Derby finally accept 21 point deduction.

[Tyler Durden]

Just now, Andrew1 said:

No muddling here, I simply disagree.

You disagree that I've exampled two scenarios where the sanction can potentially increase on appeal? 

I must be making them up then. 

[Guest]

Anyhow it’s getting late.  If I am late in the morning my boss can kick me in the balls.  If I complain, and another manager disagrees then he is allowed to publicly flog me. ?

No hard feelings, be boring if everyone agreed about everything. 
 

andrew

[Comrade 86]

[Tamworthram]

10 hours ago, Tyler Durden said:

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. 

I understand that you weren’t advocating such an approach. I was just saying in my career, and I have experience of disciplinary and appeal hearings ( fortunately never as the accused), I have never come across it as an HR policy and would be surprised if the unions allowed it.

[jono]

10 hours 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

Exactly. “Double or quits” doesn’t strike me as a good foundation for the advancement of natural justice.

There is a point about vexatious actions that the EFL might like to consider in the light of their own conduct. 

[Tamworthram]

9 hours ago, 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.

Just a point of correction. I was talking about disciplinary action which of course relates to staff not customers. However, I also worked on a cross divisional complaint handling project for two banks and the same would apply. There is no way that a customer complaining would result in them being in a worse position than before if their complaint wasn’t upheld. 
 

I accept that @Tyler Durden says he has worked for companies that adopt the HR policy he has described. I’m just astonished that it exists especially in large multi nationals.

Anyway, we have digressed somewhat.

[PistoldPete]

2 minutes ago, jono said:

Exactly. “Double or quits” doesn’t strike me as a good foundation for the advancement of natural justice.

There is a point about vexatious actions that the EFL might like to consider in the light of their own conduct. 

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. 

     

 

[PistoldPete]

13 minutes ago, Tamworthram said:

Just a point of correction. I was talking about disciplinary action which of course relates to staff not customers. However, I also worked on a cross divisional complaint handling project for two banks and the same would apply. There is no way that a customer complaining would result in them being in a worse position than before if their complaint wasn’t upheld. 
 

I accept that @Tyler Durden says he has worked for companies that adopt the HR policy he has described. I’m just astonished that it exists especially in large multi nationals.

Anyway, we have digressed somewhat.

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. 

[Ghost of Clough]

9 hours ago, Tyler Durden said:

You disagree that I've exampled two scenarios where the sanction can potentially increase on appeal? 

I must be making them up then. 

Maybe in normal businesses, but an appeal against an administration punishment cannot be worsened under the current rules.

[May Contain Nuts]

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"

Edited November 1, 2021 by Coconut's Beard

[Ram-Alf]

11 hours ago, 86 Hair Islands said:

Just seen why the kid turned and bailed.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[i-Ram]

2 hours ago, Coconut's Beard said:

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"

I have given you a like because I agree with amost everything, but the EFL rules and regs are all approved by the member clubs aren't they? Are the EFL not just implementing policies which the member clubs have agreed ?

[PistoldPete]

10 minutes ago, i-Ram said:

I have given you a like because I agree with amost everything, but the EFL rules and regs are all approved by the member clubs aren't they? Are the EFL not just implementing policies which the member clubs have agreed ?

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?

[I know nuffin]

Which of the EFL rules and actions are fit for purpose? Did 71 clubs vote for ffp expect 15 matches into a season Reading who admit breaking ffp rules and have not appealed still not had a points deduction. Did the vote that the likes of QPR who broke ffp to get promoted would get a fine of less than 10% of their extra cash when they came back down and not a points deduction that they would have done if they failed to get promotion. In derbys case how much has it cost both Derby and the other clubs (the EFL only has money from the club's and don't generate any themselves) to get an agreement of what fs102 states on amortization of items like players or the length of time it has taken to get to a final result for a club following EFL procedures. Then we have on club suing another club , what are they doing to the club's that the EFL have a tribunal ruling to say they cannot. Could go on about acts by managers, the quality of referees and many other examples where the EFL do nothing. Fit for purpose, not by me

[i-Ram]

1 hour ago, PistoldPete said:

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?

Whoaaaa. We only have Nixon saying they are proposing to change the rules, and he added that would be after Derby’s case had been heard. So Derby are not being affected by this “possible’ change of rules, and if there is a rule change Derby will have a vote with the other 71 member clubs as to whether the rule is adopted. Would that not be a more accurate assessment of where we are at the moment?

[May Contain Nuts]

2 hours ago, i-Ram said:

I have given you a like because I agree with amost everything, but the EFL rules and regs are all approved by the member clubs aren't they? Are the EFL not just implementing policies which the member clubs have agreed ?

Yes, the clubs agree to the rules and vote in/agree to changes to the rules; that always has been and always will be the case. When there's no realistic alternative though it's a bit of a sham.

The EFL dictate whether you're allowed to play in their league. You could up sticks and apply to play elsewhere, but where? Shall we join ask to join the Welsh or Irish leagues? Start up our own league system?

Football clubs don't tend to have a collective conscience (albeit they often pretend to, they never do when it matters), they're in it for themselves, they're in competition with each other not in collusion; anyone who challenges the status quo is going to find themselves very much isolated with at best a handful of clubs willing to back them up.

Do we need look any further than our own doorstep for proof of what happens to clubs who challenge the rules? We've got head honcho of the EFL telling us all of the ways in which the system is broken while at the same time  slapping us down for pointing it out years ago, and for trying to work a way around it!

Edited November 1, 2021 by Coconut's Beard

[PistoldPete]

18 minutes ago, i-Ram said:

Whoaaaa. We only have Nixon saying they are proposing to change the rules, and he added that would be after Derby’s case had been heard. So Derby are not being affected by this “possible’ change of rules, and if there is a rule change Derby will have a vote with the other 71 member clubs as to whether the rule is adopted. Would that not be a more accurate assessment of where we are at the moment?

Derby are affected by EFL saying they are "shocked" we are appealing and if Nixon is right they are again effectivley casting doubt on the merits of Derbys appeal, given the timing of the move... which just stokes up an already angry lynch mob against us.

[Ram-Alf]

10 minutes ago, Coconut's Beard said:

 

Football clubs don't tend to have a collective conscience (albeit they often pretend to, they never do when it matters), they're in it for themselves, they're in competition with each other not in collusion; anyone who challenges the status quo is going to find themselves very much isolated with at best a handful of clubs willing to back them up.

Do we need look any further than our own doorstep for proof of what happens to clubs who challenge the rules?

You've got head honcho of the EFL telling us wall the ways in which the system is broken while at the same time  slapping us down for pointing it out years ago, and for trying to work a way around it!

Boom!

Thou shall not upset the apple cart

ie, We(EFL)negotiated the TV rights with Sky and got what we THOUGHT was a good deal for all.

A few clubs including us(DCFC)knew we had a good product but the EFL under sold that product according to those who wanted a better deal for all.

The EFL have never forgotten or will they forgive, The EFL don't like to be told they're wrong, And some other Chairman are piling in for their own vanity.

 

 

[i-Ram]

13 minutes ago, Coconut's Beard said:

Yes, the clubs agree to the rules and vote in/agree to changes to the rules; that always has been and always will be the case. When there's no realistic alternative though it's a bit of a sham.

The EFL dictate whether you're allowed to play in their league. You could up sticks and apply to play elsewhere, but where? Shall we join ask to join the Welsh or Irish leagues? Start up our own league system?

Football clubs don't tend to have a collective conscience (albeit they often pretend to, they never do when it matters), they're in it for themselves, they're in competition with each other not in collusion; anyone who challenges the status quo is going to find themselves very much isolated with at best a handful of clubs willing to back them up.

Do we need look any further than our own doorstep for proof of what happens to clubs who challenge the rules? We've got head honcho of the EFL telling us all of the ways in which the system is broken while at the same time  slapping us down for pointing it out years ago, and for trying to work a way around it!

Thanks Coconut. I agree with this too. I am not standing up for the EFL. I just wanted it made clear, not necessarily to you, that the EFL do not set and implement rules without the consensus agreement of the member clubs.

[i-Ram]

2 minutes ago, PistoldPete said:

Derby are affected by EFL saying they are "shocked" we are appealing and if Nixon is right they are again effectivley casting doubt on the merits of Derbys appeal, given the timing of the move... which just stokes up an already angry lynch mob against us.

Seems to wind you up for sure ?