The eleven clubs that have written to the EFL clearly discussed their "letter" very carefully ... when you look at the points, you will see there is something very sinister about their requests ... this is beyond a points deduction, they are looking at the potential for either a civil or even criminal lawsuit against Leeds ... it is worrying that these clubs have gone to these lengths, because for them at worst the investigation will distract and disrupt Leeds, and at best they will end up with a strong case for action ... I'll try and dissect the key issues the letter addresses: a) The dates and occasions on which each of the Clubs were observed by servants or agents of Leeds United the important note here is the use of "agents" ... setting the scene for what's to come b) In each case identify the individual or individuals who conducted the observations here it comes ... there is a reason for asking for people to be identified, read on c) Identify the methods and amounts of remuneration paid to the individual or individuals under paragraph (b) above BOOM! show me the money, and how you paid your spies ... now we are getting to the gist of this "innocent" letter d) In each individual case provide a description of how each of the Clubs was observed and how information was recorded they want access to any video recordings to show proof of illegal access, if this happened 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 DOUBLE BOOM! now this is beginning to get ugly, and entering very dangerous territory, BRIBERY f) Identify if any other confidential information was obtained by any other means, for example, but not limited to, inside sources OUCH! the suggestion is that Leeds may have sought information from opposition clubs' staff, potentially from their players ... this is why I said sinister agenda g) if the answer to (e) or (f) above is "yes" please provide full particularity tell us, in writing, EVERYTHING that you did and EVERYONE involved ... dark!! h) Provide full disclosure of all documents (including for the avoidance of doubt email; film or any other recording of whatsoever description; text messages or similar) created in the course of observation. This information to be provided to the Club concerned intially WOW!! this is akin to an FBI investigation!! to have Leeds United actually comply to these outrageous requests, The EFL will need to bring a serious charge against the club ... however, as it stands there is no law that has been contravened, so there is no charge to answer ... it seems the clubs concerned have agreed to try and get the EFL to gather "evidence of wrongdoing" in order to build a very serious civil or even criminal case against Leeds ... can't see Radz playing along, so this could get very ugly, very quickly if the EFL doesn't shut this down immediately now, the question is why have these accusers written this letter with the questions laid out in this way? are they simply fishing, or do they already have some answers to their questions and they're setting a trap? they are essentially looking for proof that Leeds bribed staff to gain illegal access to their training centres, and potentially also bribed staff to give them information on things such as team selection, injuries, etc. the fact that they ask for emails, texts, whatsapps - you name it - means they want to prove that Leeds acquired sensitive information illicitly ... this is extremely scary stuff, and it's clear that these clubs want to hit Leeds as hard as they can with everything they've got ... imagine that all this did in fact happen as they imply with their questions, Leeds could very easily face the ultimate sanction, expulsion from the EFL I am not trying to be a messenger of doom, I am simply trying to highlight the seriousness of the letter the clubs have put their names to ... they are implying that Leeds have behaved in a manner of extreme skulduggery, that Leeds went so far as to bribe their way into training complexes ... even if these "fears" are unfounded, the clubs know that the mere suggestion of cheating will stick to the Leeds United brand, and more importantly for them, to Marcelo Bielsa if the EFL demands a thorough investigation and forces Leeds to comply with the questions asked, then there is no doubt that it will cause massive disruption and distraction, so the accusers have a win anyway there will be lengthy interviews, lots of data to be sourced and collated, lots of legal discussions ... Leeds can ill afford all this going on in the glare of the media spotlight, and the frenzy as accusations fly wildly from all quarters won't be helpful at all ... this letter is pretty damning in it's suggestive questions, and you have to wonder whose idea it was to come up with it ... maybe the EFL recommended to the clubs that they make a formal complaint along these lines in order to necessitate action, or maybe not ... you also have to ask why only eleven clubs decided to put their names to it ... it will be important to hear what the abstainers have to say as to why they refused to sign on all in all, this has become a serious mess, and it threatens to derail Leeds United's promotion campaign .. time to end this charade, warn Bielsa as to his future conduct, bring in a "training ground" law if it's deemed necessary with a set punishment, and get on with the football conspiracy? after the shambolic officiating in the Stoke game it's easy to see why some Leeds supporters are getting paranoid
A very dower but plausible assessment. Let's hang onto our horses though and pray that it isn't as bad as this but primarily hope that is get resolved before the end of the month.
totally agree Eric ... it's hard to think there is anything else behind the letter but the agenda laid out above ... this is unprecedented, and EFL & FA need to shut this down now!!
Well who knows. If it turns out we really did do all of that it would indeed be a lot more serious than sending some guy to stand in a public space and observe. I would be surprised If it’s true. If it was true it would be hard to defend.
Frankly if we did all the things implied we deserve to have the book thrown at us. Could be they know we've Been up to no good... or could be that they just drew up a list of things that their spies do. The 11 that didn’t sign didn’t fancy anyone asking them the same questions. Signees include forest, whose owner has match fixing allegations against him signed it, Middlesbrough whose manager admits to previous... fat frankie won his medals under a regime that admits to spying and a boss that laughs about flaunting touchline bans. Could get nasty
The question I'm asking myself is... Would Bielsa have admitted to anything and with quite so much candour if we'd been doing anything over and above what we were originally accused of ? You would think not...however once you've admitted to something, the shift in emphasis that follows means that rather than having to simply refute further allegations of impropriety you actually find yourself having to prove they didn't happen rather than the other way round.
I’m not saying Leeds did anything wrong ... I am saying that these accusers have decided to word their letter implying Leeds have been very underhanded ... they are cowards for using this approach, knowing full well their accusations would be made public, and then it’s open season ... I believe it’s designed more to disrupt than to incriminate, which in itself is a despicable, selfish act that goes against the exact charter they are hiding behind Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Maybe Leeds were at their work before Bielsa came along, he was taking the rap to protect the club, and somebody has got hold of something shady pre-dating his tenure? I know it's bollocks, I'm just pointing out that we really don't know anything here for sure, and neither do the 11 named clubs, I suspect. The conspiracy theorists will have a field day but throw enough sh1t and some of it will stick... My stance would be to make it clear to all that they will have to prove any case they want us to answer in court, with us providing no further information whatsoever, and that we will bring a massive counter-suit for defamation against anyone who tries and fails. Ugly indeed!
As far as I'm concerned, Leeds need to respond in a very clear and concise manner, along the lines of ... * On a regular basis, the manager assigned an employee to observe opposition training sessions, where possible. * No specific instruction was issued to comply with the law. Nor was one issued to break it. This is in line with all managerial instructions where legal compliance is assumed and no explicit instructions are issued or expected. * The manager has openly acknowledged that he was unaware that the UK customs in this field were not in line with the customs he has personally experienced around the world. * The club is not aware of any further wrongdoing in this area and sees no reason to comment further, unless of course substantiated allegations are made.
From what I can gather the eleven clubs want a open enquiry to the EFL/FA investigation that Biesla has openly admitted too. The other half of the league don’t seem to be bothered that a unfair advantage may had been gained which is pretty much the view of myself and half of my mates I have spoken too about spy gate. Whatever the outcome of this case a tightening up of the rules will need to be put in place so clubs are in no doubt what is acceptable gathering of information of opponents for upcoming games.
Think I would have preferred it if Bielsa had been a lot more circumspect in front of the Sky cameras before the Derby game. There had been some reporting of the allegations earlier but it was his comments that night and subsequently in his press conference that " blew the bloody doors off " so to speak. Unfortunately he had no idea about the prejudice which exists throughout football against us so thought he could control and manage the situation himself. By far the best option would have been stalling for time and thus allowing us as a club to take stock of the situation. Other items would have hit the news and a few weeks/months would have passed, meaning the likelihood of any sanctions against us this season would have greatly diminished.
They just want to see his analysis of them so they can see where their own clueless f*ckwits have gone wrong. Millwall only signed it as they’re concerned that rumours of them practising short passes in training might become public knowledge and tarnish their reputation.
I think we should investigate those 11 clubs for undertaking time travel, 18th January 2018 !!! Would also be good if they recognised that Señor Bielsa is our Head Coach not our Manager, pedantic I know but they started it. They are, according to the letter in the Times, going to the "upmost good faith" clause in the EFL rules. Key points relating to Good Faith • The courts will generally enforce an express obligation to act in good faith, even if there isn't a specific clause in the contract – but the impact of such a term will vary, depending on context. • Inserting a good faith obligation can be useful – but the courts are reluctant to give it a wide meaning unless it is clear that this is what the parties intended (and it is always better to spell out what the other party has to do rather than rely on good faith). • Specifically excluding good faith altogether is not advisable because it arguably seeks to exclude any duty to act honestly. • If you want to minimise the impact of any implied good faith obligation, make sure the contract is sufficiently detailed, so that there is no need for the courts to imply such a duty in order to "fill in the gaps." So basically if the EFL don't want people to observe training sessions of other teams they should actually include it in their rules and not rely on a general good faith clause as a catch all.
Unfortunately Davy the EFL have the right to ask for what information they want and we have to provide it. 82.3 The League shall have the power to require any Club, Player or Official to: 82.3.1 provide such specific or general information on League affairs as The League may request in writing; and/or 82.3.2 attend any inquiry, hearing or proceedings to answer questions; and 82.3.3 to produce documents within their power, possession, custody and / or control, as The League may direct. 82.4 The League may instruct such advisers as they wish for the purposes of carrying out such investigations, inquiry, hearing or proceedings. 82.5 Any failure by any Club, Player or Official to co-operate with any request for information or disclosure from The League under this Regulation shall be treated as a separate breach of these Regulations. 82.6 Subject to Regulation 82.7, it shall be no answer to a request from The League to disclose documents or information pursuant to this Regulation that such documents or information requested are confidential. All Clubs, Players and Officials must ensure that any other obligations of confidentiality assumed are made expressly subject to The League’s right of inquiry under these Regulations. 82.7 No Club, Player or Official shall be under an obligation to disclose any documents rendered confidential by either the order of a court of competent jurisdiction or by statute or statutory instrument.
well well well ... it seems there may have been some guidance for this letter’s contents ... I read somewhere that Bristol City, who are leading the points deduction calls, have an Executive of theirs sitting on the EFL Board ... everything fair and above board then, surely ... these clubs have an agenda, and it’s beyond being miffed about training sessions ... starting to feel more like a conspiracy than a complaint Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Morning all. Everything we have read and heard about Marcelo Bielsa suggests that he is an honourable and incorruptible man, unlike the crooks and shysters running the game.
Surely there is grounds for refusing to co-operate citing conflict of interest then, as these clubs have complained?
