Pressekonferansen - som det konkluderes: Another epic!
Team news?Bamford won’t be in. We have a doubt with Tyler Roberts. The same thing with Stuart Dallas. About these two doubts we might have a positive outcome with Stuart Dallas. With the problem of Tyler Roberts it is more complex.
Roberts for play-offs?No, because they are not serious injuries.
(tipper det mangler et 'out' fra spørsmålet...)
Bamford reactionI tried not to judge those who are here to judge us. It’s a fact Bamford simulated he received a kick. There is no point in talking about it. Anyway, you have conclusions that are important to underline.
These kind of behaviours, conditions, situations, you can have in the future. In some way, in my work, I sometimes have the obligation to make justice. I mean I have to manage the interests of the players fighting for the same positions and sometimes I reward with a decision and punish with decisions.
Why I have to take a decision to punish someone, I have in mind, a principle you always have to remember when you make justice: all the acts with the same nature must be judged with the same severity.
This is a conclusion that offers this decision against Bamford. After the decision against Bamford, all the same acts have to be judged with the same severity. Otherwise the opposite of my principle is to punish but making differences. Important risk for those who make justice.
I’m talking about myself because if I judge and don’t apply the same criteria for the same situation it’s not right. Another conclusion that is important, when we make a mistake you have to assimilate the details in the same conclusion.
Punch becomes an aggression. According to the capacity of resistance of the one who receives the punch. If the the recipient is strong it’s not an aggression. If the recipient is not strong it’s an aggression.
We can understand we can’t feint the punch when we receive it, but we can’t judge the strength of the punch based on the recipient. Obvious conclusion is if you punch someone and this person is strong enough it’s not an aggression and if you punch someone who is not strong, this is not an aggression. That is the conclusion.
Another conclusion you can draw from this case, when the authorities on the pitch, referees, can’t judge what happened inside the pitch during the game, of course, regarding this episode, the possibility the referee makes a mistake, the same way when a referee is afraid of a mistake and asks for help to take the right decision, when we receive a sanction we are allowed to ask for help to solve possible mistakes of the referee.
The referee can go to a commission and tell he needs their help because he had to manage many things during the game and we all know it’s not true. He knows he made a mistake and that’s why he asked for help to justify the mistake he made because he hadn’t made the mistake he would have found someone cheated, if he found out he would have red carded El Ghazi.
As the referee made a mistake, he doesn’t say I made a mistake, he says I had to take into account many things and maybe made a mistake. This is not the case.
Immediately after the game the referee knew he made the mistake. He asked for intervention of the commission saying he had to manage many things and maybe he made a mistake, and this is not true.
Of course, these are my conclusions, I’m not discussing the decisions taken, but we have the obligation to describe the procedure of those who judge us. The conclusions are very clear: the ones I just gave and the system works like this. I’m not discussing it because I have to submit myself to their judgement, but not to criticise them.
When the authorities take decisions they send messages we have to assimilate. All this interpretation you can find out by the decisions taken because they don’t give an explanation. They don’t tell the public how they reached their conclusions, but as those who have to respect the rules, we have the obligation to interpret them in order to not make the same mistake again. The messages are the three I gave: I’m not discussing anything. I have to say how we should behave again to avoid this again.
Hopefully the conclusion of this boring explanation. I’m not saying I’m against the norms, I am interpreting the norms. The interpretation is an obligation I have for a norm which is not clear enough.
We have 15 people here. If I’m wrong I would be thankful you tell me and there may be some details I am not aware of. I don’t want to make a mistake because all the conclusions we draw for what happened in the last game allow us to educate the public. I’m not saying the rules are wrong, I’m saying ‘these are the rules’.
I wouldn’t like to risk describing, in a bad way, the rules. I want you to tell me if I’m wrong. I can be wrong. I went to the limits of the rules to draw these conclusions. It doesn’t mean you can’t ignore this aspect or your explanation is wrong because you haven’t accounted for these facts, If this was the case I apologise.
What we can’t say is this is my interpretation and yours is different. Nothing changes if we say this.
From the decision taken, the conclusion must be, if you receive a punch, if it’s a punch, if it’s just a push it’s different, you can’t analyse the strength of the punch. You know it’s a punch, not its strength. Measure the effect and the only one who can measure is the recipient. The conclusion from the decision means the player receiving the punch falls down it’s strong and if it’s not it’s not an aggression.
When you punch someone, the conclusion from the decision, and it’s not strong it’s not an aggression, but if it’s strong it is an aggression. In this case, if the player is strong it cannot be an aggression and vice versa.
You're never boringAll that matters is if I’m right or wrong because when I communicate it’s important, not for our relationship, talking about you because of special respect for you. I feel free to tell you I’m not interested in your opinion, more the message you transmit to the public. Interested in your opinion in the case and, like I’m interested in others, because I have the hope if you don’t tell me I’m wrong, to allow me to exchange opinions, you’re telling me I’m right, but of course, there’s another authority.
Another aspect. My job is not to argue with you. Imagine my ambition is to say all the people agree with me here, but it’s very hard to obtain this.
Issue over transparency for all of us - Ipswich and Roofe ready?Yes. He’s fit completely. We can’t ignore the fact he has spent time without playing 90 minutes.
Thank youAs we’re clarifying things.
The sanction I received of £200,000 is a financial sanction the club received. Sanction against the club and not me, but I’m responsible. That’s why I paid from my pocket.
I never said this and I never said the opposite, what I’m saying now. I have never said if we don’t get promoted I won’t carry on my work here. I haven’t said I would leave or stay. I just said it was not the moment to discuss it.
I just said it’s receiving the proposal and accepting or not. I would never say if we don’t go up I will leave because otherwise you would say the importance of this club is linked to the division it plays in.
For me, this team and club are important in any of the top three divisions and I am not saying this with demagogy. I don’t want people to think I’m not thankful because after the year here I only limit my evaluation of Leeds to the fact they play in one division or the other, it would mean I am not thankful.
Play-offs - thoughts on concept?We should put a limit somewhere. If the third place is promoted you will only have possibilities for three teams. With the play-offs you have expectancies for the two promoted and the four between third and sixth. I’m not the right person to make an opinion, but from what I saw I saw you have few teams with nothing to play for in the last games because many played for sixth or avoiding relegation.
For me, it’s an unforgettable experience in this Championship because I discovered many pitches, many fans and lived many experiences.
Analysed play-off opponents?There’s a big important head coach I admire and love, Edvaldo Berisso (?). He told me one day you take the risk of being paralysed because of the excess of analysis.
I think I have responded with this. I always have more data than what I need. See what happened when I went through this data.
Tempted to change?Every day.
As I have been doing the same things for many years inside myself I can’t change it. When you’re old as me sometimes we tend to give advice as conclusions. The obsession doesn’t improve people it makes people worse.
There is an ideology that links obsession with efforts and work. You know in which segment are the workers and those who make efforts and a class tells workers if you work hard you will get rewarded. Of course, the effort has a reward, but the message is not transmitted like that.
This message is interested in one class to give to the workers. That’s why the obsession for the work is well done is as bad as the absence of effort.
We do agree on Hourihane being ignored was wrongIt’s clear why he was not cited by the authority because they treated the subject.
It’s not it hasn’t been judged. It has. They think his punch was not an aggression. That’s why I make my conclusions because otherwise I would deeply mistaken.
I don’t know what information you and the fans have, but I’m giving you my opinion based in the conclusion given by this commission this punch is not an aggression.
As I accept the decisions of the authorities I explain from this conclusion I reach my own to say if the recipient is strong it’s not an aggression.
This is the conclusion I reach based on their explanation. The only person measuring intensity is the recipient. Only think to evaluate is the resistance of the player and I’m going to tell you something I shouldn’t.
This interpretation invites people to say ‘what is the conclusion you can reach?’ You should go to the ground with every punch, even if they just touch you and simulate the strength. The only way to get justice.
At the same time, they sanction those who simulate, they invite people to simulate. Am I wrong? (No).
I’m not saying that to strengthen my position, just to see if I am mistaken.
On Lionel Messi's performance this weekWhat could I say that hasn’t been said so far, if you want to talk about Messi?
If I had to talk about Lionel Messi and say something new, I would put the picture where the ball goes through the goal and the position of the goalkeeper.
You just have to feel admiration for this goalkeeper, because how did he reach this position? And by doing this thing, someone can say, ‘yes but he lacked a centimetre’. And at the same time he did that hundreds of times. So there is nothing new you can say.
What are your conclusions of a year here?Christian, as you work in Argentina, I would love to give you two details to clarify things.
In the Villa game, our players had a black band because they were mourning something. Jansson was not the captain, it does not change anything.
It’s wrong to say Jansson was the captain and took this decision. The second aspect to clarify, the episode has nothing to do with the referee. We can’t link between the referee and the decision we took.
What explains the rival was right is the moment of doubt we all had when Roberts stops playing and makes the pass.
This episode, which is decisive, could not be sold by the referee. It made it easier for us to score a goal. Without this detail it would be harder for us to score the goal.
There is something evident. How we would have felt in the rival’s position? That’s why we took the decision.
Regarding your question: the English fan, all those in the pitch, those who work in the industry, we are all affected by it.
Nobody is natural. We are all infected. Those working in the industry are all infected and the only pure people are the fans. The English fan is different to the fans in other countries. I don’t know how English society is outside football.
What I am sure of is the English fan rejects undeserved advantages. All over the world, the extraordinary thing about the fan is, especially in Argentina, the unconditional love. This is not very frequent in other aspects of life. What I have seen here in England, the fan says, even if I love you a lot, I’m not ready to accept something if you don’t do sportsmanship. I don’t know if this is right.
I don’t know about society in general when I put this concept in other aspects of not accepting undeserved things, but in football it felt like that.
What do you think about Argentine football from afar, the national team, the clubs compared to his own experience?It’s difficult to evaluate it from outside it. I love Argentina and it’s football. It’s always means a lot to me Argentinian football keeps its importance.
I’m full of hope because fans always love their clubs even more and care about their clubs even more. I have read the other day NOB sold 600,000 shirts. Maybe it’s not important for people here, but for someone who loves Newell’s it’s an expression of love for the club.
In football which is professional here it might not have importance, but this fact is something moving because their sacrifice to buy the shirt is important.
They only afford to buy the shirt by sacrificing many things.
All overFinally. Another epic.
https://www.leeds-live.co.uk/sport/leeds-united/marcelo-bielsa-spygate-leeds-united-16220370
