WestKentRam

32 minutes ago, PistoldPete said:

they have a duty to act on behalf of the creditors. Maybe Boro and Wycombe would count as creditors I don't know. They have to balance the interests of those creditors against every other creditor. Who I think would probably outweigh Boro and Wycombe, but I can see why admin team are best saying nothing. 

Carl Jackson of Quantuma referred to Boro and WW as 'unascertained creditors'. I've no idea what this means in legal terms and shan't speculate, but obviously they are parties who have put forward a claim against the club that needs to be addressed.

6 minutes ago, Eatonram said:

Well...they could say

1 we feel there is no case to answer

2 IF such a precedent was set, then we would ourselves pursue similar damages for past similar cases.

3 We believe both Boro and WW are pursuing these claims at this time because the Club is up for sale in the hope that a settlement will be made to ensure the sale is not put in jeopardy. 

 

Or they could say that no the claim doesn't have to be resolved before the club is sold.

Perhaps they don't want to open that can of worms as it will lead to further questions, and negotiations may be at a delicate stage...

I noticed that in the minutes published yesterday by RamsTrust of the Supporters Group Meeting with Quantuma on 23/11/21 they were directly asked if the action by Boro and WW needs to be resolved before the takeover can progress, but chose to completely ignore the question.

https://ramstrust.org.uk/wp/supporters-group-meeting-with-quantuma-23-11-2021/

Q: Have you made any progress dealing with the legal claims from Middlesbrough and Wycombe? Why are the claims against the club rather than the EFL? Does this need to be resolved before the takeover can progress?

A: There are detailed discussions being held over these claims – which are against the club and not the EFL, though these have been discussed with the EFL.

7 minutes ago, Sparkle said:

Probably jealous that we made the stadium better and actually fill it with supporters over the years.

From Ryan Hills' book it sounds that Gibson was being very helpful giving advice on where he would make improvements that were actually incorporated into PP. This was done openly by him rather than the information gained in an underhand way by Derby.

It seems to me there must be more behind Gibson expecting Derby to somehow stump up £45m that I cannot see will ever happen.

Ryan Hills informative book 'Pride' tells in its early chapters the history of Pride Park being planned and built. Gibson was very helpful to Peter Gadsby in this, as the blueprint for PP was the same as the already constructed Riverside Stadium. Gibson listed the features that he wished had been incorporated into their stadium, and 22 upgrades were made to PP when it was built helped by Gibson's advice.

It must be a bit galling for Gibson to see the club he has helped in the past seemingly cheat its way into a play-off spot at their expense. Like the lead character in a Hollywood movie, revenge will be his!

Looking at Gibson's Wikipedia page, this theme again jumps out at me as apparently he has accused others of 'betrayal' in the political arena, but then all is not lost as a 'reconciliation' occurs in the final act. I only hope this saga comes to such a happy conclusion and we can move on and concentrate on the small matter of an actual game of football...

3 minutes ago, Mucker1884 said:

It surely doesn't mean that they have to oversee a full and final, mutually agreed settlement?  

I hope not as if this is the case I fear for the survival of the club. I find it hard to see how this will be resolved with Gibson and any potential new owners in particular in the next month given it has already dragged on for 2.5 years.

It was just when I listened to the interview on SBW it sounded like the Boro and WW claim would have to be dealt with, and I took this to mean an agreement of some sort reached, rather than just the paperwork of the claim passed on to the new owners. 

I am a natural worrier and hope I am wrong on this. Time will tell over the next month...

1 hour ago, Crewton said:

I don't remember him saying that those claims would "have to be resolved" before a sale could go through? They're not official creditors, so they shouldn't affect a CVA, the EFL won't interfere (they've already said as much because such disputes HAVE to be resolved by a League Arbitration Panel under EFL rules, or withdrawn), so it really only depends how much of a liability a new owner regards them, surely? They may be happy to complete the deal with the claims still outstanding.

1 hour ago, Tamworthram said:

Is there any suggestion that the administrator is delaying the sale?

I thought they were simply going through the process, which is bound to take time, the next stage being reaching agreement with HMRC.

If the sale is being delayed because of these claims, then maybe potential buyers are insisting they are resolved first.

58 minutes ago, Rambalin said:

In his interviews at the weekend Jackson said both Boro and Wycombe claim will be resolved in the next couple of weeks.... 

His tone was quite dismissive. 

From Carl Jackson's interview with Chris Parsons on the excellent Steve Bloomer's Washing podcast uploaded on Saturday, CJ said:

'This was never going to be, and I genuinely felt this right at the outset… an issue around finding a buyer. It was going to be about reaching agreement and compromise deals with those creditors, and those are the hurdles we still have to overcome. So we are still negotiating with HMRC, and we’re putting together a plan. Once we’ve got deals done then we’ll be in a position then to effectively conclude on a deal with whoever we’ve chosen as our preferred bidder.

So it’s not just a question of a buyer coming along, making an offer… What we need to do is try and get to a position where we’ve sorted out the liabilities, dealt with other what I call unascertained creditors, and again it’s been widely communicated that there are two other football league creditors or football clubs who are claiming, who are making claims against Derby County Football Club. We need to deal with those. So there are a number of hurdles or obstacles we still need to overcome. We are working on those. We hope to make some good progress over the next three to four weeks.'

From this, I would take that the Boro and WW claim would have to be dealt with before the club could be sold.

On 07/10/2021 at 10:36, Carl Sagan said:

So Gibson is both adding additional costs to Derby during this time of dire peril, and by taking the action he is intentionally making it more difficult for Derby to exit administration. That sounds to me that he is pursuing a vendetta with the purpose of liquidating Derby County.

In recent interviews Carl Jackson of Quatuma has said the action by Boro and WW will have to be resolved before the sale of Derby can go through. If this rumbles on without resolution then surely it increases the risk of the club being liquidated as no buyer will step in with a further £45m claim hanging over them.

It reminds me of when it was reported in the press three days before the play off final v Villa in May 2019 that Gibson planned to sue Derby. It felt like the timing was a deliberate attempt to destabilise our preparations for the match.

So I wouldn't be surprised to see this drag on and be the last remaining stumbling block to a sale after HMRC and other issues re debts have been resolved. I can't see with his history against Derby that Gibson is going to roll over and give up his claim without a prolonged legal battle and this is exactly what we do not want at the moment.

10 hours ago, Coconut's Beard said:

Keep the payments, but in season one the relegated teams start on -15, if they stay down a second season they start on -10, in the 3rd season they start on -5

Removes some of the ridiculous advantage given while allowing them plenty of time to sort their wages out. 

Something along those lines, I haven't checked how many points the teams who end up going straight back up usually have to spare tbh, so that could be -12, -6, -3  or -20, -15, -10 but you get the idea.

I think I've cracked it tbh, can't see any downsides!?

Great idea! Relegated clubs can't moan they can't afford their expensive previous PL players while they see out their contracts, and it levels the playing field. Far too fair and sensible for the EFL to adopt though.

1 hour ago, CornwallRam said:

Rooney confirmed that he has been funding things from his own pocket. 

Heroic 

In the recent Rio Ferdinand interview, one of the Derby analysts showed a drone they use in training for recording footage to look at later. He said the club bought it, then corrected himself to say that Wayne had actually paid for it.

Received this email from the club an hour after it went into administration.

TBH I don't think I'm that likely to recommend Derby County to my family and friends at present, as they don't have several 10s of £M to burn through.

There doesn't seem to be a -12 option on the scale they offer.

Loved that. Battling performance. Gave them a taste of how teams would set up against us in the past.

Didn't play it out from the back once and so no defensive errors or refereeing gifts meant we could keep a clean sheet.

Not an easy or enjoyable watch.

We never learn. You'd think experience might change tactics.

Will be interesting to see whether Sky say they're the reason Jozwiak isn't playing tonight.

9 hours ago, Nookiebear1 said:

Like i said im not saying its a conspiracy and i really get they are probably just incompetent but governing bodies have been terribly corrupt in the past so its no surprise when some fans think the EFL are using influence to give us unfair referee decisions. Even Rooney skirted around it in his post match interview 

It doesn't have to be corruption or incompetence, but referees are prone to unconscious bias as is any human in a given situation. There is extensive literature on the existence of home bias, as well as some on successful teams getting more favourable decisions.

Referees will read the news and have access to the internet. They will know about certain players who dive, or the clubs that are in favour or not and the issues involved. They do not officiate a football match in a vacuum, knowing nothing of the clubs or players in front of them.

Mel Morris is on record as saying the EFL 'dislike' him, he is seen as an 'enemy of the EFL state', and the EFL have 'an axe to grind against him personally'.

It is perfectly reasonable for individual clubs to hold rivalries and grudges against each other. However I would argue that the EFL, as the governing body of the league, should hold a neutral position concerning any club. I'm not sure many would say this is the position that seems to come across that the EFL holds with Derby, with revisiting of previously agreed submissions relating to FFP/P&S, reinterpretation of rules and seeming pursuit of the club with appeals etc. Referees will know about the Derby v EFL debate.

In 2016 former Premier League referee Mark Halsey claimed he was told by the Professional Game Match Officials Limited (PGMOL) to say he had not seen incidents in matches. This is the same body that appoints referees to EFL matches now. They denied they had told him that, so that's the end of the matter.

Coincidentally, I am reading Brian Clough's autobiography 'Walking on Water' at present. In it he tells of his time at Boro as a striker when he scored 40 or more goals in 4 consecutive seasons. He became increasingly frustrated at the lack of success of Boro, as no matter how many goals he scored the leaky defence made up for it and the team failed to gain promotion from the Second Division. He had his suspicions that the defence were deliberately not clearing the ball, and he could take no more so went to the manager to tell him of his concerns. He was told he had it wrong, and even that one of the players who seemed to be performing poorly said that Clough should see a psychiatrist for being so paranoid. He then went to one of the club directors again to be brushed off, and eventually could take no more and left Boro in 1961. The Boro defenders who Clough complained about in vain were later both imprisoned for their parts in the 1964 British football match fixing scandal.

I am in no way saying the EFL is corrupt in such a way, just that it is an interesting historical aside with links to our club in Brian Clough, and that concerns about any aspect of football governance should not be dismissed out of hand. I think that it's fair to hypothesise that referees may have unconscious bias in their decision making. It may not change the result of the match after the final whistle is blown but is not unreasonable to consider, and is all part of the great tapestry of discussion of the interpretation of matches and results in our situation.

3 hours ago, Chris_Martin said:

go on....

Here's a screenshot of my spreadsheet from last season if it can be read. Was merely a therapeutic exercise for my own benefit, trying to be as unbiased as a Derby supporter can possibly be, using match reports and consensus after the games. Just seemed to confirm my feeling that over the course of a season we don't get the rub of the green.

I've posted about this on here before, but to try to make sense of the feeling I've had that decisions over the course of a season do not even out for us, last season I kept a 'spreadsheet of injustice' for my own amusement, logging key contentious decisions and their potential effect on the outcome of matches, both for and against us.

This isn't as I'm frothing at the mouth about it, well not much anyway, but it can be hard to determine if decisions really do seem to go more against us rather than in our favour without making a note of it as the season progresses. I've yet to hear of a club supporter who feels their team gets favourable treatment from referees, although I did enjoy Warnock's recent comments on the ref we had against Boro being 'super' and 'Best referee we’ve had for a long time'.

Also, I have a Brentford supporting friend I discuss football with a lot, who told me of their 'Table of Justice' that the club uses in their statistical analysis, that uses performance rather than actual results to show their 'true' position. This may be one reason why the club stuck with Thomas Frank who had a poor start as their manager, gaining just 4 points from his first 10 games in charge. We all know what has happened from there...

Last season my calculations were that we should have finished with 8 points more than we did, if key decisions had gone our way or seeming refereeing errors had not occurred. It makes me feel better that things aren't always as bad as it appears.

In a game of fine margins ways to overcome this are to make sure we get those second or third goals to put games out of sight, or cut out needless defensive mistakes to try and keep clean sheets. Not easy to do this though, so any decisions that go against us will have a large effect on the outcome of a match.

What annoys me about this most, is that if any Derby players see the headlines it just creates a negative vibe and divisions between players and fans that have been manufactured.

If I were one of the players who played last night then saw that I'd be cheesed off thinking well we scored a wonder goal, blooded youngsters who did well, won a penalty shoot out, but then our fans call us embarrassing, so stuff them.

I was sent a link to an article on the Derbyshire Live website after the Salford game yesterday by my brother who always tries to have a dig about me supporting Derby.

https://www.derbytelegraph.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/embarrassing-Derby-county-fans-react-5769451.amp

Just looking at the headline ''Embarrassing' - Derby County fans react after nervy shootout win over Salford' it made no sense as I failed to see how anyone who understood our situation and watched the game would come away with that opinion, unless a very negative supporter.

Well surprise, surprise, they didn't. Using the search function on Twitter, the reported 'Derby fans [who] have reacted to the result on social media, Twitter.' in a negative way actually are not Derby fans, but those of Forest, Leeds, Boro, Sheff Wed and other clubs.

For example...

'One supporter said: "Imagine drawing to Salford, embarrassing!"'

Well, the Tweet was 'Imagine drawing to Salford embarrassing' posted by someone with 'lufc' in his Twitter handle. A Derby fan? Really?

Another quoted Tweet in the article:

'Celebrate sure, but that was embarrassing'

Actual Tweet, from a 'Season card holder at Nottm Forest' was 'Lol o. Celebrate sure but that was embarrassing. I think they celebrated more tonight than they did last game last season.'

To make matters worse, one Tweet appears to have been completely rewritten to make it sound like it came from a Derby supporter when it clearly did not:

'Another added: "Celebrating beating Salford on pens like we won the league. What has Derby County come to?"'

The actual Tweet being from a Huddersfield supporter 'Surely you’re not celebrating beating Salford on pens like you’ve just won the league , what has Derby county come to'.

Looking at the comments on the article on the Derbyshire Live website it looks like Derby fans are equally bemused by the quotes in the article, as they assume they are from fellow Rams supporters, leading them to question what has happened to those who supposedly support the club. Actually it just appears to be DL stirring it, passing off Tweets from our rivals as our own, seemingly trying to make an issue where there isn't one.

3 minutes ago, kash_a_ram_a_ding_dong said:

I think that's always the case to be honest.

2 minutes ago, one_chop said:

Games get moved for TV that's what it will mean.

Yes, sorry, it was a not very funny joke... Exactly the same wording has been used on the club website for previous seasons as well.

The disclaimer on the club website makes me nervous...

* Please note that these fixtures are subject to change and at this stage the fixture list is regarded as a DRAFT.

5 minutes ago, MackworthRamIsGod said:

This has been my argument all along, we wouldnt have done some of our business if the EFL hadnt signed off the Amortisation policy.

We wouldnt have signed Bielik, Jozwiak and I imagine Rooney wouldnt have been here.

It's like being granted planning permission for an extension and then being hit with a punishment because the planners realise your house is now bigger than theirs and everyone elses.

We need to wake up and quick, the EFL are literally doing anything and everything to destroy our football club. This is a battle of egos between Parry and Morris and our club and the fans are collateral damage.

 

From the statement on the DCFC website of 17th Jan 2020 it sounds as though this is the case, although not 100% crystal clear, ie the club wouldn't have done certain business if they hadn't had the amortisation policy previously approved by the EFL. https://www.dcfc.co.uk/news/2020/01/club-statement-17th-january-2020

'Had the EFL not given the green light in writing in respect of both charges, the Club would have reacted accordingly. The Club cannot re-trace the steps of the actions it legitimately took in good faith as a result of EFL approval of both matters.'

Does 're-trace the steps of the actions it legitimately took in good faith' mean submission of accounts, or future spending undertaken?

This seems to be the crux of it. If it's just we chose that method after reviewing the accounts to make them fit FFP/P&S after the event then we are in trouble. If it was actually approved by the EFL and effectively we spent more because of this thinking the books would balance, then it would seem a valid case for appeal.

Didn't have the rub of the green today but couldn't fault his effort and also intelligence standing in front of Millwall's keeper in a non-offsidey way to obstruct his view of Knight's shot and goal that CKR  could see was incoming.