Eatonram

It has always been Boros strongest weapon to do nothing. That is what they will continue to do. They are neither interested in Court or arbitration as actual evidence would be required in both. They simply want an out of court settlement in other words an offer of cash to move assure so that we can progress. Extortion. 

It has always been Boros strongest weapon to do nothing. That is what they will continue to do. They are neither interested in Court or arbitration as actual evidence would be required in both. They simply want an out of court settlement in other words an offer of cash to move assure so that we can progress. Extortion. 

It has always been Boros strongest weapon to do nothing. That is what they will continue to do. They are neither interested in Court or arbitration as actual evidence would be required in both. They simply want an out of court settlement in other words an offer of cash to move assure so that we can progress. Extortion. 

It has always been Boros strongest weapon to do nothing. That is what they will continue to do. They are neither interested in Court or arbitration as actual evidence would be required in both. They simply want an out of court settlement in other words an offer of cash to move assure so that we can progress. Extortion. 

It has always been Boros strongest weapon to do nothing. That is what they will continue to do. They are neither interested in Court or arbitration as actual evidence would be required in both. They simply want an out of court settlement in other words an offer of cash to move assure so that we can progress. Extortion. 

It has always been Boros strongest weapon to do nothing. That is what they will continue to do. They are neither interested in Court or arbitration as actual evidence would be required in both. They simply want an out of court settlement in other words an offer of cash to move assure so that we can progress. Extortion. 

It has always been Boros strongest weapon to do nothing. That is what they will continue to do. They are neither interested in Court or arbitration as actual evidence would be required in both. They simply want an out of court settlement in other words an offer of cash to move assure so that we can progress. Extortion. 

It has always been Boros strongest weapon to do nothing. That is what they will continue to do. They are neither interested in Court or arbitration as actual evidence would be required in both. They simply want an out of court settlement in other words an offer of cash to move assure so that we can progress. Extortion. 

I do sort of agree with KH that the arbitration process is independent but it is just far to slow and no one seems capable of instigating it.
If the EFL want arbitration on a matter between Clubs it should be time limited and down to the claiment to start proceedings. 
in this country the “accused” do not take themselves to court. 

My experience is that they do not like and do not answer direct questions. 

Yes I recall Gibson’s rant about the situation to the Boro forum owner. Where did he get all that information from? Derby being sold on the cheap he said? Where did he get that information from ? And all the rest? 
 
all very well saying the Boro guy on Efl board leaves the room  when dcfc discussed…. doesn’t mean to say he doesn’t find out what was discussed when he gets back in. 

As we are increasingly seeing, what the EFL statements say and what is happening in reality, don't always tend to marry up.

The " club to club" duties within the EFL rules are very limited. The requirement to arbitrate is one of them, as you have rightly pointed out, but even that requirement may have a statutory override for example due to insolvency protection. And it's no real use on its own.

One of the few other club to club duties within the rules has been highlighted by David, and it seems to be the one most relevant in our circumstances. In fact, Boro's letter of claim referred to it (selectively) according to MM. And that rule  specifically states that only EFL may bring an action in those circumstances.

So isn't that clear that EFL rules do not encourage club to club disputes of the kind contemplated by Boro and Wycombe? I don't know what other reasonable interpretation there can be.  
 

It's time for Derby to commence legal action against the EFL, the other clubs that have remained silent throughout this process will be hit in the pocket.
Why? Because it's the right thing to do to protect the game we all love. We cannot allow the EFL to continue as they are. Sooner we have an independent regulator the better.
They have broken the agreement that prevents clubs from taking action against each other, reg 4.4
They have failed to take action against both Middlesbrough and Wycombe under reg 3.5 which prevents clubs from unfairly criticising, disparaging, belittling or discrediting any other Club.
They are ignoring the Arbitration Act 1996 with regards to insolvency and the football creditor status, attempting to push this through arbitration regulations, ignoring 4.4.
Surely we have more grounds than any of the clubs that have threatened legal action.
With the above we have been forced to sell assets for a low fee as we were prevented by offering contracts. We have incurred additional administration costs, which will increase the purchase price of the club, potentially forcing us into liquidation if the cost continues to rise.
With that it's 3am and the dog is looking at me, I can feel the questioning why are we not going to bed with his eyes.
Feel free to rip apart any of tonight's rants, I'm not a legal expert, far from it, but I am capable of reading and processing words.

ii Sports arbitration
Under English Law, the Arbitration Act 1996 authorises parties to resolve their disputes through arbitration, provided that all parties agree in writing. These disputes tend to be more beneficial to parties owing to the speed, confidentiality and cost of the process. However, exceptions such as criminal law, employee rights to enforce statutory rights in the Employment Tribunal or insolvency proceedings must be resolved through litigation before domestic courts.
https://thelawreviews.co.uk/title/the-sports-law-review/united-kingdom-england--wales
I know. Still here. It's pissing me off all this.
Football creditor status, something which I raised in a separate topic. Let's pretend for a second that it's ok for clubs to sue each other, the rules allowed to do so.
Insolvency proceedings are an exception to arbitration and must be resolved through litigation before domestic courts.
We know this, the football creditor status must be heard in a high court, where as arbitration can hear the claims.
Now let's go back to the EFL statement posted on 17th January.
7. Is the EFL acting unlawfully?
To be clear, the EFL is not and would not, attempt to overrule ‘statutory law’. 
Amanda Solloway's statement, Why have the EFL gone back on what was agreed? 

I have a proof of debt form from the administrators, so I know what it contains and can't possibly see where Boro could claim any kind of debt.
This is a form that would be used as evidence in court, so you would have to be confident in your claim.
I myself have invoices, copies of emails with the invoices if I was ever called to provide evidence of my claim. 
I also have the contract between the club and myself, the emails containing the adverts, the stats from the adverts.
What do Boro have to show as proof of their claim and I ask again, why would EFL go back on what would be the correct move in allowing this to play out in the high court?

"They've turned down £2m for Tom Lawrence in the last 6 months of his contract."
On the Boro forum. Who offered us £2M for Tom?

"We heard an initial application by Middlesbrough FC to intervene in support of EFL’s appeal, which we dismissed. We also heard an application by EFL that we should hear this appeal by way of a de novo hearing, which we rejected on 3 December 2020, and further ruled on an application by EFL to lead new evidence not before the DC, which we rejected on 22 January 2021.
We had originally hoped to conclude this matter somewhat earlier than has proved to be the case, "
Above from the LAP full findings....If Couhig wants to know why our points deduction wasn't last season?? Boro and the EFL are clearly the answer.

"We heard an initial application by Middlesbrough FC to intervene in support of EFL’s appeal, which we dismissed. We also heard an application by EFL that we should hear this appeal by way of a de novo hearing, which we rejected on 3 December 2020, and further ruled on an application by EFL to lead new evidence not before the DC, which we rejected on 22 January 2021.
We had originally hoped to conclude this matter somewhat earlier than has proved to be the case, "
Above from the LAP full findings....If Couhig wants to know why our points deduction wasn't last season?? Boro and the EFL are clearly the answer.

"We heard an initial application by Middlesbrough FC to intervene in support of EFL’s appeal, which we dismissed. We also heard an application by EFL that we should hear this appeal by way of a de novo hearing, which we rejected on 3 December 2020, and further ruled on an application by EFL to lead new evidence not before the DC, which we rejected on 22 January 2021.
We had originally hoped to conclude this matter somewhat earlier than has proved to be the case, "
Above from the LAP full findings....If Couhig wants to know why our points deduction wasn't last season?? Boro and the EFL are clearly the answer.

"We heard an initial application by Middlesbrough FC to intervene in support of EFL’s appeal, which we dismissed. We also heard an application by EFL that we should hear this appeal by way of a de novo hearing, which we rejected on 3 December 2020, and further ruled on an application by EFL to lead new evidence not before the DC, which we rejected on 22 January 2021.
We had originally hoped to conclude this matter somewhat earlier than has proved to be the case, "
Above from the LAP full findings....If Couhig wants to know why our points deduction wasn't last season?? Boro and the EFL are clearly the answer.

"They've turned down £2m for Tom Lawrence in the last 6 months of his contract."
On the Boro forum. Who offered us £2M for Tom?

"We heard an initial application by Middlesbrough FC to intervene in support of EFL’s appeal, which we dismissed. We also heard an application by EFL that we should hear this appeal by way of a de novo hearing, which we rejected on 3 December 2020, and further ruled on an application by EFL to lead new evidence not before the DC, which we rejected on 22 January 2021.
We had originally hoped to conclude this matter somewhat earlier than has proved to be the case, "
Above from the LAP full findings....If Couhig wants to know why our points deduction wasn't last season?? Boro and the EFL are clearly the answer.

"They've turned down £2m for Tom Lawrence in the last 6 months of his contract."
On the Boro forum. Who offered us £2M for Tom?

"They've turned down £2m for Tom Lawrence in the last 6 months of his contract."
On the Boro forum. Who offered us £2M for Tom?

I welcome you too. No point blaming ALL Boro supporters. I know you had a terrible situation yourselves....I suspect the difference would be that no other Club were sticking their oar in and asking for cash when you were skint? That's the difference. We are uniquely vulnerable at the moment, "unique" not because we are special, and not because we want to unpunished...we just resent another Club piling in. I think you would feel the same the other way round and I van promise I would hate my Club doing what your Chairman is doing.