Watchers In The Woods v Cunty Frank's Derby Lampstands CK

[thestraw]

yeah, dunno. man citeh's famously is.

https://www.google.com/search?rlz=1C1GG ... h_YXSH2BM8

You dont think Fergie, Wenger, Poch, Klopp, Mourinho et all didn't have someone watching Citeh training when you could see right into their training ground from the public pathway? I'd suspect all the top managers were at it in some capacity, and many still are.

[thestraw]

Being a nerd I’ve just Google mapped all 11 training grounds and I can’t see a single one which cannot be reasonably well seen from public roads or footpaths adjacent.

This is really interesting to hear - if you can watch them train from the public road/property I cant see how they have too many complaints really - the EFL should be telling them that they cant prevent this from happening and its up to the clubs to make changes to the training grounds to prevent it and make it more difficult for people watching/spying on their training sessions; whilst at the same time telling them to fcuk off with their demands in their letter to their buddy Shauney from 2018

Legalities aside, just because you can do something doesn't mean you should..... competitively.

You – and the other 11 EFL clubs - are implying that Bielsa is doing something totally out of the norm. You don’t honestly think that we are the only club doing this, do you? If its not against the rules, then the rule makers need to make it so. Simple.

[eric olthwaite]

Legalities aside, just because you can do something doesn't mean you should..... competitively.

Where there’s a benefit to winning and a set of constraints to what you can do to acheive that, grey areas are inevitable. The only reasonable recourse for authorities is to establish rules which are not subjective, although the FA / FL have failed here.

The one vague analogy I can think of (and setting aside the unproven Jiffy bag / EPO stuff): before Bradley Wiggins won the TdF he spent months sleeping in an oxygen tent. This has been described as a method of doping ‘in principle’ but was not prescriptively banned, and has not been punished.

[Blackwhite]

You should send that explanation to the FL & FA musta.

Yep.

[dirty leeds]

Cheers Musta. Very helpful.

So it is kinda a version of our, 'So let's say for argument's sake that we did this to the extreme degree... '
And not, 'I confirm we saw all the training of every team, we admit it'.
Let's hope the EFL/FA understand this important difference, or at least they do after Leeds United have pointed it out.

That the vast majority of the media didn't really get it is no surprise.

Now, of course, there are the questions about which teams specifically we did watch and how we managed to do that.
And, following on from the latter, what is classed as honest, if brazen, behaviour, and what might be regarded as genuinely sneaky shit.

[They are asking about 'paying off' employees of other clubs, though, and possibly wondering about [maybe] paying off nearby householders? That kind of thing?]

[dirty leeds]

The contra argument of course is that it's been widely reported as 'spied on everyone' and Leeds haven't rebutted it.

Not in public, no. But we have no idea what Bielsa said to the FA the other day, for example.

[Yeboah]

You – and the other 11 EFL clubs - are implying that Bielsa is doing something totally out of the norm. You don’t honestly think that we are the only club doing this, do you? If its not against the rules, then the rule makers need to make it so. Simple.

No I'm not because I don't know what went on. I'm just hypothesising on the relative points of the arguments. The 'lufc' view will be different to others I'm sure.

[Yeboah]

The contra argument of course is that it's been widely reported as 'spied on everyone' and Leeds haven't rebutted it.

Not in public, no. But we have no idea what Bielsa said to the FA the other day, for example.

Very true

[dirty leeds]

You – and the other 11 EFL clubs - are implying that Bielsa is doing something totally out of the norm. You don’t honestly think that we are the only club doing this, do you? If its not against the rules, then the rule makers need to make it so. Simple.

No I'm not because I don't know what went on. I'm just hypothesising on the relative points of the arguments. The 'lufc' view will be different to others I'm sure.

Yeah, I think we're all just wondering what exactly did happen so we can take a properly informed view. At the moment there are so many 'what ifs' and the media have [as usual] chosen to run with the sensationalised version.

[Yeboah]

Legalities aside, just because you can do something doesn't mean you should..... competitively.

Where there’s a benefit to winning and a set of constraints to what you can do to acheive that, grey areas are inevitable. The only reasonable recourse for authorities is to establish rules which are not subjective, although the FA / FL have failed here.

The one vague analogy I can think of (and setting aside the unproven Jiffy bag / EPO stuff): before Bradley Wiggins won the TdF he spent months sleeping in an oxygen tent. This has been described as a method of doping ‘in principle’ but was not prescriptively banned, and has not been punished.

Maybe.....I think the league have a 'not act in a way that's prejudicial to fair competition' reg or similar.

It's unreasonable imo for the league to have an exhaustive list of every conceivable contravention, hence the more generic topics they use.

[dirty leeds]

So what do we think about, say, slipping a nearby householder a tenner or two to stand in his garden and watch?
What about slipping something to an employee of the club concerned to turn a blind eye?
Or pretending to be, say, filming it for the home team gaffer?

Not saying any of the above happened, just speculating as to what might be considered just about OK because there is no specific rule against, and what might be thought of us clearly beyond the bounds and deserving of sanction.
Like I said before, some people might see climbing a nearby tree for a better look kind of amusing rather than seriously wrong.

[Yeboah]

So what do we think about, say, slipping a nearby householder a tenner or two to stand in his garden and watch?
What about slipping something to an employee of the club concerned to turn a blind eye?
Or pretending to be, say, filming it for the home team gaffer?

Not saying any of the above happened, just speculating as to what might be considered just about OK because there is no specific rule against, and what might be thought of us clearly beyond the bounds and deserving of sanction.
Like I said before, some people might see climbing a nearby tree for a better look kind of amusing rather than seriously wrong.

Highly unlikely IMO....what's your average Hebert know about what Bielsa wants?

[dirty leeds]

So what do we think about, say, slipping a nearby householder a tenner or two to stand in his garden and watch?
What about slipping something to an employee of the club concerned to turn a blind eye?
Or pretending to be, say, filming it for the home team gaffer?

Not saying any of the above happened, just speculating as to what might be considered just about OK because there is no specific rule against, and what might be thought of us clearly beyond the bounds and deserving of sanction.
Like I said before, some people might see climbing a nearby tree for a better look kind of amusing rather than seriously wrong.

Highly unlikely IMO....what's your average Hebert know about what Bielsa wants?

Hah, yeah, can just imagine Marcelo giving his 'watcher' some pocket money and saying, 'Now don't spend it on fags, you little fucker'.

[metalsmurf]

Legalities aside, just because you can do something doesn't mean you should..... competitively.

Where there’s a benefit to winning and a set of constraints to what you can do to acheive that, grey areas are inevitable. The only reasonable recourse for authorities is to establish rules which are not subjective, although the FA / FL have failed here.

The one vague analogy I can think of (and setting aside the unproven Jiffy bag / EPO stuff): before Bradley Wiggins won the TdF he spent months sleeping in an oxygen tent. This has been described as a method of doping ‘in principle’ but was not prescriptively banned, and has not been punished.

Maybe.....I think the league have a 'not act in a way that's prejudicial to fair competition' reg or similar.

It's unreasonable imo for the league to have an exhaustive list of every conceivable contravention, hence the more generic topics they use.

Yeah, it must be a struggle for all rule/law making entities. They kind of have to be reactive because humans are so inventive and will find ways to work within grey areas.

I think we are probably looking something along the lines of 'we appriciate Mr Bielsa's open and frank comments but this kind of behaviour is not seen as right by the other members of the league and will not be tolerated in the future etc. etc. with an actual wording added to the rules for next season that the clubs will have to vote on and sign up to.

I can't see that the League will want to get into a legal tangle with one of it's members as there are probably other instances of this behaviour atributable to other clubs. Lawyers will no doubt be all over this.

[Mustafaster]

Cheers Musta. Very helpful.

So it is kinda a version of our, 'So let's say for argument's sake that we did this to the extreme degree... '
And not, 'I confirm we saw all the training of every team, we admit it'.
Let's hope the EFL/FA understand this important difference, or at least they do after Leeds United have pointed it out.

That the vast majority of the media didn't really get it is no surprise.

Now, of course, there are the questions about which teams specifically we did watch and how we managed to do that.
And, following on from the latter, what is classed as honest, if brazen, behaviour, and what might be regarded as genuinely sneaky shit.

[They are asking about 'paying off' employees of other clubs, though, and possibly wondering about [maybe] paying off nearby householders? That kind of thing?]

That's exactly what it is.
He's taking a worst possible interpretation stance for the sake of argument and to simplify the investigation.
He's not saying he did it, he's saying "for the sake of argument let's say I did, and see where it gets us".
This is synthesis. The opposite is analysis, where you get bogged down in an endless investigation into what happened where and when in individual cases, and , given we can assume that others have been doing similar, we're getting into a potentially pointless and endless mess.

Whether this is a wise course of action I'm not sure.

[thestraw]

Yeah, it must be a struggle for all rule/law making entities. They kind of have to be reactive because humans are so inventive and will find ways to work within grey areas.

I think we are probably looking something along the lines of 'we appriciate Mr Bielsa's open and frank comments but this kind of behaviour is not seen as right by the other members of the league and will not be tolerated in the future etc. etc. with an actual wording added to the rules for next season that the clubs will have to vote on and sign up to.

I can't see that the League will want to get into a legal tangle with one of it's members as there are probably other instances of this behaviour atributable to other clubs. Lawyers will no doubt be all over this.

Yep, I agree. It’ll be some form of punishment to warn others not to do it (or to stop doing it) and a change of the Rules in the next charter, but not too much of a punishment for the Club to just merely accept it and not to drag this on with inevitably lawyers getting involved.

But then again on the other hand, we are dealing with a Postman with a vendetta and the FA haven’t exactly done us any favours with players’ punishments, so who knows.

[Vampire]

Yeah, it must be a struggle for all rule/law making entities. They kind of have to be reactive because humans are so inventive and will find ways to work within grey areas.

The law/rules need to be clear. The more they are open to interpretation the more they are open to bias. They can be changed in response to the exploitation of grey areas and loopholes - but these changes should never be applied retrospectively.

[dirty leeds]

Yeah, it must be a struggle for all rule/law making entities. They kind of have to be reactive because humans are so inventive and will find ways to work within grey areas.

The law/rules need to be clear. The more they are open to interpretation the more they are open to bias. They can be changed in response to the exploitation of grey areas and loopholes - but these changes should never be applied retrospectively.

True, but the entire legal system is riddled with words like "reasonably be expected to" or "as would reasonably be permitted", and the courts get to decide what that bit of the Act in question actually means. And, of course, the decisions of the court set precedents.
It's how lawyers make lots of lovely money, innit?

[Vampire]

Yeah, it must be a struggle for all rule/law making entities. They kind of have to be reactive because humans are so inventive and will find ways to work within grey areas.

The law/rules need to be clear. The more they are open to interpretation the more they are open to bias. They can be changed in response to the exploitation of grey areas and loopholes - but these changes should never be applied retrospectively.

True, but the entire legal system is riddled with words like "reasonably be expected to" or "as would reasonably be permitted", and the courts get to decide what that bit of the Act in question actually means. And, of course, the decisions of the court set precedents.
It's how lawyers make lots of lovely money, innit?

Also true and judges make case law all the time - but that does not diminish the principle I am espousing - especially given some of the dubious case law sometimes made by judges. The point is you need to aim for clarity in drafting to minimise such interpretive bias. And retrospectivity is sacrosanct.

[metalsmurf]

Yeah, it must be a struggle for all rule/law making entities. They kind of have to be reactive because humans are so inventive and will find ways to work within grey areas.

The law/rules need to be clear. The more they are open to interpretation the more they are open to bias. They can be changed in response to the exploitation of grey areas and loopholes - but these changes should never be applied retrospectively.

True, but the entire legal system is riddled with words like "reasonably be expected to" or "as would reasonably be permitted", and the courts get to decide what that bit of the Act in question actually means. And, of course, the decisions of the court set precedents.
It's how lawyers make lots of lovely money, innit?

That's what I meant about next season