RandomAccessMemory

Never forget their statement after we got the £100k fine.
When they were "disappointed" at the outcome and "regrettably" could find no grounds to appeal it.
That would be after going through their own disciplinary processes, the processes that are written in the rules, the processes we are all supposed to have faith in coming to the correct conclusion, they still weren’t happy at the outcome and wished they could find a way to punish us further as they didn’t think it was enough.
Well, well done EFL, you found a way.
What an absolute disgrace.

This.
The fact that a governing body was "disappointed" at the outcome of an independent disciplinary body that they recognise should be the grounds for legal action to prove our case if the bar stewards finish us.

Never forget their statement after we got the £100k fine.
When they were "disappointed" at the outcome and "regrettably" could find no grounds to appeal it.
That would be after going through their own disciplinary processes, the processes that are written in the rules, the processes we are all supposed to have faith in coming to the correct conclusion, they still weren’t happy at the outcome and wished they could find a way to punish us further as they didn’t think it was enough.
Well, well done EFL, you found a way.
What an absolute disgrace.

Never forget their statement after we got the £100k fine.
When they were "disappointed" at the outcome and "regrettably" could find no grounds to appeal it.
That would be after going through their own disciplinary processes, the processes that are written in the rules, the processes we are all supposed to have faith in coming to the correct conclusion, they still weren’t happy at the outcome and wished they could find a way to punish us further as they didn’t think it was enough.
Well, well done EFL, you found a way.
What an absolute disgrace.

These are great points and there are so many other examples like these.
Imagine if this was against a club like Man Utd or Liverpool. It would be headlining the news. 

Never forget their statement after we got the £100k fine.
When they were "disappointed" at the outcome and "regrettably" could find no grounds to appeal it.
That would be after going through their own disciplinary processes, the processes that are written in the rules, the processes we are all supposed to have faith in coming to the correct conclusion, they still weren’t happy at the outcome and wished they could find a way to punish us further as they didn’t think it was enough.
Well, well done EFL, you found a way.
What an absolute disgrace.

Never forget their statement after we got the £100k fine.
When they were "disappointed" at the outcome and "regrettably" could find no grounds to appeal it.
That would be after going through their own disciplinary processes, the processes that are written in the rules, the processes we are all supposed to have faith in coming to the correct conclusion, they still weren’t happy at the outcome and wished they could find a way to punish us further as they didn’t think it was enough.
Well, well done EFL, you found a way.
What an absolute disgrace.

Never forget their statement after we got the £100k fine.
When they were "disappointed" at the outcome and "regrettably" could find no grounds to appeal it.
That would be after going through their own disciplinary processes, the processes that are written in the rules, the processes we are all supposed to have faith in coming to the correct conclusion, they still weren’t happy at the outcome and wished they could find a way to punish us further as they didn’t think it was enough.
Well, well done EFL, you found a way.
What an absolute disgrace.

And they way they gave us two different sets of fixtures to allow that dipshit at Wycombe an open door to make his ******** claim. 

Never forget their statement after we got the £100k fine.
When they were "disappointed" at the outcome and "regrettably" could find no grounds to appeal it.
That would be after going through their own disciplinary processes, the processes that are written in the rules, the processes we are all supposed to have faith in coming to the correct conclusion, they still weren’t happy at the outcome and wished they could find a way to punish us further as they didn’t think it was enough.
Well, well done EFL, you found a way.
What an absolute disgrace.

Exactly, the rule states the safety car will come in at the end of the following lap (which would have been the final lap) after the last lapped car goes past the leader, not about 5 seconds later at the end of the same lap!
You’d be going in the wrong direction, the EFL are based in Preston ?

I doubt it when you consider that if we were under new ownership we’d be somewhat stabilised and clubs would know we weren’t going to accept a pittance for our players, if not then they’ll be thinking they can try their luck with pathetic offers and they’ll believe we’ll have no choice but to accept it. That’s of no benefit surely? If we’re going to sell players we want the offers to be realistic, it devalues the club even more if not.

I doubt it when you consider that if we were under new ownership we’d be somewhat stabilised and clubs would know we weren’t going to accept a pittance for our players, if not then they’ll be thinking they can try their luck with pathetic offers and they’ll believe we’ll have no choice but to accept it. That’s of no benefit surely? If we’re going to sell players we want the offers to be realistic, it devalues the club even more if not.

Not sure that's relevant. Had the rules been adhered to the GP would have finished under the safety car so that defence is completely moot. The safety car can only leave the track at the end of the lap AFTER the track is cleared, not the same lap. As you say, I agree  that the FIA will likely try to wriggle out of their predicament but would a civil court find in RB's favour? I'd venture that's rather less cut and dried. If Merc make it clear that's their next option should the FIA choose to ignore their responsibilities, will the governing body be so keen to gloss over their errors or will they have to take their licks and do what is right. After the great publicity the sport has enjoyed this season, the FIA has managed to totally destroy the good will earned, so there are arguably wider issues in play too should they wish viewing figures to remain buoyant.

We’re still not allowed the same number of players as every other club, and it’s pretty obvious why they’ve done that.
Other clubs have the ‘Established Player’ rule, which is 24 players (under 21’s don’t count) that have started 5 games.
We have the ‘Permitted Player’ rule, which is 25 players (of any age) who have started 3 league matches in the Championship or above, or any player registered after the agreement.
What they really mean is if you plan on signing some players, or extending some contracts in January, we’re going to stop you playing your youngsters from the start in games as they will count towards the 25 players if they start 3 games.
Basically we’ve taken a massive punishment and we’re STILL being made to play by different rules to every other club in this league.
Disgraceful.

It’d have to be agreed with the player being subbed off, but I’d love it if Wayne made a sub to bring one of the youngsters on after a few seconds.
I know we might end up having to play with less players if we get injuries during the game, but it would certainly make a clear point, especially if it was a TV game, and would be within the rules as they’ve been presented in that document.

We’re still not allowed the same number of players as every other club, and it’s pretty obvious why they’ve done that.
Other clubs have the ‘Established Player’ rule, which is 24 players (under 21’s don’t count) that have started 5 games.
We have the ‘Permitted Player’ rule, which is 25 players (of any age) who have started 3 league matches in the Championship or above, or any player registered after the agreement.
What they really mean is if you plan on signing some players, or extending some contracts in January, we’re going to stop you playing your youngsters from the start in games as they will count towards the 25 players if they start 3 games.
Basically we’ve taken a massive punishment and we’re STILL being made to play by different rules to every other club in this league.
Disgraceful.

We’re still not allowed the same number of players as every other club, and it’s pretty obvious why they’ve done that.
Other clubs have the ‘Established Player’ rule, which is 24 players (under 21’s don’t count) that have started 5 games.
We have the ‘Permitted Player’ rule, which is 25 players (of any age) who have started 3 league matches in the Championship or above, or any player registered after the agreement.
What they really mean is if you plan on signing some players, or extending some contracts in January, we’re going to stop you playing your youngsters from the start in games as they will count towards the 25 players if they start 3 games.
Basically we’ve taken a massive punishment and we’re STILL being made to play by different rules to every other club in this league.
Disgraceful.

We’re still not allowed the same number of players as every other club, and it’s pretty obvious why they’ve done that.
Other clubs have the ‘Established Player’ rule, which is 24 players (under 21’s don’t count) that have started 5 games.
We have the ‘Permitted Player’ rule, which is 25 players (of any age) who have started 3 league matches in the Championship or above, or any player registered after the agreement.
What they really mean is if you plan on signing some players, or extending some contracts in January, we’re going to stop you playing your youngsters from the start in games as they will count towards the 25 players if they start 3 games.
Basically we’ve taken a massive punishment and we’re STILL being made to play by different rules to every other club in this league.
Disgraceful.

Probably, I think I’ve lost the plot trying to keep up with all the rules! ?
Players under the age of 21 don’t count to any limit for any other club though, which has the same effect.
 

Cool. So we have to beg if we want to use the same rules that Stoke have used then? Parts iv and v are interesting too...

Established player rule is only for soft embargo, isn't it?

We’re still not allowed the same number of players as every other club, and it’s pretty obvious why they’ve done that.
Other clubs have the ‘Established Player’ rule, which is 24 players (under 21’s don’t count) that have started 5 games.
We have the ‘Permitted Player’ rule, which is 25 players (of any age) who have started 3 league matches in the Championship or above, or any player registered after the agreement.
What they really mean is if you plan on signing some players, or extending some contracts in January, we’re going to stop you playing your youngsters from the start in games as they will count towards the 25 players if they start 3 games.
Basically we’ve taken a massive punishment and we’re STILL being made to play by different rules to every other club in this league.
Disgraceful.

We can complain when other clubs with more significant breaches get the same, without the added baggage of two years worth of EFL restrictions.
Our treatment has been so massively disproportionate by comparison.

So when it says "start" what about sub appearances? Could we play Cashin numerous times coming on in second half for example?