Ken Tram

What is stopping the EFL from stating that Middlesbrough's claim is a non-football debt?
Are they scared of being sued by Middlesbrough?

To a large extent that was Middlesbrough's point.
Except it wasn't. Boro blew it on going up that season and they want someone to pay for it.

No arguments from me there. I've said all along that FFP in it's current form isn't fit for purpose.  I'd much prefer something like the wages/turnover ratio limit that applies in Leagues 1 and 2.  It's overspending on wages that kills clubs, not owners chucking some extra money in to buy a new striker - as we're amply demonstrating right now ?.

It wouldn't unfortunately, they would just reduce payments to other clubs to cover costs, thereby finishing the smaller ones off.  Championship and a number of League 1 clubs would be ok but seeing as half the clubs in this league are hanging round the FFP disaster area their not likely to increase the their debt load  by giving up their share to benefit others. 

But surely it is poor regulation for us to be being sanctioned for 2014-17 in 2021?

I genuinely think this would have been resolved by now if MM hadn't made it personal between him and SG.
Don't blame boro or their fans for disliking us. Will blame SG if we get liquidated and he gets nothing as will simply show its petty revenge towards our old owner over wanting compensation.
As always the EFL is useless and I can't see how they could have mismanaged this any more.

When the accounts were restated in line with what the EFL demanded, we were deemed to have failed the following periods:
2014-2017 (£7.76m) 2016-2019 (£11.72m) 2017-2021 (£1.96m) 2015-2018 was £10.88m under the limits, whilst 2017-2020 was discounted on Covid grounds (estimated by me at £11.12m above the limits)

Oh! There are so many holes in my understanding. Has Gibson been massaging the FFP rules with large dollops of aromatics too!?
Having said that, I am happy to give him a massage if he withdraws his claim against Derby. (I clearly have a price!)

Part of today’s Telegraph article
—————-
 
“It’s difficult not to conclude that we’ve seen gross EFL incompetence throughout this saga. A worthy governance institution should enforce rules in a timely manner and offer clarity. The FFP regulations are specifically supposed to ensure that members cannot get into these situations. On those grounds, the EFL has failed. While Derby supporters know that ultimate blame lies with Mel Morris, Derby South MP Margaret Beckett spoke for many in saying: “If Derby are to be liquidated, none of those involved will be forgiven.
 
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2022/01/20/footballs-financial-lunacy-cannot-tackled-red-tape/

You can hope but it wouldn't happen ?
Teams as far south as Gloucester City and Brackley Town are in the Northern section, Meanwhile Oxford City are the furthest North in the Southern Section.

He’s have sold the Riverside to himself if he could have, so I wouldn’t concede the moral high ground to someone shuffling their football club losses to a haulage firm to sidestep FFP limits. 

The clubs vote for the rules though, or at least vote to approve them. The clubs clearly thought it was something they wanted. And then when they saw it play out, they changed their minds (as is their right, obviously).
I find it hard to see it as a loophole too.  The only major fixed tangible assets clubs have are their stadium and training ground, so it's not really clear what else this rule change could be for.  If I was guessing, I'd say that enough clubs sensed they were sailing close enough to the FFP thresholds to want a fallback option there, just in case. And then the backlash etc made enough of them change their minds a few years later.

Don't get me wrong - I'm not trying to argue!
I think that the regulator was at fault to allow stadium-sales to count towards Financial Fair Play.
It may not have been the regulator's intention. 
Maybe Derby and other clubs found a loophole.
But I think that it was not wrong for a club like Middlesbrough to challenge such actions - because, as you say, the loophole was later closed.

I think that I tend to agree with you.
Our moral stance is more important too.
Liquidate rather than pay Middlesbrough.
I hope that the EFL will take any hit, if Middlesbrough insist on maintaining their claim.

I think that I tend to agree with you.
Our moral stance is more important too.
Liquidate rather than pay Middlesbrough.
I hope that the EFL will take any hit, if Middlesbrough insist on maintaining their claim.

1p

I am not opposed to Conference North! We are a top 20 club in terms of fan base. We would be back in the Championship before we knew it.
I don't think we should kowtow.
I think the worst case scenario - if it might be conference North - is not as bad as giving Middlesbrough £45m.
It's an interesting question! How much would be too much? £1, £1m, £10m, £45m ...

The rules were expressly changed a few seasons before we did it, to allow profit/loss from disposal of fixed tangible assets to count towards FFP.  There's no question of interpretation here as it was a change that was consciously and deliberately made.  And the value was determined correctly by a 3rd party valuer, so there's no issue there either.
The rules were changed back a few seasons later, so it's not allowed any more.  But that's not relevant to our case, as it was clearly and deliberately allowed at the time.

The obvious question with that is, were 'Boro trying to make the EFL enforce their rules, or trying to make them enforce a particular interpretation of them that favoured 'Boro over us?  It certainly seems clear that in what 'Boro deemed to be the major issue (the stadium sale), the interpretation that the EFL initially applied was correct (that the sale was allowed).

I`m pretty sure it would be 1 league down from the conference, so probably Conference North.
I read somewhere that whilst other Phoenix Clubs have started much lower down the pyramid, none of them are close to the size and fanbase of Derby and any clubs lower than this would simply not be able to cope with the amount of away fans that we would take.

The EFL should compensate Middlesbrough.
Middlesbrough were right - the regulation was not fit for purpose - EFL were in the wrong.
Derby did not blatantly break the rules. The arbitrators found in our favour - which was overturned by appeal.
We have had a sanction, within the rules.
I think I'm saying that Middlesbrough were not wrong to try to put an end to poor regulation. Everyone agrees with them. The regulator should take the hit, rather than singling outa whipping boy.

If liquidated, which tier could we realistically restart in?
Are we allowed to keep the same name?
(It's not what I want to happen, but I'd like to know the threat.)

The EFL should compensate Middlesbrough.
Middlesbrough were right - the regulation was not fit for purpose - EFL were in the wrong.
Derby did not blatantly break the rules. The arbitrators found in our favour - which was overturned by appeal.
We have had a sanction, within the rules.
I think I'm saying that Middlesbrough were not wrong to try to put an end to poor regulation. Everyone agrees with them. The regulator should take the hit, rather than singling outa whipping boy.

Being British, part of me would prefer that to giving in to Middlesbrough.
The other part would prefer a compromise to make the problem go away.
And the hopeful part hopes that the unfounded claims melt away!
I think that the size of my parts will fluctuate as we head towards the end of January!

I think it's been said on here to be something like the 4th or 5th none league tier.
The rights to the name *could be bought as part of the liquidation but the new club would be a new club not a continuation club. Although we could just cry that it is until everyone gets board of the argument like rangers did.