Spying Accusation - EFL Verdict

[1964white]

I suspect Shaun Harvey will be seething as he walks out of the EFL door

[Cjay]

So glad its over, £200k fine for standing in a public place watching some people kick a ball, seems silly but hey ho.

Bielsa will probably pay this out of his own pocket, seems the sort of thing he would do.

But my question is this.

“After finalising its investigations into the incident at Derby County’s training ground on Thursday, January 10, the EFL reached the conclusion that the conduct undertaken by Leeds United in observing opponents’ training sessions is a breach of regulation 3.4.


Alright, so regulation 3.4 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.
(and a bit more about signing the charter thing and whatever, but its the bit there thats important)

This "good faith" business.

Whats that mean?

Behaving honestly and fairly?

Ok, so Dwight Gayle dives to get a penalty, WBA gain 2 points that could be crucial in the title race, he gets banned, but what about the club? WBA still have those 2 points, they wernt directly responsible as an organisation but its there player like it was Bielsa, our clubs employee that was responsible for this, so where is the punishment for WBA? Gayle didnt behave in "good faith".

Swansea, the whole transfer debacle, that wasnt "good faith", where is there punishment?

Its such a vague ruling you could apply it to tons of things.

If something is done in good faith, it is done sincerely and honestly:

Thats the dictionary definition, Jesus, diving, faking an injury, time wasting, harassing the ref, not placing the ball in the right place for freekicks and corners, stealing a few yards for throws.

So many things could apply.

Where do you draw the line?

[leic white 63]

f**king well steep for doing nowt.
thieving toerags .

[SG90]

Very excessive, especially for breaking no rules, but at least it's over now and we can move on from here.

[Mick Jones shoulder]

Made a rod for their own back with this one, as cjay said good faith what the fook is that in real terms. Can see clubs dragging all kinds of nonsense up now if they aren't happy with particular decisions. Personally I think the kind of on field shenanigans that take place amout to far worse for the game moving forward, maybe the EFL should prioritise those.

Think the clubs original admission just means pay up and move on

[SG90]

But racism is only a few grand fine? Nice to see where their priorities lie.

[Irish Ian]

Lets be glad it is now behind us.


Perhaps Radzi can negotiate that we pay 10% downpayment now with the rest paid back over 3 seasons

[danhirons]

We can use the money we saved on the Dan James non-transfer to pay the fine, smart thinking by Radz not to go ahead with that deal.

You realize it was Swansea who pulled the plug on the deal?

[danhirons]

Tbh think they just wanted to set a precedent to stop clubs doing it without really punishing us since we haven't broken any hard rule. 200k is a drop in the ocean so it's basically a slap on the wrist. Probably Casillas wages for six weeks

[Ratscoot]

We should deliver it in a Uber in pennies with a note saying “and f**k you EFL we are going to the Prem”

Getting a fine for not breaking a single rule or law apart from the ELF f**k you Leeds rule

[Cjay]

https://www.gofundme.com/leeds-united-spygate-fine

Erm

[LUFC_BOS]

Wonder if there was some back and forth with us on this. Seems like contesting this with lawyers etc. Would not be worth it for 200k hence the max they can get away with?

[weasel]

A ridiculous fine which is appalling giving the much lower fines for previous examples that are far worse, bugging changing rooms, getting teamsheet information from someone at the opposition club etc. A ridiculous finding given no rule was broken and the only rule even close to applying to the incidents is so hopelessy vague it could, as Cjay points out, apply to just about anything. But hey ho it is Leeds so they have made an example of us.

Definitely looks like their was negotiation between the EFL and Leeds so that we would accept a fine so that the EFL didn't look weak and incompetent, a big shout out to Shaun Harvey at this point, but a fine that we were content to accept simply to draw an end to proceedings.

I am sure all the clubs that have security around their training pitches will now simply do away with it and terminate the employment of their security officials as obviously it isn't needed and apart from if they'd played Leeds this season would have never been needed anyway. I am sure Derby are feeling foolish having recently wasted money to make it harder for people to see their pitch from the public road as obviously no other club or even any member of the public would even look that way when on the road.

[SelmaBamaMan]

The Club’s statement, as it appears on the EFL official site, is not an admission that there was a violation any regulation of the EFL, that is, it is not an admission to the fact of a violation of the regulation containing the sole ambiguous term “good faith”.
Leeds United said:

‘We accept that whilst we have not broken any specific rule, we have fallen short of the standard expected by the EFL with regards to regulation 3.4.
We apologise for acting in a way that has been judged culturally unacceptable in the English game …’

The Club also said we only it fell short of a standard expected by the EFL; but it may have acted in a way that offended the cultural expectations of some.
There is no admission that the other complaining clubs can use to further proceed before the EFL.

I understand the EFL’s statement on its decision to be that they could not find any commission of a crime or any other conduct that is similar in nature that would require anything other than Leeds United is paying us off to go away. That explains why their were no findings or statements regarding the complaints of the other clubs. The Club’s statement provides nothing for the other clubs to use for further proceedings on their complaints.

The result of this farce is that it adds “more ammunition” for the haters to show that our Club has a history of “cheating” going back to Leeds City being erased from existence. But the modern game is all about brand and the brand ability to create revenue. However, there are lots of people around the world who don’t give a rat’s ass about “cultural expectations.”

[SelmaBamaMan]

The Club’s statement, as it appears on the EFL official site, is not an admission that there was a violation any regulation of the EFL, that is, it is not an admission to the fact of a violation of the regulation containing the sole ambiguous term “good faith”.
Leeds United said:

‘We accept that whilst we have not broken any specific rule, we have fallen short of the standard expected by the EFL with
regards to regulation 3.4.

We apologise for acting in a way that has been judged culturally unacceptable in the English game …’

The Club also said we only it fell short of a standard expected by the EFL; but it may have acted in a way that offended the cultural expectations of some.

There is no admission that the other complaining clubs can use to further proceed before the EFL.

I understand the EFL’s statement on its decision to be that they could not find any commission of a crime or any other conduct that is similar in nature that would require anything other than Leeds United is paying us off to go away. That explains why their were no findings or statements regarding the complaints of the other clubs. The Club’s statement provides nothing for the other clubs to use for further proceedings on their complaints.

The result of this farce is that it adds “more ammunition” for the haters to show that our Club has a history of “cheating” going back to Leeds City being erased from existence. But the modern game is all about brand and the brand ability to create revenue. However, there are lots of people around the world who don’t give a rat’s ass about “cultural expectations.”

[danhirons]

A ridiculous fine which is appalling giving the much lower fines for previous examples that are far worse, bugging changing rooms, getting teamsheet information from someone at the opposition club etc. A ridiculous finding given no rule was broken and the only rule even close to applying to the incidents is so hopelessy vague it could, as Cjay points out, apply to just about anything. But hey ho it is Leeds so they have made an example of us.

Definitely looks like their was negotiation between the EFL and Leeds so that we would accept a fine so that the EFL didn't look weak and incompetent, a big shout out to Shaun Harvey at this point, but a fine that we were content to accept simply to draw an end to proceedings.

I am sure all the clubs that have security around their training pitches will now simply do away with it and terminate the employment of their security officials as obviously it isn't needed and apart from if they'd played Leeds this season would have never been needed anyway. I am sure Derby are feeling foolish having recently wasted money to make it harder for people to see their pitch from the public road as obviously no other club or even any member of the public would even look that way when on the road.

Can you give some examples?

[weasel]

Crystal Palace received a £25,000 fine from the Premier League in 2014 following allegations that Cardiff City’s team sheet was leaked to them ahead of a match between the sides.

So the Premier League, in fining Crystal Palace (managed by Warnock at the time I believe), must have believed and had some evidence that the team sheet was linked. If there had been no evidence then surely they wouldn't have been able to fine them?

For me it is a far worse offence as it has involved a Cardiff employee, possibly a player, giving the opposition information. This is far worse to me than someone observing a team (or teams) training from a public place (no actual offence) or trying to get opinion from opposition fans (if the rumours about a Leeds employee mingling in pubs with opposition fans prior to games is to be believed). Yet the fine was 1/8th of what Leeds got.

There was also the case, can't remember the teams involved, where bugging has gone on in opposition changing rooms and cases where managers (think it was Warnock again) sent someone to stand outside the opposition changing room at half time to eavesdrop.

[Blackadder]

Morning all

Gotta say that if Spygate finally highlighted to the EFL Shaun Harvey’s blind and biased hatred of us then the 200k fine was the best money we ever spent!

[danhirons]

Crystal Palace received a £25,000 fine from the Premier League in 2014 following allegations that Cardiff City’s team sheet was leaked to them ahead of a match between the sides.

So the Premier League, in fining Crystal Palace (managed by Warnock at the time I believe), must have believed and had some evidence that the team sheet was linked. If there had been no evidence then surely they wouldn't have been able to fine them?

For me it is a far worse offence as it has involved a Cardiff employee, possibly a player, giving the opposition information. This is far worse to me than someone observing a team (or teams) training from a public place (no actual offence) or trying to get opinion from opposition fans (if the rumours about a Leeds employee mingling in pubs with opposition fans prior to games is to be believed). Yet the fine was 1/8th of what Leeds got.

There was also the case, can't remember the teams involved, where bugging has gone on in opposition changing rooms and cases where managers (think it was Warnock again) sent someone to stand outside the opposition changing room at half time to eavesdrop.

Not at all comparable as that's the premier league not efl. Also the premier league rules stipulated that the maximum fine for breaching that rule was 25k, so the authorities couldn't fine Palace anymore. So not a good example for me sorry.

The efl just don't want teams spying on other teams. They give us a slap on the wrist with this fine, big enough to deter the other clubs from doing it without punishing us really (200k is nothing in today's money)

[Chilli D]

Not at all comparable as that's the premier league not efl. Also the premier league rules stipulated that the maximum fine for breaching that rule was 25k, so the authorities couldn't fine Palace anymore. So not a good example for me sorry.

The efl just don't want teams spying on other teams. They give us a slap on the wrist with this fine, big enough to deter the other clubs from doing it without punishing us really (200k is nothing in today's money)

So let me get this straight.
Are you saying that the 200k fine is justified or we should be pleased that it's 200k because in your words it's "nothing in today's money"?