Stop panicking, there's no criteria for any punishment for this, there's no crime been committed.
Spying is a clandestine activity and hard to prove and will take a full scale investigation.
Texting a former work college, unless they brought about a new law forbidding it Moody can text who he wishes does not mean he knows anything, especially as the only changes they made were obvious, Zaha for Gunnarsson(injury) and Jones for Bellemy, apart from that they fielded the same side defensively, and lets face it their defense is a joke.

Indeed, unless we've actively committed a corrupt act in the process (such as blackmail and or bribery) or instructed a third party to do so, then there is no offence committed, unless of course the material falls under the Offical Secrets Act (which it doesn't).

Corporate espionage offences require the theft of materials that are 'trade secrets' such as intellectual propritory properties, prototypes etc.

if its a disgruntled employee then whatever they do is not a criminal offence, or the responsibility of the recepient (as they were approched by a third party).

In any other business its just an internal disciplinary action, and possible lawsuit to prevent the use of the material prior to market distribution (or share of sales based on violation of intellectual property by illict means).

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

Let's face Caulker has already stated that there have been leaks all year, so pretty common practice so the prem are not going to want to open a can of worms.
That's rationale speaking but we all know that rationale and reasonable never applies to Palace so it will be discovered that Moody hired Paddy The Greek and Sunglasses Ron to break into Cardiff and get the team sheet.We will be docked 37 points, forced to play blindfolded next year to prove we are not spying and Kayla will made to live out her days as pigeon to stop her swooping in on info.

One supporter of hacking argued that without it "you will do away with the courage and pluck of the game, and I will be bound to bring over a lot of Frenchmen who would beat you with a week's practice -Blackheath secretary at first meeting of the F.A

What are the allegations being made by Tan? I have thought of a few that may be the case.

1) Someone blackmailed a Cardiff employee to pass over information. If proved this is criminal.
2) Someone bribed a Cardiff employee to pass over information. Just an internal issue of trust for Cardiff, though not nice to know someone at Palace did this.
3) Someone at Palace bribed Cardiff player(s) to do something during the match to help Palace get a result, like give away a penalty, miss an open goal or something similar. If this is the case the implications are truly horrendous if proved. The way Cardiff played Tan believes this is possible. Some ex-Palace players are at the moment being investigated for something like this, though this of course is nothing to do with what Tan is on about.
Cannot think of anything else on this matter that could possibly be a problem, tho' I'll keep my thinking cap on!

We also must have a bit of faith that even if this gets to the point where the FA involve Palace (as opposed to them just laughing at Cardiff) that CPFC2010 and co, I imagine, will do a pretty bang up job of defending the club.

If this sticks I'd be very surprised and I'd also be surprised if Palace didn't successfully appeal against any fines or anything inflicting on us.

I guess it is likely that Moody had a confidentiality clause in his contract.

If he breached it, he can be sued.

If the club encouraged that breach, or could have prevented it but did not, then it also could be sued.

Presumably it would be sued for damages, so Cardiff would have to prove the damages. If Cardiff goes down but would have stayed up had it had three more points this could - in theory - become a problem.

Mind you, if Moody was unfairly dismissed that may impact upon this. I am guessing there was a Settlement Agreement in place, it would be interesting to know what it had to say on confidentiality but likely it reinforced the requirement.

Edited by Mapletree (15 Apr 2014 12.38pm)