The Scarlet Pimpernel

Less than 2,000 home tickets available.

28 minutes ago, TheresOnlyWanChope said:

That is true. Certainly, where is the evidence of 'cheating?' There isn't. There was no cheating of the rules and I challenge any Boro or Forest fan to tell me otherwise! I do know however that industry standard is important to look at though for accountancy practitioners, so I definitely think whoever was in charge of this strategy, Pearce maybe? really made a poor choice. If Derby cheated, shall we assume all the upcoming clubs who breached FFP will be labelled as cheats? I assume they will also get deducted points regardless of COVID arguments as force majeure was not an argument Derby could use. I also assume that if there suddenly COVID does qualify as exemption, Derby will get some of their points back. I assume the EFL will deal with this quickly- conforming this season that COVID will not count as exemptions for FFP in the years 2020/21 so that DCFC has been fairly treated, and not let the season finish then change the rules ...hmmmmmm

Totally agree and you put it much better than I would have. It should really be forwarded to Parry.

5 minutes ago, TheresOnlyWanChope said:

Going against industry standard I guess

But you would think that's a case of "Come on lads we prefer you to be in line with industry standards so alter accordingly from now". It certainly doesn't deserve the absolute kicking we got. I know we are all a little more relaxed as we are moving forward it seems but this still all stinks like crazy. 

8 minutes ago, Jourdan said:

Any chance this game gets called off because of Storm Eunice?

High winds aren't forecast on Saturday for Derby.

Don't want to re-open an old debate as such but I'm still confused as to what rule we broke by using the amortisation method we did? Inland Revenue seemed happy, our accountants happy, IDC happy apart from communication issues..............What rule did we break Mr Maguire?

3 minutes ago, WystonRam said:

Just over 2100 left for Saturday.

That's a really good effort. I think 1000 more sold and we will be, with Peterborough at 1600, around a 30,000 attendance. 

24 minutes ago, one_chop said:

I've got a bad feeling about this upcoming fixture. Just when we can make progress I think it will be a massive underachievement. Please prove me wrong for once Derby.

But unlike you to be downbeat onechop! 

56 minutes ago, kevinhectoring said:

95 doesn’t allow Boro to claim. 95 tells you what sort of disputes are required to be subject to arbitration (rather than action in the courts)

@i-Ram is maintaining that clubs can’t sue each other under the rules. We know that this is not the view held by sports lawyers. Because when Boro tried to intervene in our EFl dispute, we and Boro agreed the starting point is that the EFl rules are a multilateral contract to which all clubs are party which allows clubs in principle to sue each other for breach. If you read para 13 of the LAP decision in the Middlesborough intervention you will see that this is unarguable. Nevertheless a number of people on here continue to argue against it !! 

According to Parry and as I read it 95 was used in the Boro claim. Are you trying to split hairs by any chance?

12 minutes ago, vonwright said:

I guess the point of the rule was to have some sort of backstop to prevent clubs suing each other in court, and doing their washing in public. But if clubs don't trust the arbitration process, or if the process is too slow and spurious claims don't get weeded out quickly, then it's probably better these cases do end in court. 

The rule is part of the problem but I'd also blame Wycombe and Boro for their use of the rule. It's never been put to this use before and there's a reason for that - clubs suing each other for 'damages' in this way could become an epidemic and is bad news for the game. 

Perhaps the EFL need to specify the cases where they would arbitrate and say 'for anything else you need to take it to court'. 

Totally agree, but I think its too late to close the stable door as the horse has bolted with Gibson digging in the spurs.

It seems QPR were sanctioned at the end of 2013/14 season when they beat us to go up. There was then a three year legal battle which QPR lost. They then had to 20th November 2017 to appeal.

If we take the end of the three year battle as the date they were officially guilty then it seems we have until 20th November 2023 to bring a claim against them?

21 minutes ago, ColonelBlimp said:

Is there a time limit for claims mentioned under EFL rules or do they default to UK company rules?

They say their rules are based upon English law. Not sure how that applies to potential action against QPR. If its 6 years max as some say then it will count from when QPR were found guilty of FFP irregularities. Not sure when that was?

2 minutes ago, Foreveram said:

 

3,237

This is another excellent effort. Not sure if home tickets available add up to 29,000 0r perhaps 30,000 but either way to get best part of 26,000 - 27,000 home fans at this point is fantastic. Derby County supporters, simply the best!!

However bad the EFL rules are all clubs as members have signed up to them. As it turns out this is misguided.  I think this fiasco, that has almost destroyed our club, is good for one thing only and that is it shows up the EFL rules for what they are, a load of contradictory rubbish. That in itself is not the fault of the EFL because they I presume are following the legal advice as written by their legal experts. Effectively what is normally kept in the shadows and is normally the preserve of the legal establishment has had a massive light shone upon it and now the lay man ( if interested) can see they haven't done a good enough job and in reality it isn't fit for purpose.

Of course most supporters of most clubs will be blissfully unaware of what potentially now could happen in respect of claims and counter claims and so the EFL will try to plod along as they always have. I expect after the dust has settled they will try to change or add a rule that stops clubs taking direct action against one another. Whether they do or not will depend upon how quickly they are put out of business by the government.

Oh well............ UTR

11 minutes ago, The Scarlet Pimpernel said:

So what in essence is rule 95? 

Quoting myself but I've just read regulation 95 which does indeed in my opinion allow Boro to claim. It also therefore allows every other club to claim against each other if you can show you may have been affected by another's actions. 

Very dodgy waters now for the whole of the EFL. Perhaps we could do away with football and all gather to watch legal proceedings unfold. Forget Messi, it's Nick De-Marco, the new superstar. 

So what in essence is rule 95? 

Cashin's distribution looked a class above but unfortunately Sibley looked a class below. Not knocking him, just that as a player who has aspirations for the first team he has to be much much better than that. 

Although Jags is the real miss in defence we also need Stearman back ASAP. Curtis needs help. 

No criticism from me. The team have done incredibly well this season and its still all to play for. Come on Wayne and the boys UTR

Charlotte FC as in owned by billionaire David Tepper?

Even if we go down, the last game needs to be a huge celebration marking the 50 years. 

54 minutes ago, Dimmu said:

Latest to the growing list of players who I'd love to play against. Just one game and I'd teach him some empathy...

Boy, do I miss football sometimes.

Dimmu. Sorry if I've missed it and excuse my ignorance but who did you used to play for? Pretty sure it was high level? 

As much as I desperately don't want it I can't see trouble not happening on Saturday. 

Love that the suggestion by this guy on twitter that if Boro & Wycombe cause either DCFC to be liquidated or non-football creditors to lose out MP's are going to press to strip football of its preferred creditor status. This will effect the Premier League as well.

Ryan Bourne

@MrRBourne

·

1hcc:

@premierleague@trevor_east@DMAC102@Sjopinion10@sistoney67@JPercyTelegraph@RobDorsettSky@AndyhHolt@acunilicali@RCouhig9

Show this thread

Ryan Bourne

@MrRBourne

·

1hDear

@EFL

chairmen: Listen carefully. If taxpayers lose out due to Boro & Wycombe claims being judged as football debts, or Derby are liquidated due to that issue, MPs will likely remove football’s preferential status Still think

@EFL

working in your interest?

7 minutes ago, kevinhectoring said:

Looked at the Parry comments - they confirm Gibbo bullied EFl into bringing the proceedings against us. That’s why I posted this morning that EFl was woeful in allowing Gibbo and his vendetta to drive their policy. That was then. Now is now 

So isn't that against 4.4? By allowing Boro to bring claims about another club? 

1 hour ago, kevinhectoring said:

 I admit I missed the source for this assertion. Do we have detail as to what was actually said ?? Of is it conjecture based on vague comments in the Boro intervention decision and from Parry  ? 

Others have provided the source Kevin. Further thoughts?