EFL appeal

[Sparkle]

I wonder how Stoke will get on with their four year investigation and appeal processes following their losses declared today £90 million 

EFL football is broken 

[Curtains]

4 hours ago, Spanish said:

sorry this has never been confirmed, happy if you can prove it.

The LAP had the power to enforce a penalty but as that did not allow an appeal they thought it unfair.  They referred this to the EFL who allowed the LAP to transfer the decision to the IDC.  Not sure why the EFL have made such a decision as it is an advantage to us for that to happen.  This is all fact.

Given this I doubt until proven otherwise that they have no right of appeal.  Maybe I'm wrong but it is very odd

https://www.efl.com/-more/governance/efl-rules--regulations/section-8---offences-inquiries-commissions-disputes-and-appeals/

Section 94 I think 

[Spanish]

8 minutes ago, Curtains said:

https://www.efl.com/-more/governance/efl-rules--regulations/section-8---offences-inquiries-commissions-disputes-and-appeals/

Section 94 I think 

for me it still fails to describe the scenario we and the EFL are in.  The appeals process is supposed to follow 

1. IDC make a decision
2. One of the parties appeal it
3. LAP make a final decision

end of

it was never anticipated I guess that the LAP would refer it back to the IDC

 

Have I missed something Curtains?

 

[Curtains]

10 minutes ago, Spanish said:

for me it still fails to describe the scenario we and the EFL are in.  The appeals process is supposed to follow 

1. IDC make a decision
2. One of the parties appeal it
3. LAP make a final decision

end of

it was never anticipated I guess that the LAP would refer it back to the IDC

 

Have I missed something Curtains?

 

It’s just the bit in section 94 that says the DC can’t appeal unless of the other scenarios I don’t quite understand.  It’s almost like the DC make a final decision and we appeal and then they can’t unless the scenarios apply 

Why the hell did the EFL refer it back to the DC at all !

Spanish it’s so confusing 

Edited May 27, 2021 by Curtains
Changed and added

[Spanish]

3 minutes ago, Curtains said:

It’s just the bit in section 94 that says the DC can’t appeal unless of the other scenarios I don’t quite understand.  It’s almost like the DC make a final decision and we appeal and then they can’t unless the scenarios apply 

the appeal would be from the EFL not DC though

94.?

[Curtains]

3 minutes ago, Spanish said:

the appeal would be from the EFL not DC though

94.?

Isn’t that referring to the EFL appeal against the original DC decision of not guilty 

[Curtains]

17 minutes ago, Spanish said:

for me it still fails to describe the scenario we and the EFL are in.  The appeals process is supposed to follow 

1. IDC make a decision
2. One of the parties appeal it
3. LAP make a final decision

end of

it was never anticipated I guess that the LAP would refer it back to the IDC

 

Have I missed something Curtains?

 

That’s why I can’t understand why they referred it back to DC 

They have made a hash of it 

[rynny]

18 hours ago, Tamworthram said:

I don’t know any differently but, are we sure a) we’re under a transfer embargo and if so b) it’s because the club hasn’t submitted accounts? 
 

Our accounts are now 11 months overdue so, why haven’t we been under embargo all that time?

 

Someone on here mentioned that we entered draft version of the accounts last year and the EFL wanted use those against us in the appeal. 

[RadioactiveWaste]

6 minutes ago, rynny said:

Someone on here mentioned that we entered draft version of the accounts last year and the EFL wanted use those against us in the appeal. 

True, and it was dismissed.

As was the EFL request for a completely new hearing (i.e. retrial, but some Latin words)

As was Middlesbrough fc's demand to have another go at prosecution because the EFL ducked up their case.

[Eatonram]

25 minutes ago, Curtains said:

That’s why I can’t understand why they referred it back to DC 

They have made a hash of it 

Section 94 does not appear to give power of imposing any sanction, just of making a decision?

[Curtains]

17 minutes ago, Eatonram said:

Section 94 does not appear to give power of imposing any sanction, just of making a decision?

I think the whole of section 9 goes up its own arse 

https://www.efl.com/-more/governance/efl-rules--regulations/section-9--arbitration/

Edited May 27, 2021 by Curtains

[therealhantsram]

On 25/05/2021 at 18:09, MackworthRamIsGod said:

My argument exactly...just what kind of advantage have we gained from doing what we did? If anything we have completely snooker ourselves by buying overpriced chaff and can no longer afford to buy players.

What the EFL seem to be doing is taking a club that is clearly in a poor state and beating it until it breaks. How could they ever claim to be in it for the good of the game.

Gibson's argument is that we gained 3 money-spinning playoff games against Leeds and Villa, and denied them their 'rightful' place in the playoffs.

[RadioactiveWaste]

Its really not our fault Steve Gibson thought employing Tony pulis was a good idea.

1 minute ago, therealhantsram said:

Gibson's argument is that we gained 3 money-spinning playoff games against Leeds and Villa, and denied them their 'rightful' place in the playoffs.

 

[Dean (hick) Saunders]

Section #Stinky Jobby says I’m fed up with everything related to this.

[Sparkle]

1 hour ago, therealhantsram said:

Gibson's argument is that we gained 3 money-spinning playoff games against Leeds and Villa, and denied them their 'rightful' place in the playoffs.

He did say they were going to ‘smash the league’ the other season but nobody thought he meant the whole EFL 

[Eatonram]

2 hours ago, Curtains said:

I think the whole of section 9 goes up its own arse 

https://www.efl.com/-more/governance/efl-rules--regulations/section-9--arbitration/

95.5.3  in the case of appeal against sanction, the grounds are that the original sanction was too severe or too lenient having regard to all the circumstances.

 

This to me suggests that both club and EFL can appeal any sanction as clearly no Club would appeal a sanction for being to lenient.

[Gaspode]

4 hours ago, Sparkle said:

I wonder how Stoke will get on with their four year investigation and appeal processes following their losses declared today £90 million 

EFL football is broken 

John Percy reporting that Stoke are considering selling their stadium to avoid FFP issues….

[Van der MoodHoover]

2 hours ago, Curtains said:

I think the whole of section 9 goes up its own arse 

https://www.efl.com/-more/governance/efl-rules--regulations/section-9--arbitration/

Or "usque ad asinum suum" as the lawyers would describe in Latin... ?

[JfR]

7 minutes ago, Gaspode said:

John Percy reporting that Stoke are considering selling their stadium to avoid FFP issues….

In fairness to Stoke, they have, by most accounts, always been a club that backed us against the EFL charges. Can see why, now.

[Wolfie20]

8 minutes ago, Gaspode said:

John Percy reporting that Stoke are considering selling their stadium to avoid FFP issues….

There's a major problem with going down that route ............. it's still in Stoke!