Page 13 of 39

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

Posted: Tue Jan 15, 2019 4:39 pm
by BC
If there’s even a hint of a points deduction West Brom and Norwich would be mad not to go all guns blazing and push for it. Could get a tad messy, don’t think it will impact our performances - at least in the short term.

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

Posted: Tue Jan 15, 2019 4:43 pm
by Yeboah
BC wrote:
Yeboah wrote:If Marcelo doesn't send someone, there is no case...... remember who is ultimately to blame here.


Nobody could point out any rules that have been broken, and indeed commented on how often this sort of thing happens. They’ve pulled this code thing out of their arse cos of the hullabaloo.


EFL regulation 3.4 states that “each club shall behave towards each other club and the League with the utmost good faith.” Regulation 21 provides scope for the governing body to charge Bielsa, Leeds or both with bringing the game into disrepute.

Read more at: https://www.yorkshireeveningpost.co.uk/ ... -1-9538676

The provision to charge existed before this incident. Everyone knows the league hate us so why risk it?

Bonkers.

Made worse by the fact the staff member lied about it and went equipped to break in.

Has surely done it before, admitted to this one and evidentially disrupted Derby prep.

The only question remains.......what punishment.

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

Posted: Tue Jan 15, 2019 4:44 pm
by Yeboah
Phil LUFC wrote:
dirty leeds wrote:Thing is, when they start up their enquiry, one of the first questions to Marcelo will be, 'So how many times have you done this while you've been at Leeds then?' What's the betting he answers that honestly - and digs himself further into the shit?

It's clearly "every game since forest green in preseason" but it makes no difference, there is no rule covering it. Anything that may exist is open to interpretation. The best they can hope for is to drag the controversy out and hope it impacts our performance levels enough for us to slip out of the top 2.


Incorrect...

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

Posted: Tue Jan 15, 2019 4:59 pm
by Tommy
dirty leeds wrote:Thing is, when they start up their enquiry, one of the first questions to Marcelo will be, 'So how many times have you done this while you've been at Leeds then?' What's the betting he answers that honestly - and digs himself further into the shit?

Of course he’ll admit he’s been doing it all season because there’s no doubt he has. And he’s also not ruled publicly out doing it again, nor apologised. I understand why and I wouldn’t blame him for refusing to do so.

Dangerous ground this. I reckon between the FA & the EFL, one of them will come up with something to fuck us over. Either a points deduction and/or being cuntish to the degree that Bielsa thinks fuck it and leaves.

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

Posted: Tue Jan 15, 2019 5:04 pm
by Blackwhite
I suggest we station a man 24/7 outside Shaun's house with binoculars, a notepad and a discreet bucket of shit. Pick up the bucket every time he leaves the house but never actually throw it. No law against it...

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

Posted: Tue Jan 15, 2019 5:05 pm
by dirty leeds
Yeboah wrote:EFL regulation 3.4 states that “each club shall behave towards each other club and the League with the utmost good faith.” Regulation 21 provides scope for the governing body to charge Bielsa, Leeds or both with bringing the game into disrepute.

Read more at: https://www.yorkshireeveningpost.co.uk/ ... -1-9538676

The provision to charge existed before this incident. Everyone knows the league hate us so why risk it?

Bonkers.

Made worse by the fact the staff member lied about it and went equipped to break in.

Has surely done it before, admitted to this one and evidentially disrupted Derby prep.

The only question remains.......what punishment.


Don't agree.
A decent lawyer ought to be able to drive a horse and cart through a woolly statement like, “each club shall behave towards each other club and the League with the utmost good faith.”
The 'disrepute' charge might be more difficult to deal with, since the FA might have more scope to decide what is and what isn't 'disrepute'.
We may very well end up with some kind of punishment at the end of it - fine, ticking off, probably not points deducted - but the punishment itself is far from the "only question" here.

By the way, where did you get the info that the staff member lied? And this talk of "equipped" - has anybody said if this is definite and he had them in his pocket? I read somewhere he had pliers in his car. I honestly don't know the answer - just asking for absolute proof. Perhaps you have a link to that info?

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

Posted: Tue Jan 15, 2019 5:09 pm
by BC
I maintain had this not happened to FLDC and without the media focus that brought the EFL wouldn’t have looked so hard to find a rule he may have broken.

Has the equipment to break in thing been proven anywhere?

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

Posted: Tue Jan 15, 2019 5:12 pm
by BC
I also object to retrofitting rules to fit a crime due to the focus. We weren’t the only club doing this - but we have had the noisiest reaction to being caught.

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

Posted: Tue Jan 15, 2019 5:16 pm
by Blackwhite
Worth noting that going equipped to break and enter is an actual crime, so the lack of feds in this equation should be noted by any sentient human riding by.

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

Posted: Tue Jan 15, 2019 5:32 pm
by Ontolly
Bielsa is from a family of lawyers. They love shit like this. Relax. Sit back and watch young Frank get schooled again.

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

Posted: Tue Jan 15, 2019 5:38 pm
by Quiffy
personally think this will come to fuck all, but surely there must have been an allegation like this in the past between two other clubs? if so the EFL must have failed to legislate for it then, so they've not got a leg to stand on if they try and do us over it.

surely all we need to do is dig up a similar allegation from the past and we walk out of there.

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

Posted: Tue Jan 15, 2019 6:06 pm
by Phatphil65
dirty leeds wrote:
Yeboah wrote:EFL regulation 3.4 states that “each club shall behave towards each other club and the League with the utmost good faith.” Regulation 21 provides scope for the governing body to charge Bielsa, Leeds or both with bringing the game into disrepute.

Read more at: https://www.yorkshireeveningpost.co.uk/ ... -1-9538676

The provision to charge existed before this incident. Everyone knows the league hate us so why risk it?

Bonkers.

Made worse by the fact the staff member lied about it and went equipped to break in.

Has surely done it before, admitted to this one and evidentially disrupted Derby prep.

The only question remains.......what punishment.


Don't agree.
A decent lawyer ought to be able to drive a horse and cart through a woolly statement like, “each club shall behave towards each other club and the League with the utmost good faith.”
The 'disrepute' charge might be more difficult to deal with, since the FA might have more scope to decide what is and what isn't 'disrepute'.
We may very well end up with some kind of punishment at the end of it - fine, ticking off, probably not points deducted - but the punishment itself is far from the "only question" here.

By the way, where did you get the info that the staff member lied? And this talk of "equipped" - has anybody said if this is definite and he had them in his pocket? I read somewhere he had pliers in his car. I honestly don't know the answer - just asking for absolute proof. Perhaps you have a link to that info?


Of course he doesn't. He just probably follows Stan Collymore on Twitter.

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

Posted: Tue Jan 15, 2019 6:06 pm
by BC
It’s the EFL’s clubhouse. Surely we have to play by whatever scattershot rules and punishment they decide, fair or not.

Slightly worried Bielsa will walk over this.

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

Posted: Tue Jan 15, 2019 6:27 pm
by Yeboah
dirty leeds wrote:
Yeboah wrote:EFL regulation 3.4 states that “each club shall behave towards each other club and the League with the utmost good faith.” Regulation 21 provides scope for the governing body to charge Bielsa, Leeds or both with bringing the game into disrepute.

Read more at: https://www.yorkshireeveningpost.co.uk/ ... -1-9538676

The provision to charge existed before this incident. Everyone knows the league hate us so why risk it?

Bonkers.

Made worse by the fact the staff member lied about it and went equipped to break in.

Has surely done it before, admitted to this one and evidentially disrupted Derby prep.

The only question remains.......what punishment.


Don't agree.
A decent lawyer ought to be able to drive a horse and cart through a woolly statement like, “each club shall behave towards each other club and the League with the utmost good faith.”
The 'disrepute' charge might be more difficult to deal with, since the FA might have more scope to decide what is and what isn't 'disrepute'.
We may very well end up with some kind of punishment at the end of it - fine, ticking off, probably not points deducted - but the punishment itself is far from the "only question" here.

By the way, where did you get the info that the staff member lied? And this talk of "equipped" - has anybody said if this is definite and he had them in his pocket? I read somewhere he had pliers in his car. I honestly don't know the answer - just asking for absolute proof. Perhaps you have a link to that info?


From a legal point of view I don't disagree.

Sadly, at least initially this is just EFL 'balance of probability' not 'beyond reasonable doubt'.

We'd need to appeal to a higher court to bring established legal precedent into play.

Re. Staff member lying, Marcelo mentioned it when the story first broke.

Re. Being tooled up, FL has stated on the record today that

And the fact is, it wasn't peeking over a fence, it was on hands and knees with pliers in hand, so it seems that there was an intention but it was stopped before that.

Which I don't think he would say unless he was sure of the facts

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

Posted: Tue Jan 15, 2019 6:31 pm
by BC
Yeboah wrote:Re. Being tooled up, FL has stated on the record today that

And the fact is, it wasn't peeking over a fence, it was on hands and knees with pliers in hand, so it seems that there was an intention but it was stopped before that.



If this is proven true it changes everything - but as said surely the police would have arrested him?

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

Posted: Tue Jan 15, 2019 6:35 pm
by Yeboah
BC wrote:
Yeboah wrote:Re. Being tooled up, FL has stated on the record today that

And the fact is, it wasn't peeking over a fence, it was on hands and knees with pliers in hand, so it seems that there was an intention but it was stopped before that.



If this is proven true it changes everything - but as said surely the police would have arrested him?


Being on your hands and knees in a public space is not illegal and it depends what explanation he gave for the pliers.

If he only had pliers on him ..... Then arguably he isn't tooled up.

https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=i&sourc ... 7576454728

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

Posted: Tue Jan 15, 2019 6:43 pm
by Chieftain626
"According to John Percy and Matt Law of the Daily Telegraph, the man in question was caught with binoculars, a change of clothes and pliers. The latter were reportedly used to force entry into the complex, which is covered by CCTV."

If this was the case then surly he would have been arrested and charged for breaking and entering.

I cant see this being true when in Bielsas said "If you watch a training session from a public space it’s not illegal, you cannot involve the police."

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

Posted: Tue Jan 15, 2019 6:47 pm
by dirty leeds
It sounds like we need the actual facts of the matter to come out - so that it's beyond dispute and/or rumour as to what happened.

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

Posted: Tue Jan 15, 2019 6:51 pm
by Yeboah
dirty leeds wrote:It sounds like we need the actual facts of the matter to come out - so that it's beyond dispute and/or rumour as to what happened.


Yep agree 100%, given respected journos are reporting as per above and Leeds haven't rebutted that then maybe we can assume they are closer to the truth than not?

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

Posted: Tue Jan 15, 2019 6:53 pm
by Phil LUFC
Yeboah wrote:
Phil LUFC wrote:
dirty leeds wrote:Thing is, when they start up their enquiry, one of the first questions to Marcelo will be, 'So how many times have you done this while you've been at Leeds then?' What's the betting he answers that honestly - and digs himself further into the shit?

It's clearly "every game since forest green in preseason" but it makes no difference, there is no rule covering it. Anything that may exist is open to interpretation. The best they can hope for is to drag the controversy out and hope it impacts our performance levels enough for us to slip out of the top 2.


Incorrect...

I disagree. Even with the details from the club charter in your previous post, it's vague and open to interpretation. Bielsa believes he's done not wrong, without those plyers having actually been used how do you prove looking over a fence is against the charter? They could hand out a punishment we choose to accept I guess but if we were to contest it there's little chance of it being resolved before the summer - at that point we'd be looking at a future fine.

The EFL need to be very careful before handing out points deductions, pretty much the only reason Brum haven't had theirs yet. The finances involved are beyond what the EFL can reasonably cover. If they deducted 10 points, we stayed down, then won an appeal at a higher court, we'd legitimately be able to sue the EFL for ~£100m lost earnings.

Not withstanding the "it's Leeds, let's make an example" angle, the EFL will be looking for something they can do to placate other clubs whilst avoiding a lengthy battle through the courts. I'm expecting a fine each for Bielsa and the club coupled with a 3 game ban for Bielsa.