Steve Gibson trying to liquidate Derby

[ColonelBlimp]

You know, we have little sympathy from other fans because of 'EFL on strings' thing on Twitter. 

Maybe the guy who posted it should publicly apologise, caused a whole lot of grief with that.

[Crewton]

30 minutes ago, ColonelBlimp said:

You know, we have little sympathy from other fans because of 'EFL on strings' thing on Twitter. 

Maybe the guy who posted it should publicly apologise, caused a whole lot of grief with that.

Yeah, it's funny how other fans think that every Derby fan is responsible for one persons joke on social media, or was fully in agreement with the way Mel & Co were trying to find loopholes to stay within FFP limits (like about 20 other teams had done before or since, some with very lucrative success).

The following comment of one of the Boro forums neatly sums up the mentality of those who want to see DCFC crushed :

Quote

They haven't been punished for everything they did, just what was written in the rule books, the EFL would have been in its' rights to just demote them 2 divisions. What we did with the Blackburn match was done in good faith, Derby's behaviour was the opposite of that.

So Boro acted in "good faith" when they didn't turn up for a match which they would probably have lost and were "harshly punished" but Derby (who didn't act in "bad faith" according to the League Tribunal verdict) should be punished more heavily because this Herbert has decided he knows different.

 

[RadioactiveWaste]

They've only been punished for what's in the rules!

Right....and....?

 

[Sparkle]

We owe Middlesbrough and Wycombe nothing - they claim we might and are pressuring the administrators for money like leeches and trying to force the EFL to say they are football creditors for something they might have a claim to. The EFL clearly have no position unless it’s to punish football clubs.

Middlesbrough and Wycombe have set themselves up for decades of resentment ( to put it nicely ) obviously by us connected to DCFC and should be by plenty of other football clubs and supporters but time will tell on that.

[Bubbles]

1 hour ago, ColonelBlimp said:

You know, we have little sympathy from other fans because of 'EFL on strings' thing on Twitter. 

Maybe the guy who posted it should publicly apologise, caused a whole lot of grief with that.

The chap doesn’t have to apologise for nothing. How ridiculous of a statement.

[Indy]

1 hour ago, RadioactiveWaste said:

They've only been punished for what's in the rules!

Right....and....?

 

In fairness, we’ve been punished for what isn’t in the rules - specifically a requirement that straight-line amortisation is the only accepted method. 

[Maharan]

25 minutes ago, Indy said:

In fairness, we’ve been punished for what isn’t in the rules - specifically a requirement that straight-line amortisation is the only accepted method. 

I thought the point deduction was for going into administration, and then breaching FFP limits, not for using a different financial process? 

[TuffLuff]

19 hours ago, Crewton said:

At Sheff Wed's Tribunal hearing, it was revealed that the EFL wanted Wednesday and Derby's potential penalties to be applied to the seasons that would most impact on them, SWFC in 2019/20 (when their original 9 point penalty would have relegated them, but their eventual 6 point penalty wouldn't have) and Derby in 2020/21 (because we were more than 12 points clear of relegation in 2019/20). The Tribunal threw out their proposal stating that it wasn't the purpose of the Tribunal to directly relegate a team (i.e SWFC) by applying a penalty without giving them the opportunity to overcome that penalty on the field of play, and therefor the punishment must be applied to the following season.

Boro then further delayed our 2nd Tribunal (arising from the EFL's appeal against the decision of the 1st Tribunal) by commencing an Arbitration against DCFC  that had to be considered and determined before the LAP could determine the EFL's appeal. The panel determined that Boro had no jurisdiction to either start their own Arbitration or join the EFL's action.

This all started with Boro starting an Arbitration against the EFL in September 2019, which they dropped on the understanding that they would claim compensation from DCFC if the EFL brought charges against DCFC which proved to be successful.

So you can see clearly that the EFL have been in cahoots with Boro from the outset, simply to protect themselves from a very bitter little man.

Ah I hadn’t really read the forum yesterday, just pondered over my post that evening or else I’d have quoted you.

If we’ve sorted everything for the takeover our end, and despite all the guff in the press it’s to be believed we have, then are the legitimate creditors going to be happy waiting round or are they going to start putting the pressure on the administrators who will pressure on the EFL.

So this is all leading ‘somewhere’ imo. From a biased fan pov are Boro and the EFL going to wait until it’s confirmed that we are relegated to then allow us to finish the takeover? Or how long can the EFL continue to kick a can down the road and do nothing?

[MackworthRamIsGod]

2 hours ago, ColonelBlimp said:

You know, we have little sympathy from other fans because of 'EFL on strings' thing on Twitter. 

Maybe the guy who posted it should publicly apologise, caused a whole lot of grief with that.

There is only 1 man that should publicly apologise for the way the club was left, the way the fans were disregarded and the people lost their jobs.

Until he actually does that, no fan should apologise for anything.

[TheresOnlyWanChope]

29 minutes ago, Maharan said:

I thought the point deduction was for going into administration, and then breaching FFP limits, not for using a different financial process? 

With the alternative method, there would have been no breach. 

[Carnero]

1 minute ago, TheresOnlyWanChope said:

With the alternative method, there would have been no breach. 

There would have been eventually, the costs can't just be pushed back forever.

The plan was to back end the costs and get promotion before they hit.

The plan failed.

[TheresOnlyWanChope]

1 minute ago, Carnero said:

There would have been eventually, the costs can't just be pushed back forever.

The plan was to back end the costs and get promotion before they hit.

The plan failed.

I mean in the period accounted for, there would have been no breach. Strange how Morris always talked about FFP so from the outside seemed as if everything was done properly with this in mind. 

[MACKWORTHRAM]

There is a new article in the Athletic today.

For some reason it won't let me get in with my username and password.

Is there another way to read the article?

[Bad Sheep]

I'd be grateful if someone could explain exactly how we have breached FFP. From what I've read for the 3 years in question we made losses of £14.7m, £8m and £25.3m, so £48m in total. However the sale of the stadium generated £39.9m thus reducing the 3 year loss to £8m. That just seems to leave the alternative amortisation method that we used. Did that really account for an additional £31m+ loss or am I missing something?

[Indy]

49 minutes ago, Carnero said:

There would have been eventually, the costs can't just be pushed back forever.

The plan was to back end the costs and get promotion before they hit.

The plan failed.

But at the point where those costs had been pushed back to, we would have known that we needed to raise revenue - sell players, inject capital, sell other assets etc. To retrospectively apply that loss (incurred under a system that that the rules did not stipulate had to be used) and not assume that our outgoings would have been different if we’d used that method at the time is completely nonsensical. 
 

Even now, I don’t think straight line amortisation is the only method allowed. The only “rule” we’ve breached was not explaining ourselves clearly. (That may be because our valuation process was pretty ramshackle, but that’s not what the guilty ruling covers.)

 

Anyway - all that is water under the bridge now. Unless our acceptance of a 9 point deduction (in effect an out of court settlement) was contingent on the matter being closed. 

[Indy]

19 minutes ago, Bad Sheep said:

I'd be grateful if someone could explain exactly how we have breached FFP. From what I've read for the 3 years in question we made losses of £14.7m, £8m and £25.3m, so £48m in total. However the sale of the stadium generated £39.9m thus reducing the 3 year loss to £8m. That just seems to leave the alternative amortisation method that we used. Did that really account for an additional £31m+ loss or am I missing something?

Might be wrong, but I think it was a £4m loss in three consecutive periods (so 3 points x3). Again - this means we are punished three times for one breach and assumes we would not have addressed the loss in the first period at the time if that had been apparent. 

[SamUltraRam]

Breaking news - Chesterfield are to sue Middlesbrough for depriving them of an FA Cup final place in 1997

[Woodley Ram]

I'm not sure what Gibson is trying to do. In a court of law the claim for £45m has little chance of success and you don't need to be a lawyer to work that one out. Yes we did breach the FFP limit when we last reached the playoffs however with Wycombe's claim I cannot see anything at all. Derby's failure to get points deductions last year was down to the EFL process not Derby being over FFP (Not sure if we were for last year).

I have read on the Middlesbrough board that it is an attempt to change the rules, if so then is this the best vehicle for that? would it be best to sit down with the EFL and change the rules rather than put a club out of business. I don't think that the  Middlesbrough supporters realise that we cannot get a new owner and come out of administration until the two claims are sorted.

If Gibson thinks he has a legitimate claim, why doesn't he with draw the claim until we have a new owner and them reinstate it. That way if he wins he stands a chance of getting paid and the club survive?

[TigerTedd]

I think I get it now, Gibson’s plan. If he can win a case against us, then he can sue villa next. If he can claim that neither or is villa should’ve been in the play offs that year, then he’s just a one off game against Leeds away from the premier league, and I’m sure he find a reason to sue them too. 

Not sure why we didn’t try this tactic years ago. Just sue everyone who finishes above you in the league. It could even work this season for us. If we can just sue Barnsley, Peterborough and Cardiff, we’re free and clear. 

[TigerTedd]

10 minutes ago, Woodley Ram said:

I'm not sure what Gibson is trying to do. In a court of law the claim for £45m has little chance of success and you don't need to be a lawyer to work that one out. Yes we did breach the FFP limit when we last reached the playoffs however with Wycombe's claim I cannot see anything at all. Derby's failure to get points deductions last year was down to the EFL process not Derby being over FFP (Not sure if we were for last year).

I have read on the Middlesbrough board that it is an attempt to change the rules, if so then is this the best vehicle for that? would it be best to sit down with the EFL and change the rules rather than put a club out of business. I don't think that the  Middlesbrough supporters realise that we cannot get a new owner and come out of administration until the two claims are sorted.

If Gibson thinks he has a legitimate claim, why doesn't he with draw the claim until we have a new owner and them reinstate it. That way if he wins he stands a chance of getting paid and the club survive?

It’s a bit daft really. If he actually wants some money out of us, then he should be hoping we’ll avoid liquidation more than anyone, not driving us to it. Which leads me to believe that he has no other motivation than to drive us out of business, the Bamford.