WestKentRam

It is if you forget that we wouldn't have breached multiple periods had our perfectly valid amortisation policy been allowed, or had been able to correct our course with the EFL acting earlier and saying no to the method rather than letting us use it for a other couple of years.

I'd say it was more than vague comments in the League Arbitration Panel decision document of 26th October 2020. I agree, though, that the future significance of this and Boro's involvement and influence on the EFL perhaps hadn't been considered properly.
https://www.efl.com/contentassets/c9fc5dceaa7f4b62b81dca0b9e2f7c9d/2020.10.26---decision-on-mfc-redaction.pdf
4. On 6 September 2019 MFC commenced arbitration proceedings against EFL contending that EFL had failed to take timely disciplinary action against DCFC. On 29 November 2019 MFC and EFL agreed that this arbitration would be stayed and EFL would commence disciplinary proceedings against DCFC. MFC indicated that if EFL started such disciplinary proceedings, MFC would seek compensation from DCFC pursuant to EFL Reg 92.2.5. In other words, they would apply for compensation on the back of a finding of breach by DCFC.

Know how you feel mate . So much poo over the last two years with Covid and everything plus any other bad stuff in our lives . The football should be our escape from that and on Tuesday night it was duh duh duh festy  ebosele. 
 
now it’s back to all this legal crap which is doing my head in.

As an aside to all this, an indication as to how a club can have a bearing on a persons mental health is this. My dad died suddenly on 31 Jan 22 and the first time I started to feel any cheer since his death was on Tuesday night watching Derby score 3 goals. It broke the malaise.

Of course I understand where a lot of posters are coming from, but I'm just conscious I don't want Boro and the EFL to actually be playing the long game, hoping we make a load of libellous comments on here so they will actually come after us fans for compo rather than the club!
I'm trying to deal in the facts of this whole sorry affair, but it's become so tortuous and complicated that I find it hard to get my head around the timeline and how exactly we have arrived at this current situation. So while awaiting Mr Gibson's yay or nay to Mel's offer I'm piecing together such a timeline for my own benefit, to try and counter those who just come out with ridiculous statements such as 'well you cheated so you deserve to be liquidated', with reference to what the club has actually done compared to others in the league, and how we were found guilty in what feels like a very unfair process.
On reflection, I do wonder if Mel is actually such a villain in all this that he is portrayed as.
He was pursued by the EFL and Boro over a number of years with an ongoing transfer embargo and the sense that a huge points deduction was looming with likely relegation and possible successive relegations on the cards. There was a massive financial claim outstanding making a sale of the club by him very unlikely. So cutting his losses by entering administration would seem like the next step to give administrators a chance of resolving these issues by removing himself, as it had become very personal between him, the EFL and Boro.
Of course I understand this does not factor in the terrible cost to staff, businesses and charities owed money by the club, but would be interested to know if an owner has ever personally settled a businesses' debts first then put it into administration, as this would seem to be a most unusually altruistic thing to do from a business and personal finance point of view.
With regard to the money owed to HMRC an accountant I know has had a preliminary look at the club's audited accounts accessible on the Companies House website just to informally try to answer a question for me. They only extend up to 2018 but I am told that up to this point there was no money owed to HMRC. The £26-£29m owed is not from trading ie it is from PAYE, NI and VAT. When did the club start getting behind with these payments after 2018? How much can be explained by going into administration and amounts owed over the course of a year due to this?

The silence from Gibson following MM's statement of 4th Feb is deafening.
As others have pointed out, he surely will release a negative response just prior to the game on Saturday to try and gain an advantage in that, just as he tried to derail our play-off final preparations against Villa by announcing his intention of suing Derby three days before this match.
He managed to issue statements on 18th Jan and 4th Feb both in response to EFL statements of the preceding day. So he can work fast when he wants to and at other times drag his feet.
It doesn't seem to matter to him how this is affecting the club and the fans in particular, or perhaps it does. I sincerely hope there are behind the scenes discussions going on and he will give a positive reaction to MM's offer, but I am waiting to be disappointed and have the feeling that he is playing with us.

Someone like Festy is why I love watching football. Seeing him switch on the afterburners and leave defenders in his wake is superb. You could feel the excitement in the crowd when he got the ball in wide positions and what a great assist and goal. I'm sure he will go on to great things (of course he already is with Derby!) and I'll be following his career with interest.

To be fair, I thought his 5 minutes last night was enough to justify more time….a very good cameo. 

This is just another example of how Boro and the EFL are so intertwined to mean anyone caught in the middle stands no chance of a fair hearing.
So, the facts.
In 2002, Boro, with Steve Gibson as their chairman, win an appeal court hearing against Liverpool, whose chief executive just happens to be Rick Parry, for the 'tapping up' of Boro player Christian Ziege prior to his signing for Liverpool.
Reading the reports of the case it is easy to see why Parry may be cautious in wanting to keep Gibson onside now with his dealings with him:
The two clubs were due to meet at the high court in London on March 22 for what was expected to be a 10-day hearing, with the suspicion being that the dispute had long since degenerated into little more than a personal grudge between the Boro chairman Steve Gibson and the Liverpool chief executive Rick Parry.
 
"They have treated us like dirt," [Boro chief executive] Lamb said of Liverpool.
Liverpool can now appeal against yesterday's ruling and may wish to settle out of court. But this has become such a vitriolic and personal argument, Middlesbrough will not consider such a response.
I assume that in any communication Boro has with the EFL that Gibson and Parry have no contact with each other and declare their previous history. Otherwise, surely, there is a major risk that this will influence, whether consciously or not, any future cases, such as exactly the one that the two men, in their respective roles with the EFL and Boro, have made against Derby.
 
 
 

Re this being a MFC vs DCFC thing and that being the basis for Gibson declining Mel’s offer:
If that’s the case, what is MFC’s endgame here? If they win, there’s no money to pay them so it’s liquidation. Gibson knows that, so if that’s the intended endgame fine, but please don’t trot out meaningless platitudes about not wanting us liquidated and not wanting the fans to suffer because rejecting Mel’s offer makes it abundantly clear to everyone that liquidation is their required outcome.
If it’s about recouping lost earnings then Mel’s just given you the perfect route. The only route. The catch, no kangaroo court to deliver your fait accompli verdict, so how confident are you with your fairytale claims?
Gibson can easily decline this, but there’s no real way of doing it without looking like a proper c***. It’s also the EFL’s only and last chance to avoid setting a precedent that will have huge, negative, ramifications for the future of football.

I still think the EFL are digging themselves into a deeper and deeper hole here, using a spade that Boro have forced them to use while they oversee the EFL shovelling away.
In the League Arbitration Panel's ruling of 22nd October 2020, it is stated that:
On 6 September 2019 MFC commenced arbitration proceedings against EFL contending that EFL had failed to take timely disciplinary action against DCFC. On 29 November 2019 MFC and EFL agreed that this arbitration would be stayed and EFL would commence disciplinary proceedings against DCFC.
The key word here for me is 'stayed'. I did discuss this with a lawyer friend today and it does have the meaning that it implies of paused rather than stopped or terminated.
Surely if Boro initially wanted to commence proceedings directly against the EFL for not taking action against Derby, and the EFL only managed to convince Boro not to do so by saying they would commence disciplinary proceedings against Derby themselves, then the action by Boro against the EFL would not be stayed but stopped. It implies that Boro will hold the threat over the EFL that they will restart action against them if the EFL doesn't pursue Derby to their liking.
This point is also made by Mel Morris' letter today in which he says 'The root of this is that they are also under attack from Boro who basically said you pursue Derby at all costs, or we will continue with our action to pursue the EFL.'
This isn't just MM ranting or paranoia of the EFL's stance against Derby, it is spelled out in this ruling on the EFL website.
How possibly can Derby expect a fair hearing in any of the matters since the start of all this with the EFL actions clearly being influenced by the threat of a claim against them if things don't go Boro's way?
 

I still think the EFL are digging themselves into a deeper and deeper hole here, using a spade that Boro have forced them to use while they oversee the EFL shovelling away.
In the League Arbitration Panel's ruling of 22nd October 2020, it is stated that:
On 6 September 2019 MFC commenced arbitration proceedings against EFL contending that EFL had failed to take timely disciplinary action against DCFC. On 29 November 2019 MFC and EFL agreed that this arbitration would be stayed and EFL would commence disciplinary proceedings against DCFC.
The key word here for me is 'stayed'. I did discuss this with a lawyer friend today and it does have the meaning that it implies of paused rather than stopped or terminated.
Surely if Boro initially wanted to commence proceedings directly against the EFL for not taking action against Derby, and the EFL only managed to convince Boro not to do so by saying they would commence disciplinary proceedings against Derby themselves, then the action by Boro against the EFL would not be stayed but stopped. It implies that Boro will hold the threat over the EFL that they will restart action against them if the EFL doesn't pursue Derby to their liking.
This point is also made by Mel Morris' letter today in which he says 'The root of this is that they are also under attack from Boro who basically said you pursue Derby at all costs, or we will continue with our action to pursue the EFL.'
This isn't just MM ranting or paranoia of the EFL's stance against Derby, it is spelled out in this ruling on the EFL website.
How possibly can Derby expect a fair hearing in any of the matters since the start of all this with the EFL actions clearly being influenced by the threat of a claim against them if things don't go Boro's way?
 

I still think the EFL are digging themselves into a deeper and deeper hole here, using a spade that Boro have forced them to use while they oversee the EFL shovelling away.
In the League Arbitration Panel's ruling of 22nd October 2020, it is stated that:
On 6 September 2019 MFC commenced arbitration proceedings against EFL contending that EFL had failed to take timely disciplinary action against DCFC. On 29 November 2019 MFC and EFL agreed that this arbitration would be stayed and EFL would commence disciplinary proceedings against DCFC.
The key word here for me is 'stayed'. I did discuss this with a lawyer friend today and it does have the meaning that it implies of paused rather than stopped or terminated.
Surely if Boro initially wanted to commence proceedings directly against the EFL for not taking action against Derby, and the EFL only managed to convince Boro not to do so by saying they would commence disciplinary proceedings against Derby themselves, then the action by Boro against the EFL would not be stayed but stopped. It implies that Boro will hold the threat over the EFL that they will restart action against them if the EFL doesn't pursue Derby to their liking.
This point is also made by Mel Morris' letter today in which he says 'The root of this is that they are also under attack from Boro who basically said you pursue Derby at all costs, or we will continue with our action to pursue the EFL.'
This isn't just MM ranting or paranoia of the EFL's stance against Derby, it is spelled out in this ruling on the EFL website.
How possibly can Derby expect a fair hearing in any of the matters since the start of all this with the EFL actions clearly being influenced by the threat of a claim against them if things don't go Boro's way?
 

I still think the EFL are digging themselves into a deeper and deeper hole here, using a spade that Boro have forced them to use while they oversee the EFL shovelling away.
In the League Arbitration Panel's ruling of 22nd October 2020, it is stated that:
On 6 September 2019 MFC commenced arbitration proceedings against EFL contending that EFL had failed to take timely disciplinary action against DCFC. On 29 November 2019 MFC and EFL agreed that this arbitration would be stayed and EFL would commence disciplinary proceedings against DCFC.
The key word here for me is 'stayed'. I did discuss this with a lawyer friend today and it does have the meaning that it implies of paused rather than stopped or terminated.
Surely if Boro initially wanted to commence proceedings directly against the EFL for not taking action against Derby, and the EFL only managed to convince Boro not to do so by saying they would commence disciplinary proceedings against Derby themselves, then the action by Boro against the EFL would not be stayed but stopped. It implies that Boro will hold the threat over the EFL that they will restart action against them if the EFL doesn't pursue Derby to their liking.
This point is also made by Mel Morris' letter today in which he says 'The root of this is that they are also under attack from Boro who basically said you pursue Derby at all costs, or we will continue with our action to pursue the EFL.'
This isn't just MM ranting or paranoia of the EFL's stance against Derby, it is spelled out in this ruling on the EFL website.
How possibly can Derby expect a fair hearing in any of the matters since the start of all this with the EFL actions clearly being influenced by the threat of a claim against them if things don't go Boro's way?
 

This is just another example of how Boro and the EFL are so intertwined to mean anyone caught in the middle stands no chance of a fair hearing.
So, the facts.
In 2002, Boro, with Steve Gibson as their chairman, win an appeal court hearing against Liverpool, whose chief executive just happens to be Rick Parry, for the 'tapping up' of Boro player Christian Ziege prior to his signing for Liverpool.
Reading the reports of the case it is easy to see why Parry may be cautious in wanting to keep Gibson onside now with his dealings with him:
The two clubs were due to meet at the high court in London on March 22 for what was expected to be a 10-day hearing, with the suspicion being that the dispute had long since degenerated into little more than a personal grudge between the Boro chairman Steve Gibson and the Liverpool chief executive Rick Parry.
 
"They have treated us like dirt," [Boro chief executive] Lamb said of Liverpool.
Liverpool can now appeal against yesterday's ruling and may wish to settle out of court. But this has become such a vitriolic and personal argument, Middlesbrough will not consider such a response.
I assume that in any communication Boro has with the EFL that Gibson and Parry have no contact with each other and declare their previous history. Otherwise, surely, there is a major risk that this will influence, whether consciously or not, any future cases, such as exactly the one that the two men, in their respective roles with the EFL and Boro, have made against Derby.
 
 
 

I still think the EFL are digging themselves into a deeper and deeper hole here, using a spade that Boro have forced them to use while they oversee the EFL shovelling away.
In the League Arbitration Panel's ruling of 22nd October 2020, it is stated that:
On 6 September 2019 MFC commenced arbitration proceedings against EFL contending that EFL had failed to take timely disciplinary action against DCFC. On 29 November 2019 MFC and EFL agreed that this arbitration would be stayed and EFL would commence disciplinary proceedings against DCFC.
The key word here for me is 'stayed'. I did discuss this with a lawyer friend today and it does have the meaning that it implies of paused rather than stopped or terminated.
Surely if Boro initially wanted to commence proceedings directly against the EFL for not taking action against Derby, and the EFL only managed to convince Boro not to do so by saying they would commence disciplinary proceedings against Derby themselves, then the action by Boro against the EFL would not be stayed but stopped. It implies that Boro will hold the threat over the EFL that they will restart action against them if the EFL doesn't pursue Derby to their liking.
This point is also made by Mel Morris' letter today in which he says 'The root of this is that they are also under attack from Boro who basically said you pursue Derby at all costs, or we will continue with our action to pursue the EFL.'
This isn't just MM ranting or paranoia of the EFL's stance against Derby, it is spelled out in this ruling on the EFL website.
How possibly can Derby expect a fair hearing in any of the matters since the start of all this with the EFL actions clearly being influenced by the threat of a claim against them if things don't go Boro's way?
 

I still think the EFL are digging themselves into a deeper and deeper hole here, using a spade that Boro have forced them to use while they oversee the EFL shovelling away.
In the League Arbitration Panel's ruling of 22nd October 2020, it is stated that:
On 6 September 2019 MFC commenced arbitration proceedings against EFL contending that EFL had failed to take timely disciplinary action against DCFC. On 29 November 2019 MFC and EFL agreed that this arbitration would be stayed and EFL would commence disciplinary proceedings against DCFC.
The key word here for me is 'stayed'. I did discuss this with a lawyer friend today and it does have the meaning that it implies of paused rather than stopped or terminated.
Surely if Boro initially wanted to commence proceedings directly against the EFL for not taking action against Derby, and the EFL only managed to convince Boro not to do so by saying they would commence disciplinary proceedings against Derby themselves, then the action by Boro against the EFL would not be stayed but stopped. It implies that Boro will hold the threat over the EFL that they will restart action against them if the EFL doesn't pursue Derby to their liking.
This point is also made by Mel Morris' letter today in which he says 'The root of this is that they are also under attack from Boro who basically said you pursue Derby at all costs, or we will continue with our action to pursue the EFL.'
This isn't just MM ranting or paranoia of the EFL's stance against Derby, it is spelled out in this ruling on the EFL website.
How possibly can Derby expect a fair hearing in any of the matters since the start of all this with the EFL actions clearly being influenced by the threat of a claim against them if things don't go Boro's way?
 

I still think the EFL are digging themselves into a deeper and deeper hole here, using a spade that Boro have forced them to use while they oversee the EFL shovelling away.
In the League Arbitration Panel's ruling of 22nd October 2020, it is stated that:
On 6 September 2019 MFC commenced arbitration proceedings against EFL contending that EFL had failed to take timely disciplinary action against DCFC. On 29 November 2019 MFC and EFL agreed that this arbitration would be stayed and EFL would commence disciplinary proceedings against DCFC.
The key word here for me is 'stayed'. I did discuss this with a lawyer friend today and it does have the meaning that it implies of paused rather than stopped or terminated.
Surely if Boro initially wanted to commence proceedings directly against the EFL for not taking action against Derby, and the EFL only managed to convince Boro not to do so by saying they would commence disciplinary proceedings against Derby themselves, then the action by Boro against the EFL would not be stayed but stopped. It implies that Boro will hold the threat over the EFL that they will restart action against them if the EFL doesn't pursue Derby to their liking.
This point is also made by Mel Morris' letter today in which he says 'The root of this is that they are also under attack from Boro who basically said you pursue Derby at all costs, or we will continue with our action to pursue the EFL.'
This isn't just MM ranting or paranoia of the EFL's stance against Derby, it is spelled out in this ruling on the EFL website.
How possibly can Derby expect a fair hearing in any of the matters since the start of all this with the EFL actions clearly being influenced by the threat of a claim against them if things don't go Boro's way?
 

I still think the EFL are digging themselves into a deeper and deeper hole here, using a spade that Boro have forced them to use while they oversee the EFL shovelling away.
In the League Arbitration Panel's ruling of 22nd October 2020, it is stated that:
On 6 September 2019 MFC commenced arbitration proceedings against EFL contending that EFL had failed to take timely disciplinary action against DCFC. On 29 November 2019 MFC and EFL agreed that this arbitration would be stayed and EFL would commence disciplinary proceedings against DCFC.
The key word here for me is 'stayed'. I did discuss this with a lawyer friend today and it does have the meaning that it implies of paused rather than stopped or terminated.
Surely if Boro initially wanted to commence proceedings directly against the EFL for not taking action against Derby, and the EFL only managed to convince Boro not to do so by saying they would commence disciplinary proceedings against Derby themselves, then the action by Boro against the EFL would not be stayed but stopped. It implies that Boro will hold the threat over the EFL that they will restart action against them if the EFL doesn't pursue Derby to their liking.
This point is also made by Mel Morris' letter today in which he says 'The root of this is that they are also under attack from Boro who basically said you pursue Derby at all costs, or we will continue with our action to pursue the EFL.'
This isn't just MM ranting or paranoia of the EFL's stance against Derby, it is spelled out in this ruling on the EFL website.
How possibly can Derby expect a fair hearing in any of the matters since the start of all this with the EFL actions clearly being influenced by the threat of a claim against them if things don't go Boro's way?
 

I still think the EFL are digging themselves into a deeper and deeper hole here, using a spade that Boro have forced them to use while they oversee the EFL shovelling away.
In the League Arbitration Panel's ruling of 22nd October 2020, it is stated that:
On 6 September 2019 MFC commenced arbitration proceedings against EFL contending that EFL had failed to take timely disciplinary action against DCFC. On 29 November 2019 MFC and EFL agreed that this arbitration would be stayed and EFL would commence disciplinary proceedings against DCFC.
The key word here for me is 'stayed'. I did discuss this with a lawyer friend today and it does have the meaning that it implies of paused rather than stopped or terminated.
Surely if Boro initially wanted to commence proceedings directly against the EFL for not taking action against Derby, and the EFL only managed to convince Boro not to do so by saying they would commence disciplinary proceedings against Derby themselves, then the action by Boro against the EFL would not be stayed but stopped. It implies that Boro will hold the threat over the EFL that they will restart action against them if the EFL doesn't pursue Derby to their liking.
This point is also made by Mel Morris' letter today in which he says 'The root of this is that they are also under attack from Boro who basically said you pursue Derby at all costs, or we will continue with our action to pursue the EFL.'
This isn't just MM ranting or paranoia of the EFL's stance against Derby, it is spelled out in this ruling on the EFL website.
How possibly can Derby expect a fair hearing in any of the matters since the start of all this with the EFL actions clearly being influenced by the threat of a claim against them if things don't go Boro's way?
 

I still think the EFL are digging themselves into a deeper and deeper hole here, using a spade that Boro have forced them to use while they oversee the EFL shovelling away.
In the League Arbitration Panel's ruling of 22nd October 2020, it is stated that:
On 6 September 2019 MFC commenced arbitration proceedings against EFL contending that EFL had failed to take timely disciplinary action against DCFC. On 29 November 2019 MFC and EFL agreed that this arbitration would be stayed and EFL would commence disciplinary proceedings against DCFC.
The key word here for me is 'stayed'. I did discuss this with a lawyer friend today and it does have the meaning that it implies of paused rather than stopped or terminated.
Surely if Boro initially wanted to commence proceedings directly against the EFL for not taking action against Derby, and the EFL only managed to convince Boro not to do so by saying they would commence disciplinary proceedings against Derby themselves, then the action by Boro against the EFL would not be stayed but stopped. It implies that Boro will hold the threat over the EFL that they will restart action against them if the EFL doesn't pursue Derby to their liking.
This point is also made by Mel Morris' letter today in which he says 'The root of this is that they are also under attack from Boro who basically said you pursue Derby at all costs, or we will continue with our action to pursue the EFL.'
This isn't just MM ranting or paranoia of the EFL's stance against Derby, it is spelled out in this ruling on the EFL website.
How possibly can Derby expect a fair hearing in any of the matters since the start of all this with the EFL actions clearly being influenced by the threat of a claim against them if things don't go Boro's way?
 

This is just another example of how Boro and the EFL are so intertwined to mean anyone caught in the middle stands no chance of a fair hearing.
So, the facts.
In 2002, Boro, with Steve Gibson as their chairman, win an appeal court hearing against Liverpool, whose chief executive just happens to be Rick Parry, for the 'tapping up' of Boro player Christian Ziege prior to his signing for Liverpool.
Reading the reports of the case it is easy to see why Parry may be cautious in wanting to keep Gibson onside now with his dealings with him:
The two clubs were due to meet at the high court in London on March 22 for what was expected to be a 10-day hearing, with the suspicion being that the dispute had long since degenerated into little more than a personal grudge between the Boro chairman Steve Gibson and the Liverpool chief executive Rick Parry.
 
"They have treated us like dirt," [Boro chief executive] Lamb said of Liverpool.
Liverpool can now appeal against yesterday's ruling and may wish to settle out of court. But this has become such a vitriolic and personal argument, Middlesbrough will not consider such a response.
I assume that in any communication Boro has with the EFL that Gibson and Parry have no contact with each other and declare their previous history. Otherwise, surely, there is a major risk that this will influence, whether consciously or not, any future cases, such as exactly the one that the two men, in their respective roles with the EFL and Boro, have made against Derby.
 
 
 

I still think the EFL are digging themselves into a deeper and deeper hole here, using a spade that Boro have forced them to use while they oversee the EFL shovelling away.
In the League Arbitration Panel's ruling of 22nd October 2020, it is stated that:
On 6 September 2019 MFC commenced arbitration proceedings against EFL contending that EFL had failed to take timely disciplinary action against DCFC. On 29 November 2019 MFC and EFL agreed that this arbitration would be stayed and EFL would commence disciplinary proceedings against DCFC.
The key word here for me is 'stayed'. I did discuss this with a lawyer friend today and it does have the meaning that it implies of paused rather than stopped or terminated.
Surely if Boro initially wanted to commence proceedings directly against the EFL for not taking action against Derby, and the EFL only managed to convince Boro not to do so by saying they would commence disciplinary proceedings against Derby themselves, then the action by Boro against the EFL would not be stayed but stopped. It implies that Boro will hold the threat over the EFL that they will restart action against them if the EFL doesn't pursue Derby to their liking.
This point is also made by Mel Morris' letter today in which he says 'The root of this is that they are also under attack from Boro who basically said you pursue Derby at all costs, or we will continue with our action to pursue the EFL.'
This isn't just MM ranting or paranoia of the EFL's stance against Derby, it is spelled out in this ruling on the EFL website.
How possibly can Derby expect a fair hearing in any of the matters since the start of all this with the EFL actions clearly being influenced by the threat of a claim against them if things don't go Boro's way?
 

I still think the EFL are digging themselves into a deeper and deeper hole here, using a spade that Boro have forced them to use while they oversee the EFL shovelling away.
In the League Arbitration Panel's ruling of 22nd October 2020, it is stated that:
On 6 September 2019 MFC commenced arbitration proceedings against EFL contending that EFL had failed to take timely disciplinary action against DCFC. On 29 November 2019 MFC and EFL agreed that this arbitration would be stayed and EFL would commence disciplinary proceedings against DCFC.
The key word here for me is 'stayed'. I did discuss this with a lawyer friend today and it does have the meaning that it implies of paused rather than stopped or terminated.
Surely if Boro initially wanted to commence proceedings directly against the EFL for not taking action against Derby, and the EFL only managed to convince Boro not to do so by saying they would commence disciplinary proceedings against Derby themselves, then the action by Boro against the EFL would not be stayed but stopped. It implies that Boro will hold the threat over the EFL that they will restart action against them if the EFL doesn't pursue Derby to their liking.
This point is also made by Mel Morris' letter today in which he says 'The root of this is that they are also under attack from Boro who basically said you pursue Derby at all costs, or we will continue with our action to pursue the EFL.'
This isn't just MM ranting or paranoia of the EFL's stance against Derby, it is spelled out in this ruling on the EFL website.
How possibly can Derby expect a fair hearing in any of the matters since the start of all this with the EFL actions clearly being influenced by the threat of a claim against them if things don't go Boro's way?
 

I still think the EFL are digging themselves into a deeper and deeper hole here, using a spade that Boro have forced them to use while they oversee the EFL shovelling away.
In the League Arbitration Panel's ruling of 22nd October 2020, it is stated that:
On 6 September 2019 MFC commenced arbitration proceedings against EFL contending that EFL had failed to take timely disciplinary action against DCFC. On 29 November 2019 MFC and EFL agreed that this arbitration would be stayed and EFL would commence disciplinary proceedings against DCFC.
The key word here for me is 'stayed'. I did discuss this with a lawyer friend today and it does have the meaning that it implies of paused rather than stopped or terminated.
Surely if Boro initially wanted to commence proceedings directly against the EFL for not taking action against Derby, and the EFL only managed to convince Boro not to do so by saying they would commence disciplinary proceedings against Derby themselves, then the action by Boro against the EFL would not be stayed but stopped. It implies that Boro will hold the threat over the EFL that they will restart action against them if the EFL doesn't pursue Derby to their liking.
This point is also made by Mel Morris' letter today in which he says 'The root of this is that they are also under attack from Boro who basically said you pursue Derby at all costs, or we will continue with our action to pursue the EFL.'
This isn't just MM ranting or paranoia of the EFL's stance against Derby, it is spelled out in this ruling on the EFL website.
How possibly can Derby expect a fair hearing in any of the matters since the start of all this with the EFL actions clearly being influenced by the threat of a claim against them if things don't go Boro's way?