PistoldPete

In most dispute resolution situations there is extra slack given where there is inequality of status between the disputing parties. SO in financial services if I am involved in a dispute with a bank, I do not get charged or penalised in anyway if I do not win the dispute. In employment tribunals there is no fee charged to the employee and there are usually no costs awards either. Attempts to change that situation were opposed on grounds of it being an  offence to natural justice 
In Derby's  disputes with EFL there is clear inequality between the parties to the dispute.. basically it is the 71 other EFL clubs ganging up on us to give us a kicking. So the EFL should be very keen to be seen to be independent and to avoid bully boy tactics.  EFL has consistently failed spectacularly to do either.    
The particular proposal, if true , is yet another example of EFL's failures to be independent and to avoid bullying. I cannot think of any precedent , even where parties to a dispute are of equal standing, that would require the professionals involved in the dispute to be held personally liable if the dispute is not won. Quite apart from any failings by EFL to be independent or fair, it is offensive to the professionals involved and implies they are somehow trying it on.
 
Contrary to what some podcasters may say, there are on the face of it strong grounds for an appeal. That may not mean that Derby will win the appeal, but they are perfectly entitled to make it and it is crass , cynical and manipulative if EFL are seeking to discourage the appeal in this way. 
     
 

No they are trying to change the rules. They want to make it more difficult to Appeal against an automatic 12 point deduction. Why? It goes to an independent panel … what are EFL afraid of… the independent panel not agreeing with them?

No they are trying to change the rules. They want to make it more difficult to Appeal against an automatic 12 point deduction. Why? It goes to an independent panel … what are EFL afraid of… the independent panel not agreeing with them?

In most dispute resolution situations there is extra slack given where there is inequality of status between the disputing parties. SO in financial services if I am involved in a dispute with a bank, I do not get charged or penalised in anyway if I do not win the dispute. In employment tribunals there is no fee charged to the employee and there are usually no costs awards either. Attempts to change that situation were opposed on grounds of it being an  offence to natural justice 
In Derby's  disputes with EFL there is clear inequality between the parties to the dispute.. basically it is the 71 other EFL clubs ganging up on us to give us a kicking. So the EFL should be very keen to be seen to be independent and to avoid bully boy tactics.  EFL has consistently failed spectacularly to do either.    
The particular proposal, if true , is yet another example of EFL's failures to be independent and to avoid bullying. I cannot think of any precedent , even where parties to a dispute are of equal standing, that would require the professionals involved in the dispute to be held personally liable if the dispute is not won. Quite apart from any failings by EFL to be independent or fair, it is offensive to the professionals involved and implies they are somehow trying it on.
 
Contrary to what some podcasters may say, there are on the face of it strong grounds for an appeal. That may not mean that Derby will win the appeal, but they are perfectly entitled to make it and it is crass , cynical and manipulative if EFL are seeking to discourage the appeal in this way. 
     
 

In most dispute resolution situations there is extra slack given where there is inequality of status between the disputing parties. SO in financial services if I am involved in a dispute with a bank, I do not get charged or penalised in anyway if I do not win the dispute. In employment tribunals there is no fee charged to the employee and there are usually no costs awards either. Attempts to change that situation were opposed on grounds of it being an  offence to natural justice 
In Derby's  disputes with EFL there is clear inequality between the parties to the dispute.. basically it is the 71 other EFL clubs ganging up on us to give us a kicking. So the EFL should be very keen to be seen to be independent and to avoid bully boy tactics.  EFL has consistently failed spectacularly to do either.    
The particular proposal, if true , is yet another example of EFL's failures to be independent and to avoid bullying. I cannot think of any precedent , even where parties to a dispute are of equal standing, that would require the professionals involved in the dispute to be held personally liable if the dispute is not won. Quite apart from any failings by EFL to be independent or fair, it is offensive to the professionals involved and implies they are somehow trying it on.
 
Contrary to what some podcasters may say, there are on the face of it strong grounds for an appeal. That may not mean that Derby will win the appeal, but they are perfectly entitled to make it and it is crass , cynical and manipulative if EFL are seeking to discourage the appeal in this way. 
     
 

No they are trying to change the rules. They want to make it more difficult to Appeal against an automatic 12 point deduction. Why? It goes to an independent panel … what are EFL afraid of… the independent panel not agreeing with them?

He’s American. It’s what they do.

He’s American. It’s what they do.

Not in the slightest. Him occasionally tweeting isn't making too much noise, in my opinion. 
Also I'd take ''unclear level of wealth'' over ''in administration and unable to pay our own bills'', frankly. 

Nixons tweets rarely make sense. "Happening on time"? On time for what?

Major moves? Plural? Well the transfer deadline is shut so there's not much that can move. What else ? Rooney Geordio? EFL issue a charge for breaking FFP? Derby win their appeal for admin charge ? who knows?     

Driving bans are a matter of criminal law. It makes sense that a failed appeal could see the sanctions increased because in appealing you're taking up both time and money of the courts. They have a duty to look after the interests of the public as a whole.
The example of a multinational company where a prior punishment can be seen  as too lenient and increased after an appeal makes sense because you're re-evaluating the sanction handed out. While it may often fall the way of an increased punishment there's scope for them to say they were happy that the original sanction was correct and to not add anything extra. 
The EFL disputes are not covered by the law of the land nor is the proposal that any sanctions would be fairly reassessed, rather they have put in place measures only to add additional, arbitrary punishments for a failed appeal.
Without the backing of criminal law it doesn't really make any sense to do this. Without scope to simply uphold the original decision it doesn't make sense either. Its simply the EFL having their cake and eating it.
Now, not content with that they want to put up further barriers that look to heavily discourage anyone from appealing in the first place!
That isn't a fair and just appeals system.
Their actions aren't in the interests of anyone but themselves and their mindset seems to be that the best way to deal with anything is to hand out as heavy a punishment as they can get away with.
They may as well just be saying "accept your punishment and STFU, if you appeal we will crush you"

Thanks for this..yes we have digressed a little but I really would struggle to find any behaviour in any dispute resolution which is as bad as EFL. 

They were “disappointed “ that we dated to mention them not giving us the loan for the COVID that they said we weren’t eligible for … forgetting to mention the reason we weren’t eligible us because of their trumped up charges against us.
oh and then they were “shocked” we dared to appeal against the 12 point deduction.
as you say not very professional for any body to be sulking like that . 

That’s actually quite disgraceful that the EFL wants to stop clubs from appealing a decision that they feel is unjust - it’s a similar system used in a far left or far right country 

Liquid funds. Unless he bought the plane recently he still has the cash.

Ha ha. Well I think either your are confused or me or maybe both. Not surprised given Mel's complex Company structures.
 

So a rule put in place to prevent future stadium sales following the Pride Park sale, meaning Blackburn have had to sell their training ground to themselves instead recently for £16m to balance the books.
And now because of our appeal on the admin points they are looking to change that rule as well.
You watch, when Derby win again they will look at stopping clubs being awarded 3 points when they win a game ?

Always good to watch. Heh heh.

They were “disappointed “ that we dated to mention them not giving us the loan for the COVID that they said we weren’t eligible for … forgetting to mention the reason we weren’t eligible us because of their trumped up charges against us.
oh and then they were “shocked” we dared to appeal against the 12 point deduction.
as you say not very professional for any body to be sulking like that . 

Well that was a costly defat. How much did we miss Jason Knight? and no strikers at the start. Curtis Davies doing everthing he can at both ends of the pitch but it's a forlorm hope right now.  

I remember the stories of him playing in mittens. As this was from Mike storey a proper journalist then it must have been true, even though a stereotype . 
 
Biri became Biri Biri so good they named him twice. Or maybe because he was hot. Sadly not for us, but had a good career at Seville.

Biri.

It’s against my rules to pay subscriptions for click bait. 

Biri.

Rent on PPS is only £1m per annum as we only use it once a fortnight. Greggs say £5m pa as they use it every day except for a match day. Seems fair.