Appeal to EFL

[wilsdenrover]

4 minutes ago, RevidgeBlue said:

Thanks both.

I'm not sure how anyone can surmise an appeal would succeed in either of the above forums when the Club haven't even divulged the reason/s on which they are appealing.

I think people are surmising it based on IF the  ‘what if we’re relegated’ reason is the real reason.

Of course, as you say, none of us know if this is the reason or not - there’s every chance we never will!

[glen9mullan]

10 minutes ago, jim mk2 said:

Are IPS our usual lawyers and would they have been working on transfer deadline night?

Or do you think this is a new lot?

Why does Farnell concern you? 

IPS we used on Berg, Shaw case,

Farnell roots go back to SEM days

To be clear this is who they'd likely use against EFL and im not linking them to the deals on the day, as I don't know who they used to draw up the contracts.

Edited February 13, 2023 by glen9mullan

[RevidgeBlue]

26 minutes ago, wilsdenrover said:

I think people are surmising it based on IF the  ‘what if we’re relegated’ reason is the real reason.

Of course, as you say, none of us know if this is the reason or not - there’s every chance we never will!

Fair enough.

FWIW imo even IF the reason for the appeal was the EFL asking what would happen if we were promoted then relegated then that wouldn't be a valid reason imo.

If the EFL raise any sort of  requisition within reason then it would still be incumbent on us to answer it to their satisfaction before the deadline expired.

[wilsdenrover]

22 minutes ago, RevidgeBlue said:

Fair enough.

FWIW imo even IF the reason for the appeal was the EFL asking what would happen if we were promoted then relegated then that wouldn't be a valid reason imo.

If the EFL raise any sort of  requisition within reason then it would still be incumbent on us to answer it to their satisfaction before the deadline expired.

Surely to be ‘within reason’ it needs to be within their own regulations?

Otherwise all clubs would have to second guess what would have to be included in any deal 

 

[R0verb0y]

2 hours ago, jim mk2 said:

... ... ... ...

... ... ... ...

The FA Cup is different though. I want a day out at Wembley before I pop my clogs

 

You and me both, @jim mk2.

The Full Members' Cup in 1987 and Cardiff 21 years ago were both, in their different ways, a bit special. But as one who had even less chance than most fans of a Cup Final ticket in 1960, I would really love it if we got to a F.A. Cup Final; and, at least, competed with whichever team was in the other dressing room.

Being there to witness that is one reason why I pay Waggott's Poll Tax - £10 to be a member of the "1875 Club" - to, more or less, guarantee a ticket for a "Must not miss" game like a Cup Final.

[Mike E]

47 minutes ago, RevidgeBlue said:

Fair enough.

FWIW imo even IF the reason for the appeal was the EFL asking what would happen if we were promoted then relegated then that wouldn't be a valid reason imo.

If the EFL raise any sort of  requisition within reason then it would still be incumbent on us to answer it to their satisfaction before the deadline expired.

Problem being, you only need to submit proof a transfer has been agreed by 11pm (which we obviously did at 10.50pm for the EFL to respond to), surely as long as the details were hashed out and submitted by 1am, the deal should've been allowed?

This is where I'm struggling, unless I've got it badly wrong.

Edited February 13, 2023 by Mike E

[DeeCee]

2 hours ago, rigger said:

I've still got my wembley hotel booked for the play-offs.

"Are you Chaddy in disguise?" (Chant) 

Admire your optimism, love it to happen 💯

[wilsdenrover]

2 hours ago, rigger said:

I've still got my wembley hotel booked for the play-offs.

Non refundable??

[JHRover]

1 hour ago, jim mk2 said:

Are IPS our usual lawyers and would they have been working on transfer deadline night?

Or do you think this is a new lot?

Why does Farnell concern you? 

Broughton has already confirmed that the lawyers dealing with it were Centrefields in Manchester. 

[RevidgeBlue]

1 minute ago, Mike E said:

Problem being, you only need to submit proof a transfer has been agreed by 11pm (which we obviously did at 10.50pm for the EFL to respond to), surely as long as the details were hashed out and submitted by 1am, the deal should've been allowed?

This is where I'm struggling, unless I've got it badly wrong.

I thought you had to submit some sort of a deal sheet containing the broad outline of an agreement between the two Clubs then the full details could be submitted within the additional period. 

Presumably, we didn't do that.

[Atko's Engine]

This delay is certainly not what any of us expected and does nothing but make a mockery of the whole process. Tomorrow will be 2 weeks since the events concerned, I struggle to see the point of an appeals process that takes this long in this context, it just leaves all involved in limbo and leads to more ill-conceived speculation and fosters more distrust. 

FWIW, the club had to appeal if they thought they had a strong case imo, regardless of any prior precedent. I'm guessing this is an isolated case based on a particularly unique set of facts not adjudicated on before, so precedents don't apply.

However this ends up, transparency has to be key to any subsequent investigation carried out by the club, and the EFL.

[Mike E]

3 minutes ago, RevidgeBlue said:

I thought you had to submit some sort of a deal sheet containing the broad outline of an agreement between the two Clubs then the full details could be submitted within the additional period. 

Presumably, we didn't do that.

We submitted the broad outline at 10.50pm (in fact the club were certain the deal was completed, so presumably much more than a broad outline), as the EFL responded by asking about relegation.

If this bit was after 11pm, it's open and shut case and the EFL wouldn't have bothered asking.

Equally, none of the alleged discrepancies (player's agent name misspelt and moot relegation clause) would cause a blocked transfer at the 'broad outline' stage. At least, not in a sane world.

Edited February 13, 2023 by Mike E

[RevidgeBlue]

27 minutes ago, wilsdenrover said:

Surely to be ‘within reason’ it needs to be within their own regulations?

Otherwise all clubs would have to second guess what would have to be included in any deal 

 

Does anyone on here know for a fact what the regulations say about what you DO have to provide?

Without knowing that and without knowing that what they (allegedly) asked for isn't stipulated  or without knowing whether there's an additional catch all  in the regs about "or whatever additional info the EFL might reasonably require" etc it's impossible to say the EFL were being unreasonable at fault.

[RevidgeBlue]

6 minutes ago, Mike E said:

We submitted the broad outline at 10.50pm (in fact the club were certain the deal was completed, so presumably much more than a broad outline), as the EFL responded by asking about relegation.

If this bit was after 11pm, it's open and shut case and the EFL wouldn't have bothered asking.

Equally, none of the alleged discrepancies (player's agent name misspelt and moot relegation clause) would cause a blocked transfer at the 'broad outline' stage. At least, not in a sane world.

You're assuming there, Nixon is correct and/or has the full facts in his possession.

[wilsdenrover]

5 minutes ago, RevidgeBlue said:

I thought you had to submit some sort of a deal sheet containing the broad outline of an agreement between the two Clubs then the full details could be submitted within the additional period. 

Presumably, we didn't do that.

The deal sheet only confirms that negotiations have been concluded (and the fee if applicable) prior to the deadline.

I’ve no idea if we submitted one of these or not.

 

[chaddyrovers]

Its totally farcical that the EFL hasn't sorted this out yet. They are completely waste of time with most things. They are more bothered about streaming TV games from 2024/25 season which will not help stadium attendances one bit. 

2 very good excellent posts there @Mike E 

11 minutes ago, JHRover said:

Broughton has already confirmed that the lawyers dealing with it were Centrefields in Manchester. 

thanks for the info JH

[rigger]

18 minutes ago, DeeCee said:

"Are you Chaddy in disguise?" (Chant) 

Admire your optimism, love it to happen 💯

How very dare you.

[wilsdenrover]

11 minutes ago, RevidgeBlue said:

Does anyone on here know for a fact what the regulations say about what you DO have to provide?

Without knowing that and without knowing that what they (allegedly) asked for isn't stipulated  or without knowing whether there's an additional catch all  in the regs about "or whatever additional info the EFL might reasonably require" etc it's impossible to say the EFL were being unreasonable at fault.

https://www.efl.com/-more/governance/efl-rules--regulations/efl-regulations/section-6---players/
 
clause 47.3.1

[Mike E]

15 minutes ago, RevidgeBlue said:

You're assuming there, Nixon is correct and/or has the full facts in his possession.

No I'm assuming based on GB's words (10.50pm submission) and the fact we've appealled, and the fact the appeal hasn't been answered 3 working days after it was due to be.

Remove the Nixon element from anything I've said and the point remains. There is no reason for this to drag if the fault lies entirely with Rovers.

[M_B]

Although we all want the EFL to be all over this situation, and we're hoping they're working hard to find a conclusion ,has there been confirmation that they're actually likely to come to a decision any time soon, or are people guessing. 

The Tevez thing took forever. 

 

[ElTwis]

 A Club will still be deemed to have met the deadline if, even after the deadline, amendments are requested by the League to correct errors or omissions in the documents already submitted, but both the League and the FA will not complete the registration of the Player until the amendments are provided and found to be in order.

This feels fairly relevant!

 

[Exiled_Rover]

2 hours ago, Andy said:

As we sit right this second, we’re a point off the play offs with a game in hand.

Theres defeatist and then there’s defeatist, holy shit.

Vale, Gallagher and Brereton-Diaz haven't scored since the World Cup break (12 games).

There's defeatist then there's realist. 

Edited February 13, 2023 by Exiled_Rover

[neophox]

8 minutes ago, Exiled_Rover said:

Vale, Gallagher and Brereton-Diaz haven't scored since the World Cup break (12 games).

There's defeatist then they're realist. 

That's why we're not in the top three right now...Vale is pants.. Gally was hoping for a Mowbray escape in January and Breos head is in Spain. Should had sold them all in January and invested in his own strikers..

[rigger]

17 minutes ago, neophox said:

That's why we're not in the top three right now...Vale is pants.. Gally was hoping for a Mowbray escape in January and Breos head is in Spain. Should had sold them all in January and invested in his own strikers..

You can only sell players, if there are buyers.

[47er]

1 hour ago, Mike E said:

No I'm assuming based on GB's words (10.50pm submission) and the fact we've appealled, and the fact the appeal hasn't been answered 3 working days after it was due to be.

Remove the Nixon element from anything I've said and the point remains. There is no reason for this to drag if the fault lies entirely with Rovers.

Wonder if O'Brien will be allowed to play the last game of the season?!!