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?

If none of the bidders are willing to take on the liability of Middlesbrough's claim; that must mean that they think that the claim has some merit!?
Or it means that they want to settle (to have certainty), and will hold out as long as possible in a game of Derby Liquified Chicken!
................
But which one?

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

I suppose this is why people say that Mike Ashley may leave it until the last second!
As we approach liquidation date, Middlesbrough's expected income from their claim approaches zero; as does the value of the stadium.
Ashley can take it or leave it. So, Middlesbrough may blink first. Middlesbrough may prefer a smaller settlement, than get nothing.
Sadly, we fans may have to endure things going to the wire.

Yes; Boro have them in a double-bind. Support us to sue Derby or we sue you for failing to act. It's a deal done by Boro weeks and weeks ago. That's why EFL simply won't budge. It's easier to screw Derby now than be called out for incompetence earlier. 

I think they have as much admitted that. Boro threatened the EFL with action and the EFL pointed them to us.
The frustrating part is (someone correct me if I am wrong) is that the EFL won't say yes this is or no it isn't a football debt as either answer creates so many issues for them. It either sets a precedent that unproven claims are football debts which would be ridiculous as they are unproven in a court of law or they get sued by Boro and have to go to court. This would then highlight their mistakes in the public eye.

I suppose this is why people say that Mike Ashley may leave it until the last second!
As we approach liquidation date, Middlesbrough's expected income from their claim approaches zero; as does the value of the stadium.
Ashley can take it or leave it. So, Middlesbrough may blink first. Middlesbrough may prefer a smaller settlement, than get nothing.
Sadly, we fans may have to endure things going to the wire.

Whether or not Middlesbrough's claim would be a football debt, why would an owner take on that liability unless they were certain it had no merit?
And if they are assured that it had no merit, what does it matter if it is counted as a football debt?
in this case, could sufficiently wealthy owners say that they will take on the claim by Middlesbrough - based on their assessment of the risk? 

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 ...