WestKentRam

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?
 

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?
 

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 reckon that's a great statement by Mel.  Not too much legalese or obfuscation.  Written in words you could imagine him saying.  Not just corporate bullsh*t.  Personal enough to tell he's rattled, but still prepared to 'fight to the end'.  Dismantles the Mboro, Wycombe and EFL claims piece by piece.
I know the haters are still gonna hate, but I feel Mel's response has smashed the ball firmly back into EFL's court.
Let's see how confident they are now.  Bring it on!
 

QPR were the only team that were found to have broken FFP rules that directly involved us. However much it sticks in the throat given how we have been pursued, Villa's accounts were deemed above board, as were Wolves.
Leicester's 'miracle' of promotion in the same 13/14 season and then winning the Premier League is even more sickening to me given the story behind their finances behind this as per this article https://www.theguardian.com/football/2018/feb/21/leicester-settlement-football-league-ffp I can hardly see the EFL and Derby coming out with a joint statement as the EFL did with Leicester then when they were fined the huge sum of £3.1m:
'The EFL and Leicester announced the £3.1m settlement in identical statements, which gave little detail about the issues considered. The statements made clear that: “In reaching the settlement, the EFL acknowledges that the club did not make any deliberate attempt to infringe the rules or to deceive and that the dispute arose out of genuine differences of interpretation of the rules between the parties.”' How nice.
So in 13/14  two of the three teams that were promoted ahead of us were found to have broken FFP rules, but now we are threatened with extinction for supposedly doing then same despite initially winning the case against the EFL.

QPR were the only team that were found to have broken FFP rules that directly involved us. However much it sticks in the throat given how we have been pursued, Villa's accounts were deemed above board, as were Wolves.
Leicester's 'miracle' of promotion in the same 13/14 season and then winning the Premier League is even more sickening to me given the story behind their finances behind this as per this article https://www.theguardian.com/football/2018/feb/21/leicester-settlement-football-league-ffp I can hardly see the EFL and Derby coming out with a joint statement as the EFL did with Leicester then when they were fined the huge sum of £3.1m:
'The EFL and Leicester announced the £3.1m settlement in identical statements, which gave little detail about the issues considered. The statements made clear that: “In reaching the settlement, the EFL acknowledges that the club did not make any deliberate attempt to infringe the rules or to deceive and that the dispute arose out of genuine differences of interpretation of the rules between the parties.”' How nice.
So in 13/14  two of the three teams that were promoted ahead of us were found to have broken FFP rules, but now we are threatened with extinction for supposedly doing then same despite initially winning the case against the EFL.

Absolutely not.
It is also a coincidence that both Boro and the EFL indepently 'served Notice of Arbitration' on exactly the same date of 7 September 2020 to appeal the Disciplinary Commission decision following Derby initially winning the case.
It also has absolutely nothing to do with Boro deciding on 29 November 2019 not to pursue their case against the EFL as long as the EFL commenced disciplinary proceedings against Derby, and Boro would then seek compensation from Derby.
The EFL siding with Boro against Derby once again in their latest statement just shows how they can ignore any previous agreements with Boro, and act as a completely independent body. Well done the EFL on such impartiality, I say!

Absolutely not.
It is also a coincidence that both Boro and the EFL indepently 'served Notice of Arbitration' on exactly the same date of 7 September 2020 to appeal the Disciplinary Commission decision following Derby initially winning the case.
It also has absolutely nothing to do with Boro deciding on 29 November 2019 not to pursue their case against the EFL as long as the EFL commenced disciplinary proceedings against Derby, and Boro would then seek compensation from Derby.
The EFL siding with Boro against Derby once again in their latest statement just shows how they can ignore any previous agreements with Boro, and act as a completely independent body. Well done the EFL on such impartiality, I say!

Absolutely not.
It is also a coincidence that both Boro and the EFL indepently 'served Notice of Arbitration' on exactly the same date of 7 September 2020 to appeal the Disciplinary Commission decision following Derby initially winning the case.
It also has absolutely nothing to do with Boro deciding on 29 November 2019 not to pursue their case against the EFL as long as the EFL commenced disciplinary proceedings against Derby, and Boro would then seek compensation from Derby.
The EFL siding with Boro against Derby once again in their latest statement just shows how they can ignore any previous agreements with Boro, and act as a completely independent body. Well done the EFL on such impartiality, I say!