PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

Hope he has being get a load of stick on X that Harris!?

As like

“isn’t it pretty apt that all the mud slinging at Man City your club been done for cheating!?” “Oh it’s like Southampton been find 200m for it too!”
 
Maly said:
He didn’t have authorisation as he had left the club, regardless of having a live login or not, otherwise why did Liverpool settle? Do you honestly believe City allowed a scout to have access to our database when he moved to a major competitor?

Also, if memory serves, they were using a current City employee’s login details, not the ones they had when employed by City

Either way, he didn’t have authorisation, therefore, it’s the very definition of hacking

Fact
Click to expand...
its a public piece of software, its not something City were hosting themselves.

Why did we settle, great question, if we had them bang to rights then we would have taken it the whole way, there is clearly a lot more to it.
 
IrishBlueSince92 said:
Have heard loads of people comment on the Southampton punishment by saying what about City.

In fact, the closest things to this Southampton incident were a) Leeds spying on Derby, there were no rules in place at the time, and b) Liverpool hacking our scouting database.

The funny thing is, which proves our point, a lot of football people would never have heard of incident b) there.
It was buried by the Red Cartel favouring media.
Click to expand...
Go down to your local tonight and speak to any rag or dipper fan and neither will have a clue about the hacking of or scouting data base or the rags failing ffp more than Everton or forest did! All swept under the rug by the media
 
How did the two previous league games spying incidents come to light? Surely Southampton didn’t just ask for two further offences to be taken into consideration whilst the play off incident was being investigated? If the EFL were already aware of those previous incidents why didn’t they deal with them at the time? Sorry if that’s common knowledge and I just haven’t bothered reading about it.
 
Bozzie said:
How did the two previous league games spying incidents come to light? Surely Southampton didn’t just ask for two further offences to be taken into consideration whilst the play off incident was being investigated? If the EFL were already aware of those previous incidents why didn’t they deal with them at the time? Sorry if that’s common knowledge and I just haven’t bothered reading about it.
Click to expand...
Sounds like Southampton self reported. I guess maybe trying to show they were being up front and honest to get more leniency.
 
decmancity said:
its a public piece of software, its not something City were hosting themselves.

Why did we settle, great question, if we had them bang to rights then we would have taken it the whole way, there is clearly a lot more to it.
Click to expand...
We allowed a culture of multiple users using a single login, probably to avoid paying for extra user licences. Knowing this, we did not take steps to change passwords when employees that knew them left our organisation. We breached our commercial contract with the software provider and our responsibility as a data controller to keep personal data secure.
Liverpool also 'allowed' their access to be used to access another organisations data, which would also be breach of contract and failure of their responsibility as a data controller.
But Liverpool employees also knowingly breached the good faith commitments that exist in football, so thats why they settled in our favour without an admission of organisational culpability. We accepted because we wanted to retain good relations and avoid scrutiny of our stupidity in allowing it to happen.
 
Son of Merv said:
We allowed a culture of multiple users using a single login, probably to avoid paying for extra user licences. Knowing this, we did not take steps to change passwords when employees that knew them left our organisation. We breached our commercial contract with the software provider and our responsibility as a data controller to keep personal data secure.
Liverpool also 'allowed' their access to be used to access another organisations data, which would also be breach of contract and failure of their responsibility as a data controller.
But Liverpool employees also knowingly breached the good faith commitments that exist in football, so thats why they settled in our favour without an admission of organisational culpability. We accepted because we wanted to retain good relations and avoid scrutiny of our stupidity in allowing it to happen.
Click to expand...
Thank you for explaining it (again) for those that either dont know or are too tribal.
City were totally unprofessional.
Liverpool took advantage of our naivety.
Yes they were wrong for doing it but us kicking off would have shown sponsors/investors how poor our security was.
It really isnt a hill we should be dying on.
 
Bozzie said:
How did the two previous league games spying incidents come to light? Surely Southampton didn’t just ask for two further offences to be taken into consideration whilst the play off incident was being investigated? If the EFL were already aware of those previous incidents why didn’t they deal with them at the time? Sorry if that’s common knowledge and I just haven’t bothered reading about it.
Click to expand...
It was a whistleblower that came forward. Here's a quote from an article in the Telegraph:-

In written evidence submitted to the EFL, the whistleblower is understood to have claimed that team meetings included references to opposition data being gathered from the training ground. There was even an accusation that a text message instructed an analyst to travel to an opposition team’s training ground after they had just changed managers. Southampton did not know their line-up or if there would be any personnel changes. The club involved has an open training ground that is easily visible from the road, but there was no CCTV footage available from the day in question.That club was Oxford United.
 
Next couple weeks?

Must be time for the circus to resume..

115
115
115

I hope the media have a duty to report on this issue…-:)
 
HorlockofFiretopMountain said:
Makes you wonder what the punishment would be for hacking another teams database. I know City and Liverpool reached a settlement on the issue, but does that absolve th PL from taking action against them?
Click to expand...
No it does not. I assume the agreement was compensation for perceived damage. That has nothing to do with a breach of the Premier Leagues regulations so they should have been charged just like we have. If they accessed data 215 times that's 215 charges! Never going to happen! Same with the letter the club's signed wanting us punished before the investigation was concluded. A breach of rules. Again nothing to see he re.
 
Imagine if we hacked Chelsea data base those Americans would want our club docked points and fined 50m they’d go crying to the premier like they’ve done with Maresca and I think that’s the first time any club has gone crying to the premier with anything like this!
 
Maly said:
He didn’t have authorisation as he had left the club, regardless of having a live login or not, otherwise why did Liverpool settle? Do you honestly believe City allowed a scout to have access to our database when he moved to a major competitor?

Also, if memory serves, they were using a current City employee’s login details, not the ones they had when employed by City

Either way, he didn’t have authorisation, therefore, it’s the very definition of hacking

Fact
Click to expand...
Yes they unlawfully used the log in credentials of a current City employee, Rob Newman
It was a slam dunk criminal offence under both the Data protection act (unlawfully accessing personal data of an identifiable individual/s) and also the Computer Misuse Act
 
decmancity said:
its a public piece of software, its not something City were hosting themselves.

Why did we settle, great question, if we had them bang to rights then we would have taken it the whole way, there is clearly a lot more to it.
Click to expand...
No it’s not a public piece of software. It’s a licensed SaaS product, which City pay for

City are the data controllers & the company who owns the software are the data processors, which answers the question of why we settled. We were in breach of GDPR

Liverpool & their employees had no authorisation to access any software licensed to City, therefore their employees hacked City’s database, which has been confirmed to be by using a City employee’s login details
Chris in London said:
This is correct

There is no world in which the access was not illegal
Click to expand...


We had their employees bang to rights, proving their employer had a hand in it would be more difficulty to prove

If we grassed them up to to the police or ICO, City would’ve potentially faced a large fine, hence the settlement

i may not know much, but I know all of the above is true my friend. We were hacked
 
LongsightM13 said:
Yes they unlawfully used the log in credentials of a current City employee, Rob Newman
It was a slam dunk criminal offence under both the Data protection act (unlawfully accessing personal data of an identifiable individual/s) and also the Computer Misuse Act
Click to expand...
Objectively, not in the public interest now after the civil settlement. Given the victim is one of the parties to that agreement.

Feel City got rolled over on that one. Reckon they were too desperate at the time to ingratiate themselves with cunts who went on to try and destroy us.

Shit happens. No point agonising over it.
 
Maly said:
No it’s not a public piece of software. It’s a licensed SaaS product, which City pay for

City are the data controllers & the company who owns the software are the data processors, which answers the question of why we settled. We were in breach of GDPR

Liverpool & their employees had no authorisation to access any software licensed to City, therefore their employees hacked City’s database, which has been confirmed to be by using a City employee’s login details



We had their employees bang to rights, proving their employer had a hand in it would be more difficulty to prove

If we grassed them up to to the police or ICO, City would’ve potentially faced a large fine, hence the settlement

i may not know much, but I know all of the above is true my friend. We were hacked
Click to expand...
Yep, 100% this
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top