Ramtastic ones

Ohhhhh..

Eiran Cashin's magic, he wears a magic hat

And when he came to Pride park, he said I fancy that.

He didn't sign for Forest, or Leicester 'cause they're 5hite

He signed for Derby County 'cause they're f'ing dynamite

1 hour ago, valakari said:

Here's a thought..late February and Mendez Laing runs out of steam...deja vu or what???

Another is ...how many injuries due to over running the players??

And the biggest was when he said ..Chris Martin wasn't his type of player...and yet a class player who can look after himself and score goals is exactly the type we need!

Warne was a fitness coach, yet he can't keep players fit. Worrying. Yes their age will be a factor, but so will his training methods. Is he over training?

I'm sure many of you will remember Paul McGrath? Yes he was an extreme case in a different era, but he maintained a basic level of fitness, sometimes not training from one week to the next, yet he turned out week after week and did a good job.

I suspect Warne would be best placed to go gently with the older players, once they are "fit enough". Then he may just keep them fit and energetic for longer - NML included.

50 minutes ago, BramcoteRam84 said:

Not surprised to see all the “tactical geniuses” come out after a defeat. 

Criticism of Warne last night, possibly team selection with too many defensive players which meant not enough support for Gayle in first half when we were on top, but then the attacking players he brought on promptly disappeared (Barkhuizen) 

We played really well first 20 minutes but didn’t create enough, and overall played well first half and deserved to be leading in a game of few chances, the football first 20 in particular was good to watch.

However second half we played safe and it cost us. Now some of you will be saying Warne tells the team to play that way and defend a 1-0 because it fits the narrative, that’s nonsense. You listen to Korey Smiths interview where he eluded to the players sitting back and being frustrated because they’ve spoken about it before and it’s cost them before. We weren’t ruthless we didn’t kill the game and opened the door to Charlton by gifting two goals with individual mistakes. We were in control. 

Yes Warne is probably due some criticism for how he set us up but the players lost that game last night and IMO they’re 70% to blame. Whether the pressure got to some of them who knows.

Still second amazingly after back to back defeats (first time this season btw), 11 more cup finals and many more twists and turns. One positive, Gayle can be our Didzy when he’s up to speed. He was a class above. 

Warne set up as a 4-2-3-1. I have no issue with that, but why push Cashin to left back? He needs to be brave. Sibley has filled that role well on numerous occasions. Well has Bradley has played lately he should have been on the bench.

I like Wilson but he has a trait - fail to put the opposition full back on toast early on and his confidence pours away. Like last night, when that happens he doesn't have a good game. Warne should have taken him off early in the second half.

Substitutions. Smith and Adams were playing well - amongst our best on the night. Why does he take them off and leave us without any physicality in midfield against a physical side?

Yes the players made mistakes, but Warnes decisions increase the pressure on the players and thus increase the chances of them making mistakes.

8 hours ago, ThePrisoner said:

Isn’t it pronounced like “clues”?

Say it in a Geordie accent and if we're lucky Ashley will get a wriggle on

Doubt either will take Mel on. Arbitration won't cost them a bean, win or lose. Lose in court and they'll spunk a small fortune.

Also, let's face it curly git only wants the money for Boro so they don't breach FFP.

1 hour ago, StaffsRam said:

Tell them to duck off. We aren’t raising enough funds by selling the players and any we sell drastically undervalued detracts from any value the club holds for creditors and buyers.

£450k is the offer. EFL should step in a support us in saying clubs should not look to take advantage and should expect to pay what they would pay outside of administration.

2 minutes ago, Eatonram said:

Have Boro made any public statement whatsoever to anyone about their claim? Look at the chaos they have caused just by sending an email to the EFL. If they were just asked by someone to make a statement it would be a start. Why doesn’t the sports minister ask them to explain their claim?

Response would read "Derby cheated two years on the trot in the previous seasons by using the correct accounting method to value their assets and had a better team because of it. It has nothing to do with us having crap form at the end of that season and we are not desperately trying to get a few quid in because we are also skint and in breach of FFP regulations. Honest".

9 minutes ago, G STAR RAM said:

If its so abundantly clear they will take action against us, why haven't they already done so?

At the point they were not included on the creditors list, it should have been abundantly clear to them that the administrators were not making any provision for their claims, yet 8 weeks later they've still not taken any action...I wonder why that is?

 

They can't sue us whilst we are in administration.

5 hours ago, ck- said:

I’m not an apologist for Mel Morris, and I wish he’d stuck to what he said he wanted to achieve , rather than compromise it by wasting millions on poor value players. So what am I suggesting he did right? Let’s look at the contribution of the academy yesterday, and acknowledge that for all his other failings, he left us something to be proud of. Just a shame he made such a spectacular mess of the rest of it.

 

That's the irony of it all. He got what he wanted by ruining the club. The solution was not to spend big, it was to spend wisely.

Just lodged these questions with the EFL.

"I have some questions I would like answers to/an understanding of the efl's view on.
1. Doesn't the action being taken by 'Boro and Wycombe go against an EFL directive from 2019, stating clubs should not litigate against each other?
2. How are 'Boro and Wycombe's claims viewed as a debt by the EFL when they are simply that, a claim, that has not been through the court process?
3. How are Derby meant to resolve a claim against them when the administrative law states that such processes are not to commence or continue whilst a company is in administration?"

6 hours ago, Mucker1884 said:

I wasn't referring to anything Boro related.  I was responding to a poster who made calls for DCFC to sue Villa.

How do you know what rules Villa broke in their promotion season?  Show me the link!  Show me the charges.  Show me the subsequent findings.  Show me the punishment they received.

Villa have broken no rules, from what I can see.  That would make it a tad awkward... and a tad more embarrassing...  for us to try to sue them, I'd imagine... as things stand!

 

They breached FFP it's their accounts. It was poo or bust for them in the final, win or get a points deduction the following season.

45 minutes ago, PistoldPete said:

I think the admin have said what is going on. They cannot start getting a voluntary agreement with creditors until there is agreement with EFL on how Boro and Wycombe claims should be treated in the necessary creditors vote. It's not about who pays for the claims if they win.. that will be the new owners liability if it happens.

But in any creditors vote each creditor has a weight according to the amount of money owed to them.  So admin team has to assess that. It will be very low weight given to Boro and Wycombe claims I guess because admin team has said the claims are of no merit and they are not football creditors anyway. 

For some reason EFL do not agree with admin teams assessment. Ultimately EFL has to approve the transfer to new owners , and if they do not accept the validity of the creditor vote then we are at loggerheads.  In the meantime they are trying to bully us with threats, deliberately co-inciding with the end of January transfer window. 
. 

Isn't the point being missed here. Neither Boro or Wycombe are creditors. They have made a claim nothing more. And the fact remains you can't be sued whilst in administration, so under adminstrative law, which takes president over the rules of two bob football league governing body, the Boro and Wycombe claims can't proceed until we are out of administration. The EFL are breaking the law by impeding the administrators.

4 hours ago, Mucker1884 said:

 

 

Would that be Premier League Villa, who are not under EFL jurisdiction, haven't been charged with any EFL financial naughtiness, and ergo are not actually guilty of any wrongdoings as we currently stand?  Is that the Villa you refer to?

We'd be better off posting photo's of luxury Villas, passing them off as our own, and just pretending we have some dosh!   

What Boro are doing isn't under EFL jurisdiction. It through the civil process and the law states you can't be sued whilst in admin.

Villa broke the EFL rules in their promotion season, but having been promoted are beyond reach of the EFL.

35 minutes ago, kevinhectoring said:

This is not to do with ‘ratifying the sale’. I think the problem is we can’t prove to the EFl that we can fund ourselves to the end of the season. And that’s because the admins have not found a clean route out of administration (in light of Gibson’s claim) 

Gibson's claim is not a debt. As such under the laws of administration it is none existent until we are out of administration. Legally, under administration, you can't be sued.

16 minutes ago, Ramslad1992 said:

Someone doesn’t like gibson ?

 

Good but short lived my friend. They've reversed your edit.

Revision as of 22:55, 14 January 2022

 1,785 BYTES REMOVED,  16 MINUTES AGO

Added content

}}

'''Stephen Gibson''' {{post-nominals|country=GBR|OBE}} (born 9 January 1958) is a British entrepreneur and the chairman and owner of [[Middlesbrough F.C.|Middlesbrough Football Club]]. He’s best known for being a spiteful pubic haired ********.

'''Stephen Gibson''' {{post-nominals|country=GBR|OBE}} (born 9 January 1958) is a British entrepreneur and the chairman and owner of [[Middlesbrough F.C.|Middlesbrough Football Club]]. In May 2020, he was listed 481st on the ''[[Sunday Times Rich List]]'', with a net worth of £270&nbsp;million.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.gazettelive.co.uk/news/teesside-news/2012/04/27/boro-chairman-steve-gibson-s-fortune-past-165m-84229-30851657|title=Boro chairman Steve Gibson's fortune past £165m|first=Sophie|last=Barley|date=27 April 2012|publisher=gazettelive.co.uk}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.gazettelive.co.uk/news/teesside-news/teessides-wealthiest-named-north-east-16249090|title=Steve Gibson Net Worth|last=M|first=Paula|date=2019|website=teesside live|url-status=live|archive-url=|archive-date=|access-date=}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|title=Teesside Rich List|url=https://www.gazettelive.co.uk/news/teesside-news/money-teessides-wealthiest-see-fortunes-18264499|last=|first=|date=|website=|url-status=live|archive-url=|archive-date=|access-date=}}</ref>

Gibson was born in [[Middlesbrough]] and raised in the [[Park End, Middlesbrough|Park End]] area of the town. Raised Catholic, he attended local schools, St Pius X Primary and [[St Mary's College, Middlesbrough|St Mary's College.]] In 1979, he became Middlesbrough's youngest ever [[Labour Party (UK)|Labour]] councillor, being elected to represent Park End at age 21.<ref>{{cite web|last1=Westcott|first1=Matt|title=Middlesbrough chairman Steve Gibson receives OBE from Prince William|url=http://www.dailyecho.co.uk/news/14882634.Middlesbrough_chairman_Steve_Gibson_receives_OBE_from_Prince_William/|publisher=dailyecho.co.uk|accessdate=29 March 2017}}</ref> He is the uncle of Norwich defender [[Ben Gibson (footballer)|Ben Gibson]].<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.theguardian.com/football/2015/apr/06/football-transfer-rumours|title=Football transfer rumours: Jordan Henderson to Chelsea?|first=Barry|last=Glendenning|date=6 April 2015|work=The Guardian}}</ref>

==Bulkhaul Limited==

Ramslad1992

15 minutes ago, Bobby said:

You can’t sue QPR it was over r6 years ago so out of time.

Ok so only got rights to £160m off villa then. Didums 

10 minutes ago, Ramslad1992 said:

I’ve had a couple of Stella’s, anyone have Gibsons home address? 

It'll be the only nice house in middlesbrough

7 minutes ago, Eddie said:

I've got a nice Sake.

The only liquid (Asian) I want at the moment.

Talisker for me.

8 minutes ago, SBW said:

So the realistic option, as it stands

 

Settle with Boro/Wycombe, and in doing so, add them as 'footballing creditors' and as such they will be owed 100% and the new owner would be liable to those costs?

 

That, or not pay the creditors as should be the case, but then lose 15 points next season? 

 

Outside of Boro/Wycombe backing down, or the EFL deciding all of a sudden a PB can be named without agreeing with Boro/Wycombe, I can't see an alternative?

I have to say, I don't get this. How can a sum of money relating to litigation, that has yet to start the legal process, never mind complete it, be deemed a debt. There is not even any certainty that the litigation will find in favour of the claimant. It simply beggars belief. Accordingly and in line with the law relating to administration and litigation cases against companies in administration, the EFL should totally disregard the Boro and Wycombe cases.

13 minutes ago, Curtains said:

Surely that’s the worst possible case scenario isn’t it!

I sincerely hope you are wrong .

We are not at that stage yet IMO

Nah. At least one more game. A 5-0 victory over the red dogs.

27 minutes ago, i-Ram said:

Middlesborough were prevented from joining in on the Stadium sale / amortisation process because the EFL correctly applied the rules that there was an established process for the EFL to take action against Derby. A decision was made ultimately by the LAP, wrongly in my view but Derby shot themselves in the foot too, but nonetheless that is where it should have stopped. Decision made, punishment applied, everyone moves on.

Gibson though clearly was was wound up by Morris, and is now taking vexatious action to say that the punishment meted out to Derby was insufficient given the loss of income his club potentially suffered. Under EFL rules that claim needs to be separately arbitrated. That arbitration process will take ages to organise, and the Club will want to resist it as I understand (only from reading on here) that any decision of the LAP is final, and there is no appeal.

There is no official action or claim from Boro as they are prevented from taking action against a member club through the Courts under EFL rules. They can only pursue action as detailed above.

In my view, caveated by I am no lawyer, there is a strong case for Quantuma to take on the EFL via court injunction to stop them interfering with their statutory duties to creditors under the IA86. Hopefully that is true, and money will be found to stop the arbitration affecting the sale of the club. Hopefully the ruling will also determine that if Boro want to action a claim it has to be via a court action not a LAP kangaroo hearing.

I have not mentioned Wycombe in this as they just being a complete nuisance, with no reasonable claim whatsover.

2 minutes ago, Curtains said:

A train of thoughts is Gibson might settle for 10 Million but even that seems too high with the other debts .

You could have 10 bidders but none of them will proceed until Boro/Wycombe sorted .

MSD I doubt will loan anymore so the only option is player sales to provide cash to pay wages of players and staff and general club costs. 
It looks like the EFL want us down this season before compromise can be reached 

Very sad indeed 

Boro are at risk of their own FFP breach (see daily telegraph - not Derby). He would have known that was coming and hence lodge the case in the hope of a fast buck to avoid acute embarrassment and cause us grief at the same time.

C U Next Tuesday in court Mr G.

Are we sure this pair of scoundrels are't related. That hair, that hair line.

5 minutes ago, Abu Dhabi Ram said:

I’m going to borrow this if you don’t mind! 

By all means. Go for it.

9 minutes ago, Zag zig said:

Even if we did, the basic flaw is time and money, let alone we would be laughed out of court.

That’s been the Boro/Wycombe trump card a long time, the E.F.L are complicit in putting Boro/Wycombe baseless case that would also be laughed out of court, ahead of our survival interests because they won’t let us survive to have our day in court

OR we roll over and do a deal with both clubs, somehow with the backing of a bidder. Unsure how that’s supposed to work before you exit administration though, without a complete asset strip.

Suing them won't be done in time I agree, but it will have the potential to create turmoil - if we sue too, others will follow - and that the EFL know that they will have to deal with that turmoil. So the EFL either put a stop to all of the litigation in the interests of the game, or accept that the outcome of  historical seasons will be revisited and the outcome of future seasons in doubt until all accounts can be verified for FFP compliance.