May Contain Nuts

I feel nothing in particular toward any team at national level.
My preference would usually be for an underdog, a team containing a Derby player, or a team who play wildly entertaining football to win but I'm not particularly bothered either way 

I really, really hope you've posted this without realising it's a joke.

I really, really hope you've posted this without realising it's a joke.

Lol indeed. Having an emotional connection to more than one team's fortunes must be a bloody nightmare!

In that case, hard lines Helmut ?

Nothing personal at all, I just wouldnt have the knobcheesefuckfacewasteofspace anywhere near anything to do with me, thats all..

I really, really hope you've posted this without realising it's a joke.

I really, really hope you've posted this without realising it's a joke.

Would the LAP need to find that there was some fault in the original disciplinary panel's decision making process for any punishment to be overruled/increased, like they did when saying they shouldn't have ruled out the EFL's expert witness the first time around?
Assuming the original panel have covered their own arses better this time, is there even anything for the LAP to contest?
It can't just come down to... well our opinion trumps yours, can it? There has to be some legal founding, beyond mere professional disagreement.

I really, really hope you've posted this without realising it's a joke.

I really, really hope you've posted this without realising it's a joke.

Would the LAP need to find that there was some fault in the original disciplinary panel's decision making process for any punishment to be overruled/increased, like they did when saying they shouldn't have ruled out the EFL's expert witness the first time around?
Assuming the original panel have covered their own arses better this time, is there even anything for the LAP to contest?
It can't just come down to... well our opinion trumps yours, can it? There has to be some legal founding, beyond mere professional disagreement.

Given what happened after he went it is hard to think getting rid was the slam dunk correct decision that it should have been.
Maybe we’d have picked up when Bielik was fit, maybe he’d not have played Bielik for 15 odd games in a row, during a shortened season, on a cow field of a pitch after he was coming off a year long injury. No one really knows but doubt he’d have been much worse than what we got. 
Ultimately if we had never signed Rooney we’d have been able to replace Cocu with an actual manager rather than hiring someone just so we didn’t have to play them anymore. As well as Cocu not being hamstrung by having to pick him in the first place. 
Nice guy anyway. Was nice to have someone like that representing the club.

Too much poo had passed by the time he went to realistically think he'd have turned it around.
Once heads drop to a certain level under one manager, for any reason, there's very little chance of coming back from it without a new manager coming in, or a wholesale revitalisation of the playing squad

If they wanted it to end just as much as we do, they wouldn't have appealed the original panel's decision, or they'd accept that the 100k fine is enough.
They would say that they accept the panel's decision and although it isn't the outcome they desired they see it as the end of the matter and are satisfied that they took reasonable steps to ensure a suitable punishment was handed out.
It's their league, they don't really answer to anyone and they can run it how they see fit, and even if many of the problems they face are a result of their own incompetence they've shown that they will do everything in their power to disguise their own faults (rather than address them) by aggressively going after their member clubs to enact extremely OTT punishments that don't fairly match the discretions at hand, punishments which threaten the very existence of clubs and cause untold misery to supporters of the club and distress to staff at all levels.
Paradoxically their current display of flexing their muscles to prove their power to everyone is completely undermined by them cowering to the demands of a handful of bitter (and in Boro's case) hypocritical member clubs. 
With this attitude fully ingrained in the organisation and with so much process designed in their favour, why are they so scared of the threat of being sued by Boro, Barnsley & Wycombe?
All these legal threats from other clubs are just that, threats, posturing.
We have Derby fans saying that we should de-escalate the situation and accept whatever poo is thrown our way rather than aggressively defending our position. They say we're making an enemy of the EFL and being treated accordingly, out fault for poking the bear 
Ultimately though we're only fighting an internal process, can you imagine how vindictively the league would carry out their processes against us if we were actually trying to sue them?
Nobody is going to sue the EFL, it's not worth the treatment, the harassment, of their club that would follow. 
 
 
 
A bit more, but it's going a little too far into the conspiratory view of things...
As alluded to earlier, the EFL, or specifically Rick Parry, seems to be scared whitless by the threats of one Steve Gibson, you have to wonder why exactly this is, what hold does Gibson have over Parry?
Well, a bit of reading...
https://www.gazettelive.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/new-efl-chairman-rick-parry-16977927
There's a more than grotty whiff of Parry wanting to making amends with Gibson about the whole thing. 
Make no mistake this is about far more than Derby County bending some unwritten rule on amortisation.

The stuff mentioned in the link has nothing to do with the EFL? Their run-ins mentioned on the link were specifically with Liverpool and the Premier League. 
Gibson's gunning for everyone, I think, it seems to just be the way he is. He's killing two birds with one stone here, or attempting to.
 

I had forgot the Boro point deduction but I doubt that has much to do with this situation, Other than Gibson might still have daggers for Parry.
As for the threat to the EFL of being sued, both of us can speculate on that, but fwiw I don’t think it is as unlikely as you think. Indeed it is always possible Mel Morris is lining that up as his coup de grace. We really have no idea what is going on behind closed doors. This case has ballooned out of all proportion, and ultimately I suspect, along with the implications from Covid, it will bring about a huge reorganisational change by the member 72 clubs. The EFL is ducked.

When the new petri dishes arrive.

We've had the Belper Moo, they just need to change it to the Belper Baa

Best case scenario any club deciding to go along this route has ran both figures concurrently and knows exactly how much extra leeway the unique policy created, which has informed their spending, keeping them within limits, just.
Worst case scenario, this is Derby County we're talking about so I wouldn't pin my hopes on that being the case 
 

We've had the Belper Moo, they just need to change it to the Belper Baa

No, that's your continued insistence on interpreting the sentence "at best confusing at worst seriously misleading"  and re-stating it ipso facto as "Derby were found to have mislead the EFL",
You're stating the 'at worst' scenario as the absolute truth and disregarding the 'best' scenario (whilst still not good) or anything and everything in between.
I'm not even saying that your interpretation is incorrect, but even so, regardless of the panel's personal feelings or what "the evidence indicates" (so... indicates, in your opinion, doesn't confirm), we haven't actually been found guilty of misleading anyone - we've been found guilty of using, on closer inspection, a non-compliant amortisation method.
...in the opinion of an 'expert witness', although duck knows how or whether his ruling that our method is non-compliant is actually any more accurate that the original panel's ruling, it seems that him simply having an opinion makes him automatically correct because we didn't have our own expert witness to contest it.
Anything else is by the by, conjecture, not fact.
 

I think the issue over amortisation is somewhat a joke. There is no perfect amortisation procedure for anything at all. Only that which is agreed between parties or as specified in a set of rules. Write down machinery, tooling, company vehicles, your personal lap top or player values. It doesn’t matter whether it’s 25% Pa level or some sort of graduation or funny maths. Thing is you just have to agree a system. This isn’t an empirical formula governed by the rules of physics. It’s a specification .. you either meet it or you don’t, or as seems to be the case here, the allowed procedure wasn’t clear or unequivocal. Did we exploit this or were the rules badly drawn ?  .. now that’s a valid question 

No, that's your continued insistence on interpreting the sentence "at best confusing at worst seriously misleading"  and re-stating it ipso facto as "Derby were found to have mislead the EFL",
You're stating the 'at worst' scenario as the absolute truth and disregarding the 'best' scenario (whilst still not good) or anything and everything in between.
I'm not even saying that your interpretation is incorrect, but even so, regardless of the panel's personal feelings or what "the evidence indicates" (so... indicates, in your opinion, doesn't confirm), we haven't actually been found guilty of misleading anyone - we've been found guilty of using, on closer inspection, a non-compliant amortisation method.
...in the opinion of an 'expert witness', although duck knows how or whether his ruling that our method is non-compliant is actually any more accurate that the original panel's ruling, it seems that him simply having an opinion makes him automatically correct because we didn't have our own expert witness to contest it.
Anything else is by the by, conjecture, not fact.
 

No, that's your continued insistence on interpreting the sentence "at best confusing at worst seriously misleading"  and re-stating it ipso facto as "Derby were found to have mislead the EFL",
You're stating the 'at worst' scenario as the absolute truth and disregarding the 'best' scenario (whilst still not good) or anything and everything in between.
I'm not even saying that your interpretation is incorrect, but even so, regardless of the panel's personal feelings or what "the evidence indicates" (so... indicates, in your opinion, doesn't confirm), we haven't actually been found guilty of misleading anyone - we've been found guilty of using, on closer inspection, a non-compliant amortisation method.
...in the opinion of an 'expert witness', although duck knows how or whether his ruling that our method is non-compliant is actually any more accurate that the original panel's ruling, it seems that him simply having an opinion makes him automatically correct because we didn't have our own expert witness to contest it.
Anything else is by the by, conjecture, not fact.