Jump to content

Derby finally accept 21 point deduction.


taggy180

Recommended Posts

26 minutes ago, Woodley Ram said:

So if we did a deal with PSG, Real Madrid and Barcelona so that we bought a load of their fringe players deferred payment for 3 years with an option for them to be bought back that would be legal? we could play all of them as they would not be loans but would effectively only be paying their wages as they would be bought back for the same cost after 3 years......mad    

isnt that what wolves did when they got promoted? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, jono said:

? I do get very serious about certain  things. It’s the way I am made. Things like this get my goat and I turn full on grumpy old goat. ? 

In the end the EFL is a democratic body elected by its members and supposed to represent its electorate in a just manner.

The best recognised democratic process always has 3 key elements 

Legislature

Executive

Judiciary 

The legislature is the EFL: it’s electorate .. it’s members……  It makes the laws on their behalf.

The executive enforces the laws .. it’s the police … or officers appointed by the executive with suitable terms of reference.

The judiciary  becomes involved when laws(rules) are breached

I don't necessarily disagree with what you say, but it's not factually accurate, at least not in the US  or UK. 

The legislature do make the laws.

In the US this Congress and made up of the House of Representatives (usually just called the House) and then Senate with the Senate really being where the power lies with setting laws. The Senate can and does, frequently knock back legislation. They're like the elected version of the House of Lords, but usually more awake, and far likely to strike down laws. If necessary without even presenting them on the Floor when the Party submitting the bill doesn't have a majority.

The Executive implements those laws, they don't enforce them in either country. The Police are not part of the democratic process. Nor are local councils, the Military, or dozens of other roles that give people power.

In the US example, this is The White House.

In the UK it's surprisingly, The Queen, meaning we really don't have a 3-tiered system in anything but name only like the US because she's just a girl who always says yes.

The judiciary do not become involved when laws are breached. Well they do at a lower level, clearly, but the Judiciary as it is referred to in the democratic sense means the Justices i.e. in the US example, The Supremer Court, and they are there to review and where deemed necessary, amend laws.

We do have a Supreme Court in this country but I'm honestly not sure how they are seen constitutionally, or whether they it on top of the tress so to speak, like they do in the US.

If anybody sles knows that (or can be arsed to Google it) I'd be intrigued to know. 

Other than that....

 Mr Bean Thumbs Up GIF

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Woodley Ram said:

So if we did a deal with PSG, Real Madrid and Barcelona so that we bought a load of their fringe players deferred payment for 3 years with an option for them to be bought back that would be legal? we could play all of them as they would not be loans but would effectively only be paying their wages as they would be bought back for the same cost after 3 years......mad    

That would be legal but amortisation will be charged straight away.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, swanny said:

isnt that what wolves did when they got promoted? 

Wolves had like likes of Jota, Boly and Vinagre on loan, compulsory to buy at the end of the season or when promoted (can't remember which but both occurred at the same time anyway.
Also Neves who was bought, but small upfront fee with very large promotion bonus

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Bob The Badger said:

I don't necessarily disagree with what you say, but it's not factually accurate, at least not in the US  or UK. 

The legislature do make the laws.

In the US this Congress and made up of the House of Representatives (usually just called the House) and then Senate with the Senate really being where the power lies with setting laws. The Senate can and does, frequently knock back legislation. They're like the elected version of the House of Lords, but usually more awake, and far likely to strike down laws. If necessary without even presenting them on the Floor when the Party submitting the bill doesn't have a majority.

The Executive implements those laws, they don't enforce them in either country. The Police are not part of the democratic process. Nor are local councils, the Military, or dozens of other roles that give people power.

In the US example, this is The White House.

In the UK it's surprisingly, The Queen, meaning we really don't have a 3-tiered system in anything but name only like the US because she's just a girl who always says yes.

The judiciary do not become involved when laws are breached. Well they do at a lower level, clearly, but the Judiciary as it is referred to in the democratic sense means the Justices i.e. in the US example, The Supremer Court, and they are there to review and where deemed necessary, amend laws.

We do have a Supreme Court in this country but I'm honestly not sure how they are seen constitutionally, or whether they it on top of the tress so to speak, like they do in the US.

If anybody sles knows that (or can be arsed to Google it) I'd be intrigued to know. 

Other than that....

 Mr Bean Thumbs Up GIF

The Supreme Court was created to try and separate out the judiciary from the legislature by giving them a building of their own and stripping the lord chancellor of some of their capacities such as the ability to sit as a judge. Critically, the supreme court in this country doesn't function as the court in the US due to our uncodified constitution that's a result of the premise that Parliament is ultimately sovereign i.e., no one Parliament can bind a future Parliament. The court cannot for instance overturn primary legislation which makes it far less important as a law body than the US Supreme court. That's what I remember from my UK politics uni classes and A levels at least. 

Edited by Leeds Ram
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Leeds Ram said:

The Supreme Court was created to try and separate out the judiciary from the legislature by giving them a building of their own and stripping the lord chancellor of some of their capacities such as the ability to sit as a judge. Critically, the supreme court in this country doesn't function as the court in the US due to our uncodified constitution that's a result of the premise that Parliament is ultimately sovereign i.e., no one Parliament can bind a future Parliament. The court cannot for instance overturn primary legislation which makes it far less important as a law body than the US Supreme court. That's what I remember from my UK politics uni classes and A levels at least. 

Thanks. I must confess to being a shockingly ignorant of the UK system consider I'm from here.

I know I would get irritated by Americans claiming or presuming that we didn't have a constitution just because it wasn't written down.

But me getting irritated by Americans is nothing to write home about.

As I said in my last letter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Bob The Badger said:

I don't necessarily disagree with what you say, but it's not factually accurate, at least not in the US  or UK. 

The legislature do make the laws.

In the US this Congress and made up of the House of Representatives (usually just called the House) and then Senate with the Senate really being where the power lies with setting laws. The Senate can and does, frequently knock back legislation. They're like the elected version of the House of Lords, but usually more awake, and far likely to strike down laws. If necessary without even presenting them on the Floor when the Party submitting the bill doesn't have a majority.

The Executive implements those laws, they don't enforce them in either country. The Police are not part of the democratic process. Nor are local councils, the Military, or dozens of other roles that give people power.

In the US example, this is The White House.

In the UK it's surprisingly, The Queen, meaning we really don't have a 3-tiered system in anything but name only like the US because she's just a girl who always says yes.

The judiciary do not become involved when laws are breached. Well they do at a lower level, clearly, but the Judiciary as it is referred to in the democratic sense means the Justices i.e. in the US example, The Supremer Court, and they are there to review and where deemed necessary, amend laws.

We do have a Supreme Court in this country but I'm honestly not sure how they are seen constitutionally, or whether they it on top of the tress so to speak, like they do in the US.

If anybody sles knows that (or can be arsed to Google it) I'd be intrigued to know. 

Other than that....

 Mr Bean Thumbs Up GIF

Great discussion ?. The question of the executive is interesting.. we have her majesties armed forces and police. Parliament lays down the laws and gives authority to local councils et al. The Queen .. yes .. she is the White House, the armed forces are hers ….. but she is absolutely constrained by the legislature (Parliament) hence all the ceremony, black rod, barring the door, being refused entry. So my feeling is we do have the 3 tiers .. the anomaly being the arcane House of Lords .. it sort of works but for me it’s ugly .. I kind of like the idea that certain eminence Gris get a level of representation regardless of the mayhem of democracy .. Archbishops, Grand Mufti’s, Chief Rabbis. I think there has to be a place for voices outside ideological politics. In any case, We should have an elected House of Lords 
 

As to the judiciary .. I am not sure how high court judges earn their place ? Is it election by the law lords / our new Supreme Court ? .. not sure. I find it curious that in the US the president has an ability to appoint Supreme Court judges. I don’t know how we do it in the UK or of the majority party has any input. I think @DarkFruitsRam7is a lawyer, perhaps he can enlighten us. 
 

MODS .. we are discussing democratic structures in relation to the EFL and its powers .This isn’t a political discussion ???

???  (well it might be a teensy weensy bit )

Edited by jono
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, jono said:

Great discussion ?. The question of the executive is interesting.. we have her majesties armed forces and police. Parliament lays down the laws and gives authority to local councils et al. The Queen .. yes .. she is the White House, the armed forces are hers ….. but she is absolutely constrained by the legislature (Parliament) hence all the ceremony, black rod, barring the door, being refused entry. So my feeling is we do have the 3 tiers .. the anomaly being the arcane House of Lords .. it sort of works but for me it’s ugly .. I kind of like the idea that certain eminence Gris get a level of representation regardless of the mayhem of democracy .. Archbishops, Grand Mufti’s, Chief Rabbis. I think there has to be a place for voices outside ideological politics. In any case, We should have an elected House of Lords 
 

As to the judiciary .. I am not sure how high court judges earn their place ? Is it election by the law lords / our new Supreme Court ? .. not sure. I find it curious that in the US the president has an ability to appoint Supreme Court judges. I don’t know how we do it in the UK or of the majority party has any input. I think @DarkFruitsRam7is a lawyer, perhaps he can enlighten us. 
 

MODS .. we are discussing democratic structures in relation to the EFL and its powers .This isn’t a political discussion ???

???  (well it might be a teensy weensy bit )

Study law but running a million miles from it as a career.

If I remember my second year studies rightly, Supreme Court judges are chosen by committee. It's nowhere near as political as the US. 

As for @Bob The Badger's question, @Leeds Ram gave a pretty good summary. I would say that the Supreme Court is still powerful though. They were the ones who told the government they could do one when they tried to bypass Parliament during the Brexit process.

Edited by DarkFruitsRam7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Derby are threatened with another nine-point deduction for allegedly breaking accounting regulations.

The independent appeal previously found no case to answer, and efl would have to show that their interpretation of the accounting laws is better than our auditors at the time, who submitted the accounts.

I believe the efl can't do that, they can't remake accounting laws to fit what they think they should be.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account.

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...