Woodley Ram

One at Everton maybe , rather have one of Roy Mac 

26 minutes ago, RoyMac5 said:

I figure that whatever way cash changes hands after this, Mel will feel he has recovered the moral high ground and made Boro and Wycombe look every inch the chancers they are.

He might think that but he would be wrong 

The information from all is a little misleading. I like what Mel said but we are in the brown stuff because of him. 

i would like somebody to explore the relationship between the EFL and Middlesbrough, by that I mean a proper investigation and potentially a criminal one if they have colluded. If the EFL do something with the intention of gaining money for Middlesbrough that should not have been paid then that is fraud (and yes I do know my criminal law). The reason I say that is what appears to be the EFL’s insistence on Derby effectively paying 0ff Middlesbrough and Wycombe before they can come out of administration. When at a tribunal they would have not have had to. Interesting fact here in a criminal court Gibson would have no chance with his claim. 
 

it’s interesting that Mel said the timetable for arbitration was May 2022 and that Middlesbrough had trimmed part of an EFL clause to suit their means. If so why have the EFL not dealt with that. It’s also interesting that the EFL made a decision on the football debt issue without knowing the facts (their words). I think if proven it is a football debt until then it’s not a debt at all.
 

The stance, late statements and the closeness of theirs and the Middlesbrough statements worries me unless they see them say 48 hours in advance. They also both seem to have a similar tone which is worrying unless there is something that we really don’t know and is earth shattering.

im not convinced that the administrators have handled this very well and I think Gibson et al should be in the hands of a lawyer, perhaps we can crowd fund for one? If I was DCFC and Mel I would consider taking the EFL and potentially Middlesbrough to court if what they have said is untrue.

The administration of FFP has always worried me, it dosnt seem to have any firm rules and is administrated on the whim of the EFL without taking into account any precedents that have been set with previous penalties. The Reading, Derby and Birmingham ones are very different. Now we have the likelihood of clubs being allowed to include potential transfers into Covid losses, isn’t this worse than the amortisation that Derby were punished for?  How can you value a future transfer, or it’s loss? Isn’t the loss down to a clubs operating model that they spend on the basis of potentially getting a windfall from selling a player? If they don’t in a covid season or not they breach FFP?

I agree with Mel about parachute payments, they should be to cover large wages on relegation not enable clubs to have a £20m head start in buying players that we not otherwise have signed.

we need anew regulator and fast and it needs to be independent for everyone’s sake.

44 minutes ago, Indy said:

It’s worse than that though, isn’t it? It’s not just that we haven’t had the same consideration on player value due to Covid. Didn’t the amortisation case finding (the final one that gave weight to the expert witness testimony) specifically say that the notional disposal value of a player could not be part of a club’s accounts. As our whole amortisation method was based around the changing notional values of players, they reasoned that it wasn’t valid. So to allow it now would raise questions about our 9 point deduction.

If they argue that it wouldn’t apply to our amortisation figures because it was as a result of Covid being a force majeure event, then that calls into question why we weren’t allowed to make that case in relation to our administration 12 point deduction. 

Excellent point

On 01/02/2022 at 17:04, Carl Sagan said:

We're box office at the moment!

 

yes its a pity we dont get the money to go with it

1 hour ago, BriggRam said:

I don't think it's down to stricter rules......the EFL will just bend the rules again, Boro, Forest, Stoke, Bristol City........none of them will be scrutinized and dealt with the way we have........our plight has awoken the masses to the EFL failings, all will change, and we are the founding member of that change

This gives the EFL a potential problem. Those named have an operating model where they buy cheap and sell big, if they don't sell big the model implodes. There  large debts over the Covid period are in most part due to the slump in the transfer market. They have asked for a proportion of the debt to be excluded due to this.

The EFL's problem is that I doubt if they have done this for Reading and Derby. Also how do you quantify the amount lost as it could be that you don't have suitable players to sell for circa £20m. Also is the slump in fees true? Forest have just turned down £12m for Johnson (good player) which is a large sum!

So if the EFL allow the exclusion of more Covid debt than for Reading and Derby do those clubs (bearing in mind they look likely to be contesting  the 4th from bottom place) have a case against the EFL and other clubs for loss of income?  

1-1 Knight

On 26/01/2022 at 11:29, BBG83 said:

Exactly. We never win. Survive and the club has to rebrand itself as a hard bargain.

The biggest problem clubs will have is not the fee (it will be small) but his wage demands 

1-1 FRGS CKR

1 hour ago, RedSox said:

why have you put a painting of Steve Cooper up?

49 minutes ago, BathRam72 said:

I have thought for a long time that Middlesbrough and WW don't really have a claim that would stand up in court (and they know it). So what other way can we be punished to the max?

Hold on as long as they can and we either go into liquidation or end up staying under embargo, sell our best assets and go down.

I feel that the very fact we have done so well and potentially could do enough to stay up is worrying a few so they are simply dragging things out until we fail. 

Quick question if both claims go to full arbitration and are proven to be false can we go after them for the problems they have caused 

16 hours ago, Bobby said:

It was a big bone of contention back in 2002 when we went into administration that a lot of local businesses went bust on the back of it, didn’t sit right with a lot of fans.

we are also probably the only club to go into Admin and comes out owing more than they went in with after a dodgy loan from Panama from a company called ABC, it was 10 million,1 million a year repayments which was interest only with the whole 10 million due at the end of it, if it hadn’t of been for Briatore and Bernie Ecclestone buying us we would almost have certainly gone out of business, the way they ran the club and tried to turn it into some kind of London Boutique is a different story. (You were one of the first to suffer the huge price hikes if I remember properly) . 
 
my original post regarding HMRC is valid I reckon, yes 7 million is better than nothing but going forward if they set a precedent they could lose a lot more especially as there’s more than a few clubs circling the drain at the moment.

QPR got away with murder with their fine

5 hours ago, Crewton said:

I'm assuming he's never worked as a Loss Adjuster.

When he talks I never think he has ever worked in football to be honest 

I have just heard Parry talk about the situation we are in. He said that we should negotiate with Wycombe and Middlesbrough so thereby (although he didn’t say this) admit liability. That’s a bit one sided. He also said that the claims by them is not the major stumbling block although he didn’t allude to what is. In short without saying it he called the Administrators liars as they have said the claims are the major issue.

it was a well thought out defence of the EFL and of Middlesbrough.

1-1 Knight

1 hour ago, Bobby said:

I was just making an observation about that analogy not being the greatest.

As I’ve said elsewhere the majority of QPR fans knew we were massively overspending, had destroyed the Warnock 2011 promotion squad, and couldn’t maintain those ridiculous wages going forward ( combined 150 grand a week on two keepers alone)

we were punished as per the rules at the time, probably the reason fines were replaced with points deductions, it has taken 6 years to get the club operating to a decent economic level, but from now on as soon as we develop a decent player he will have to be sold Ala Eze.

Good player Eze, QPR have put together a good team. I have lots of QPR fans from working in London, good people 

Just now, PistoldPete said:

We had just sold PPS when Lampard was in charge so no reason to think we were not within FFP then. 

Can someone help me out with the FFP over the Lampard era. We received points for that period which would be unfair if we were not over FFP

4 minutes ago, PistoldPete said:

Even when? 

When Frank Lampard was in charge

2 minutes ago, RoyMac5 said:

And the EFL punished us.

Yes and following that it should the end, we should be able to move on

2 minutes ago, PistoldPete said:

No, cheating is being dishonest. We didn't cheat, unless we knew what we were doing was wrong. 

Mel must have know we were over FFP even then

2 hours ago, PistoldPete said:

Can you maybe raise another point David. Gibson has said (in his rant to your Boro forum equivalent) he could have spent the £45 million on his family. Since when has his family been a football creditor?  

I'm serious. Gibson is funding Boro via soft loans. So really any losses Boro make are being absorbed by him, they are not losses to Boro.Its Gibson's personal loss, not Boro's he is trying to claim for.

Also he is saying Derby cheated. Well if so then it was Morris that cheated not Derby. If Morris really knew he wa sbreaking th erules, none of us did. So wouldnt Morris lose his protcetion of limited liability? So Gibson could go after Morris.

Basically it should be Gibson v Morris. Not Derby v Boro.

 
 

 

Unfortunately @PistoldPeteDerby and Mel are interlinked during his ownership period.  It’s not unheard of re the soft loans everyone does it. Sorry but if breaking the FFP rules is cheating then Mel/Derby did cheat. 
 

the 2 things I would say is

1- despite what the Middlesbrough statement says they don’t have the strongest case as there are far too many if and buts to a football season.  If I remember rightly we were over spent by small amounts each year (thanks to the sale of PP (which was taking the P really)). Unless they have some killer evidence I don’t see where it can go, but I have not seen the evidence.

2 - I’m not sure how a claim for damages that Derby refutes can be classed as a football debt. I understand why Middlesbrough want it done that way but how can it be? If it had been through a process and Derby were found guilty then yes. I’m not sure how you can be found guilty before a trial or tribunal, which is essentially what they are trying to do. 
 

i don’t accept if the comment you don’t think we will win just say you will pay for it if we do, that’s childish. We should find a way to say that we accept this going to an arbitration hearing after the takeover and will abide by its decision that’s seems fair and a way forward.

we need to play this with a straight bat

1 hour ago, TheresOnlyWanChope said:

Someone needs to tell Quantuma about this before Tom Lawrence gets sold for the price of a Skoda. 

Probably a second hand one at that

47 minutes ago, Gritstone Tup said:

Why won’t the administrators allow Wycombe to go to court?

If their case is nonsense then there’s every reason to get it to court, however I do appreciate this should have happened months ago, time is now not on our side.

It would cost money we don’t have

20 minutes ago, nottingram said:

Gibson can give us the £5m fee and £3m wages we paid him before his release then because we certainly didn’t get value 

I assume his rabble were in for him when he was available on a free and presumably much reduced wages this summer as well?

They were, I think we offered more hence his problem. We offered more that took us outside FFP, where as they offered an amount inside. If they had offered the same they might have gone over their limit. 
 

Personally I don’t think you can do it that way as I think we actually made a trading profit that year.

1 minute ago, RoyMac5 said:

Is it?

You said their case was in arbitration. That says it relates to a case that started in arbitration. It was thrown out?

"Middlesbrough FC commenced its claims against the Club over 12 months ago in arbitration proceedings, the framework for which is set out in EFL Regulations. The EFL is not a party to those proceedings and nor does it have a role in determining the outcome of them. As the arbitration proceedings are private and confidential, we are unable to provide any further detail."

Whilst I am not certain what the EFL made. They haven't mentioned ongoing arbitration anywhere? 

It dosnt say it was thrown out, if it was I stand corrected. It reads to me that it is ongoing from the copied message. I hope is has been kicked out as that was strengthen our case