Yankee Doodle Derby

[Tamworthram]

6 minutes ago, Curtains said:

https://www.footballfancast.com/Derby-county-news/Derby-county-mel-morris-wayne-rooney-alan-nixon-takeover-update-news-the-championship

I don’t understand how a successful appeal against a points deduction, that hasn’t been imposed yet, could be contingent on a new owner. 
 

If we’ve broken the rules with a past misdemeanour what difference does it make, in terms of our punishment, who the owner will be going forward?

Edited May 18, 2021 by Tamworthram

[Curtains]

1 minute ago, Tamworthram said:

I don’t understand how a successful appeal against a points deduction, that hasn’t been imposed yet, could be contingent on a new owner. 

I think this proves the EFL allegedly have a gripe against Mel. 
 

It’s disgusting to be honest. 

[ThePrisoner]

1 minute ago, Curtains said:

I think this proves the EFL allegedly have a gripe against Mel. 
 

It’s disgusting to be honest. 

 

1 hour ago, Curtains said:

Could do without Derby fans piling in on speculation as well 

 

[Curtains]

1 minute ago, ThePrisoner said:

 

 

Just proving a point mate. 
 

I think I’m sticking up for Mel as it appears he’s being victimised wouldn’t you say !

[ThePrisoner]

Just now, Curtains said:

Just proving a point mate. 
 

I think I’m sticking up for Mel as it appears he’s being victimised wouldn’t you say !

There's zero evidence that the EFL have a gripe with Mel though. That was dismissed in the original appeal. Surely you're speculating too by saying that they have a gripe with him. Also that link is just a regurgitation of what Nixon tweeted the other day. Also Alan Nixon. Doesn't make any sense.

[Curtains]

4 minutes ago, ThePrisoner said:

There's zero evidence that the EFL have a gripe with Mel though. That was dismissed in the original appeal. Surely you're speculating too by saying that they have a gripe with him. Also that link is just a regurgitation of what Nixon tweeted the other day. Also Alan Nixon. Doesn't make any sense.

Zero evidence ha ha ha right yes you are right ha ha ha 

[Spanish]

14 minutes ago, Curtains said:

Zero evidence ha ha ha right yes you are right ha ha ha 

ducking embarrassing really but I understand if you disagree

20) We heard factual evidence on behalf of the Club by:

a) Mel Morris. Mr Morris has throughout the relevant period been the owner and Chairman of the Club. He gave evidence about his purchase of Pride Park from the Club and the background to that sale. His witness statement also contained a considerable amount of evidence about the Club’s wider relationship with the EFL – a relationship which he characterises as

i) Involving ‘dislike’ of him and the Club by the EFL

ii) Him being an ‘enemy of the EFL state’, and

iii) The EFL having an ‘axe to grind against [him] personally’

21) Given a) The numerous suggestions made in Mr Morris’ witness statements about the EFL (and in particular Mr Harvey and Mr Craig) having some sort of ‘agenda’ against the Club and/or him, b) The manner in which certain witnesses were cross-examined, and 8 c) The suggestions made in the Club’s closing submission about aspects of the FA’s factual evidence we make it clear at the outset that we considered that each of the factual witnesses called by the EFL from whom we heard gave their evidence honestly and were doing their best to help us on the relevant issues.

Regardless of how Mr Morris might perceive the way that he and the Club are viewed by the EFL, we reject any suggestion that the EFL’s factual evidence was in any way tainted by animosity or dislike (and, for the avoidance of doubt, reject any suggestion that such animosity or dislike was established on the evidence before us), or that the EFL’s factual evidence was in any way unreliable as a result.

This was from the DC, the tribunal that pretty much dismissed all the claims against the club

 

[Mostyn6]

1 hour ago, Curtains said:

I think this proves the EFL allegedly have a gripe against Mel. 
 

It’s disgusting to be honest. 

It proves nothing. Its “hearsay”, “rumour”, “fiction”! 

[Elwood P Dowd]

1 hour ago, Spanish said:

ducking embarrassing really but I understand if you disagree

20) We heard factual evidence on behalf of the Club by:

a) Mel Morris. Mr Morris has throughout the relevant period been the owner and Chairman of the Club. He gave evidence about his purchase of Pride Park from the Club and the background to that sale. His witness statement also contained a considerable amount of evidence about the Club’s wider relationship with the EFL – a relationship which he characterises as

i) Involving ‘dislike’ of him and the Club by the EFL

ii) Him being an ‘enemy of the EFL state’, and

iii) The EFL having an ‘axe to grind against [him] personally’

21) Given a) The numerous suggestions made in Mr Morris’ witness statements about the EFL (and in particular Mr Harvey and Mr Craig) having some sort of ‘agenda’ against the Club and/or him, b) The manner in which certain witnesses were cross-examined, and 8 c) The suggestions made in the Club’s closing submission about aspects of the FA’s factual evidence we make it clear at the outset that we considered that each of the factual witnesses called by the EFL from whom we heard gave their evidence honestly and were doing their best to help us on the relevant issues.

Regardless of how Mr Morris might perceive the way that he and the Club are viewed by the EFL, we reject any suggestion that the EFL’s factual evidence was in any way tainted by animosity or dislike (and, for the avoidance of doubt, reject any suggestion that such animosity or dislike was established on the evidence before us), or that the EFL’s factual evidence was in any way unreliable as a result.

This was from the DC, the tribunal that pretty much dismissed all the claims against the club

 

"They would say that wouldnt they" .................... Mandy Rice-Davies et al

Edited May 18, 2021 by Elwood P Dowd

[Curtains]

1 hour ago, Spanish said:

ducking embarrassing really but I understand if you disagree

20) We heard factual evidence on behalf of the Club by:

a) Mel Morris. Mr Morris has throughout the relevant period been the owner and Chairman of the Club. He gave evidence about his purchase of Pride Park from the Club and the background to that sale. His witness statement also contained a considerable amount of evidence about the Club’s wider relationship with the EFL – a relationship which he characterises as

i) Involving ‘dislike’ of him and the Club by the EFL

ii) Him being an ‘enemy of the EFL state’, and

iii) The EFL having an ‘axe to grind against [him] personally’

21) Given a) The numerous suggestions made in Mr Morris’ witness statements about the EFL (and in particular Mr Harvey and Mr Craig) having some sort of ‘agenda’ against the Club and/or him, b) The manner in which certain witnesses were cross-examined, and 8 c) The suggestions made in the Club’s closing submission about aspects of the FA’s factual evidence we make it clear at the outset that we considered that each of the factual witnesses called by the EFL from whom we heard gave their evidence honestly and were doing their best to help us on the relevant issues.

Regardless of how Mr Morris might perceive the way that he and the Club are viewed by the EFL, we reject any suggestion that the EFL’s factual evidence was in any way tainted by animosity or dislike (and, for the avoidance of doubt, reject any suggestion that such animosity or dislike was established on the evidence before us), or that the EFL’s factual evidence was in any way unreliable as a result.

This was from the DC, the tribunal that pretty much dismissed all the claims against the club

 

What a load of bullock 

[Curtains]

56 minutes ago, Mostyn6 said:

It proves nothing. Its “hearsay”, “rumour”, “fiction”! 

https://www.derbytelegraph.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/Derby-county-efl-mel-morris-4442288

https://www.derbytelegraph.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/Derby-county-efl-case-wednesday-4429928

https://www.derbytelegraph.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/efl-sky-tv-Derby-leeds-2209661

 

Edited May 18, 2021 by Curtains

[Spanish]

2 minutes ago, Curtains said:

What a load of bullock 

the written words of a tribunal can be disregarded on a hunch?  I can see both sides of this.

Why is Pearce on the EFL committee if they hate us?

I don't think the do hate us as such  but they were a bit unprofessional in not spotting our unique methods and Boro called them on it.  Fair play to Boro if it takes a competitor out of the equation.  I would hope we would do the same especially if it is Boro.  Now not only do the EFL need to do the right thing by every one of the their club members they also have to be seen to have done so.  Taken it to LAP who found us guilty sufficiently to suggest a penalty.  Then they decided, even though they had the power to penalise us, to refer this back to DC.  They could only do this with the approval of the EFL.  They could have wacked us with XX points with no appeal but they didn't.  Sometimes it is best to open up to the idea that we are the masters of our own demise.

[Curtains]

4 minutes ago, Spanish said:

the written words of a tribunal can be disregarded on a hunch?  I can see both sides of this.

Why is Pearce on the EFL committee if they hate us?

I don't think the do hate us as such  but they were a bit unprofessional in not spotting our unique methods and Boro called them on it.  Fair play to Boro if it takes a competitor out of the equation.  I would hope we would do the same especially if it is Boro.  Now not only do the EFL need to do the right thing by every one of the their club members they also have to be seen to have done so.  Taken it to LAP who found us guilty sufficiently to suggest a penalty.  Then they decided, even though they had the power to penalise us, to refer this back to DC.  They could only do this with the approval of the EFL.  They could have wacked us with XX points with no appeal but they didn't.  Sometimes it is best to open up to the idea that we are the masters of our own demise.

They could have wacked  us without going back to the DC but they didn’t because they were afraid to because of the repercussions in law. 

[Spanish]

Just now, Curtains said:

They could have wacked  us without going back to the DC but they didn’t because they were afraid to because of the repercussions in law. 

where have you read this?

[Curtains]

Just now, Spanish said:

where have you read this?

I haven’t but it’s obvious .

The EFL rules allowed them to sanction us straight away but they didn’t so you have to ask why 

 

 

[MickD]

38 minutes ago, Elwood P Dowd said:

"They would say that wouldnt they" .................... Mandy Rice-Davies et al

 Mandy Rice-Davies?  I have a Christine Keeler rose.  Red headed, easily bedded and has a nice Profumo

[Spanish]

1 minute ago, Curtains said:

I haven’t but it’s obvious .

The EFL rules allowed them to sanction us straight away but they didn’t so you have to ask why 

 

 

lets leave it we won't agree on this one

[Curtains]

Just now, Spanish said:

lets leave it we won't agree on this one

Ok 

https://www.efl.com/-more/governance/efl-rules--regulations/section-8---offences-inquiries-commissions-disputes-and-appeals/

[Tamworthram]

2 hours ago, Curtains said:

I think this proves the EFL allegedly have a gripe against Mel. 
 

It’s disgusting to be honest. 

It would be if it’s true but, is more likely that the press are just speculating again or making things up? 
 

I can’t believe anyone in authority has told them that if xxxxx takes over then we’ll reduce/consider reducing any penalty on appeal.

[Curtains]

Just now, Tamworthram said:

It would be if it’s true but, is more likely that the press are just speculating again or making things up? 
 

I can’t believe anyone in authority has told them that if xxxxx takes over then we’ll reduce/consider reducing any penalty on appeal.

It’s incredible if true.