The #LUFC Breakfast Debate ( Thur 24th Jan)

[Ellandback1]

Good Morning Everyone

Spygate took a nasty twist as we were made aware of the context of the collective letter from eleven Championship clubs.

Derby County, Norwich City, Bristol City, Nottingham Forest, Blackburn Rovers, Middlesbrough, Millwall, Hull City, Preston North End, Swansea City and Brentford have jointly asked the EFL for dates and times of scouting trips, details of the individuals responsible and any payments that were made.

It also called for Leeds to confirm whether they used third parties to gain sight of opposition training grounds and whether information was gleaned from “inside sources”

Surely the letter is designed to stir up as many problems as possible?




West Bromwich Albion, Sheffield United, Sheffield Wednesday, Rotherham United, Birmingham City, Aston Villa, Queens Park Rangers, Bolton Wanderers, Stoke City, Wigan Athletic, Reading and Ipswich Town were the clubs who refused to sign the letter!




Does it surprise you which clubs signed the letter, and which refused?




IF Leeds are guilty of using third parties to gain access to training grounds, backhanded payments or using inside sources to gain an advantage, what kind of trouble are Leeds in?

Is this against the rules?

Is it against your morals?

If Leeds are guilty of this, do they deserve to be punished?

Will Bielsa be the fall guy?




Leeds are one of 32 Football League clubs who have agreed to be a part of a programme to partner with local prisons to tackle high reoffending rates.

Clubs will work with Prison Service officers as part of the Twinning Project to deliver coaching, stewarding and lifestyle skills to help prisoners find paid employment upon their release.

Former Arsenal vice-chairman David Dein, the founder of the initiative, said there was “huge interest and enthusiasm” in the project from clubs and the Prison Service.

“It is testament to the vision and purpose of the Twinning Project that such a large group of football clubs have agreed to participate in trying to tackle a difficult problem in our society,” Dein said in a statement.

The Professional Game Match Officials Limited will also deliver refereeing courses to prisoners.

[HarryofOz]

If any other club had spied on Leeds, I would expect the club to put in a complaint.

Well done to Leeds re the prison scheme.

[weasel]

Spygate took a nasty twist as we were made aware of the context of the collective letter from eleven Championship clubs.

Derby County, Norwich City, Bristol City, Nottingham Forest, Blackburn Rovers, Middlesbrough, Millwall, Hull City, Preston North End, Swansea City and Brentford have jointly asked the EFL for dates and times of scouting trips, details of the individuals responsible and any payments that were made.

It also called for Leeds to confirm whether they used third parties to gain sight of opposition training grounds and whether information was gleaned from “inside sources”

Surely the letter is designed to stir up as many problems as possible?

This is the first time that it has actually made any sense for the clubs to write to the FA. Clearly it is different if insiders were leaking information (no suggestion this happened) and the clubs are quite rightly wanting to know if this happened so they can take action against any of their staff involved. I see no harm in that.
Asking for dates and times etc can help the clubs review their security (if they had any which seems like most clubs don't and train in public spaces or very near to public spaces), so again no problem with that.

Does it surprise you which clubs signed the letter, and which refused? Not really. I think that most clubs would either know spying goes on (and would have security and training facilities not near public rights of way) or would be training near public rights of way and as such could not really have any defence if people spied. Seems those clubs have a bit more common sense than the other who did sign the letter.

IF Leeds are guilty of using third parties to gain access to training grounds, backhanded payments or using inside sources to gain an advantage, what kind of trouble are Leeds in?

Is this against the rules? I think it is against the actual rules to get information from another club's staff. However in a recent case it was just a small monetary fine.

Is it against your morals? It would certainly be different to just somebody watching from a public space and I would be disappointed if this had happened.

If Leeds are guilty of this, do they deserve to be punished? Only if they have deliberately got information from the other club's staff.

Will Bielsa be the fall guy? No suggestion that he has done anything like that - don't forget that all we have so far is that a person was stood on public land near Derby's training ground. Even if it is more sinister the punishment from other cases has just been monetary so the FA would either fine Bielsa or the club.

[Ellandback1]

Weasel, Bielsa has taken the flack a few times this season, to take the heat off others.

Really hope he doesn't fall on his sword.

I would not have thought Bielsa would have gone this far!!!.

I too would be disappointed if Leeds had done this...

[Sara]

I'm still inclined to think this letter is more concerned with stirring up trouble for Leeds than actually gleaning the information requested. I don't see under what basis Leeds could be required to release any such information, even if were available, which I highly doubt.

Using this incident as a pretext for a wider investigation into the leaks from within the other clubs themselves is highly disingenuous imo. I would be disappointed if we took anything other than a firm line in refusing to cooperate.

[mothbanquet]

A non-starter, these are either measures that the League are already going to in their investigation or have dismissed as irrelevant. Common sense (a rare thing these days, I know) would dictate that no clear rules were broken, but some are probably needed if only for the case of making this very English 'unwritten rule' into one that's actually written to better integrate foreign coaches. Either way, the clubs that signed this letter are just showing themselves up to all as petty, vindictive planks.

On that note, I wonder if now that Bielsa has schooled most other managers in the division in the art of preparation they'll be sending a few of these ex-offenders down to opposition training grounds as 'expendable assets' in the future?

[weasel]

I would not have thought Bielsa would have gone this far!!!.

I too would be disappointed if Leeds had done this...

I can't see it as being anything other than sending people, possibly with binoculars, to spy on training sessions from public places. Otherwise you'd have to be tapping into every club and even Derby didn't suggest that when they started their lies. I could believe that a club could sometimes get inside information leaked (as in the case of Crystal Palace v Cardiff - and I think there was even the time that Denis Wise seemed to suggest Shaun Derry had leaked information to his former club when they played us) but I couldn't see a club being able to get insider info at more than 1 or 2 clubs so certainly not 23 other clubs in the division. Obviously though other clubs would want to make sure this wasn't the case and that is fair enough.

I doubt though that Bielsa would have felt the need to 'infiltrate' other clubs given that it seems most clubs train next to public spaces and as such anyone could find out if a player trained etc.

[Ellandback1]

If any other club had spied on Leeds, I would expect the club to put in a complaint.

Well done to Leeds re the prison scheme.

Morning Harry, I couldn't agree more.

Its good to see LUFC helping in the community, especially with rehabilitation.

People deserve a second chance.

[Ellandback1]

I'm still inclined to think this letter is more concerned with stirring up trouble for Leeds than actually gleaning the information requested. I don't see under what basis Leeds could be required to release any such information, even if were available, which I highly doubt.

Using this incident as a pretext for a wider investigation into the leaks from within the other clubs themselves is highly disingenuous imo. I would be disappointed if we took anything other than a firm line in refusing to cooperate.

Hi Sara, I think Leeds are trying to be transparent over this.

Bielsa had a meeting with the FA in a London hotel on Monday.

The sooner its put to bed, the sooner Leeds can move on.

[Ellandback1]

I'm still inclined to think this letter is more concerned with stirring up trouble for Leeds than actually gleaning the information requested. I don't see under what basis Leeds could be required to release any such information, even if were available, which I highly doubt.

Using this incident as a pretext for a wider investigation into the leaks from within the other clubs themselves is highly disingenuous imo. I would be disappointed if we took anything other than a firm line in refusing to cooperate.

Hi Sara, I think Leeds are trying to be transparent over this.

Bielsa had a meeting with the FA in a London hotel on Monday.

The sooner its put to bed, the sooner Leeds can move on.

[Ellandback1]

A non-starter, these are either measures that the League are already going to in their investigation or have dismissed as irrelevant. Common sense (a rare thing these days, I know) would dictate that no clear rules were broken, but some are probably needed if only for the case of making this very English 'unwritten rule' into one that's actually written to better integrate foreign coaches. Either way, the clubs that signed this letter are just showing themselves up to all as petty, vindictive planks.

On that note, I wonder if now that Bielsa has schooled most other managers in the division in the art of preparation they'll be sending a few of these ex-offenders down to opposition training grounds as 'expendable assets' in the future?

Afternoon MB, you say no rukles are broken, though it would be very easy for the FA to say we bought the game into disrepute or worse...

[mothbanquet]

Afternoon MB, you say no rukles are broken, though it would be very easy for the FA to say we bought the game into disrepute or worse...

Unfortunately you're right, especially in these days where it seems 'moral' offences are more harshly punished than real ones, where a transgression against some vague and indefinable sensibility based on the public outcry of fools and hypocrites takes precedence over reality.

[Ellandback1]

Phil Hay
‏

@PhilHayYEP
1h1 hour ago
More
Casilla starts on Saturday, Kalvin Phillips will play at centre-back in place of Pontus Jansson. #lufc

[Ellandback1]

Unfortunately you're right, especially in these days where it seems 'moral' offences are more harshly punished than real ones, where a transgression against some vague and indefinable sensibility based on the public outcry of fools and hypocrites takes precedence over reality.

[whiteswan]

Unfortunately you're right, especially in these days where it seems 'moral' offences are more harshly punished than real ones, where a transgression against some vague and indefinable sensibility based on the public outcry of fools and hypocrites takes precedence over reality.

Excellent post. How many times do you hear someone say "I'm offended by that" when it's bog all to do with them....and then some poor so and so is bullied by press and media to come out and 'appologise' for doing absolutely nothing wrong.

[Sara]

Excellent post. How many times do you hear someone say "I'm offended by that" when it's bog all to do with them....and then some poor so and so is bullied by press and media to come out and 'appologise' for doing absolutely nothing wrong.

Works both ways though; 'free speech' can also be used as a pretext for bigotry and prejudice.

[weasel]

Works both ways though; 'free speech' can also be used as a pretext for bigotry and prejudice.

Well as a woman you would say that......

[Sara]

Well as a woman you would say that......

[mothbanquet]

Works both ways though; 'free speech' can also be used as a pretext for bigotry and prejudice.

It can, though censorship of such often has the opposite effect intended - it gives the offender a degree of martyrdom and even vindication. Prejudice is something that can only be bred out, not stamped out and driving it underground, if you will, only entrenches and hardens these views. Not to mention that legitimate dialogue and criticism often gets incorrectly grouped in with it which leads to the point where folk can be punished for the most trivial of offences. One only needs look at the Catholic Church at its height to see where moralistic censorship can lead.

Press and social media-led crusades against these things bear all the hallmarks of the Inquisition movements of old and no one these days is particularly proud of those historical endeavours. Free speech doesn't pretend to be a perfect system - it can't be by definition - but outright censorship has shown itself throughout history to only strengthen the censored party in the long run.

To bring this back on-topic, the Spygate debacle is a prime example. Most folk I've talked to came out in support of Leeds and Bielsa, most comment boards on all the articles also did, which surprised me. Should we be allowing the purely captial-minded press and overly offended, hypocritical managers and pundits to completely dictate the argument here in spite of most people holding the opposite opinion?

[Sara]

I'm not advocating censorship by any means, but it depends what you are referring to. The dismissal of certain comment on the grounds of it being by the 'offended' can equally be used to silence someone.

Completely agree re spygate though.