Derby finally accept 21 point deduction.

[Tamworthram]

6 minutes ago, Tyler Durden said:

I've worked for several companies where they have the pendulum system to disciplinary appeals - anyone can appeal the sanction meted out to them but with the caveat that if they don't convince the new manager overseeing the appeal and they think that the initial punishment was actually too lean then they can increase the punishment and there will be no further recourse for appeal beyond this. 

I have a totally different experience. 
 

As a manager in the financial services industry and a school governor, I have chaired both disciplinary hearings and appeals. In both environments it would be unthinkable and outrageous for the person appealing to know that a failed appeal could result in an increased punishment.

[Guest]

I agree Tamworthram, but in both cases you are talking about rational organistaions that have accountability to their stakeholders…

ie they are not a “law unto themselves”

Until we see an independent regulatory body in football expect to see similar acts that follow the expected pattern of a dictatorship.

Andrew

[Tyler Durden]

8 minutes ago, Tamworthram said:

I have a totally different experience. 
 

As a manager in the financial services industry and a school governor, I have chaired both disciplinary hearings and appeals. In both environments it would be unthinkable and outrageous for the person appealing to know that a failed appeal could result in an increased punishment.

I wasn't questioning the merits or demerits of the practice was just saying in the industry I've worked in its standard procedure.

Whether it be unthinkable or outrageous really is a moot point and ultimately totally subjective - if people think this then they don't sign their employment contract, simple as. 

[Tyler Durden]

13 minutes ago, Andrew1 said:

I agree Tamworthram, but in both cases you are talking about rational organistaions that have accountability to their stakeholders…

ie they are not a “law unto themselves”

Until we see an independent regulatory body in football expect to see similar acts that follow the expected pattern of a dictatorship.

Andrew

Totally disagree with your statement - I've worked for huge multinationals who have accountability to their stakeholders. 

Just because they have a different way of dealing with disciplinary appeals doesn't make them any less enlightened then another company per se. 

[DCFC1388]

I can understand why the EFL would want the admins to pay the fee if they were to appeal but a couple of things...

They want to add more points if an appeal is rejected? Isnt the minus 12 points deducted for admin already enough?

Secondly, where is the part in which they take accountability for their own actions? Wigan for example, went into admin due to their owner losing interest after a few months, how did they even pass the EFLs owners tests? Surely some blame lies at their door?

All these current owners wanting to vote for these new rules, cant wait for it to bite them on their arse, these are the same people who didnt fight for more TV money & voted in the ridiculous FFP/P&S rules.

[Tyler Durden]

Am also certain that if you appeal for example a driving offence and take it to court and you lose the fine/number of points increases subsequently.

Using that analogy I still can't fathom why people can't get their heads around this concept of losing an appeal and the punishment potentially increasing. 

[PistoldPete]

6 minutes ago, Tyler Durden said:

Totally disagree with your statement - I've worked for huge multinationals who have accountability to their stakeholders. 

Just because they have a different way of dealing with disciplinary appeals doesn't make them any less enlightened then another company per se. 

There is no possible way that Efl can justify their stated position. 
 

as Tamworth ram has said , in the financial services industry for example this just wouldn’t be thought of as being remotely acceptable.

the comparison would be someone making a complaint about a bank.. and if they were unsuccessful then they have to pay extra money to the bank.. which would be an obvious flaw to a regulatory process … which should give people the right to raise a complaint without fear of reprisals.

 

 

 

[PistoldPete]

11 minutes ago, Tyler Durden said:

Am also certain that if you appeal for example a driving offence and take it to court and you lose the fine/number of points increases subsequently.

Using that analogy I still can't fathom why people can't get their heads around this concept of losing an appeal and the punishment potentially increasing. 

That is completely different.. the fixed penalty is meant to be like a plea bargain.

[Tyler Durden]

2 minutes ago, PistoldPete said:

There is no possible way that Efl can justify their stated position. 
 

as Tamworth ram has said , in the financial services industry for example this just wouldn’t be thought of as being remotely acceptable.

the comparison would be someone making a complaint about a bank.. and if they were unsuccessful then they have to pay extra money to the bank.. which would be an obvious flaw to a regulatory process … which should give people the right to raise a complaint without fear of reprisals.

 

 

 

But clearly I've just said that in the industry I work in it can be seen as custom and practice? So then are you implying therefore that this isn't remotely acceptable to quote you? And it's also not remotely acceptable for a driving offence fine to increase if you lose your appeal and so on?

Think people are muddling two issues here, that the EFL do not have any integrity to fairly deal with issues which I'm not debating here or the fact that a number of current employers and the courts deal on a lose an appeal and the fine increases basis which I've just evidenced. 

[PistoldPete]

2 hours ago, Ghost of Clough said:

Why did the appeal rule not need revoking after Wigan's attempt?

And why did stadium sales not get banned after Aston Villa, Sheffield Wednesday, Reading etc.

and some people still try and claim the Efl are not biased against us? 

[PistoldPete]

Just now, Tyler Durden said:

But clearly I've just said that in the industry I work in it can be seen as custom and practice? So then are you implying therefore that this isn't remotely acceptable to quote you? And it's also not remotely acceptable for a driving offence fine to increase if you lose your appeal and so on?

Think people are muddling two issues here, that the EFL do not have any integrity to fairly deal with issues which I'm not debating here or the fact that a number of current employers and the courts deal on a lose an appeal and the fine increases basis which I've just evidenced. 

I don’t know what industry you work in but if it’s unacceptable for banks to operate like that .. and banks are not exactly the most customer friendly organisations then I dread to think what sort of organisations you work for.

[Tyler Durden]

Just now, PistoldPete said:

I don’t know what industry you work in but if it’s unacceptable for banks to operate like that .. and banks are not exactly the most customer friendly organisations then I dread to think what sort of organisations you work for.

I've just said if you read back that I've worked for huge multinationals not some backstreet garage operations. 

I was merely saying that agree or disagree it happens - so it's no surprise to me when I see other organisations following the same lead, and especially when the courts in England operate on the same basis for driving offence appeals then I can't understand the angst.

[Gee SCREAMER !!]

1 hour ago, Tyler Durden said:

I've worked for several companies where they have the pendulum system to disciplinary appeals - anyone can appeal the sanction meted out to them but with the caveat that if they don't convince the new manager overseeing the appeal and they think that the initial punishment was actually too lean then they can increase the punishment and there will be no further recourse for appeal beyond this. 

That's sounds like a recipe for disaster.  Someone with high anxiety or in a depressive state would never appeal as the rumination of the issue getting worse would prevent it.  Hence, they would be far easier to bully for any over officious toady in the workplace.  

[Tyler Durden]

1 minute ago, Gee SCREAMER !! said:

That's sounds like a recipe for disaster.  Someone with high anxiety or in a depressive state would never appeal as the rumination of the issue getting worse would prevent it.  Hence, they would be far easier to bully for any over officious toady in the workplace.  

I think the idea is to discourage potentially frivolous appeals but yes absolutely if someone was sanctioned with a final written warning for example then they would be aware if they appealed if the appeal wasn't upheld and the person who chaired the hearing considered in retrospect that the original sanction was too lenient then that person could potentially lose their job.

I'm not trying to flog whether this is right or wrong just speaking from my experience and because of this the stance potentially taken in the future by the EFL doesn't come across nearly as Draconian for myself as other posters have experienced themselves. 

 

[Crewton]

The Administrators are appealing the PD for the benefit of the creditors - if it gets removed or reduced, the price will be higher and more cash will go to creditors.

How on earth can Administrators be expected to rationally and fairly weigh up the relative merit of lodging an appeal if the threat of losing £300k is hanging over them? 

What an absolutely ludicrous proposal. Let's see them get that passed without a legal challenge. 

[Guest]

41 minutes ago, Tyler Durden said:

Totally disagree with your statement - I've worked for huge multinationals who have accountability to their stakeholders. 

Just because they have a different way of dealing with disciplinary appeals doesn't make them any less enlightened then another company per se. 
 

Well we will have to agree to disagree.  It would be unfortunate to mistake “shareholders” with “stakeholders”. Employees are generally stakeholders.  Which employee who wouldn’t need to be certified would condone such draconian disciplinary procedures.  Increasing punishments as retaliation to an appeal is a long way from being enlightened.

Andrew

[B4ev6is]

6 minutes ago, Gee SCREAMER !! said:

That's sounds like a recipe for disaster.  Someone with high anxiety or in a depressive state would never appeal as the rumination of the issue getting worse would prevent it.  Hence, they would be far easier to bully for any over officious toady in the workplace.  

Well perhaps if efl had not played dirty on Derby agreeing years and years accounts and then signing them until one day banker gibson kicks off I think if some is cleared of all wrong doing person that club then should get that point deduction instead.

[Guest]

Not sure a few points and or a driver re-education course stack up to angst, but loosing your livelihood for having the audacity to challenge something potentially unfair is several orders of difference.

not even comparable.

Andrew

[Tyler Durden]

1 minute ago, Andrew1 said:

Not sure a few points and or a driver re-education course stack up to angst, but loosing your livelihood for having the audacity to challenge something potentially unfair is several orders of difference.

not even comparable.

Andrew

You're muddling two things up as I stated earlier - the integrity of the people governing the process which I'm not debating or the process itself which I am.

[Guest]

No muddling here, I simply disagree.