atherstoneram

4 hours ago, Ram a lamb a ding dong said:

Great post

If Derby don't get City of culture it won't be anything to do with the club,a lot seems to think the city revolves around the club but in reality it doesn't.

2 hours ago, Unlucky Alf said:

Estimated loss of revenue to the City of Derby £100 million, Which will equate to business closures, Loss of jobs, Family break ups, Medical issues, The Government not subsidising big employers to take their business into Derby, Les tax revenue, More monies spent on Universal credit and the like, Plus much more.

Leeds, red dogs and boro fans may want to see a "big club failing" but I doubt there's many in Westminster who share that view.

Who has estimated the loss to the city of £100M or is it a figure someone has plucked out of thin air.

Just now, Anag Ram said:

Coming out of administration is like making love to a beautiful woman.

You have to satisfy every point, keep your assets for as long as possible and get others on board to make sure she’s there for the long haul.

 

One indiscretion on your part and she is off like a shot never to be seen again.

40 minutes ago, G STAR RAM said:

P&S figures are not available in the accounts, so I would suggest getting your facts correct first. 

I don't think I'm entitled to know anything and not sure how the administrators would know how the EFL calculated Readings points deduction?

I asked the EFL the question and you would think that with them keen to stress that they are treating DCFC fairly that they would want to be transparent on such a matter which should clearly demonstrate they are treating all teams equally and in line with their rules.

 

Why the need to ask the EFL, your question should be directed towards the administrators if you have any concerns. If you had a contract with the ELF that would be different but you don't no fan does.

4 hours ago, G STAR RAM said:

The EFL are usually pretty good at responding but also very good at cherry picking which part of your questions they want to answer.

Im on to my 3rd e-mail asking how much Reading failed P&S by and how their points deduction was calculated in relation to ours.

Also on to 3rd e-mail asking why Boro have not been charged re their comments over DCFC systematically cheating.

They don't have to provide any information whatsoever and could politely inform you to refer your question to the administrators, it is nothing to do with anyone to be told how much Reading failed P&S  by,that should be available to see in the accounts. People are getting too carried away thinking they are "entitled" to know everything. 

19 minutes ago, Sparkle said:

Yep I know but lodging a few with a valid claim will be rolling some marbles under their feet ?

What valid claim would that be?

1 hour ago, Kingpin said:

Surely NOBODY was naive enough to think he’d come straight out and say “ok Mel, as you wish. Me and you to court it is..” ? ??

He doesn't even need to respond to MM, he is no longer anything to do with the club apart from being the landlord of the ground we play on.

51 minutes ago, ilkleyram said:

Agreed.  But Mel - who still continues to have a substantial stake in the club, by owning the ground (and I know that there are different views on that) - not only was the club at the time that the 'offences' were allegedly committed, he is also now offering to be 'the club' again with regard to this one/two claim(s) only. 

He has effectively said to M/WW - if you are truthful in your wish to see DCFC continue in action, if you want your case to be heard in a neutral arena, if you want to win financial recompense to meet the damages you say has been caused by my action as owner of DCFC, then sue me in the HC and if I lose I will pay the damages awarded.

He's also saying that the claim/proposed claim are holding up the takeover process and that he doesn't trust the internal football processes to give him a fair hearing that he will get in a non-football setting.  Given his experiences so far and that he would have to be a significant part of any arbitration case given that he was the owner and decision maker at the time, you can't blame him from wanting nothing to do with a LAP run by the EFL.

Incidentally, whilst we presume that Mel's statement/offer was known in advance by Q, we don't know that was the case.  Nor do we know Q's view of it. A question for the supporters' groups tonight perhaps

With the club being in administration i very much doubt that MM can be "the club" again, he relinquished that option when he placed the club in administration. Even if they were to accept the "offer" there is nothing to still stop them chasing the club.

2 hours ago, Indy said:

I remember him saying that he’d put DCFC into administration as he felt the EFL were biased against him and wouldn’t consider the issues fairly whilst he was still the owner. That is consistent with him seeing that they are continuing their vendetta against the club in his absence, so deciding to get back involved again. 

In that case just sign the ground over to the administrators for free or a nominal £1,so they can sell with the ground included for a higher price which includes payment to MSD but it appears MM  doesn't appear to want to do that.

4 hours ago, Curtains said:

According to the EFL the EFL rules are their law supervised by them .

 

With the rules drawn up/agreed by 72 associate members of the EFL.

4 hours ago, RadioactiveWaste said:

Here's a left field idea - the EFL's leverage is there's not another league we could play in.

But ..is there.....

In the same way the NFL wanted a UK team for years, could we join the MLS?!

We could get our Jonny Russell back.

Our version of MLS would be Midland League Soccer.

10 hours ago, PistoldPete said:

Limited Liability protection applies to the owners of a Company not being responsible for that Company’s debts.

it doesn’t necessarily prevent an employee of that Company being responsible for their own misconduct , thereby creating a debt for themselves.

especially where as you say Morris is publicly stating he is willing to accept that responsibility. 

That doesn't make sense,if you are implying that MM is responsible for his own misconduct then that misconduct also correlates to how he ran the club.

4 hours ago, ilkleyram said:

If, as Parry claims, the LAP is on a par with the High Court with its retired judges and stuff, then there’s no real reason not to go to the HC. Speed is clearly not a reason given its taken 12 months to get to this point and WW haven’t even made their claim yet. 

And the efl have specifically offered the HC as a route out of the impasse. The only thing that’s changed is that Mel has offered to step in for Dcfc as the target.

As Mel might be slightly more solvent than Dcfc and is still directly involved that would appear to be a good way forward and offer the claimant (s) a more likely way of recovering their supposed losses. 

But it is the actions that MM took whilst owner of DCFC that is the crux of the problem so the issue is with the club and not MM as an individual

11 hours ago, ilkleyram said:

Yes, except private members clubs cannot ignore the law of the land, can they (genuine question).  They’re not allowed to discriminate on grounds of sex or race, or pay lower than the minimum wage, or sack people unfairly or not pay their income taxes or the duty on cigarettes or alcohol. So where lies the difference?

Yes they can,you still have gentlemens clubs where females are not allowed but other laws also apply that they cannot pay below minimum wage etc.

12 hours ago, vonwright said:

That's my understanding, too. They are willing to let the court consider: 'Is the EFL entitled to have rules stating that it can kick out a club that fails to respect 'football debts', or in this case 'football claims' - ie claims that would become 'football debts' if substantiated at an EFL hearing? Can it do this even though it basically means treating these claims differently to how claims like this are treated by law?' And the court might say they are fine to do that: this is a members' club which can have whatever membership rules they want. In which case the company (Derby County) could still push ahead with a sale and ignore the claims (as per law), but the EFL could then kick them out (for breaching EFL rules). As long as that is the case, no one is going to buy the club. 

It might be worth seeking a ruling on that, but we might well lose. In any case, the issue we really need settled is: 'Do these specific claims have any merit and are Middlesbrough and/or Wycombe owed any damages?'

I don't think the EFL were offering to have that heard in court. They like to keep such things house. 

To which I would say: okay EFL, but these are unique circumstances. Derby's very existence is as stake and if Morris is willing to take the financial risk if the matter is heard in court, then why not? Doesn't it give everyone what they want, while also (crucially) actually giving Derby some chance or survival? Isn't it putting the potential financial burden where you want it to be (on the reckless former owner) and not on the stricken club? If the EFL is serious about being flexible and 'pragmatic', if it is serious about wanting to save Derby, and if Middlesbrough and Wycombe don't want to kill the club either - they should agree. 

If M&W refuse because 'these things are usually dealt with in house' - not good enough. We will all suspect they basically mean 'It is easier for us to control the process and keep squeezing until you burst'.

The EFL needs to put very public pressure on them to accept this as the 'pragmatic' solution everyone claims to want. 

Whilst i agree with most of this it is not MM they are after personally it is the actions they perceive he took while the owner of DCFC

12 hours ago, Inverurie Ram said:

It's like watching and reading about the latest on the soaps on the TV.

EFL - Eastenders

The Administrators - Coronation Street

Middlesbrough - Eldorado

Wycombe Wanderers - Towie The Only Way Is Essex

The Bidders - Byker Grove

Don't forget Crossroads with the wooden actors,i wonder who is playing Benny?

On 05/02/2022 at 20:57, kevinhectoring said:

I think they should be prepared to assist if MM will not. Problem is, are they allowed to under their constitution?  does anyone know ? 

Why should they when they are a creditor and the council tax payers of Derby City Council will have to make up the shortfall

5 hours ago, Inverurie Ram said:

If the administrators carry on losing bidders quicker than they can name a preffered bidder they will not be helping themselves (other than their own financial gain) or ourselves in saving Derby County Football Club.

If the administrators keep losing bidders it's for a reason.

4 hours ago, PistoldPete said:

And if we had been sold in 2019/20 we wouldn’t have failed ffp at all. Or gone into admin. So Boro slapping a writ on us on May 2019 and Efl charging us over the stadium sale in January 2010 both wrongly could well have damaged our prospects of avoiding either. 

But we weren't sold so how do you work out we wouldn't have failed FFP.

2 hours ago, Gritstone Ram said:

If it is possible for Middle Borough and Wycombe to take on Morris then if they turn down the opportunity then the EFL should be looking at their claims and asking why they don’t want to go to court.

Sorry, but since MM made this magnanimous gesture made me wonder.

If MM is happy to do that why wait until the High Court is brought into the equation,he could have offered that weeks ago, i see this as just a distraction technique., perhaps just perhaps there is something else hiding which we are not aware of.

Gibson openly called MM  a cheat, no response of a denial of any sort.

Maguire revealed in a podcast that MM had "hidden" player wages/transfers in the accounts, yes i know Maguire is not everyones cup of tea but for him to publicly say that it must be true otherwise MM's legal team would have been issuing writs like confetti against him. But no,nothing whatsoever denying it.

According to the EFL TRACKER we still have outstanding accounts to be submitted.

If it goes to the High Court it will be against the club and not MM as an individual. A judge will not just give a decision on hearsay he will order that the relevant accounts are scrutinised and then give a verdict.

OF course i am not implying or suggesting in any way that the accounts are not in full financial order. 

On 28/01/2022 at 18:10, OUTSIDER said:

If was married I let him sh@g my wife.. the man just gets more of a legend as this nightmare drags on

That's probably why you are not married.

1 hour ago, hintonsboots said:

What were you doing up at 11pm on a school night ?

He didn't say it was 11PM just that his mam and dad were late risers.

4 hours ago, PistoldPete said:

Then quantama go to Court and say Derby are in adminsitration so they should be protected, in accordance with insolvency law. And how could a Court say that isn't fair now when Boro and Wycombe can go after mel instead? 

MM gave up ownership of the club when he put us in administration, the issue at the minute is the dispute between M/WW/DCFC and not individuals. It doesn't really alter anything that MM has offered them the chance to take him to court,it is the perceived actions MM took whilst the owner of the club and not for him to gain personally

4 hours ago, Tamworthram said:

Their claim is for compensation for lost income. As long as they get that (if they win) how can they justify not taking him up on the offer unless they want to publicly admit their main aim is to destroy the club?

Yes compensation from the club,not compensation from MM.

43 minutes ago, PistoldPete said:

What about fans suing EFL? There seem to be  few threads about that. 

Go on then Pete,you tell me how fans can sue the EFL and on what grounds?