Sorry if this has already been mentioned.
I have just read that Bielsa is being looked at for breaching rule E3. Looking on the form there are no penalties for a points deduction.
So they will either have to make it up then by which it would go to court.
So looking like a fine, then a rule change to go against any further actions.
Rule E3
posted on 21/1/19
comment by JonnyLosAngeles (My Dad was made in Leeds) (U9756)
posted 2 hours, 27 minutes ago
comment by Stoopo (U4707)
posted 1 hour, 24 minutes ago
Read an article today saying they have no plan to sanction him or the club.
However it was in the Sun.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
or in other words, worthless guessing?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I always thought 'reading an article' and 'the Sun' were mutually incompatible concepts.
posted on 21/1/19
I thought worthless guessing was an apt description of everything written and said about this whole saga from the beginning.
What is clear is that the FL have no idea what to do. They will either do nothing and keep quiet because the snowflakes are writing to them with their boohoo letters, or they will be poring oVer every word and sentence to try and find something.
They are clearly failing at that at the moment and it's been 10 days now.
posted on 21/1/19
Norwich are reportedly one of the sides that wrote to the football league, bless em.
posted on 21/1/19
comment by Shaun M - They wouldn't dare win it would they Leeds? They wouldn't dare win it (U9955)
posted 2 hours, 11 minutes ago
Norwich are reportedly one of the sides that wrote to the football league, bless em.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Blackburn and Millwall also confirmed. YEP has been told Middlesbrough, Bristol City and Nottingham Forest also involved (not confirmed though).
https://twitter.com/PhilHayYEP/status/1087313281730179074
https://twitter.com/RichCawleySLP/status/1087301784576708608
posted on 21/1/19
Mostly teams that have reason to want us deducted points. When it was us who complained about Wolves last season, was the list not made public?
posted on 23/1/19
More details on the letter.
_______________
As reported by the YEP on Monday, Derby County, Norwich City, Bristol City, Nottingham Forest, Blackburn Rovers, Middlesbrough and Millwall have all put their names to the collective letter. The Times named Hull City, Preston North End, Swansea City and Brentford as the other teams involved.
A total of 12 Championship clubs did not agree to back the complaint, which materialised after Bielsa gave a 66-minute media briefing outlining his pre-match analysis techniques last week.
The briefing was designed to quell criticism which arose after a member of Bielsa’s backroom team was stopped by police outside Derby’s training ground a day before Frank Lampard’s side lost 2-0 at Elland Road on January 11.
The EFL and Football Association were already looking into that incident but Bielsa’s comments prompted further pressure in the form of a collective letter to EFL chief executive Shaun Harvey.
The letter requests the dates and times of United’s scouting trips, details of the individuals responsible and any payments made. It also called for Leeds to confirm whether they used third parties to gain sight of opposition training grounds and whether information was gleaned from “inside sources”.
Leeds, who have declined to comment on the letter, are aware of its contents but are not believed to have received a copy directly.
Bielsa travelled to London on Monday to be interviewed by Football Association officials as part of their investigation.
The 12 sides who declined to signed the letter are West Bromwich Albion, Sheffield United, Sheffield Wednesday, Rotherham United, Birmingham City, Aston Villa, Queens Park Rangers, Bolton Wanderers, Stoke City, Wigan Athletic, Reading and Ipswich Town.
https://www.yorkshireeveningpost.co.uk/sport/football/leeds-united/championship-clubs-pushing-for-full-inquiry-into-spygate-demand-times-dates-and-payment-details-of-leeds-united-s-scouting-trips-1-9553896
posted on 24/1/19
Looks like the 11 clubs are looking at EFL rules rather than FA rules. Hopefully it'll be covered by FA rule E3.
You can view the whole letter here -
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/sport/championship-clubs-demand-details-of-leeds-spying-in-letter-obtained-by-the-times-xhpc2jgf7
- but I think you may need to register with the Times.
Body of letter:
_______________
Dear Shaun,
We, the undersigned, are concerned at the conduct of Leeds United ("Leeds" as revealed in the press conference on Wednesday in which the Manager of Leeds admitted that he had sent individuals to observe and report back on the training session of every opponent that Leeds had played against this season. This obviously includes all remaining 23 Championship Clubs.
We consider this conduct to breach the utmost good faith obligation between us which is enshrined in Regulation 3.4 of the EFL regulations.
During the relevant press conference it was said that Leeds wanted to make full disclosure of what has taken place. In the circumstances we collectively require the following information to be requested and obtained and provided to us collectively:
a) The dates and occasions on which each of the Clubs were observed by servants or agents of Leeds.
b) In each case identify the individual or individuals who conducted the observations.
c) Identify the methods and amounts of remuneration paid to the individual or individuals under paragraph (b) above.
d) In each individual case provide a description of how each of the Clubs was observed and how information was recorded.
e) Identify whether or not payments were made to third parties in order to obtain access to premises or property from which observations were conducted.
f) Identify whether any other confidential information was obtained by any other means, for example, but not limited to, information from inside sources
g) If the answer to (e) or (f) above is 'yes' please provide full particularity.
h) Provide full disclosure of all documents (including for the avoidance of doubt email, film or any other recording of whatsoever description, text message or similar) created in the course of the process of observation. This information to be provided to the Club concerned initially.
posted on 25/1/19
This sounds more reassuring:
______________
@PhilHayYEP
15m15 minutes ago
More
EFL chief exec. Shaun Harvey on Talksport. Says Leeds are still to respond to questions re: ‘Spygate’ but should do shortly. Said no specific rule broken but “good faith” is an issue. Will be dealt with “as soon as is humanly possibly”.
also spoke about the possibility of an “espionage” rule if clubs support the introduction of it. #lufc
https://twitter.com/PhilHayYEP/status/1088774462294708224
posted on 25/1/19
Now there's some major problems with that letter.
1. GDPR - LUFC can not disclose anything about people involved and employed by the club or contracted by the club
2. neither an individual nor a company is required to incriminate themselves - it is up to the accuser to provide the proof
3. confidential information - the others have to prove that any information gained was not available to anyone on public land to claim it was confidential
4. Bielsa has opened up to everything he needs to. LUFC do not need to respond to this bleating in any way
posted on 26/1/19
“When you look at the different reactions of clubs and media and supporters, half say ‘good on you’. The other half say (‘it’s outrageous&rsquo so we’re in this situation depending on where your personal view falls. What’s interesting, as was revealed by one of the national newspapers, is that 11 clubs have asked for some more specific information and I think they’re quite within their rights to want to do that.”
“Ultimately the rules of the EFL are decided by the clubs. The executive – we perform a function to help the clubs achieve a set of rules around the competition that they want in place. If the majority of clubs want to put in effectively an anti-espionage rule then there’s no reason why that can happen.”
“Any club can make any recommendation for any rule. It only goes onto the books if the majority of clubs support it. The reality is with where we are, and this is a matter of public record, there was no specific rule that we have which says you cannot review another club’s training sessions. There is the principle around acting in good faith towards each other and the question is, has that been broken?”
Wheat or chaff – which is it?
Shuan Harvey’s own words (above) confirm that no ‘rule’ has effectively been broken. Yes there’s all this ‘oh but it’s broken a good faith principle’, but that’s a ‘principle’. It hasn’t been codified to the level that it is a rule, a rule whose infringement brings about punishment.
Harvey did say that clubs could ask for specific rule changes, and that is fair enough; let them do that. But, as it stands, Leeds United and Marcelo Bielsa have broken no rules, not even one. Which brings me to my next point – punishment.
Let’s be frank about it, if no current rules have been broken then no punishments can exist. The EFL would surely open up a huge can of worms should they try to apply retrospective punishment based on a posteriori thinking. So all this talk of ‘points deductions’ and/or ‘lengthy bans’ are vaporous, hot air blown from the southern exit if you want it dressed up a little.
Wheat or chaff? It’s definitely the latter and time to move on before Spygate turns into football’s 2019 version morphs into something akin to the 1692/93 Salem witch hunts.
Spygate? Mild controversy at worst, hot air at best. Still, time to move on.