Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Ramleicester

  • Rank

Recent Profile Visitors

727 profile views
  1. I imagine the two other broadcasters involved may have been suspended or taken off air short term for not dealing with it at the time. So there may well not be a presenter to do it. BBC have sent a 'senior manager' to investigate and in that situation stopping DCFC output for a few days would be fairly standard. BBC so sensitive to this stuff I imagine there are a few twitching backsides at BBC Derby tonight.
  2. Cutting wage bill top and essential priority. Watch this space.
  3. Tend to agree with you and I am a little confused that given the strength of the club statement an injunction has not been sought. In my legal world if I had a client that sure I would be supportive. There appears to be reputational damage happening so why should the club not hit back as hard as possible. Could be waiting for full disclosure, could be hedging their bets, could be a little deal making going on. One thing for sure Football is the loser, this rubbish takes away from 22 blokes trying to entertain and excite loyal fans. EFL should take a look in the mirror and make the rules simple, take their heads out of their self important over inflated ego filled backsides and promote the game, not kill it in politics.
  4. One other thing pointed out to me was that if the EFL did make a mistake then the cost of doing what they are threatening to do is likely to be far less than doing nothing and being sued by loads of EFL clubs. Could well be we are found guilty but any punishment is suspened due to the errors. Still risky but a possible way out of a mess.
  5. Colleague who has more knowledge than I do and has a direct interest re getting paid for some legal work he has done for DCFC understands that the point of dispute on the stadium is to do with whether or not it was an 'arms length transaction'. If it was an arms length transaction then it does not matter what was paid for the stadium. If it was to interested parties (ie. Uncle Mel) then it has to be at a 'fair value'. The beef is apparently confusion over what was asked approval for and what actually happened. I am not giving an opinion as to who is right or wrong so dont shoot the messenger just passing on a bit of info from the same person who told me that investment was delayed pending an EFL statement which turned out to be correct.
  6. If this is as the DCFC statement states then it is beyond belief that the EFL could be so stupid. It would lead to people losing their precious cushy jobs and the EFL totally losing authority. If they 'made a mistake' then why on earth take the action that exposes that and puts them in the firing line for significant damages? They are either: 1. Stupid 2. Smoked too much weed 3. Arrogant 4. Have more info than they are letting on and Mel is 'doing a Trump' 5. Gibson has some dodgy video of EFL execs doing wild stuff in the Boro boardroom Anything but 4 and Mel should take them off at the knees and drag them through court for every penny.
  7. Know what you are saying. Problem is that the club used the arrangement to do a transaction purely designed to dodge FFP. If any of those clubs have or do it they should be treated as DCFC are being treated now. It is also a bit daft that the club posted an entry on Companies House on the day of the transaction deleting Mel as 'a person of significant control' of DCFC Ltd. Who can say he is not. That does not look clever.
  8. Well it is some of our jobs lol. I am not critical of Mel at all. It was a good gamble that still may pay off. Just hope his Mrs is not on the forum... she would give him a right roasting for paying 80mil for something worth 40ish!
  9. Too right...And if they used that to dodge the rules they should be sanctioned in the same way.
  10. This is not being heard in a court but by a disciplinary panel. Contract law would apply if either party broke a contract between the two parties. Eg.if they were fined but DCFC told the EFL to do one. Thats why they use points deductions. If you read the DCFC statements at the time the approval seems to relate to the valuation. Still think the issue could be the common ownership of the parties involved. It states that in the accounts and kind of looks like an internal dodge as a result.
  11. It could also be that the issue of common ownership of the two parties was not signed off whilst the valuation was. Hence EFL see it as a bit of an internal scam as a way of Mel sticking more cash in to solve the problem.... which of course it was.
  12. If other clubs racked up massive debts then sold the stadium to cover them then yes. Not in law but under their own governance. FFP is not law it is the rules of a competition. I may be wrong but has it ever been 100% clear and proven that the EFL 'signed it off'. If they did this action would surely not be happening as three year losses for the period were well within FFP. A lot of 'we understand the EFL were aware' comments but can't see much more than that in terms of confirmation. Update: I see that statements have been made that DCFC had some written indication. Never from the EFL though. I see a few sources are hinting that the issue maybe to do with the fact that the two parties have 'common ownership'. Bottom line is we just don't know lol........
  13. One thing for sure is that noone will know until the case comes forward and is in the open. Hope it happens quickly. One thing I do know is that the EFL are VERY keen to ensure that more clubs do not sell their biggest assets in terms of stadiums to fund losses. Was at a recent sports law briefing at St Georges and that came through very clearly, it has also been signalled pretty clearly in the media. FFP is there to keep clubs financially viable for the long term. Selling a stadium to clear debts is a one time deal, we may find that is at the root of this saga.
  • 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.