Indy

2 hours ago, Raich Carter said:

I think it's only a few things that Directors can be sued for - such as :

Contracting personally

Acting beyond company authority

Misrepresentation

Bribery and corruption

Health and Safety

Serious Data Protection Breaches

Fraudulent trading

Technically, I'm not sure Boro's claims are any of those... They're about an unfair advantage... what that means legally I'm not sure! In fact, I don't think anyone is! Surely FFP is "just" a rule of the competition, not a law.

 

Gibson’s accusations are regarding “systematic cheating” relating to either the stadium valuation and/or amortisation method. 
 

If the valuation was manipulated, there would be questions under tax law. 
 

The EFL regs as written define acceptable accounts as meeting the accountancy standard, so if he contends that they are not correct, then they must not meet the standard. That was the basis of much of the EFL argument at the time. 
 

Either way, to break EFL regs in both these circumstances in the way Gibson claims would require the officers of Derby County to have misrepresented the position under tax and/or accountancy law. 
 

Even if Gibson hasn’t got the stones to accept Morris’s offer to resolve in court, I think his open letter could amount to a libel case that MM could initiate, rather than sit around whilst SG/EFL sit on their hands and watch us bleed out. 

2 hours ago, Curtains said:

According to the EFL the EFL rules are their law supervised by them .

 

There are many things that are “according to the EFL” that are total nonsense though! If their stance disadvantages HMRC, I think treasury and revenue would have a view. And if our punishment for following the law is a restraint of trade in a monopolised market that they regulate, I think the Competition and Markets Authority would like to get involved. 

23 minutes ago, Unlucky Alf said:

Hhhmmm is it?, People who go to the high court to seek anonymity after cases get their wish...if it's not in the public intersest.

I think Team Derby, and Margaret Beckett in particular, would have some very strong opinions on if transparency in this proceeding is in the public interest. 

5 minutes ago, Stive Pesley said:

Well no - and I'm being slightly facetious because we know he isn't skint - but companies get put into administration when they become insolvent. AKA skint

Which is why MM will forever be the villain of the piece, because he chose to declare DCFC insolvent as a "strategic" move to force a sale. He did not have to do that

 

I remember him saying that he’d put DCFC into administration as he felt the EFL were biased against him and wouldn’t consider the issues fairly whilst he was still the owner. That is consistent with him seeing that they are continuing their vendetta against the club in his absence, so deciding to get back involved again. 

7 hours ago, vonwright said:

They can't do any of those things. I suppose the difference is, they would say, is that the are not preventing Derby exiting administration as per law. They are only saying if they do that they won't be welcome in the club. And they'd say that doing that isn't breaking discrimination law, for example, or tax law or minimum wage law. It's just enforcing membership rules. I think the onus would be on us to name a specific law they were breaking. 

I mean, is the 'football debt' rule itself written into law, or is it just something clubs agree to abide by? 

I have no idea who would win a case, by the way, and have no expertise. I also feel it is ridiculous that 'footballing claims' like this would be given the same status as 'footballing debts'. And I believe the EFL should update its rules to better fit both administration law, and the fact clubs in administration shouldn't face such potentially crippling, speculative 'damages' claims that act as a massive barrier to them ever getting sold.

Just feel it might be a bit of a red herring and that settling the status of the debts (or better still passing that responsibility to Morris) is the priority. 

 

But the difference is that their punishment would be a restraint of trade. If I get my membership revoked from a gym because their rules say so, I can go elsewhere. DCFC can’t trade elsewhere in another league, so are being punished for trying to follow the law. 

23 minutes ago, winktheram said:

I might be in the minority but I quite like how Kirchner speaks out. Why wouldn't we want to hear if we've been told untruths? Why would anything he says affect any future purchase. If anything it should show up the issues and show up the liars/truth twisters. I'm all for it. Air it all. 

Because EFL, Boro and Wycombe are desperate to portray our side as in conflict with each other (hence their constant digs at the administrators, snide comments about feeling sorry for the fans etc). CK may have some issues, but he’s not part of the Derby side, he’s a third party with no dog in this fight and he should keep his counsel. It’s not helpful. 

2 minutes ago, I know nuffin said:

 I admire the work done by the fans and the group's especially black and white and Punjabi rams. More strength to their elbows. BUT last night on twitter Black and While invited Kirchener to speak on Monday night on a Twitter marketplace. The WHY is totally beyond me. Yesterday like him or not MM came in with an offer which might well save our Rams who are tottering on a knife edge of oblivion. As fans we need to be patient, let team Derby and the country's MPs, who are on our side, put pressure on the EFL Gibson and MM to get an agreement that his offer will bring us out of this nightmare. We certainly don't want anybody rocking the boat. I take it that CK is an honourable man but shall we say slightly miffed with people at Derby. What good can come out of letting him have free range on what he discloses some of which might start the boat rocking. I am all for free speach but lack and white PLEASE PLEASE rethink the wisdom behind you decision for Monday night and postpone it until after

 

 we are safe. He has had since December to air his feelings and hours after a possible step forward to save our team is scary to me. #savederbycounty

 

100% agree. 
 

He walked out. He should shut the door behind him. 

4 hours ago, DarkFruitsRam7 said:

 

So he takes his kid to the match, but won’t celebrate the victory with them? Get a beer and a coke in the hotel bar. It’s not that difficult to work out. What a waste of space. 

2 hours ago, Sparkle said:

Delighted if so - my gut feeling is that both these parasite chairmen have had plenty to say about MM and maybe he is ready to test their comments in court 

yet if the parasites win how could it be a football creditor reason as MM doesn’t own a football club he just rents out a stadium? and is willing to take them on?

It doesn’t matter, does it? If Mel takes them in in court and loses, the compensation due is payable by him - nothing to do with our administrators and percentage payouts. He is, by definition, offering to pay 100% of the moneys due. He’s clearly figuring that the amount due is precisely £0. 

2 hours ago, Animal is a Ram said:

 

Guess who's back!

Well. There it is. 

Don't you dare pretend you care about the Derby fans. No.

You mean the stadium sale that was ruled as OK? That other teams have done too? It was, and (unless I'm mistaken) still is well within the rules. Amazing that they aren't going after the amortisation - that would make way more sense!

I'm even more angry now.

I hope they have that last bit about the stadium in writing in court papers. Their dodgy deal with the EFL was that they could go after us if we were found guilty of a breach (hence the gerrymandered accounting notes breach that the EFL cooked up). If they’re going after us for the stadium sale, that is out of the terms of the breach (and indeed already failed a panel) - so we would be in our rights to insist that the EFL take action against them for acting outwith the agreement - and we would definitely be an affected party in that case (and therefore entitled to put forward evidence and claim compensation). 

2 minutes ago, Tamworthram said:

In terms of a civil case, I reckon the court needs to determine the facts or balance of probability for the following:

1) Did Derby attempt to gain an unfair advantage by breaching the rules? - Absolutely 

2) Did Derby gain more points as a result? - Debatable but, on the balance of probability I think an independent court would probably say yes.

All good for Boro so far but this is where the balance changes 

3) If Boro had finished sixth would they have reached the play off final? - Although we did it (by “cheating” don’t forget), by definition the team that scrapes into 6th place (don’t forget Boro’s end of season form) must be weaker than the team that finished 4th. So, on the balance of probability the answer has to be no

4) If they had reached the final would they have won? - As above, the team finishing 6th is, on paper, the weakest team and has only won the play off final in 10% of cases over the the last 20 years. So, on the balance of probability, the answer has to be no.

You could then go on to debate whether Boro would actually have gained financially or spent or the money if they had been promoted but it gets a bit complicated especially with parachute payments if they’d been relegated.

The Wycombe case shouldn’t even get to court. Yes, we avoided a points deduction last season by delaying submitting our amended P&S figures but, we complied with the extended deadline determined by the EFL so, no case to answer.

I think we should not concede ground we don’t have to. Administrators have been trying the is tactic in the hope of getting reciprocal movement from others, and all that’s happened is we’ve lost ground. 
 

Firstly, we don’t just concede that we gained an unfair advantage from breaking the rules. The stadium valuation was legit. The amortisation process was found to be I. The rules (although an acknowledged risk with losses being built up in the future). The panels specifically said there was no deliberate attempt to cheat. The only thing we breached was a trumped up charge that, in retrospect, looks like the EFL concocted for the sole purpose of meeting the criteria of their back room deal to enable Boro to take action against us. 
 

Secondly, the panel considering Boro’s attempt to be added as an interested party specifically says that if any financial advantage was gained by us, it didn’t translate into direct responsibility for Boro’s failures. If there was a case for compo for Boro, it was in the power of the independent panels to award it and they ruled against it. 
 

I agree that their final claims that they would have achieved anything had they got in the playoffs is so ludicrous it beggars belief. 

4 hours ago, StrawHillRam said:

I will be sickened to the back teeth if  Quantuma decide to go for arbitration or mediation. It has to be Court and only Court

I would hope that Quantuma have finally learned the lesson that Mel learnt: that the EFL lie and cannot be trusted. It needs to be escalated out of their authority - immediately. 

5 hours ago, Tombo said:

That is one hell of an accusation. At best, they're trying to say we don't want to defend the claims. At worst, they're claiming we're HIDING in administration from Boro and Wycombe. Neither is even close to true

This is an absolutely ducking outrageous statement, not befitting of a professional body. It really lays bare their stance and should be taken up by MPS immediately who have already said they suspect the EFL is not working in the best interests of all of its members. 

5 minutes ago, RoyMac5 said:

Proof of funds or not?

"The club has generated quite a bit of money with the nine players going out. Hopefully that can be proof of funds until the end of the season, hopefully that means the embargo gets lifted because there are still free agents out there that I can look at trying to bring in.

"I can ask the question, but we have brought quite a bit of money in in the past month. They will be questions I will be asking.

"There is money for Luke Plange, Dylan Williams, Omari Kellyman come in when I was assured we had the funds to get through the season without them players going out.

"To me it looks like we have got the proof of funds, so will that lift the embargo and allow me to bring some free agents in?

This reads as much as a challenge to the EFL as the administrators. They’re the ones who said a hard embargo was in place due to lack of funds. 

58 minutes ago, RAM1966 said:

IMO I think the Administrators have made some naive mistakes.  Firstly and most importantly, thry ignored the potential of £51m of debt, these guys are professionals, its a grave rrror of judgement to assume that any perspective buyer, would take this risk on.  Would you buy a house knowing that there was a chance it could cost you double?

They must have realised the Boro and Wycombe were not going to drop thier cases so why leave it until the end of Jan to start dealing with them?  Its poor management, yet they are supposed to be the experts.

Accepting the -9pts, they claim this was to have it done and dusted to make the club saleable.  It was a crazy move, they should have pitched the club as expect -9pts but, there is some hope with the appeal.  Just rolled over and continue to get shafted.

They also thought that the EFL would act in a fair manner, which they clearly aren't.  Parrys claims on SS tgat we are waiting on a PB to be announced by Derby was misleading to delect the smelly brown stuff.  SS should of challenged him on that, poor journalism and he hot way with it!

Thoughts?

 

 

All this is true - but I think the last three paragraphs all feed into each other and explain it. 

They *were* dealing with the boro/wycombe claims by agreeing with the EFL that they (EFL) would deliver a ruling in return for accepting the 9 point deduction. That way there is certainty on the product - points deducted and potential risk. But I suspect the EFL agreed that and then didn’t do it. I frankly wouldn’t trust them as far as I can throw them.

Just now, Hoppo said:

Derby fans are all you can here on tv

Was gonna say the same. We sound loud in sky. 

Beautiful passage of play there. Keeping the ball and growing in confidence. 

Aaargh. Sibley again. Pity that first touch took it away from him. So close. 

Close from Sibley. 

22 minutes ago, Franks Tanked said:

Is the game on the Red Button? 

Sky website reckons it’s on the red button on the Sky Sports Football channel. Must be one of those that appears a couple of minutes before kick off

1 hour ago, Woodley Ram said:

This gives the EFL a potential problem. Those named have an operating model where they buy cheap and sell big, if they don't sell big the model implodes. There  large debts over the Covid period are in most part due to the slump in the transfer market. They have asked for a proportion of the debt to be excluded due to this.

The EFL's problem is that I doubt if they have done this for Reading and Derby. Also how do you quantify the amount lost as it could be that you don't have suitable players to sell for circa £20m. Also is the slump in fees true? Forest have just turned down £12m for Johnson (good player) which is a large sum!

So if the EFL allow the exclusion of more Covid debt than for Reading and Derby do those clubs (bearing in mind they look likely to be contesting  the 4th from bottom place) have a case against the EFL and other clubs for loss of income?  

It’s worse than that though, isn’t it? It’s not just that we haven’t had the same consideration on player value due to Covid. Didn’t the amortisation case finding (the final one that gave weight to the expert witness testimony) specifically say that the notional disposal value of a player could not be part of a club’s accounts. As our whole amortisation method was based around the changing notional values of players, they reasoned that it wasn’t valid. So to allow it now would raise questions about our 9 point deduction.

If they argue that it wouldn’t apply to our amortisation figures because it was as a result of Covid being a force majeure event, then that calls into question why we weren’t allowed to make that case in relation to our administration 12 point deduction. 

59 minutes ago, Sparkle said:

I believe the premier league objected to the fair play tax being distributed to other clubs and had it stopped 

That’s what I think too. I think it was a central part of Mel’s argument that the EFL was failing in its duty to get the best deal for their clubs and just get rolled over by Sky and the Prem. 

45 minutes ago, Crewton said:

The Tevez case was an out of court settlement and so should be irrelevant to our case. 

As was the Christian Ziege/Liverpool case wasn’t it? Neither set legal precedent as they weren’t fully tested in a court. 

5 minutes ago, Jram said:

Wasn’t there supposed to be an imminent adjudication about the Boro/WW claims this week? Not heard anything about that. 
Tbh, even if that gets sorted, it’s probably not the only thing holding up the deal. I believe they still haven’t reached an agreement with HMRC 

Administrators were ready to declare the preferred bidder at the start of January to the EFL, so we must have had an agreement with HMRC in place, I think. That would still be valid unless Boro/Wycombe are found to have a claim on money as that might change the amount that HMRC would get. 

35 minutes ago, Animal is a Ram said:

Not much different here, other than to further reinforce that the EFL will eventually be under some serious scrutiny.

When this question was first tabled I gave feedback that it was the wrong question. It was too broadly about “being aware of Derby County’s circumstances” rather than addressing vexatious claims or regulations that hadn’t kept up with the statute book. We all know the EFL aren’t fit for purpose - the review had already come to that conclusion. 
 

No harm done, but a missed opportunity to address our issues.