duncanjwitham

I'd say that's 100% corrupt, or at least an utterly insane way to run an organisation. If you want to argue that the EFL should change rules after someone has fond a loophole, to stop it being exploited in the future, then fine. But you are basically arguing that the EFL should be able to retrospectively change the rules at any given time and punish clubs for having broken them before they were changed.
You may as well argue that a magistrate can fine drivers purely for doing 30mph in a 30-zone because it's near a school and he thinks they should be doing 20.

There seems to be some misunderstanding of the EFL's position on all of this.  So, to my understanding this is where they stand...
Any disputes between clubs have to go through arbitration, no independent legal action against each other of anything. The EFL do not get actively involved in arbitration, other than setting the basic ground rules. They don't review claims, block illegal claims or anything. They want to be completely independent of it all. If claims are illegal (i.e. against EFL rules), unfounded or whatever, that's a matter for the arbitration panel to decide at the time, not the EFL beforehand. Any financial awards resulting from arbitration are football debts. All football debts must be paid to exit administration and remain a league member. Claims cannot be squashed out of existence (or anything similar) as a result of exiting administration they need to be properly resolved through arbitration or settled/dropped outside of that.  Basically they don't want clubs to be able to escape from paying genuine football debts by insolvency policy trickery. Not saying I agree with all of that, but I think that's what they're thinking.

It just isn't what happens in anything like the way you describe - and not just for sentencing. No magistrate ever says "Well the letter of the law says x but I'm finding you guilty because the intention of the law is y." And it doesn't happen in higher courts either. Yes, judges might consider the intention of the law if they need to resolve some tension or ambiguity, but that's a world away from using intention as a starting point, or ignoring the law, or "stretching" the law (your words), or simply inventing a law that doesn't exist. You should not (contra your example) be any more likely to be convicted if you are "a menace to public safety", and nor should you be. It might affect your sentence, and so it should. Both those things are entirely in accordance with the letter of the law. 
I'm baffled that you think this happens - do you perhaps live in Russia or China? - let alone that you think it's a fine and acceptable thing for courts (or the EFL) to do. 
 

I'd say that's 100% corrupt, or at least an utterly insane way to run an organisation. If you want to argue that the EFL should change rules after someone has fond a loophole, to stop it being exploited in the future, then fine. But you are basically arguing that the EFL should be able to retrospectively change the rules at any given time and punish clubs for having broken them before they were changed.
You may as well argue that a magistrate can fine drivers purely for doing 30mph in a 30-zone because it's near a school and he thinks they should be doing 20.

There seems to be some misunderstanding of the EFL's position on all of this.  So, to my understanding this is where they stand...
Any disputes between clubs have to go through arbitration, no independent legal action against each other of anything. The EFL do not get actively involved in arbitration, other than setting the basic ground rules. They don't review claims, block illegal claims or anything. They want to be completely independent of it all. If claims are illegal (i.e. against EFL rules), unfounded or whatever, that's a matter for the arbitration panel to decide at the time, not the EFL beforehand. Any financial awards resulting from arbitration are football debts. All football debts must be paid to exit administration and remain a league member. Claims cannot be squashed out of existence (or anything similar) as a result of exiting administration they need to be properly resolved through arbitration or settled/dropped outside of that.  Basically they don't want clubs to be able to escape from paying genuine football debts by insolvency policy trickery. Not saying I agree with all of that, but I think that's what they're thinking.

I'd say that's 100% corrupt, or at least an utterly insane way to run an organisation. If you want to argue that the EFL should change rules after someone has fond a loophole, to stop it being exploited in the future, then fine. But you are basically arguing that the EFL should be able to retrospectively change the rules at any given time and punish clubs for having broken them before they were changed.
You may as well argue that a magistrate can fine drivers purely for doing 30mph in a 30-zone because it's near a school and he thinks they should be doing 20.

There seems to be some misunderstanding of the EFL's position on all of this.  So, to my understanding this is where they stand...
Any disputes between clubs have to go through arbitration, no independent legal action against each other of anything. The EFL do not get actively involved in arbitration, other than setting the basic ground rules. They don't review claims, block illegal claims or anything. They want to be completely independent of it all. If claims are illegal (i.e. against EFL rules), unfounded or whatever, that's a matter for the arbitration panel to decide at the time, not the EFL beforehand. Any financial awards resulting from arbitration are football debts. All football debts must be paid to exit administration and remain a league member. Claims cannot be squashed out of existence (or anything similar) as a result of exiting administration they need to be properly resolved through arbitration or settled/dropped outside of that.  Basically they don't want clubs to be able to escape from paying genuine football debts by insolvency policy trickery. Not saying I agree with all of that, but I think that's what they're thinking.

I'd say that's 100% corrupt, or at least an utterly insane way to run an organisation. If you want to argue that the EFL should change rules after someone has fond a loophole, to stop it being exploited in the future, then fine. But you are basically arguing that the EFL should be able to retrospectively change the rules at any given time and punish clubs for having broken them before they were changed.
You may as well argue that a magistrate can fine drivers purely for doing 30mph in a 30-zone because it's near a school and he thinks they should be doing 20.

I agree with those 2 things, but I think it's also saying a third.  It's a very public statement of why he won't ever agree to indemnify the club against arbitration losses, because he (rightly or wrongly) doesn't believe in the EFL's arbitration process. He's convinced it's corrupt, so he wants no part of it.

There seems to be some misunderstanding of the EFL's position on all of this.  So, to my understanding this is where they stand...
Any disputes between clubs have to go through arbitration, no independent legal action against each other of anything. The EFL do not get actively involved in arbitration, other than setting the basic ground rules. They don't review claims, block illegal claims or anything. They want to be completely independent of it all. If claims are illegal (i.e. against EFL rules), unfounded or whatever, that's a matter for the arbitration panel to decide at the time, not the EFL beforehand. Any financial awards resulting from arbitration are football debts. All football debts must be paid to exit administration and remain a league member. Claims cannot be squashed out of existence (or anything similar) as a result of exiting administration they need to be properly resolved through arbitration or settled/dropped outside of that.  Basically they don't want clubs to be able to escape from paying genuine football debts by insolvency policy trickery. Not saying I agree with all of that, but I think that's what they're thinking.

I'd say that's 100% corrupt, or at least an utterly insane way to run an organisation. If you want to argue that the EFL should change rules after someone has fond a loophole, to stop it being exploited in the future, then fine. But you are basically arguing that the EFL should be able to retrospectively change the rules at any given time and punish clubs for having broken them before they were changed.
You may as well argue that a magistrate can fine drivers purely for doing 30mph in a 30-zone because it's near a school and he thinks they should be doing 20.

I'd say that's 100% corrupt, or at least an utterly insane way to run an organisation. If you want to argue that the EFL should change rules after someone has fond a loophole, to stop it being exploited in the future, then fine. But you are basically arguing that the EFL should be able to retrospectively change the rules at any given time and punish clubs for having broken them before they were changed.
You may as well argue that a magistrate can fine drivers purely for doing 30mph in a 30-zone because it's near a school and he thinks they should be doing 20.

I'd say that's 100% corrupt, or at least an utterly insane way to run an organisation. If you want to argue that the EFL should change rules after someone has fond a loophole, to stop it being exploited in the future, then fine. But you are basically arguing that the EFL should be able to retrospectively change the rules at any given time and punish clubs for having broken them before they were changed.
You may as well argue that a magistrate can fine drivers purely for doing 30mph in a 30-zone because it's near a school and he thinks they should be doing 20.

Also, magistrates don't do this. They are actually tediously predictable in their application of the rules, and rely utterly on their clerks to tell them what the law says they should do and why. And rightly so. 

I'd say that's 100% corrupt, or at least an utterly insane way to run an organisation. If you want to argue that the EFL should change rules after someone has fond a loophole, to stop it being exploited in the future, then fine. But you are basically arguing that the EFL should be able to retrospectively change the rules at any given time and punish clubs for having broken them before they were changed.
You may as well argue that a magistrate can fine drivers purely for doing 30mph in a 30-zone because it's near a school and he thinks they should be doing 20.

I'd say that's 100% corrupt, or at least an utterly insane way to run an organisation. If you want to argue that the EFL should change rules after someone has fond a loophole, to stop it being exploited in the future, then fine. But you are basically arguing that the EFL should be able to retrospectively change the rules at any given time and punish clubs for having broken them before they were changed.
You may as well argue that a magistrate can fine drivers purely for doing 30mph in a 30-zone because it's near a school and he thinks they should be doing 20.

I'd say that's 100% corrupt, or at least an utterly insane way to run an organisation. If you want to argue that the EFL should change rules after someone has fond a loophole, to stop it being exploited in the future, then fine. But you are basically arguing that the EFL should be able to retrospectively change the rules at any given time and punish clubs for having broken them before they were changed.
You may as well argue that a magistrate can fine drivers purely for doing 30mph in a 30-zone because it's near a school and he thinks they should be doing 20.

I'd say that's 100% corrupt, or at least an utterly insane way to run an organisation. If you want to argue that the EFL should change rules after someone has fond a loophole, to stop it being exploited in the future, then fine. But you are basically arguing that the EFL should be able to retrospectively change the rules at any given time and punish clubs for having broken them before they were changed.
You may as well argue that a magistrate can fine drivers purely for doing 30mph in a 30-zone because it's near a school and he thinks they should be doing 20.

I'd say that's 100% corrupt, or at least an utterly insane way to run an organisation. If you want to argue that the EFL should change rules after someone has fond a loophole, to stop it being exploited in the future, then fine. But you are basically arguing that the EFL should be able to retrospectively change the rules at any given time and punish clubs for having broken them before they were changed.
You may as well argue that a magistrate can fine drivers purely for doing 30mph in a 30-zone because it's near a school and he thinks they should be doing 20.

I'd say that's 100% corrupt, or at least an utterly insane way to run an organisation. If you want to argue that the EFL should change rules after someone has fond a loophole, to stop it being exploited in the future, then fine. But you are basically arguing that the EFL should be able to retrospectively change the rules at any given time and punish clubs for having broken them before they were changed.
You may as well argue that a magistrate can fine drivers purely for doing 30mph in a 30-zone because it's near a school and he thinks they should be doing 20.

There seems to be some misunderstanding of the EFL's position on all of this.  So, to my understanding this is where they stand...
Any disputes between clubs have to go through arbitration, no independent legal action against each other of anything. The EFL do not get actively involved in arbitration, other than setting the basic ground rules. They don't review claims, block illegal claims or anything. They want to be completely independent of it all. If claims are illegal (i.e. against EFL rules), unfounded or whatever, that's a matter for the arbitration panel to decide at the time, not the EFL beforehand. Any financial awards resulting from arbitration are football debts. All football debts must be paid to exit administration and remain a league member. Claims cannot be squashed out of existence (or anything similar) as a result of exiting administration they need to be properly resolved through arbitration or settled/dropped outside of that.  Basically they don't want clubs to be able to escape from paying genuine football debts by insolvency policy trickery. Not saying I agree with all of that, but I think that's what they're thinking.

There seems to be some misunderstanding of the EFL's position on all of this.  So, to my understanding this is where they stand...
Any disputes between clubs have to go through arbitration, no independent legal action against each other of anything. The EFL do not get actively involved in arbitration, other than setting the basic ground rules. They don't review claims, block illegal claims or anything. They want to be completely independent of it all. If claims are illegal (i.e. against EFL rules), unfounded or whatever, that's a matter for the arbitration panel to decide at the time, not the EFL beforehand. Any financial awards resulting from arbitration are football debts. All football debts must be paid to exit administration and remain a league member. Claims cannot be squashed out of existence (or anything similar) as a result of exiting administration they need to be properly resolved through arbitration or settled/dropped outside of that.  Basically they don't want clubs to be able to escape from paying genuine football debts by insolvency policy trickery. Not saying I agree with all of that, but I think that's what they're thinking.

I've just checked archive.org - it's always been 4.3 and 4.4, there's never been a 4.5 as far as I can see.  It must be a slight mistake in Morris's statement (I assume that's what you're referring to?).

There seems to be some misunderstanding of the EFL's position on all of this.  So, to my understanding this is where they stand...
Any disputes between clubs have to go through arbitration, no independent legal action against each other of anything. The EFL do not get actively involved in arbitration, other than setting the basic ground rules. They don't review claims, block illegal claims or anything. They want to be completely independent of it all. If claims are illegal (i.e. against EFL rules), unfounded or whatever, that's a matter for the arbitration panel to decide at the time, not the EFL beforehand. Any financial awards resulting from arbitration are football debts. All football debts must be paid to exit administration and remain a league member. Claims cannot be squashed out of existence (or anything similar) as a result of exiting administration they need to be properly resolved through arbitration or settled/dropped outside of that.  Basically they don't want clubs to be able to escape from paying genuine football debts by insolvency policy trickery. Not saying I agree with all of that, but I think that's what they're thinking.

I agree with those 2 things, but I think it's also saying a third.  It's a very public statement of why he won't ever agree to indemnify the club against arbitration losses, because he (rightly or wrongly) doesn't believe in the EFL's arbitration process. He's convinced it's corrupt, so he wants no part of it.