The Spygate Saga

[JohnnyShearer2.0]

4 hours ago, Whitey Grandad said:

The  "punishment" was undefined.  Until Gibson defined it for the EFL.

It kind of is still undefined still. Although there is a precedent now.

But the EFL needs to codify all sorts of misdemeanours so that there is no ambiguity or doubt left as to what punishment happens in situations x / y and z.

Edited 1 hour ago by JohnnyShearer2.0

[Holmes_and_Watson]

2 hours ago, Turkish said:

Yeah but if you think about it he’s right. What we’ve done is NOTHING compared to what Hitler did. Or Pollpot or even Peter Sutcliffe or Harold Shipman. Did they ever get kicked out of the play offs? 

And definitely not Huw Edwards or anyone who does similar things, as @sadoldgit specifically pointed those out as not being a crime of the century.

[EssEffCee]

1 hour ago, sadoldgit said:

You mentioned cup competitions. You were not specific.

I didn't think I needed to be when we were specifically discussing the EFL and your assertion they'd dug a hole for themselves. I thought it was pretty obvious I was discussing sanctions the EFL would implement in their competitions.

Why would I dispute a point about the EFL by talking about a competition they don't run?

[EssEffCee]

2 hours ago, sadoldgit said:

It doesn’t matter if the training is tactical or not. The rule is about observing training within 72 hours. They brought the rule in because of what Bielsa did and had to be seen to be doing something.

I know it doesn't. My point is Arsenal publicising a single training session doesn't mean they'd be happy for the world to see all of their training sessions.

Yes they brought it in after Biesla as EFL clubs thought it was a big enough issue to have its own. If they didn't it wouldn't have come in.

[pingpong]

35 minutes ago, EssEffCee said:

I know it doesn't. My point is Arsenal publicising a single training session doesn't mean they'd be happy for the world to see all of their training sessions.

Yes they brought it in after Biesla as EFL clubs thought it was a big enough issue to have its own. If they didn't it wouldn't have come in.

Well then why not make it a rule that teams cant scout at all in person.  Being able to scout 73 hours ahead of a game creates an artificial window, just for EFL clubs.

The info we are accused of getting - who is training - is available in that arsenal video.

[danjosaint]

4 minutes ago, pingpong said:

Well then why not make it a rule that teams cant scout at all in person.  Being able to scout 73 hours ahead of a game creates an artificial window, just for EFL clubs.

The info we are accused of getting - who is training - is available in that arsenal video.

Just bin off the 72hr rule like everywhere else and put in in the clubs court to make there facilities more private, theres enough money in the game to do so 

[AlexLaw76]

Just now, danjosaint said:

Just bin off the 72hr rule like everywhere else and put in in the clubs court to make there facilities more private, theres enough money in the game to do so 

There is not in the lower leagues. Most of the Championship is in huge debt also.

[The Kraken]

3 minutes ago, danjosaint said:

Just bin off the 72hr rule like everywhere else and put in in the clubs court to make there facilities more private, theres enough money in the game to do so 

As said, the EFL look after all clubs in the league so they have to make rules that work for all of those that can’t completely secure their premises.

Plus, what do you about away teams and them practising a day or so before a game? One of the games we were found out in was Ipswich, a home game for us, Ipswich trained at Eastleigh. Do the EFL enforce that on National League clubs too? Unworkable.

[The Kraken]

it also kind of ignores the quite obvious factor. If there is a harsh rule in place that punishes watching games within 72 hours, it kind of alleviates the need to put up massive fencing everywhere. Clubs should be savvy enough to not do it.

[EssEffCee]

21 minutes ago, pingpong said:

Well then why not make it a rule that teams cant scout at all in person.  Being able to scout 73 hours ahead of a game creates an artificial window, just for EFL clubs.

The info we are accused of getting - who is training - is available in that arsenal video.

Well a majority of EFL clubs were clearly happy with the 72 hour window when it came in.

Edited 3 hours ago by EssEffCee

[EssEffCee]

14 minutes ago, danjosaint said:

Just bin off the 72hr rule like everywhere else and put in in the clubs court to make there facilities more private, theres enough money in the game to do so 

Who's paying for it for the likes of Crawley Town and Gillingham?

[bugenhagen]

25 minutes ago, pingpong said:

Well then why not make it a rule that teams cant scout at all in person.  Being able to scout 73 hours ahead of a game creates an artificial window, just for EFL clubs.

The info we are accused of getting - who is training - is available in that arsenal video.

The difference is that they know it is being watched/available. If they had anything to hide, or something special to drill - they wouldn't have streamed it, or they would have done that another day.

In my mind, Arsenal streaming the last training has nothing to do with spygate, and any comparison is meaningless.

[saintant]

5 hours ago, pingpong said:

It does rub it in though when you can view yesterday's arsenal training session on YouTube. Yes it's not EFL but it obviously doesn't provide much of a sporting advantage if the current premier League champions are happy to show their final training session ahead of the biggest game of their season to the entire world.

The fact that we could do it one week, against man city, and not the next  against Boro, is also a bit annoying.  The idea that it is cheating is a bit much I think, it's breaking the rules, nothing more, and with much less sporting advantage than the likes of the rules that Leicester, west brom, bournemouth, man city, Newcastle have all broken.

 

This does indeed show how little if anything can be gleaned and Salt was not watching on a screen he was at a distance using a phone camera. It's a joke and to put Boro through in place of us for that is ludicrous and an embarrassment to the EFL.

[Football Special]

1 hour ago, AlexLaw76 said:

There is not in the lower leagues. Most of the Championship is in huge debt also.

Just put up some fences over 6ft or have restricted access. If a member of the public can see you training than you can't expect much privacy 

[AlexLaw76]

2 minutes ago, Football Special said:

Just put up some fences over 6ft or have restricted access. If a member of the public can see you training than you can't expect much privacy 

They don't have to, the EFL have rules in place, which cost nothing

[VectisSaint]

3 hours ago, JohnnyShearer2.0 said:

It kind of is still undefined still. Although there is a precedent now.

But the EFL needs to codified all sorts od misdemeanours so that there is no ambiguity or doubt left as to what punishment happens in situations x / y and z.

They don't need to codify punishments for all misdemeanours. They have a catchall that says they can apply sanctions that they see fit. There were already precedents, not just Swindon in the EFL Trophy (excluded and a small fine for something that was completely inconsequential) but also Swindon in 1990? when they were excluded from the playoffs after they had won the thing, New York they were also demoted 2 divisions (one on appeal), yes their crime was very serious but did not really warrant the Draconian punishment they received, and the appeal seemed to support that notion. 

This whole idea that the EFL should spell out for the hard of thinking what sanction can be applied for each transgression is utter nonsense. Not forgetting we faced two charges (forget the Ipswich and Oxford charges, they were dealt with differently, i.e. points deductions because they were League games), so how would that work if each charge had a different sanction. There is only one realistic course of action in a knockout scenario, expulsion. Whether that costs a team £2k or £200m is irrelevant. If a match had not been played they could have awarded a walkover, but the outcome is the same.

[JohnnyShearer2.0]

Not sure it is utter nonsense. Would it not make sense to frame transgressions and then codify punishments so that its clear to all of what the consequences are.