Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About EssendonRam

  • Rank
    Kom op jullie machtige Rammen
  • Birthday September 6

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    Melbourne, Australia

Recent Profile Visitors

1,784 profile views
  1. Derby was my grandfather’s team. Although I never met the man (he died nearly ten years before I was born), I adopted Derby when I was a toddler (literally 2 or 3) as a sop to my father. I was reluctant to support his AFL side mainly because I didn’t like their colours; in those days, South Melbourne (now Sydney) wore plain white with a red V. So I chose a side of my own with far better colours and I was keenly aware that my father was not happy with me over it. So...as I “helped” my father in clearing my grandfather’s grave, I asked which soccer team poppy supported. The answer is a matter for history. My only hesitation was to enquire as to Derby’s colours (I honestly have no recollection of my father’s answer; it must’ve been “white and black” - this exchange took place before Mr Clough changed the black to navy blue yet I grew up believing that our colours were white and navy blue; full stop) before pronouncing that ”Derby are my team then”. (In my defence, I grew up watching late night replays on black and white television on the other side of the Earth from Derby.) But my character traits of wilfulness, independent-mindedness and loyalty and commitment were evident even in that 2y proudly adopting his late pop’s team.
  2. One quick point: the club could seek an injunction and, if the court agreed, it’d be the court that issued it. Would it be publicly known if it happened? Yes. The application for an injunction would be reported pretty quickly as would the result. I should add that, just because it hasn’t happened yet, doesn’t mean it won’t happen. No doubt there’s a lot of intense discussion going on between Derby’s legal team and the EFL’s legal team.
  3. Let’s just note, for the record, that @Ghost of Clough didn’t claim to “know” so @RamNut‘s response is both redundant and evasive. The question he’s evading is whether he’s claiming the club has directly lied in its statement.
  4. Could not have said it better myself @Ramleicester.
  5. If I comes across that way, then I apologise. In my defence, however, I’m struggling to see how you can justify that claim given every single one of my comments (as far as I can recall anyway; I’m happy to be quoted where I’ve done otherwise) has been qualified. For instance, I have not said that the club MUST do this; I’ve said that the question must be asked “why not?” if we don’t. I stick by that: if the situation is as clear and unambiguous as the club statement suggests, the “normal” legal course would be to seek an injunction to prevent an “unlawful” act from damaging one’s commercial interests. Indeed, I think you have it the wrong way around. @cheron85 has been telling me, on no real basis whatsoever, why the club CAN’T seek an injunction and, in that regard, he’s simply wrong. Allow me to state the obvious explicitly: there are many strategies for to respond: one could threaten to seek an injunction as part of entering negotiations to have the charges dropped. But that may take time...during the transfer window. One could seek to replace the EFL Executive...but that would take even more time. And one could simply do nothing and defend the charges when the hearing is scheduled...need I point out the obvious? If you’re so confident that the EFL is breaking the law in bringing these charges - so confident that you state that publicly - then the obvious question is why not establish exactly that before these “unlawful” charges can wreak maximum damage on your business?
  6. Oh no! Where shall I get my dose of silly old curmudgeon from? 😂
  7. No @cheron85, you ARE wrong. One of us did five years earning a law degree and the other is talking out of his cakehole. You don’t even seem to realise the contradiction in your own point: Derby’s statement alleges (according to you) that the EFL has breached their own rules. Even if that were the case, the quickest and easiest way to establish that is to seek an injunction that says precisely that.
  8. Again, I’m proceeding under the stated assumption that Derby have, as stated, written approvals. If that’s the case, it’s literally irrelevant whether formal approval was given before the submission was made or not. Suffice to say, you’re still wrong as it’s clear there’s been discussions on the proposal and the EFL, if what Derby are saying is true, the proposed sale and the accounting treatment thereof was ratified. The correspondence leading up to that all forms part of the approval. The distinction you’re trying to draw is, quite honestly, absurd. What you’re trying to suggest is that FFP approval is something of a lottery; that clubs don’t know if their accounts will be approved or not until they’re written and submitted. That’s self-evidently silly. Moreover it’s also obviously irrelevant in relation to the issue of amortisation; the treatment of which has apparently been approved year after year. Until now. To be entirely honest, this reply is precisely what I meant when I said you appeared to be trying to stuff “facts” to fit your preconceived narrative in a somewhat curmudgeonly fashion. You’ve just done it again😂
  9. No disrespect mate but you’re wrong. Derby’s legal team have (hopefully!) vetted the club’s statement and, rest assured, the term, “unlawful” isn’t synonymous with “contrary to the laws of the game” when it’s legally vetted. Frankly, the entirety of the club statement makes that clear in any case. The term is very precise and deliberate. What you’re suggesting seems to be that there’s a line in the EFL rules that’s a VAR for rule breaches. If you think there’s one, I challenge you to find it for me and I’ll happily concede.
  10. @RamNut, no, the employee of the EFL was the person who allegedly not only ratified the accounting treatment of both the related party sale and the amortisation treatment but also asked for the sale price of PPS to be “adjusted” presumably to better match the valuation that is now in question. As a result, the EFL is bound by said ratification unless they can demonstrate that it was procured in some way by misrepresentation (or fraud) or that Derby knew, or ought to have known, that the employee wasn’t authorised to give such approval. With regard to your editorial on stewardship, I’ve not commented. You’re entitled to your opinion on that. I have merely sought to correct a couple of factual misstatements on your part because, frankly, there’s been a number that suggest, to a person reading this entire thread from start to finish (as I did), that you have a somewhat curmudgeonly view on the matter and are grasping at reasons to justify it. As it happens, I don’t necessarily disagree that this episode reflects poor governance on Derby’s part. I’ve criticised Mr Morris on more than one occasion in that regard myself. But, for the record, I totally disagree that the transaction is, in any way, “dodgy”. It’s a related party transaction and it was openly presented as such. I note that the EFL has emphasised that it’s not the nature of the transaction itself that it sees as a problem but the sale price. It alleges that the sale price was in excess of a fair market value; whether or not that’s the case will emerge in time and I’ve already expressed concern that all may well not be as clear as the club suggests. I don’t know at this stage and neither do you. But I will point out that I believe you and others miss a critical point about the workings of FFP. It seems to me that they disadvantage those clubs that own their stadium since upkeep, etc come out of their profits. And that’d be an even greater potential impost if they endeavoured to run their stadium as a multi-purpose venue. In other words, it’s preferable to separate stadium ownership from clubs so the risks of operating a MPV don’t impact FFP. That applies directly to PPS and, frankly, I query if that makes any sense at all given the stated intent of FFP. Where I would be critical of the club’s governance is that addressing the ownership of PPS was seemingly delayed until it became evident that the club was in FFP peril. That’s prima facie poor governance in my view but, to be fair, there may well be reasons for that delay of which I’m not aware.
  11. Exactly. Need I remind you that the club’s statement describes the issuing of the charge as “unlawful”? In other words, that it’s against the law for the EFL to bring these charges. EFL rules are still subject to the laws of the land and, again, that’s one of the precise purposes of injunctions; to prevent, in commerce (which professional football in case there’s any ambiguity about that) an unlawful act being perpetrated that’ll jeopardise your commercial interests. Indeed, were Derby not to seek an injunction to stop the charges, the question of why we didn’t seek to mitigate the damage done to our business would be asked very strongly in any future action by Derby seeking damages from the EFL. You seem to be under the misapprehension that seeking an injunction is a major legal matter. It’s not. Courts are more willing to provide injunctions where an applicant can show cause that an act (a) is not within the lawful powers in a commercial relationship; and (b) that the act could cause irreparable damage to the applicant. In such cases, courts tend to ask “why can’t we put this in abeyance for a period until we can establish the bona fides of the applicant’s claim?” Think about it: in such a hearing - assuming, as I said earlier, Derby have these written approvals - the EFL would be asked “why can’t these charges be deferred until we can properly assess Derby’s claim?” If a court ultimately decided that there’s reasons to question the approvals supposedly given, the injunction can be lifted. Frankly, if the facts are as Derby say they are, it’d be the cheapest way for Derby to protect the business. Anyone with a legal background would tell you that, unless there are compelling reasons not to do this, it’s by far the smartest strategy. Hence, my concern as expressed earlier: if Derby don’t seek an injunction, the question “why not?” needs to be asked very strongly. This notion of not “escalating” the situation is, quite honestly, a bit ridiculous. It suggests that you neither understand the law nor quite grasp how seriously this could damage Derby. The EFL isn’t investigating Derby for breaching FFP. It’s charged Derby for breaching FFP and in the middle of a transfer window at that.
  12. Think of it this way: that’s what Mel and Derby think happened. Until you know the EFL’s view of what happened, you can’t be sure they don’t know something that changes Derby’s understanding.
  13. On what basis do you say that? The issue can be taken to court - by Derby - to seek an injunction.
  14. I know him from Skins but no idea he was a Derby fan (I’m Australian, give me a break). What a terrific little Q&A. He comes across as a brilliant young bloke, easygoing and funny. I can hear his Skins’ character saying his responses. Thanks for sharing this.
  15. If you’re talking in pure English terms, you’re quite right. “Which” would be “who” if it was an EFL executive. But it’s in legal English; hence the capitalisation of the word “Executive”. And that means the “EFL Executive” is whatever the EFL says it is. You’ve touched upon an important point the statement is making; whether or not the “Executive” was (for instance) the CEO or the full Board (or the ladies in the lunchroom), the statement is deliberately inferring that that person/those people were vested with the authority to make the decision by the EFL.
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.