duncanjwitham

Not necessarily corrupt, but certainly not fit for purpose

I agree with those 2 things, but I think it's also saying a third.  It's a very public statement of why he won't ever agree to indemnify the club against arbitration losses, because he (rightly or wrongly) doesn't believe in the EFL's arbitration process. He's convinced it's corrupt, so he wants no part of it.

I agree with those 2 things, but I think it's also saying a third.  It's a very public statement of why he won't ever agree to indemnify the club against arbitration losses, because he (rightly or wrongly) doesn't believe in the EFL's arbitration process. He's convinced it's corrupt, so he wants no part of it.

I agree with those 2 things, but I think it's also saying a third.  It's a very public statement of why he won't ever agree to indemnify the club against arbitration losses, because he (rightly or wrongly) doesn't believe in the EFL's arbitration process. He's convinced it's corrupt, so he wants no part of it.

Not sure it was ever clarified, but I’ve always understood that as take us to court if you want to challenge the football creditors ruling, or just go through arbitration if you want the claims deciding. I don’t think they were offering to let us have the claims themselves decided in court.

The way it would work, is that if it went to arbitration, Derby would try to have the case cast out because ‘Boro don’t have the jurisdiction to bring it. The panel may well agree and the case ends after 5 minutes. What the EFL don’t want is for themselves to be the arbiter of what a valid claim is or not, because they’re opening themselves to potential claims from the club they reject.

The way it would work, is that if it went to arbitration, Derby would try to have the case cast out because ‘Boro don’t have the jurisdiction to bring it. The panel may well agree and the case ends after 5 minutes. What the EFL don’t want is for themselves to be the arbiter of what a valid claim is or not, because they’re opening themselves to potential claims from the club they reject.

And obviously that £2.5m is money that wouldn’t be going to actual, genuine creditors. So presumably Quantuma have a decision to make as to whether it’s a justified use of money etc.

The way it would work, is that if it went to arbitration, Derby would try to have the case cast out because ‘Boro don’t have the jurisdiction to bring it. The panel may well agree and the case ends after 5 minutes. What the EFL don’t want is for themselves to be the arbiter of what a valid claim is or not, because they’re opening themselves to potential claims from the club they reject.

He’s never going to indemnify the club for EFL arbitration losses though. He’s literally just written a 4 page essay about how corrupt he thinks they are. 

He’s never going to indemnify the club for EFL arbitration losses though. He’s literally just written a 4 page essay about how corrupt he thinks they are. 

He’s never going to indemnify the club for EFL arbitration losses though. He’s literally just written a 4 page essay about how corrupt he thinks they are. 

He’s never going to indemnify the club for EFL arbitration losses though. He’s literally just written a 4 page essay about how corrupt he thinks they are. 

The reason he has done it this way is to make it clear that the only way for there to be a fair hearing is through the high court.
If he just agrees to indemnify the claim, the EFL and Middlesbrough will continue to push for closed shop arbitration rather than a court decision, where they can select their counsel to get the result they want. Their track record of impartiality when it comes to Derby County is pretty damning.
Mel Morris doesn't trust the EFL to play fair. I don't trust the EFL to play fair either.

He’s never going to indemnify the club for EFL arbitration losses though. He’s literally just written a 4 page essay about how corrupt he thinks they are. 

He’s never going to indemnify the club for EFL arbitration losses though. He’s literally just written a 4 page essay about how corrupt he thinks they are. 

He’s never going to indemnify the club for EFL arbitration losses though. He’s literally just written a 4 page essay about how corrupt he thinks they are. 

He’s never going to indemnify the club for EFL arbitration losses though. He’s literally just written a 4 page essay about how corrupt he thinks they are. 

He’s never going to indemnify the club for EFL arbitration losses though. He’s literally just written a 4 page essay about how corrupt he thinks they are. 

The problem is, by that argument, nobody should be allowed to own a company unless they can personally cover the entire companies operating costs themselves.  If you want to start a company, you basically need to be richer than the company can ever possibly be before you're allowed to start/own it.
So if you start a little bedroom company, and you get to the stage where you're doing well and have got a few employees etc.  Congratulations, the company is now potentially going to cost you more than your entire personal wealth if anything bad happens (like a global pandemic, maybe?). Should you be forced to close the company?  
Like it or not, Limited companies exist for very good reasons, and the upsides of having them far outweigh the risks.
And as for penalties on Morris, there won't be any (as long as hasn't done anything outright illegal, like stole from the pension fund or something, which I don't believe he has).  That's literally the point of limited companies.
If you want to start arguing that football clubs shouldn't be limited companies, then there's maybe some mileage there. But I guarantee you, we would have no bidders at all if the new owners were required to personally guarantee any future losses.  And neither would a lot of clubs.

You have to wonder if that was ever going to happen, seeing as ‘Boro’s counsel is apparently fully booked until May 2022.

Leave the key under the mat, we’ll let ourselves in ?

?QC, give us a wave, QC QC give us a wave ?

?QC, give us a wave, QC QC give us a wave ?

There’s a lot to process in that statement, but the bit about the scheduling of the ‘Boro hearing is genuinely astonishing, given what’s been said by them and the EFL. We’ve been trying to schedule it since they made the claim, but the earliest their counsel was available was May 2022…