Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
TIL 1010

Leeds Fined £200K For Spygate !

Recommended Posts

Why all the waffle and hair-splitting. Leeds tried to, or did, gain an advantage by underhand methods, got caught, got fined peanuts. End of.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And we painted the away dressing room and didn't speak about it openly in the press and the reasons we were doing it. What cheats we were too.

Oh, wait, perhaps we did let everyone know.

And of course we've had the p1ss taken out of us ever since by away teams. Perhaps we need a siege mentality to deal with it? Maybe everyone hates us? Maybe it's given us an unfair advantage?

Or maybe we have just played great football. Maybe we just believe in ourselves and get on with our football and not feel the world is against us.

 

Edited by sonyc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It suits Leeds (fans) to have this 'the World is against us' mantra, as it gives them an excuse to hide behind when anything (they perceive) goes against them (the audacity of it all). Along with Millwall's 'no one likes us', it's getting very boring and wearing wafer thin. It's always someone else's fault.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Crabbycanary3 said:

It suits Leeds (fans) to have this 'the World is against us' mantra, as it gives them an excuse to hide behind when anything (they perceive) goes against them (the audacity of it all). Along with Millwall's 'no one likes us', it's getting very boring and wearing wafer thin. It's always someone else's fault.

Their victim mentality is boring  now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A victim mentality is always boring. Good to know that so many posters now realise it. I'm sure they'll now think twice before indulging in it themselves ..................... :classic_biggrin:

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

 

🙄 I have a lot of such days Branston. Of course mine is a minority view from the perspective of a signed up member of the Old Boys club.  As I said at the start, it is simply an offence against a peculiarly British sense of fair play. To pick up on what Stuart Webber said, it's like asking members of a monogamous society whether it's OK to have more than one wife.

Doesn't stop UEFA taking action against clubs for racist behaviour by their fans in UEFA competitions, and yes, prompted by pressure from the FA amongst others, the widespread complaint being that UEFA have been slow to act and the action taken, including fines, derisory. Nor did any such convenient distinction as the one you try to draw stop UEFA fining Liverpool FC for the attack on the Man City bus. 

What's convenient about the distinction? Not sure in what way you think  the fact it 'doesn't stop UEFA taking action' validates your rationale. The absence of capital punishment in the UK 'doesn't stop' China executing people with a bullet in the head and sending the family the bill for the bullet. That doesn't mean that the Chinese approach is the right one. 

Edited by littleyellowbirdie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, TIL 1010 said:

This StuartL chap seems to have a rather large chip on his shoulder.

Equally there doesn't seem to be much in the way of rational thinking here, but that's what you expect from football supporters for who rationality falls by the wayside in a way that we'd never consider at home or elsewhere for fear of being laughed at.

The events I referred to are factual. There were no bolt cutters. The 'spy' didn't encroach on Derby land, Lampard didn't even know about it until the police had sent the bloke on his way. Victim mentality works both ways. The Police DID have to apologise for joking about the incident on social media because they realised too late that idiots (as in media and some fans of other clubs without a sense filter) would take their posts at face value

I don't think the EFL is corrupt at all. I do think they're incompetent and is currently run by a bloke who sat alongside Ken Bates during a period at our club which was breathtaking in its disregard for rules, courtesy, financial shenanigans etc. Lord Mawhinney did his absolute best to help the club around the administration rather than rub our noses in it. He also tried to ensure fair play for the rest of the league and the end result was as fair as we could have hoped for.

So no chips on this shoulder. 

Perhaps it's too much to be able to ask people to look at things objectively?

You'll all dismiss this as a local hack's views, but Phil Hay is usually pretty objective, and it's hard to see where a £200,000 fine fits into a world where racist chanting and getting the inside track on team sheets attracts a cost one eighth of the amount.

https://www.yorkshireeveningpost.co.uk/sport/football/leeds-united/phil-hay-column-spygate-leeds-united-and-marcelo-bielsa-a-saga-ended-by-the-efl-taking-a-sledgehammer-to-a-nut-1-9604016

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Crabbycanary3 said:

It suits Leeds (fans) to have this 'the World is against us' mantra, as it gives them an excuse to hide behind when anything (they perceive) goes against them (the audacity of it all). Along with Millwall's 'no one likes us', it's getting very boring and wearing wafer thin. It's always someone else's fault.

Some fans, true, just as this threads hows that some of you are irrational and directed by dislike.

If you see my posts elsewhere (and I'm the only one posting from one side of the argument here) I have no chip. But yes, we have taken this 'fine' to move on. That's the only logical conclusion as there is no actual remedy to the breach of the good faith rules. The fine has been made up out of thin air. Unless someone can show me where in the rules it prescribes any penalty whatsoever.

Had this been Ken Bates the EFL would have been in litigation for years. THAT would be a victim mentality. Radrizanni has acted promptly and some would say been spineless in taking it up the you know what so as not to derail a season which is on the brink as it is.

Edited by StuartL

Share this post


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

And we painted the away dressing room and didn't speak about it openly in the press and the reasons we were doing it. What cheats we were too.

Oh, wait, perhaps we did let everyone know.

And of course we've had the p1ss taken out of us ever since by away teams. Perhaps we need a siege mentality to deal with it? Maybe everyone hates us? Maybe it's given us an unfair advantage?

Or maybe we have just played great football. Maybe we just believe in ourselves and get on with our football and not feel the world is against us.

 

Precisely.

And had we gained loads of top information presumably we'd have won every game.

"

I’m going to tell you a story. When I was Bilbao coach, we played the final against Barcelona, who won 3-0. They were generous with us because after the third goal they stopped playing. I was very sad to lose this game. 

When the game finished I sent to Guardiola, this analysis as a gift expressing my admiration for him. He told me ‘you know more about Barcelona than me.’

But it was useless because they scored three goals against us.

I do this to feel well, I see that this information does not allow you to win games.

Half of the goals we conceded are from set pieces. if the spying was effective, we would have found a solution on this subject. But it was not useful at all for us."

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, StuartL said:

Precisely.

And had we gained loads of top information presumably we'd have won every game.

"

I’m going to tell you a story. When I was Bilbao coach, we played the final against Barcelona, who won 3-0. They were generous with us because after the third goal they stopped playing. I was very sad to lose this game. 

When the game finished I sent to Guardiola, this analysis as a gift expressing my admiration for him. He told me ‘you know more about Barcelona than me.’

But it was useless because they scored three goals against us.

I do this to feel well, I see that this information does not allow you to win games.

Half of the goals we conceded are from set pieces. if the spying was effective, we would have found a solution on this subject. But it was not useful at all for us."

 

So, are you saying that your Club didn't send people to spy on other Clubs, even though Leeds admitted that they did.  Or are you saying that there's no benefit to spying, then why would Bielsa persevere with it? Don't take it personally, you're not paying the fine and it doesn't reflect on you, I do wonder, if the roles were reversed whether you would be so assertive in your defense?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Stuart, we are talking Barcelona here, not Rotherham et al! It has worked for you this season. As has been said, why persist if it wasn't working for you. Also Lampard said at the time, that it had happened in the reverse fixture, and nothing was said/done at the time (possibly because the volume of what had happened was not knowledge?)

One of the nicest mates you could ever wish for is a Leeds fan, and we always mutually respect each other's football leanings, there is never any anymosity between us, so I do not tarnish all Leeds fans with that brush, only the ones who shout loud and long, at every possible opportunity/wrongdoing.................

Also, re previous punishments for other 'misdemeanours', I think you will find the whole footballing World will say they have not been heavy/implemented enough.

Is it written down anywhere to say what is quantifiable as a suitable punishment for spying? I do not know, but even if it isn't then why not challenge (football?) 'laws' such as not being able to drink within sight of a football pitch or taking your shirt off when celebrating a goal?

Just because British football hasn't experienced this before, doesn't mean they can't start somewhere with a punishment

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder if StuartL has ever wondered why people dislike Leeds ?

Edited by TIL 1010

Share this post


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

Some fans, true, just as this threads hows that some of you are irrational and directed by dislike.

If you see my posts elsewhere (and I'm the only one posting from one side of the argument here) I have no chip. But yes, we have taken this 'fine' to move on. That's the only logical conclusion as there is no actual remedy to the breach of the good faith rules. The fine has been made up out of thin air. Unless someone can show me where in the rules it prescribes any penalty whatsoever.

Had this been Ken Bates the EFL would have been in litigation for years. THAT would be a victim mentality. Radrizanni has acted promptly and some would say been spineless in taking it up the you know what so as not to derail a season which is on the brink as it is.

Stuart....your season is certainly not on the brink. Hell, one win in your  game in hand and you're  top!!!! You've completely missed my point which is: just believe in your team, the way it has been playing football (which is very well) and life will sort itself out. Be a Leeds fan who is positive (I know many who are), be gracious, be accepting. I reckon you may be one of those. Not like those fans swearing at Norwich players and making threats at Elland Rd as they walked through the family stand entrance. I doubt that would ever happen in the carrot crunching county that Leeds fans goad us for (and worse) towards Leeds players. It's not the players issue is it? They simply want to play football.

Just believe in yourself a bit more too is my advice (and perhaps I'm old enough to be able to give it without being patronising). Something was underhand, it was discovered, it was judged by relevant authorities and now it's yesterday's news. There is no need for fans to hold grudges. We have to just respect ourselves and in so doing we find we respect others. 

Enjoy the rest of the season. It's an interesting one and exciting. There are several decent teams but I've stated before ( and to you) there are two very good ones. The way we have played football this year is the best a lot of us have seen. I dare say Leeds fans should also be proud of their team.

I don't and wouldn't go on any other forum myself about my team... To gloat, to criticise, express dislike or be defensive. Why would I? There is a question to leave in the air.

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

What's convenient about the distinction? Not sure in what way you think  the fact it 'doesn't stop UEFA taking action' validates your rationale. The absence of capital punishment in the UK 'doesn't stop' China executing people with a bullet in the head and sending the family the bill for the bullet. That doesn't mean that the Chinese approach is the right one. 

It's "convenient" because it contrives (repeat "contrives") to exonerate English football's governing bodies from taking action against clubs on grounds such as racist behaviour by supporters, that those same authorities insist UEFA take when such behaviour occurs in matches played under their jurisdiction.

Your point about capital punishment illustrates just how accurate was my comment that "Spygate" is nothing more than an offence against a peculiarly British notion of fair play. Cultural relativism, encapsulated in the dictum "When in Rome ....", turns out to be fine just as long as it applies only to trivia. But if I were to suggest that your moralising about Chinese practice was misplaced because Chinese culture is simply different, you would be up in arms. Morality, it turns out, knows no cultural boundaries despite all the false pandering to cultural relativism. Stuart Webber, though, is quite right; In the case of Spygate, the appropriate stance is "we just don't do that sort of thing here", which puts it firmly in the realm of etiquette as opposed to morality. Hence "Tut, tut (sniff)" is the proper response, not moral outrage.

Share this post


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

It's "convenient" because it contrives (repeat "contrives") to exonerate English football's governing bodies from taking action against clubs on grounds such as racist behaviour by supporters, that those same authorities insist UEFA take when such behaviour occurs in matches played under their jurisdiction.

Your point about capital punishment illustrates just how accurate was my comment that "Spygate" is nothing more than an offence against a peculiarly British notion of fair play. Cultural relativism, encapsulated in the dictum "When in Rome ....", turns out to be fine just as long as it applies only to trivia. But if I were to suggest that your moralising about Chinese practice was misplaced because Chinese culture is simply different, you would be up in arms. Morality, it turns out, knows no cultural boundaries despite all the false pandering to cultural relativism. Stuart Webber, though, is quite right; In the case of Spygate, the appropriate stance is "we just don't do that sort of thing here", which puts it firmly in the realm of etiquette as opposed to morality. Hence "Tut, tut (sniff)" is the proper response, not moral outrage.

Webber's statement:

t

Share this post


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

It's "convenient" because it contrives (repeat "contrives") to exonerate English football's governing bodies from taking action against clubs on grounds such as racist behaviour by supporters, that those same authorities insist UEFA take when such behaviour occurs in matches played under their jurisdiction.

Your point about capital punishment illustrates just how accurate was my comment that "Spygate" is nothing more than an offence against a peculiarly British notion of fair play. Cultural relativism, encapsulated in the dictum "When in Rome ....", turns out to be fine just as long as it applies only to trivia. But if I were to suggest that your moralising about Chinese practice was misplaced because Chinese culture is simply different, you would be up in arms. Morality, it turns out, knows no cultural boundaries despite all the false pandering to cultural relativism. Stuart Webber, though, is quite right; In the case of Spygate, the appropriate stance is "we just don't do that sort of thing here", which puts it firmly in the realm of etiquette as opposed to morality. Hence "Tut, tut (sniff)" is the proper response, not moral outrage.

Webber's statement:

t

Share this post


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

It's "convenient" because it contrives (repeat "contrives") to exonerate English football's governing bodies from taking action against clubs on grounds such as racist behaviour by supporters, that those same authorities insist UEFA take when such behaviour occurs in matches played under their jurisdiction.

Your point about capital punishment illustrates just how accurate was my comment that "Spygate" is nothing more than an offence against a peculiarly British notion of fair play. Cultural relativism, encapsulated in the dictum "When in Rome ....", turns out to be fine just as long as it applies only to trivia. But if I were to suggest that your moralising about Chinese practice was misplaced because Chinese culture is simply different, you would be up in arms. Morality, it turns out, knows no cultural boundaries despite all the false pandering to cultural relativism. Stuart Webber, though, is quite right; In the case of Spygate, the appropriate stance is "we just don't do that sort of thing here", which puts it firmly in the realm of etiquette as opposed to morality. Hence "Tut, tut (sniff)" is the proper response, not moral outrage.

Actually Webber's statement:

Webber said the argument - put forward by Leeds boss Marcelo Bielsa himself - that such actions are acceptable in other footballing cultures did not hold water.

“What I also don’t get is when people say, ‘culturally they wouldn’t know that’s not right’,” Webber said. “In certain cultures it’s alright to have two or three wives, but the minute you step in this country you know that’s not right.

“Surely the Leeds staff is not just full of Argentinians and there are people who’ve worked in this country - the Sporting Director (Victor Orta) was at Middlesbrough - who can say, ‘you can’t do that here mate’.

“Leeds is one of the greatest clubs in our country. People who run that club know what’s right and what’s wrong. We’ve not heard from them, which again has probably surprised us.

“There is a way a football club should behave and to come out and be so blasé about that in an interview, live on Sky, if we did that I’d probably pick up the phone to the clubs the next day and say sorry about that we’re going to fully co-operate.

“Hopefully at the end of it Leeds will show a bit of class as a club and go ‘you know what, we got that wrong and to the other 23 clubs who have been affected we apologise that you got dragged into it’.

...is pretty much in direct contravention of everything you've posted. He is clearly saying this is much more than a case of etiquette. And even more than morality. He is saying it is a clear case of right and wrong, with Leeds being in the wrong. And the authorities plainly agree, having decided there is a need for a rule specfically outlawing such cheating.

I would add that even if this had been just a case of what you regard as an out-dated and twee English notion of fair play your disdain would not be shared elsewhere. The French, despite themselves, admire it enough to have appropriated the phrase.

Share this post


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

Webber's statement:

t

I'm guessing, Purple, that you meant to re-post Webber's statement that you posted earlier. In saying that SW was right in his comment that it's a case of "we don't do that sort of thing here", I wasn't exonerating him from the apparently confused remarks about cultural relativism, on the one hand, and "knowing right from wrong" on the other. I say "apparently confused" because it isn't completely obvious to me that,  by "knowing right from wrong" he meant moral right from wrong.

  • Confused 1

Share this post


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

I would add that even if this had been just a case of what you regard as an out-dated and twee English notion of fair play your disdain would not be shared elsewhere.

Webber was curiously selective in his reference to Argentina given the, from what I saw and heard, universal reaction of foreign coaches managing clubs in England. I didn't see or hear a single interview or quote which said other than "it's common practice everywhere, what's the fuss about?" Klopp said he didn't find it useful himself -- but then added that, at Liverpool, they could quite literally curtain off a section of their training ground if they wanted complete privacy! Guardiola said it was standard practice in Germany and none of the German coaches in England contradicted him. Claude Puel, who said he preferred to focus on his team rather than the opposition, nevertheless said it was commonplace in France (citing his experience at Monaco and Lyon) and also before matches in the Champions League. And so on.

Share this post


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

He is clearly saying this is much more than a case of etiquette. And even more than morality. He is saying it is a clear case of right and wrong,

At the risk of further confusing Fuzzar, would you care to expand on the second sentence Purple? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 20/02/2019 at 17:31, westcoastcanary said:

It's "convenient" because it contrives (repeat "contrives") to exonerate English football's governing bodies from taking action against clubs on grounds such as racist behaviour by supporters, that those same authorities insist UEFA take when such behaviour occurs in matches played under their jurisdiction.

Your point about capital punishment illustrates just how accurate was my comment that "Spygate" is nothing more than an offence against a peculiarly British notion of fair play. Cultural relativism, encapsulated in the dictum "When in Rome ....", turns out to be fine just as long as it applies only to trivia. But if I were to suggest that your moralising about Chinese practice was misplaced because Chinese culture is simply different, you would be up in arms. Morality, it turns out, knows no cultural boundaries despite all the false pandering to cultural relativism. Stuart Webber, though, is quite right; In the case of Spygate, the appropriate stance is "we just don't do that sort of thing here", which puts it firmly in the realm of etiquette as opposed to morality. Hence "Tut, tut (sniff)" is the proper response, not moral outrage.

It's not contrived at all. You're completely unjustly holding them responsible for something they can't realistically control. But then I guess compensation culture and always finding someone to blame and get money off is a bit more established over there. Put it down to cultural difference I guess. 

Edited by littleyellowbirdie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

It's not contrived at all. You're completely unjustly holding them responsible for something they can't realistically control. But then I guess compensation culture and always finding someone to blame and get money off is a bit more established over there. Put it down to cultural difference I guess. 

My point was that the the FA themselves don't accept that governing bodies, for example UEFA, have no responsibility for the behaviour of a club's fans. Whatever you yourself think about it, if the FA consider UEFA have such a responsibility, they cannot absolve themselves of similar responsibility in the case of clubs under their jurisdiction (which was what Sophie Levin was saying in her tweet, in addition to commenting on the general spinelessness of the FA and EFL when it comes to stamping on far more serious issues than infringing some vacuous notion of "the spirit of the game").

 

 

 

Share this post


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

stamping on far more serious issues than infringing some vacuous notion of "the spirit of the game"

Tyrone Mings

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 21/02/2019 at 22:31, westcoastcanary said:

My point was that the the FA themselves don't accept that governing bodies, for example UEFA, have no responsibility for the behaviour of a club's fans. Whatever you yourself think about it, if the FA consider UEFA have such a responsibility, they cannot absolve themselves of similar responsibility in the case of clubs under their jurisdiction (which was what Sophie Levin was saying in her tweet, in addition to commenting on the general spinelessness of the FA and EFL when it comes to stamping on far more serious issues than infringing some vacuous notion of "the spirit of the game").

 

 

 

Sure, they do have a responsibility, but my point is what can a club do to stop a fan until they've actually committed an offence? So long as the club actively applies adequate sanctions against any fans that behave like this through bans, then how is it reasonable to punish a club?

Edited by littleyellowbirdie

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
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...