As independent as the points deduction panels then.
I've always gone with the idea that anything that has Independent (or Democratic) in its title, isn't.
-
BBC now reporting it.
Premier League Statement!
-
Surely just about any regulation of the EPL is a step in the right direction? No, a government-appointed one won't be perfect but even Ofwat, Ofcom etc are better than no regulator at all, despite their obvious shortcomings. I'll take a slight improvement in governance over no improvement at all.
-
So, apart from the attempt to get the points suspended (makes no sense, if we breach again the penalty will be another points deduction), we just tried to play the same record again. Everton's appeal worked because they pointed out that they were having more points deducted than going into adminstration.
Here's the full verdict (I haven't read it yet): resources.premierleague.com/premierleague/document/2024/05/07/47658880-3376-45a8-b2f6-4ceb80a5cf2a/Nottingham-Forest-Premier-League-appeal-final-judgment.pdf
-
All our mitigation and everything else was accounted for in the original decision when we got two points back on what Everton had been given, it seemed odd that people thought just appealing would knock it down further just because.
-
Why do you think that government oversight of football will lead to a slight improvement in the fairness of its administration, and not a slight or significant degradation? What is it about the history of government oversight of essential human requirements such as water supply that gives you such faith?
-
It's in my personal guidance notes: If they have to tell you what something is, then it probably isn't. Show. Don't tell.
-
I don't know, there's lots of evidence these days of people telling us what they are and yet us somehow convincing ourselves that they aren't that thing. Case in point: Trump, Donald.
-
What like saying he was going to make America great again, and that he won the last election?
You will excuse me if I don't follow every aspect of his anti democratically funded divisive fascist propaganda.
-
I was thinking more of how he tells us in plain language that he's a narcissistic philandering fascist and yet people have convinced themselves that he's a man of God whose sole intention is to improve the daily lot of the average American citizen.
-
I imagine they are the same people who think that an Independent Panel is independent because, well, it says it is in the name.
-
I think the Independent Panel is independent because there are named people on it with serious CVs whose reputations would be needlessly damaged if it came out that they'd just done what the league told them.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Dyson,_Lord_Dyson
www.wilberforce.co.uk/people/david-phillips-kc/
chambers.com/lawyer/daniel-alexander-kc-uk-bar-14:227705Your position is that an 80 year old former member of the UK supreme court just rolled up and did what Richard Masters told him?
-
Are you unfamiliar with the concepts of self-interest and money, and how they sometimes cause things to happen outside what many of us might consider a moral framework? Do you believe that in some circumstances people have private conversations, about things that do not form part of the public record, which may influence thinking on a subject under question?
I find it's best not to assume anything about any individual, good or bad. Show. Not tell.
Personally I don't think the 'independent' panel are bent. It's the attritional aspects of all the baked in bias that ultimately puts you in the final position. Not the refereeing of the goalscoring action. If you have prepped properly, that can look entirely fair...but a bias still exist.
In unrelated news, if I was 80 I wouldn't give a fuck what anybody thought about me, but I would like to do whatever it takes to get me some of that DoE crushed baby juice treatment, to see if I could top ninety.
-
Do you think we had a good case for a reduction in the points deducted?
Given we've pleaded guilty to breaking the rules and there has to be some punishment for that, otherwise what's the point in having rules. After Everton's case and appeal, four points was at the bottom end of what I expected, so there didn't seem much scope for further reduction. The appeal always seemed like a case of "might as well".
Having read the verdict, we just tried to relitigate the date of the Brennan sale by talking about Sheffield Wednesday's ground again (because we can't introduce any new mitigation), which was never going to be overturned.
I realise when it comes to football, everyone's a QAnon adherent nowadays but I just can't see it.
Which is why you have two other panelists who are in the middle of careers. (And don't we nominate one of them?)
-
People with an emotional attachment to a particular outcome are going to be up in arms when it isn't achieved, no matter the logic involved.
-
Well I've seen a number of Independent Non Execs who really aren't and follow the money. So yes, I guess I am saying that is possible.
I admire your faith in someone who is old and has a fancy title not wanting freebies to big games (for example).
