duncanjwitham

It's all in DC2. There's pages and pages of it, but this is a good bit:

But the claim wasn't concluded in Autumn 2020...
The original hearing result was August 2020, when we were basically cleared of everything.
The EFL appeal result was May 2021.
The decision on Sanction was June 2021.
The agreed decision on FFP issues was November 2021.

There's endless precedent in EFL cases about not being able to correlate overspending with specific footballing outcomes.  You simply cannot argue that one team breaching rules directly affects the results/league position of any other team. 
That covers the confidentiality issue they moan about too.  We don't need to know what their actual claims are. If they are claiming that their league position was affected by our overspending, then there's no case to answer, regardless of how they are claiming we 'cheated'.

There's endless precedent in EFL cases about not being able to correlate overspending with specific footballing outcomes.  You simply cannot argue that one team breaching rules directly affects the results/league position of any other team. 
That covers the confidentiality issue they moan about too.  We don't need to know what their actual claims are. If they are claiming that their league position was affected by our overspending, then there's no case to answer, regardless of how they are claiming we 'cheated'.

There's endless precedent in EFL cases about not being able to correlate overspending with specific footballing outcomes.  You simply cannot argue that one team breaching rules directly affects the results/league position of any other team. 
That covers the confidentiality issue they moan about too.  We don't need to know what their actual claims are. If they are claiming that their league position was affected by our overspending, then there's no case to answer, regardless of how they are claiming we 'cheated'.

It's all in DC2. There's pages and pages of it, but this is a good bit:

It's all in DC2. There's pages and pages of it, but this is a good bit:

Unfortunately I'm not sure this is the smoking gun some of you think it is. Under that rule, *if* we were to lose an arbitration, there's no doubt in my mind that the money would be classed as a football creditor. The rule is just a list of which entities count as football creditors, it makes no real attempt to classify different types of debts or anything, it simply says that all money owed to other clubs is a football creditor debt, full stop.  The fact that the amount owing is as yet unresolved (and may well be zero) doesn't change the fact we would owe it.
The way to attack their claims are their rights to bring them in the first place, covering the illegality of taking action against clubs in admin, the fact 'Boro's claim has already been looked at and basically kicked out, the fact they're trying to re-run EFL disciplinary cases because they didn't agree with the outcomes, and probably plenty of other things too.
And if it does come to an actual hearing, we have precedent on our side anyway:

and

Both taken from the DC2 hearing against us, but are quoting the judgments against Birmingham and Sheff Weds respectively.  You cannot take evidence of overspending and convert it into any quantifiable measure of actual performance gain.
https://www.efl.com/contentassets/873a8914e09740d3b3a8848131ea10b8/210630---efl-v-Derby-county---decision-on-sanction-final.pdf

No, it was definitely the actual EFL account, with a video of him scoring on.

Unfortunately I'm not sure this is the smoking gun some of you think it is. Under that rule, *if* we were to lose an arbitration, there's no doubt in my mind that the money would be classed as a football creditor. The rule is just a list of which entities count as football creditors, it makes no real attempt to classify different types of debts or anything, it simply says that all money owed to other clubs is a football creditor debt, full stop.  The fact that the amount owing is as yet unresolved (and may well be zero) doesn't change the fact we would owe it.
The way to attack their claims are their rights to bring them in the first place, covering the illegality of taking action against clubs in admin, the fact 'Boro's claim has already been looked at and basically kicked out, the fact they're trying to re-run EFL disciplinary cases because they didn't agree with the outcomes, and probably plenty of other things too.
And if it does come to an actual hearing, we have precedent on our side anyway:

and

Both taken from the DC2 hearing against us, but are quoting the judgments against Birmingham and Sheff Weds respectively.  You cannot take evidence of overspending and convert it into any quantifiable measure of actual performance gain.
https://www.efl.com/contentassets/873a8914e09740d3b3a8848131ea10b8/210630---efl-v-Derby-county---decision-on-sanction-final.pdf

Unfortunately I'm not sure this is the smoking gun some of you think it is. Under that rule, *if* we were to lose an arbitration, there's no doubt in my mind that the money would be classed as a football creditor. The rule is just a list of which entities count as football creditors, it makes no real attempt to classify different types of debts or anything, it simply says that all money owed to other clubs is a football creditor debt, full stop.  The fact that the amount owing is as yet unresolved (and may well be zero) doesn't change the fact we would owe it.
The way to attack their claims are their rights to bring them in the first place, covering the illegality of taking action against clubs in admin, the fact 'Boro's claim has already been looked at and basically kicked out, the fact they're trying to re-run EFL disciplinary cases because they didn't agree with the outcomes, and probably plenty of other things too.
And if it does come to an actual hearing, we have precedent on our side anyway:

and

Both taken from the DC2 hearing against us, but are quoting the judgments against Birmingham and Sheff Weds respectively.  You cannot take evidence of overspending and convert it into any quantifiable measure of actual performance gain.
https://www.efl.com/contentassets/873a8914e09740d3b3a8848131ea10b8/210630---efl-v-Derby-county---decision-on-sanction-final.pdf

Unfortunately I'm not sure this is the smoking gun some of you think it is. Under that rule, *if* we were to lose an arbitration, there's no doubt in my mind that the money would be classed as a football creditor. The rule is just a list of which entities count as football creditors, it makes no real attempt to classify different types of debts or anything, it simply says that all money owed to other clubs is a football creditor debt, full stop.  The fact that the amount owing is as yet unresolved (and may well be zero) doesn't change the fact we would owe it.
The way to attack their claims are their rights to bring them in the first place, covering the illegality of taking action against clubs in admin, the fact 'Boro's claim has already been looked at and basically kicked out, the fact they're trying to re-run EFL disciplinary cases because they didn't agree with the outcomes, and probably plenty of other things too.
And if it does come to an actual hearing, we have precedent on our side anyway:

and

Both taken from the DC2 hearing against us, but are quoting the judgments against Birmingham and Sheff Weds respectively.  You cannot take evidence of overspending and convert it into any quantifiable measure of actual performance gain.
https://www.efl.com/contentassets/873a8914e09740d3b3a8848131ea10b8/210630---efl-v-Derby-county---decision-on-sanction-final.pdf

Unfortunately I'm not sure this is the smoking gun some of you think it is. Under that rule, *if* we were to lose an arbitration, there's no doubt in my mind that the money would be classed as a football creditor. The rule is just a list of which entities count as football creditors, it makes no real attempt to classify different types of debts or anything, it simply says that all money owed to other clubs is a football creditor debt, full stop.  The fact that the amount owing is as yet unresolved (and may well be zero) doesn't change the fact we would owe it.
The way to attack their claims are their rights to bring them in the first place, covering the illegality of taking action against clubs in admin, the fact 'Boro's claim has already been looked at and basically kicked out, the fact they're trying to re-run EFL disciplinary cases because they didn't agree with the outcomes, and probably plenty of other things too.
And if it does come to an actual hearing, we have precedent on our side anyway:

and

Both taken from the DC2 hearing against us, but are quoting the judgments against Birmingham and Sheff Weds respectively.  You cannot take evidence of overspending and convert it into any quantifiable measure of actual performance gain.
https://www.efl.com/contentassets/873a8914e09740d3b3a8848131ea10b8/210630---efl-v-Derby-county---decision-on-sanction-final.pdf

Like it or not, it's a last-minute winning goal in the biggest game of the season, of course they're going to keep replaying it.

It's definitely true, I saw it on my Twitter feed last night and thought it was a little bit inappropriate.

To be fair (not that they deserve it etc), they do regularly tweet happy birthday to EFL former/current players from that account, and they have tweeted that specific video several times in the last 18 months (mostly around the playoff final date), so it's almost certainly an unfortunate coincidence. Their social media person just looking for random content to post and re-using a video they already have access to.
I certainly think it's very unlikely that the people that may or may not have a vendetta against us are actively running their Twitter feed.

No, it was definitely the actual EFL account, with a video of him scoring on.

It's definitely true, I saw it on my Twitter feed last night and thought it was a little bit inappropriate.

Don't worry mate, it will pass soon ?

Don't worry mate, it will pass soon ?

Not defending anyone here, but what I suspect has happened, is that 'Boro have basically waited until the entire disciplinary process was complete before they formally filed their claim, which didn't happen until November 2021.  After all, there's no point arguing about Derby's punishment if we're still mid-disciplinary process.  The "in a year" thing presumably dates back to them trying to muscle in on the appeal hearing.  I doubt there's been a single case sitting gathering dust for a year with no one looking at it, it's various claims, and rejections, and intentions to claim etc over that time.
And I don't think the EFL were ever intending "looking into it". They just want to stay well clear and palm it off to an independent panel to sort out.  They're only getting involved now because it's clear everything is getting gummed up and they're desperately trying to broker a deal to get things moving again.

Don't worry mate, it will pass soon ?

Don't worry mate, it will pass soon ?

Don't worry mate, it will pass soon ?

Don't worry mate, it will pass soon ?