

Leeds and potential legal action

Recommended Posts

38 minutes ago, It's Character Forming said:

Aarons is taking our penalties now!!? You heard it here first !

 

so do you think as well as spying, Bielsa will have someone checking out opposition forums ūü§Ē?

I hope not, they might hear about our revolutionary plans for a 1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1 formation when we play them!

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, sonyc said:

Have been reading that there are social media calls for a #welcomenorwich campaign ahead of our visit. It appears their fans think our fans are to blame for NCFC's formal request to the EFL for clarification. 

This could all get nasty. And it shows the mentality of some Leeds folk. Back to the 1980s it seems. 

I have to be honest, Elland Road isn't in a great part of Leeds and I've never felt that comfortable walking to/from the ground especially for evening games, nothing to do with the Leeds fans !! 

 

My view is that the club's action, in joining with 11 clubs in asking for the league to look into this is an entirely sensible and proportionate response to a piece of dirty tricks by the Leeds manager.

 

I think there's a level of double standards by some posters on here who are much more critical of NCFC than other clubs...

 

Leeds have been spying on opposing training camps - what's the problem ?....

 

NCFC have joined calls for the League to look into what Leeds have done - what a stupid thing to do...

 

I think if City had ignored it, some would be criticising the club for rolling over and being weak...

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, CirclePoint said:

So by your logic, if you caught a 9 year old stealing candy from a store, and that kid said they’d done many times before, you’d just leave them be? 

A minor issue is best dealt with when it is exactly that, minor. Left unchecked this could end up having three or four bucket trucks from different clubs parked outside our training ground with people watching from 30’ in the air.

Just because this situation isn‚Äôt as ‚Äėbad‚Äô as others in the sport is no reason to ignore it.

Slap it on the wrist now. Slap it hard.

 

 

It's not really comparable though is it? One is illegal (theft - the intention to permanently deprive another of the use of their property) and the other isn't (looking at things happening in a public area). 

 

There's an awful lot of pearl clutching going on here and I am sure we are all concerned about the same thing "won't someone think of the children"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, westcoastcanary said:

Are you joking -- the Europe bit I mean? Let Pep Guardiola set you straight:ÔĽŅ

Long-time Bielsa admirer Pep Guardiola said that the practice is commonplace across the spectrum of world football, revealing that¬†he experienced it during his tenure at Bayern Munich.¬†"In other countries, everybody does that," the Catalan told reporters. "When I was training Bayern Munich there were people on a little mountain ‚Äď opponents with cameras ‚Äď watching what we were doing.¬†"It was cultural for the clubs, not because I said, 'you have to go to do that'. It was part of the culture."ÔĽŅ

What I am referring to is South American football culture, where Biesla has worked extensively and cheating is far more prevalent.

You only needed to watch the world cup to see the difference.

I don't have a Little England mentality am very much enjoying having Daniel Farke represent our club and living in the European Union, while we are still part of that.

Pep Guardiola is talking about people with cameras not wire cutters.

That is the difference, if you can see the match without cutting your way in then I understand that and would imagine that goes on anyway.

One of your employees actually getting arrested with a change of clothes and a pair of wire cutters in my opinion crosses a line between getting an advantage (anyone with a pair of binoculars could also do) into cheating.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, westcoastcanary said:

Where is it definitely said that the guy had wire cutters in his bag?ÔĽŅ Are these "wire cutters" actually the "pliers" that Lampard referred to in his original comment on the affair? No independent source has mentioned pliers, only silly people taking Lampard's comments at face value and as gospel. As¬†I've pointed out before, according to the police who spoke to the guy at the time, he was equipped with binoculars and a change of clothes; that would suggest they examined whatever backpack or bag he had with him and found nothing else in his possession; if they'd found wire cutters they would almost certainly¬†have been able to charge him with intent to commit an offence. Instead of which they took no action other than suggesting he move on.¬†

Let me Google that for you: http://lmgtfy.com/?q=leeds+spy+wire+cutters

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Jack Barak said:

It's not really comparable though is it? One is illegal (theft - the intention to permanently deprive another of the use of their property) and the other isn't (looking at things happening in a public area). 

 

There's an awful lot of pearl clutching going on here and I am sure we are all concerned about the same thing "won't someone think of the children"

This is exactly the point, training grounds are private areas, not public

 

No idea what pearl clutching is nor has anyone mentioned any impact on children.

 

A slap on the wrist in my view is exactly right - the point being if people carry on doing it going forward, they can expect worse punishment.  Funny how the people who want this ignored are blowing up the response out of all proportion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, PurpleCanary said:

Or a key player breaks down in training but the manager keeps it quiet.

So it's fair play to conceal relevant information from an opponent but not for the opponent to try to uncover the deception? OK for clubs to try to engineer an advantage through surprise tactics, but not for opponents to try to avoid being ambushed?

If the FA/EFL want to take action, let them introduce a rule that says all training sessions must be public and open. Alternatively leave well alone and let clubs follow Liverpool's example of curtaining off a training area if they want to maintain secrecy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, NeonYellow said:

Let me Google that for you: http://lmgtfy.com/?q=leeds+spy+wire+cutters

Exactly what I said. Not one definitive statement by anyone in a position to know exactly what the guy had with him -- apart from the police of course, who said he had "binoculars and a change of clothing". You don't make anything true by different uninformed people  repeating it again and again, but clearly you do manage to "convince" the more gullible. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, NeonYellow said:

One of your employees actually getting arrested with a change of clothes and a pair of wire cutters in my opinion crosses a line between getting an advantage (anyone with a pair of binoculars could also do) into cheating.

THE GUY WAS NOT AND HAS NOT BEEN ARRESTED OR CHARGED. HE WAS QUESTIONED AND FOUND NOT TO HAVE COMMITTED ANY OFFENCE. If the police apprehend and search someone nosing about private property equipped with a burglary kit, they don't say  "he had committed no offence and was advised to move on". They arrest him and charge him e.g. with loitering with intent to commit an offence. No such thing happened in this case. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, westcoastcanary said:

THE GUY WAS NOT AND HAS NOT BEEN ARRESTED OR CHARGED.ÔĽŅÔĽŅ HE WAS QUESTIONED AND FOUND NOT TO HAVE COMMITTED ANY OFFENCE. If the police apprehend and search someone nosing about private property equipped with a burglary kitÔĽŅ, they don't say ¬†"he had committed no offence and was advised to move on". They arrest him and charge him e.g. with loitering with intent to commit an offence. No such thing happened in this case.¬†

That may well be the case. I am going off The Guardian newspaper article I read which says "Earlier in the day Derby announced that police had been called to their training ground on Thursday following reports of a man equipped with binoculars, wire cutters and camouflage clothing hovering suspiciously on its boundaries."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, westcoastcanary said:

So it's fair play to conceal relevant information from an opponent but not for the opponent to try to uncover the deception? OK for clubs to try to engineer an advantage through surprise tactics, but not for opponents to try to avoid being ambushed?

If the FA/EFL want to take action, let them introduce a rule that says all training sessions must be public and open. Alternatively leave well alone and let clubs follow Liverpool's example of curtaining off a training area if they want to maintain secrecy.

Clubs should have to curtain off their private property that in many cases has been specifically chosen to be out of view? A silly notion.

There is a very good reason why training sessions are private and should remain, free from the fear of being spied on. Because they enable tactically astute managers and head coaches (such as we have now and have not always had) to get the very best out of their players, including by surprise moves/formation changes etc etc etc.

Make training sessions public and you go a long way to negating that perfectly fair advantage, gained by having wise choices made by the directors et al.

If this was non-sport, and companies were bugging boardrooms to find out what their rivals' strategies were that would simply count as illegal corporate espionage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Agreed Purple, how many times have we seen teams caught out or create a 'clever' free kick or corner routine?  They don't happen by accident, they're 'straight from the training ground' - without the opposition knowing what's going to happen!

I'm not sure we'd be quite as involved in the story if we were sitting in the middle of the table...

Slapped wrist and told not to do it anymore is how it'll end up. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, PurpleCanary said:

There is a very good reason why training sessions are private and should remain, free from the fear of being spied on. Because they enable tactically astute managers and head coaches (such as we have now and have not always had) to get the very best out of their players, including by surprise moves/formation changes etc etc etc.

"Getting the best out of their players"? What you are actually talking about is, not improving or maximising the skill of your own players, but finding novel ways of negating the skills of opposing players (and hence gaining more points). 

 

34 minutes ago, PurpleCanary said:

Clubs should have to curtain off their private property that in many cases has been specifically chosen to be out of view? A silly notion.

Of course it's a silly notion. This whole hoo-ha is utterly silly. But if, as Jurgen Klopp apparently does think, there are times when you do want to ensure total privacy, then do as he says Liverpool do and use e.g. some form of curtaining.

The rest of the football world accepts that this sort of information gathering goes on, Guardiola, for example, describing it as a culturally accepted practice among German clubs. We have the testimony of other hugely experienced managers/coaches that it is commonplace world-wide. Does it stop innovation? No! Does it stop talented managers proving their special worth? No! Does it mean that a set of idiots in the boardroom is as good as a board of wise heads? No! Surprise surprise, only here, in Little England does anyone think it is even worth talking about never mind holding official inquiries about or drawing up rules to protect some uniquely British notion of "fair play".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, PurpleCanary said:

If this was non-sport, and companies were bugging boardrooms to find out what their rivals' strategies were that would simply count as illegal corporate espionage.

*If* Leeds has bugged Colney then that would be a significant step beyond what they have currently been accused of, pliers (which seem to have become wirecutters) or not.

 

And can any Pink Un legal experts (what’s the legal equivalent of a fag packet accountant?) confirm or deny my belief that trespass is only actually trespass if you are asked to leave private land but refuse to do so?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, NeonYellow said:

That may well be the case. I am going off The Guardian newspaper article I read which says "Earlier in the day Derby announced that police had been called to their training ground on Thursday following reports of a man equipped with binoculars, wire cutters and camouflage clothing hovering suspiciously on its boundaries."

So the Guardian article refers to a statement from Derby which refers in turn to "reports" of a man equipped with wire cutters and camouflage clothing. Reports from whom? The man was interviewed by the police who issued their own report contradicting the reports to which the Derby statement quoted by the Guardian refers. So the Guardian didn't endorse the claim that the guy had wire cutters. The only definitive information is from the police who interviewed the guy, who found he had (quote) "binoculars and a change of clothes".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, westcoastcanary said:

So the Guardian article refers to a statement from Derby which refers in turn to "reports" of a man equipped with wire cutters and camouflage clothing. Reports from whom? The man was interviewed by the police who issued their own¬†report contradicting the reports to which the Derby statement quoted by the Guardian refers. So the Guardian didn't endorse the claim that the guy had wire cutters. The only definitive information is from the police who interviewed the guy, who found he had (quote) "binoculars and a change of clothes".ÔĽŅ

It would be nice to know the truth which I guess is another good reason for it being looked at in more detail. If Derby are fabricating their version of events that is just as bad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Nuff Said said:

*If* Leeds has bugged Colney then that would be a significant step beyond what they have currently been accused of, pliers (which seem to have become wirecutters) or not.

 

And can any Pink Un legal experts (what’s the legal equivalent of a fag packet accountant?) confirm or deny my belief that trespass is only actually trespass if you are asked to leave private land but refuse to do so?

Trespass is not just about entering private land; there can be trespasses against a person, or against e.g. someone's property. In the specific case of trespass on private land, a trespass occurs simply by virtue of entering onto the land. But there is no criminal offence committed in doing so. It is however a civil offence, so a claim could be pursued in a civil court with a view to having damages awarded against the trespasser. In practice, no civil court is likely to award damages simply in virtue of the trespass -- hence the common (but incorrect) notion that trespass only occurs if the person intruding onto private land causes some form of damage. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If this sort of thing was expressly prohibited by an agreement Leeds signed up to then they should certainly be punished by the EFL, although I'd be very surprised if it was anything more than a slap on the wrist.

As to people who seem to be saying what's the big deal, well presumably the clubs felt it was a big enough deal to agree not to do it in the first place. I would assume that this agreement was put in place so clubs weren't forced into a spying arms race with ever more elaborate surveillance and counter-surveillance measures needed in order to gain any small advantage they could. If everyone agrees not to do it then it saves them all the bother.

Edited by Peanuts

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The penalty taker example assumes that

(a) the player has not taken any penalties in games before for the opposition to re-watch  (unlikely that such a player would be taking a penalty in a game where that penalty could soon be the difference between the playoffs or otherwise);

(b) the penalty training carried out before the game is game-specific (if the public can go and watch general training sessions, the information in those sessions is, to a large extent open knowledge or should be ‚Äúallowed‚ÄĚ to be public knowledge imo);

(c) the player does then hit it right - just because he did so in training doesn’t mean he will do in the game.

If any of those assumptions is incorrect, the ‚Äúspying‚ÄĚ doesn‚Äôt give the spying team¬†any advantage.

My other issue with this is whether it actually makes much of a difference to the performance anyway. So, take the Derby - Leeds game.

Did Derby go into the game assuming they were only going to play one way for the whole 90 minutes? Didn‚Äôt they think ‚Äúwhat if our plans don‚Äôt work?‚ÄĚ Or ‚ÄúWhat if Leeds don‚Äôt set up in the way we think they will - we haven‚Äôt been spying on them so they could play in a whole number of ways, perhaps we should have a plan b, c and d prepared‚ÄĚ?

Surely professional teams change how they play numerous times a game - that might be slight tweaks (one player playing slightly narrower, or a winger not getting so far forward to provide extra cover) or it might be a more wholesale change to tactics or formation. 

But if Leeds saw Derby play one way and set up accordingly, surely after 15 minutes Derby and their management team should realise their plans aren’t working and change things? 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Peanuts said:

As to people who seem to be saying what's the big deal, well presumably the clubs felt it was a big enough deal to agree not to do it in the first place. I would assume that this agreement was put in place so clubs weren't forced into a spying arms race with ever more elaborate surveillance and counter-surveillance measures needed in order to gain any small advantage they could. If everyone agrees not to do it then it saves them all the bother.

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. 

 

36 minutes ago, splendidrush said:

.... seem to remember, 3 pages back, that this was a non story. I said it had 'legs' and so it's proved. 

Bravo SP, you have proved you really do have an excellent grasp of the inanity of our fellow countrymen. God help us all after Brexit when inanity will reign unfettered. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, westcoastcanary said:

Bravo SP, you have proved you really do have an excellent grasp of the inanity of our fellow countrymen. God help us all after Brexit when inanity will reign unfettered. 

Not that I want to encourage a second EU thread but we hit unfettered inanity about two years ago didn't we?

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Nuff Said said:

Not that I want to encourage a second EU thread but we hit unfettered inanity about two years ago didn't we?

Good point Nuff. The way things are going, this thread could easily reach similar proportions by the time all the hot air is expended¬†and the official inquiries concluded. I'm going to heed your warning and button my mouth; I guess¬†by now people have got the gist of my thinking on the issue¬†ūüėČ

Edited by westcoastcanary
Typo
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The entire exchange is interesting for what it doesn't say. The police have been made to earn their corn on the thread and have done so with good humour. However there are numerous questions which aren't answered but the implication is that Derby have blown it up and quite possibly lied about the pliers and whether the police came onto their land.

Best for all parties if it's laid to rest now, despite an understandable desire to find a scapegoat.

Edited by StuartL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Leeds were caught spying on Derby's training session. They admitted that they had all teams watched prior to a game, including their next opponents, Stoke. As Stoke knew that their tactics had been studied, they changed them before the game.

Stoke beat Leeds.

Is that a coincidence? Would they have won regardless? Would Leeds have won if they had known the tactics Stoke were going to play? Did Stoke actually end up getting the advantage from knowing that Leeds had watched their training so had a good idea of how they would set up to counter it?  Who knows. Probably.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don‚Äôt see how you can imply¬†anything from a¬†police reply on Twitter other than what it says, ie that he was¬†‚Äėnot committing a crime‚Äô.

However, it is the very fact that he was there at all, and was a Leeds employee who they’ve admitted was spying, which leads to questions for some sort of follow-up by the football authorities. They have a duty to ensure their rules are followed and to follow up any complaints/enquiries that 12 clubs (11 + Derby as initial complainants) have legitimately made.  The law of the land and internal rules/regulations of the FL are completely separate things.

Edited by Branston Pickle

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some people on this thread seem to thinking standing on public land watching clearly visible activities on private land is "spying". This espionage lark is easier than I had previously realised. I might give MI5 a call and see if they could use my skills.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Branston Pickle said:

I don‚Äôt see how you can imply¬†anything from a¬†police reply on Twitter other than what it says, ie that he was¬†‚Äėnot committing a crime‚Äô.

However, it is the very fact that he was there at all, and was a Leeds employee who they’ve admitted was spying, which leads to questions for some sort of follow-up by the football authorities. They have a duty to ensure their rules are followed and to follow up any complaints/enquiries that 12 clubs (11 + Derby as initial complainants) have legitimately made.  The law of the land and internal rules/regulations of the FL are completely separate things.

Quite. As said before, there should be an investigation to see if Leeds United should be punished, and if so to what extent. But more importantly to work out, since this issue has been raised, whether this should be - in football terms - legal or illegal.

I don't care what the attitude is elsewhere in the world. It is obvious from the remarks of Frank Lampard and others that in England spying on private training sessions is currently regarded as being beyond the pale (if that is allowable where does it ends? With rival managers being able to attend pre-match team talks?).

If the football authorities bring clarity to the situation by deciding it is legal to spy on private training sessions, then fine. Clubs and managers will act accordingly. 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.

Edited by PurpleCanary

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×