- becchio bear
- Queen of Quotes
- Posts: 17306
- Joined: Sun Mar 21, 2010 2:19 pm
- Twitter: @Becchiobear
- Location: Bramley Leeds
It is, and it seems to me that it should be a matter of the other clubs getting their own houses in order if they suspect their own players or employees.
I heard that they had made a strategic alliance with a new company Cheetum & Fleesum.faaip wrote:Flywheel, Shyster and Flywheel
Peter Ridsdale is on their board of directors.
Sent from my SM-G903F using Tapatalk
https://www.efl.com/news/2018/june/efl- ... -round-up/
The first paragraph does not tell that there was a vote and the vote met the requirements for adoption. It merely says what the vote needs to be to be adopted. Although the article on that conference says this Charter will be in the regulations, none of regulations on the EFL site contain the language “utmost good faith and honesty…” See below.
The current Regulation 3.4 on the EFL site states:
In all matters and transactions relating to The League each Club shall behave towards each other Club and The League with the utmost good faith. Further, each Club shall deliver to the League a copy of the Club Charter signed by the appropriate Relevant Person for and on behalf of the Club. The League shall be entitled to publish the Club Charter.
The article on the conference says:
In addition, the Charter commits all Clubs to behave with the utmost good faith and honesty to each other….
To punish MB and/or the Club for violating something that has not been adopted gave neither MB or the Club fair warning what was prohibited. In addition, the EFL would have an impossible task trying to explain that utmost good faith under the 3.4 rule includes spying is dishonest when they held a conference which had an outcome of adding “honesty.”. Lastly, the EFL would have a very, very task punishing MB and/or the Club for “spying” because of all the examples posters on here have pointed out of others violating the existing Rule 3.4 “utmost good faith” and the rampant covering of mouths of managers and players on the pitch who cover their mouths so that the opposition spies cannot read their lips as I’ve heard watching hundreds of matches and heard the broadcasters explain why it was being done.
Weasel you hit the nail on the head on the vagueness of the regulation. A statute or a regulation that is vague in that it does not clearly describe the conduct that is prohibited and provides for punishment in some way violates due process of law because the decision finding there was a violation or imposing punishment is inherently made or founded upon individual discretion, individual opinion, judgment or prejudice, rather than on fixed rules, procedures, or law. It therefore does not matter that procedures for the trial or administrative hearing were followed to the letter because the substance of the law or regulation was flawed because of its vagueness.
Its a move designed to disrupt our promotion bid.
Bielsa has made the EFL look stupid, exploited a clear flaw in there rules.
You've got influences in the EFL board against us like the Bristol City bloke whose boss has been very vocal.
You've got Sky pushing Frank Lampard like he is some sort of deity.
Sky would love Lampard to win promotion.
You've got no mark pundits desperate to stay relevant like Collymore or stay in Skys good books like Jenas and Andrews pushing the anti Bielsa agenda.
If it was the other way around this would have been sorted "naughty boy Frank dont do it again".
Sky would have been falling over themselves to tell you how revolutionary Lampard was for thinking outside the box.
They'd have had Arry on to tell us how clever Frank was.
There is no way they would have brought so much negative attention to it either.
Way i see it is the EFL know they cant punish us with a points deduction.
But they have reached a compromise with the old boys club " we will keep the pressure on for as long as we can and make vague statements every now and then".
It stinks and its wrong and its not fair and its basically xenophobic.
It really is imo, it is disgusting the way Sky and the EFL have treated Bielsa throughout this thing.
I dont go on the whole conspiracy thing, but there is no way they have treated Bielsa the same as they would a British manager, Lampard, Pulis, Moore etc.
Hell Pulis admitted he used to get information of opposition contacts pre game, not a word about that anywhere on Sky.
The football aspect is wrong treating the club how they have,leaving us hanging, Shaun harvey doing radio interviews.
But the way they have treated Bielsa is the worst part imo, Sky have a lot to answer for in that respect.
Sent from my XT1032 using Tapatalk
You cannot punish a club or an individual for sending someone to stand on public land and watch a training session.
Even if said individual decides to prune the bushes at the same time.
As CJay says, the treatment of Bielsa in all this is nothing short if Xenophobic.
If they punish Bielsa then they need to punish any manager who has gone to watch a game of a team they are playing the following week. Why else would a manager go if not to get an idea of how they play?
And Shaun Harvey should just shut up and f**k off. Never did like that snivelling twat when he was at our place.