Process is clearly set out in rules.
Management body makes decision
Clubs can appeal to independent tribunal
Independent tribunal decision is final.
You cant just litigate because you feel that decision is not "fair". you would have to show financial loss due to breach of rules or process that decision was reached (ie if independent tribunal didn't act strictly as per rules.) I cant see scope for it.
Our Glorious Leader will be announcing plans for some sort of phased ending of Lockdown today I believe. I could be wrong but I suspect phased ending for idiots means they can all go out now (as a lot of them have been doing anyway)...and for businesses means they can pressure people into going back to work...and for rich sporting bodies will mean they can restart in some form for the 'integrity' of the competition. As usual what this means for footy I will be interested to know.
FWIW, I've had a quick skim of the EFL rules and section 3 sub-sections 9 & 10 appear to cover the process of determining league Champions and remaining promoted clubs and who goes into the play-off competition.
Section 5 covers who can/must play in fixtures, regarding eligibility etc..
What I DIDN'T see stated, and I'm looking for someone else to prove me wrong, is any statement in the rules that a season MUST comprise of each team playing every other team home & away nor that every team must have played the same number of matches in a season.
I'm sure those details OUGHT to be in there, I just don't see them.
Anyway, on my quick reading if the season is deemed to have finished then the rules appear, to me, to suggest they could just say the tables stand as they now are - no need for PPG adjustment - and go into the play-offs which I'd argue could be played BCD. We'd obviously have missed out finishing in 8th place.
Does anyone have the time to read the rules in full?
@Malone said:
Sunday is the big reveal @Wendoverman. To go live Monday apparently
Got to keep the Sunday papers happy, or one of them at least.
How is a Sunday announcement going to please a Sunday newspaper? Much like when the BFP got annoyed when Wycombe started making all its major announcements on Friday to annoy them.
Not sure about any of this legal or non legal argument. I don't think a rule exists to cover this situation and unfortunately if money is the major driver legal action will inevitably happen.
I am getting nervous about an early lockdown release. Had it described in my work briefing this morning as 'the most dangerous time yet'.
@Malone said:
Sunday is the big reveal @Wendoverman. To go live Monday apparently
Got to keep the Sunday papers happy, or one of them at least.
How is a Sunday announcement going to please a Sunday newspaper? Much like when the BFP got annoyed when Wycombe started making all its major announcements on Friday to annoy them.
Not sure about any of this legal or non legal argument. I don't think a rule exists to cover this situation and unfortunately if money is the major driver legal action will inevitably happen.
I am getting nervous about an early lockdown release. Had it described in my work briefing this morning as 'the most dangerous time yet'.
Let's see if they have the details in the morning and become the big story before it's officially announced. I suspect they might.
Quite agree about the rush to open up too soon. My company is also taking the view that it'll be a long while before we should be back in the office.
It sounds like all that will happen in the first instance is we'll have more freedom to go outside and be able to sit/sunbathe/whatever in parks rather than just move through them - hardly much of a relaxation. Unfortunately, the tabloids have whipped up a frenzy because Johnson couldn't keep his mouth shut. There does need to be some kind of easing as you just can't keep people cooped up at home for months on end - and better to very slightly relax the rules rather than wait for lockdown to collapse, plus the impact on people's mental health and those at risk of domestic abuse needs to be taken into account.
Practicality decrees that the economy cannot survive if we don't get back to work and the bare fact is most people will not die of it and to some extent we need to establish some sort of immunity. The question is do we trust the government to put in place the vigorous testing regime that we need to properly protect the vulnerable and allow life for the rest of us to return to normal or not. I'm not convinced myself. We're not Trump yet, but when the Steve Bakers of the world start talking about lock down being 'tyranny' (while social distancing and claiming his ten grand government bung himself of course) you doubt any of the usual suspects have got the public's safety in mind. I must admit I've had enough of being cooped up but I've got two people in the house with underlying health issues and government letters!
Key part of the rules for me is section 9-arbitration.
Effect of which makes legal action to me impossible as long as they do the arbitration properly.
Johnson has delayed his announcement from thursday until Sunday to stop people jumping the gun with any lockdown easing over the bank holiday weekend. To be fair to the government, seems wise.
@DevC said:
Key part of the rules for me is section 9-arbitration.
Effect of which makes legal action to me impossible as long as they do the arbitration properly.
Johnson has delayed his announcement from thursday until Sunday to stop people jumping the gun with any lockdown easing over the bank holiday weekend. To be fair to the government, seems wise.
But it's already being reported @DevC from our confidential leak free government/civil service so get ready for a busy covidiot weekend
@Malone said:
Sunday is the big reveal @Wendoverman. To go live Monday apparently
Got to keep the Sunday papers happy, or one of them at least.
How is a Sunday announcement going to please a Sunday newspaper? Much like when the BFP got annoyed when Wycombe started making all its major announcements on Friday to annoy them.
Not sure about any of this legal or non legal argument. I don't think a rule exists to cover this situation and unfortunately if money is the major driver legal action will inevitably happen.
I am getting nervous about an early lockdown release. Had it described in my work briefing this morning as 'the most dangerous time yet'.
Let's see if they have the details in the morning and become the big story before it's officially announced. I suspect they might.
Quite agree about the rush to open up too soon. My company is also taking the view that it'll be a long while before we should be back in the office.
The TV address is Sunday at 7pm. I imagine the papers will be pretty well briefed on most of the main details and the PM will then reinforce the key points in the evening. If you look at the papers they already have a pretty good idea of the likely measures - staggered working hrs, return to work with distancing and/or PPE.
@chairboyscentral said:
Unfortunately, the tabloids have whipped up a frenzy because Johnson couldn't keep his mouth shut.
Interesting view on it all as I'd have said our PM has been very very quiet in recent days having already been out of action for so long.
Lockdown is easing day by day regardless of what anyone in charge says. I actually think a harder lockdown for the next two weeks would help us in the long run.
Anything less than continued lockdown would be wholly reckless.
The amount of people with zero scientific knowledge, or as far as I can tell, knowledge full stop confidently stating that we should finish restrictions and that they'll be "fine going to the pub" is precisely the reason that restrictions need to be continued.
From how I understand it, most other countries in Europe have eased their lockdown restrictions to just slightly more restrictive than our current lockdown restrictions so hard to see anything other than very minor cosmetic changes in the near future.
The government have to sort out a way to pass the buck onto businesses to get many back in work and then to find a way to get hold of enough face masks for commuters without it impacting on proper PPE for those who need it.
@bookertease said:
From how I understand it, most other countries in Europe have eased their lockdown restrictions to just slightly more restrictive than our current lockdown restrictions so hard to see anything other than very minor cosmetic changes in the near future.
The government have to sort out a way to pass the buck onto businesses to get many back in work and then to find a way to get hold of enough face masks for commuters without it impacting on proper PPE for those who need it.
Ah the joys of a service sector economy...
I think that's a fair assessment. It's a shame we have such a significant number of uninformed hard right /libertarians who can't or won't understand that them going out isn't just "at their own risk", it also directly contributes to everyone else's risk. I'm sure I learnt about exponential growth while young enough to not have a choice to learn about it, seems a lot of people didn't.
A bigger shame is that this viewpoint runs a lot of the print media as seen by yesterdays preemptive stories of lockdown being lifted.
Not sure I think it is totally reckless @Username the fact is we have to 'get on with it' as the economy will completely tank and then we are all literally ****ed. (I'm not saying this is a good thing you understand). There is a need for proper testing to ensure protection of the vulnerable until a vaccine is available but the majority of us will not die and need to have a certain amount of exposure if any sort of immunity is to be established before the flu season in the autumn (it never rains) or we'll all be eating rice in our bunkers forever. It is just not feasible that lock-down stays until a vaccine is developed. My concern is our government (and I am sure this would possibly have been the case whoever was in) will ease restrictions without the necessary planning and preparation with a view to explaining any subsequent spike in deaths was 'unavoidable' as this situation is 'unprecedented' when it comes round to elections and inquiries!
Anybody else read the article about this quote being right on the money as alot of the politician's involved in the lockdown decision are desparate to restart their ex marital affairs.
@chairboyscentral said:
Unfortunately, the tabloids have whipped up a frenzy because Johnson couldn't keep his mouth shut.
Interesting view on it all as I'd have said our PM has been very very quiet in recent days having already been out of action for so long.
Lockdown is easing day by day regardless of what anyone in charge says. I actually think a harder lockdown for the next two weeks would help us in the long run.
I mean yesterday he commented on maybe easing things from Monday, causing speculation which really isn't helpful, especially when the tabloids do their thing. People then get the wrong end of the stick - you don't want to give any impression that things will be back to normal. This, basically:
Never good enough at sums for economics @Glenactico .
I'll rephrase. I'm not sure of the proper terminology. I suspect that lots of people not working or being paid for a long time and businesses unable to trade or plan for a prolonged period and Governments not being able to prop up the financial system indefinitely might possibly have a very detrimental effect in both the long and short term on our economy...and in fact that of the world.
Comments
I would be heavily against getting involved in any btw unless there was good evidence that we'd been done badly and we had any chance of winning.
Process is clearly set out in rules.
Management body makes decision
Clubs can appeal to independent tribunal
Independent tribunal decision is final.
You cant just litigate because you feel that decision is not "fair". you would have to show financial loss due to breach of rules or process that decision was reached (ie if independent tribunal didn't act strictly as per rules.) I cant see scope for it.
Our Glorious Leader will be announcing plans for some sort of phased ending of Lockdown today I believe. I could be wrong but I suspect phased ending for idiots means they can all go out now (as a lot of them have been doing anyway)...and for businesses means they can pressure people into going back to work...and for rich sporting bodies will mean they can restart in some form for the 'integrity' of the competition. As usual what this means for footy I will be interested to know.
Sunday is the big reveal @Wendoverman. To go live Monday apparently
Got to keep the Sunday papers happy, or one of them at least.
FWIW, I've had a quick skim of the EFL rules and section 3 sub-sections 9 & 10 appear to cover the process of determining league Champions and remaining promoted clubs and who goes into the play-off competition.
Section 5 covers who can/must play in fixtures, regarding eligibility etc..
What I DIDN'T see stated, and I'm looking for someone else to prove me wrong, is any statement in the rules that a season MUST comprise of each team playing every other team home & away nor that every team must have played the same number of matches in a season.
I'm sure those details OUGHT to be in there, I just don't see them.
Anyway, on my quick reading if the season is deemed to have finished then the rules appear, to me, to suggest they could just say the tables stand as they now are - no need for PPG adjustment - and go into the play-offs which I'd argue could be played BCD. We'd obviously have missed out finishing in 8th place.
Does anyone have the time to read the rules in full?
https://www.efl.com/-more/governance/efl-rules--regulations
How is a Sunday announcement going to please a Sunday newspaper? Much like when the BFP got annoyed when Wycombe started making all its major announcements on Friday to annoy them.
Not sure about any of this legal or non legal argument. I don't think a rule exists to cover this situation and unfortunately if money is the major driver legal action will inevitably happen.
I am getting nervous about an early lockdown release. Had it described in my work briefing this morning as 'the most dangerous time yet'.
Ah yes...I meant Him and Dom are writing the plan on the back of an envelope today...
And I see Angela is getting the Bundesliga up and running again.
Let's see if they have the details in the morning and become the big story before it's officially announced. I suspect they might.
Quite agree about the rush to open up too soon. My company is also taking the view that it'll be a long while before we should be back in the office.
My daughter is just reciting the details which seem to be knocking about on the interweb...modern times, eh?
Yes, my company's view is that there will be no rush back for those homeworkers at the moment or relaxing of social distance measures.
It sounds like all that will happen in the first instance is we'll have more freedom to go outside and be able to sit/sunbathe/whatever in parks rather than just move through them - hardly much of a relaxation. Unfortunately, the tabloids have whipped up a frenzy because Johnson couldn't keep his mouth shut. There does need to be some kind of easing as you just can't keep people cooped up at home for months on end - and better to very slightly relax the rules rather than wait for lockdown to collapse, plus the impact on people's mental health and those at risk of domestic abuse needs to be taken into account.
Practicality decrees that the economy cannot survive if we don't get back to work and the bare fact is most people will not die of it and to some extent we need to establish some sort of immunity. The question is do we trust the government to put in place the vigorous testing regime that we need to properly protect the vulnerable and allow life for the rest of us to return to normal or not. I'm not convinced myself. We're not Trump yet, but when the Steve Bakers of the world start talking about lock down being 'tyranny' (while social distancing and claiming his ten grand government bung himself of course) you doubt any of the usual suspects have got the public's safety in mind. I must admit I've had enough of being cooped up but I've got two people in the house with underlying health issues and government letters!
Key part of the rules for me is section 9-arbitration.
Effect of which makes legal action to me impossible as long as they do the arbitration properly.
Johnson has delayed his announcement from thursday until Sunday to stop people jumping the gun with any lockdown easing over the bank holiday weekend. To be fair to the government, seems wise.
The Scottish Government seems wiser and more decisive to me Dev. I never thought I would say that incidentally.
But it's already being reported @DevC from our confidential leak free government/civil service so get ready for a busy covidiot weekend
@StrongestTeam said:
The TV address is Sunday at 7pm. I imagine the papers will be pretty well briefed on most of the main details and the PM will then reinforce the key points in the evening. If you look at the papers they already have a pretty good idea of the likely measures - staggered working hrs, return to work with distancing and/or PPE.
Interesting view on it all as I'd have said our PM has been very very quiet in recent days having already been out of action for so long.
Lockdown is easing day by day regardless of what anyone in charge says. I actually think a harder lockdown for the next two weeks would help us in the long run.
Anything less than continued lockdown would be wholly reckless.
The amount of people with zero scientific knowledge, or as far as I can tell, knowledge full stop confidently stating that we should finish restrictions and that they'll be "fine going to the pub" is precisely the reason that restrictions need to be continued.
From how I understand it, most other countries in Europe have eased their lockdown restrictions to just slightly more restrictive than our current lockdown restrictions so hard to see anything other than very minor cosmetic changes in the near future.
The government have to sort out a way to pass the buck onto businesses to get many back in work and then to find a way to get hold of enough face masks for commuters without it impacting on proper PPE for those who need it.
Ah the joys of a service sector economy...
I think that's a fair assessment. It's a shame we have such a significant number of uninformed hard right /libertarians who can't or won't understand that them going out isn't just "at their own risk", it also directly contributes to everyone else's risk. I'm sure I learnt about exponential growth while young enough to not have a choice to learn about it, seems a lot of people didn't.
A bigger shame is that this viewpoint runs a lot of the print media as seen by yesterdays preemptive stories of lockdown being lifted.
Not sure I think it is totally reckless @Username the fact is we have to 'get on with it' as the economy will completely tank and then we are all literally ****ed. (I'm not saying this is a good thing you understand). There is a need for proper testing to ensure protection of the vulnerable until a vaccine is available but the majority of us will not die and need to have a certain amount of exposure if any sort of immunity is to be established before the flu season in the autumn (it never rains) or we'll all be eating rice in our bunkers forever. It is just not feasible that lock-down stays until a vaccine is developed. My concern is our government (and I am sure this would possibly have been the case whoever was in) will ease restrictions without the necessary planning and preparation with a view to explaining any subsequent spike in deaths was 'unavoidable' as this situation is 'unprecedented' when it comes round to elections and inquiries!
'literally ****ed' eh?
Where did you study economics?
Anybody else read the article about this quote being right on the money as alot of the politician's involved in the lockdown decision are desparate to restart their ex marital affairs.
I mean yesterday he commented on maybe easing things from Monday, causing speculation which really isn't helpful, especially when the tabloids do their thing. People then get the wrong end of the stick - you don't want to give any impression that things will be back to normal. This, basically:
I agree it's already easing, thanks to the GBP taking it into their own hands - but the best of us would start to crack soon.
Never good enough at sums for economics @Glenactico .
I'll rephrase. I'm not sure of the proper terminology. I suspect that lots of people not working or being paid for a long time and businesses unable to trade or plan for a prolonged period and Governments not being able to prop up the financial system indefinitely might possibly have a very detrimental effect in both the long and short term on our economy...and in fact that of the world.
But I'm sure you sort of knew that that was what I was suggesting, didn't you?
In a bid to help I think it may be that we are all “metaphorically ****ed” (although @Right_in_the_Middle’s interpretation did make me smile)
Maybe @Wendoverman studied Keynesian economics @Glenactico, I have heard it said from many in Wycombe that anyone following them should be ***ked.
Oh hang on, wrong Keynes ...
I did indeed