Steve Gibson trying to liquidate Derby

[Premier ram]

Middlesboro and Wycombe and your dear friends at the EFL ,in regards to your  very childish efforts of trying to kill off my beloved DCFC i would like to give you my view on your claims

[Asanovic70]

Not well versed with the financial intricacies of our current situation, but the fact that Rick Parry now heads the EFL, one of the original architects of the PL, designed to hand power to a select few at the expense of the many, is beyond irony. Talk about poacher turned gamekeeper.

...Reading have been punished this season for breaching financial rules with a 6pts deduction. Let's start opening a can of worms. Browsing their results last season, they didn't really affect the top positions. However, they took 3pts off Wycombe, but won both games against Rotherham including a win there in late Feb when the home side had to play a number of games that month. If Rotherham had won that game, they would have stayed up at our expense (45pts).

 

[RadioactiveWaste]

1 minute ago, Asanovic70 said:

Not well versed with the financial intricacies of our current situation, but the fact that Rick Parry now heads the EFL, one of the original architects of the PL, designed to hand power to a select few at the expense of the many, is beyond irony. Talk about poacher turned gamekeeper.

...Reading have been punished this season for breaching financial rules with a 6pts deduction. Let's start opening a can of worms. Browsing their results last season, they didn't really affect the top positions. However, they took 3pts off Wycombe, but won both games against Rotherham including a win there in late Feb when the home side had to play a number of games that month. If Rotherham had won that game, they would have stayed up at our expense (45pts).

 

Should we mention that to Wycombe Wanderers?

[Asanovic70]

16 minutes ago, RadioactiveWaste said:

Should we mention that to Wycombe Wanderers?

This is what I mean, where does it end? It's like a season with the cliche about wrong decisions righting themselves & you don't get relegated because of one game either. It is about other factors like who the manager was at the time. Pulis eventually failed at West Brom & subsequently went on to get the sack at Sheff W after a short period of games. He failed at Boro with regards to his brief of getting them promoted. Middlesbrough appear to suffer from a memory lapse regarding their results against eventual PO winners Aston Villa in the regular season. Whilst boasting a strong defensive record, they were one of the lowest scorers in the division. They lost to the same opponents in the previous play-off campaign.

Wycombe's argument, I'm less sure about except to say that their form across the season was patchy & their end of season run masked the fact that they were poor in the first half of the season & practically in the bottom 3 all season. Again, I'm no statto, but there is that stat about sides getting relegated when they occupy a bottom three spot at a particular time of the season, i.e. Christmas/New Year.

I hope the administrators don't cave in to Boro & Wycombe's claims as an admission of guilt. Middlesbrough did not get promoted not because we finished 6th, but because they weren't good enough themselves across a season. There is no proof that they would have won the play-offs as I showed in an earlier post. They are talking hypotheticals (baalocks, a more appropriate description) & coming up with £45m.

Edited January 11, 2022 by Asanovic70

[StarterForTen]

9 minutes ago, Asanovic70 said:

Middlesbrough did not get promoted not because we finished 6th, but because they weren't good enough themselves across a season. There is no proof that they would have won the play-offs as I showed in an earlier post. They are talking hypotheticals (baalocks, a more appropriate description) & coming up with £45m.

Apart from the legal standing being shaky (in our collective opinions), the actual logic of a £45m claim makes no sense does it? Surely the claim has to be £180m (or whatever promotion is allegedly worth these days) or it is zero.

Their argument is that our wrong doing cost them sixth place, but clubs don't get each-way bets in a play-off campaign - it's winner takes all or nowt!

[StarterForTen]

By the way I live close to Middlesbrough (though not close enough to see or smell it) and an acquaintance who is a retired journalist for the Gazette reckons the whole Gibson beef is all to do with Martyn Waghorn. They wanted to sign him, but Derby offered him (and perhaps Ipswich too) more money. The suggestion is that, as Derby 'funded Waghorn with overspend money' he was effectively an ineligible player - just like Tevez was for West Ham when Sheffield United successfully sued a decade ago.

Well, to be fair, as theories go, it's as logical as applying bookmaker odds....

[Asanovic70]

@StarterForTen

That's a good point, why don't they go the whole hog & ask for £180m? The claim is for a quarter of that which seems to suggest that Mr Gibson knows that promotion was not a forgone conclusion. He had a one in four chance. But then browsing evidence, such as H2Hs, would appear to suggest that Aston Villa were the dominant side.

£45m covers the money Boro wasted on Assombalonga, during that season in question, Boro's second after relegation, Gibson spent millions on Aden Flint, Paddy McNair & Saville (£8m, sold back to Millwall for £1.8m reportedly). That's £20m apparently. How many other sides spent that amount? £45m probably conveniently covers the parachute payment Gibson wasted. OK, they recouped £40m on transfers, but the real failure is to do with how they spent their own money.

Gibson will be claiming next that Mel Morris had Yuri Geller type powers & forced him to sign off all their contracts.

Edited January 11, 2022 by Asanovic70

[RadioactiveWaste]

6 minutes ago, StarterForTen said:

By the way I live close to Middlesbrough (though not close enough to see or smell it) and an acquaintance who is a retired journalist for the Gazette reckons the whole Gibson beef is all to do with Martyn Waghorn. They wanted to sign him, but Derby offered him (and perhaps Ipswich too) more money. The suggestion is that, as Derby 'funded Waghorn with overspend money' he was effectively an ineligible player - just like Tevez was for West Ham when Sheffield United successfully sued a decade ago.

Well, to be fair, as theories go, it's as logical as applying bookmaker odds....

I remember waghorn being mentioned before in all this. He can't argue it's the same as tevez, waghorn was our player not part owned by some investment company.

Which if it came to the test I'm pretty sure we could argue waghorn was not the reason we finished above Boro so much as the reason we finished behind 5 other teams.

 

[Eddie]

18 minutes ago, StarterForTen said:

Apart from the legal standing being shaky (in our collective opinions), the actual logic of a £45m claim makes no sense does it? Surely the claim has to be £180m (or whatever promotion is allegedly worth these days) or it is zero.

Their argument is that our wrong doing cost them sixth place, but clubs don't get each-way bets in a play-off campaign - it's winner takes all or nowt!

The 'logic' from that could be that if the 'prize' for promotion is £180m, and there are 4 teams in the playoffs, then they would have a '1 in 4' chance. 180/4 = 45.

It's baalocks.

 

[Asanovic70]

Apparently, we also gazumped Boro with regards for a loan deal for Matt Clarke. Sadly, we became embroiled in a battle/personal needle between two chairmen, Gibson & our former owner. You'd think seeing us handed a 21pts deduction & his nemesis/our former owner exiting with losses (soft loans) & the anger of a disappointed fanbase would suffice for Mr Gibson, but unfortunately not.

Edited January 11, 2022 by Asanovic70

[Dean (hick) Saunders]

5 minutes ago, RadioactiveWaste said:

I remember waghorn being mentioned before in all this. He can't argue it's the same as tevez, waghorn was our player not part owned by some investment company.

Which if it came to the test I'm pretty sure we could argue waghorn was not the reason we finished above Boro so much as the reason we finished behind 5 other teams.

 

It only we had not signed the bugger we would not have need for 100’s of forum pages wringing our hands…

[Crewton]

33 minutes ago, StarterForTen said:

By the way I live close to Middlesbrough (though not close enough to see or smell it) and an acquaintance who is a retired journalist for the Gazette reckons the whole Gibson beef is all to do with Martyn Waghorn. They wanted to sign him, but Derby offered him (and perhaps Ipswich too) more money. The suggestion is that, as Derby 'funded Waghorn with overspend money' he was effectively an ineligible player - just like Tevez was for West Ham when Sheffield United successfully sued a decade ago.

Well, to be fair, as theories go, it's as logical as applying bookmaker odds....

It's an interesting theory, but if you look at Waggy's stat that season, they're hardly the difference between top 6 and mid-table. Pro-rata, we got a better return from Mason Bennett. If Boro had signed Waggy, there's no guarantee that he would have done more for them than he did for us. Lampard, however, might have had to use Bennett more and he theoretically might have earned us a few more points.

That's how variable and, frankly, ridiculous that argument is.

 

[AutoWindscreens]

51 minutes ago, StarterForTen said:

Apart from the legal standing being shaky (in our collective opinions), the actual logic of a £45m claim makes no sense does it? Surely the claim has to be £180m (or whatever promotion is allegedly worth these days) or it is zero.

Their argument is that our wrong doing cost them sixth place, but clubs don't get each-way bets in a play-off campaign - it's winner takes all or nowt!

The courts award damages on a principle called "loss of a chance" - Boro's claim is to be compensated for the value of their chance of getting promoted, i.e. a certain percentage of the £180m (or whatever) jackpot.

A bigger problem with Boro's claim is that it seems to assume they would just keep all of the additional revenue. Of course they wouldn't! A lot would go on increased wages, transfer fees, agents' fees, etc. A court would be very sceptical if Boro claim they intended to barely increase spending and probably go straight back down rather than spend in an attempt to stay up.

[RadioactiveWaste]

Also, how much of the extra income is directly from being in the pl? Anything commercial, sponsorship etc is only a guess based on what other clubs deals are rumoured to be.

[DarkFruitsRam7]

46 minutes ago, Crewton said:

It's an interesting theory, but if you look at Waggy's stat that season, they're hardly the difference between top 6 and mid-table. Pro-rata, we got a better return from Mason Bennett. If Boro had signed Waggy, there's no guarantee that he would have done more for them than he did for us. Lampard, however, might have had to use Bennett more and he theoretically might have earned us a few more points.

That's how variable and, frankly, ridiculous that argument is.

 

Obviously it's completely irrelevant to the legal claim because the whole thing is utterly ridiculous, but Waghorn was pretty good that season. Certainly better than Bennett over the course of the season. I really don't think we would have made the play offs without him (unless we spent that £5 million on an equally effective player).

[Crewton]

1 minute ago, DarkFruitsRam7 said:

Obviously it's completely irrelevant to the legal claim because the whole thing is utterly ridiculous, but Waghorn was pretty good that season. Certainly better than Bennett over the course of the season. I really don't think we would have made the play offs without him (unless we spent that £5 million on an equally effective player).

But anyone assessing his impact would only have the stats to go off - subjective opinions would carry no weight.

In truth, no-one can prove that having Waghorn made us better or worse, because his bare stats are unremarkable.

For myself, I was constantly underwhelmed by his performances compared to how he played for Ipswich.

[Ghost of Clough]

4 minutes ago, DarkFruitsRam7 said:

Obviously it's completely irrelevant to the legal claim because the whole thing is utterly ridiculous, but Waghorn was pretty good that season. Certainly better than Bennett over the course of the season. I really don't think we would have made the play offs without him (unless we spent that £5 million on an equally effective player).

Bennett was more effective in terms of minutes per goal contribution. There were also better value forwards/wingers available: Gayle (loan), Abraham (loan), Benrahma (£1.5m), McGoldrick (free), Buendia (£1.5m), Wells (loan), Armstrong (£1.7m)

[duncanjwitham]

This passage from the DC2 report is interesting:

It was basically used against us at the time, in arguing that they didn't need to prove a specific sporting advantage to punish us.  But if Gibson is genuinely arguing that Waghorn specifically gave us an advantage that he would have given them, I wonder if it could be used in our favour, i.e. it's impossible to quantify things like that.

[BramcoteRam84]

Anyone hear Simon Jordan’s take on this today. Basically speaking up for Gibson saying he’s a fair guy and if he has an issue it’s usually a legitimate one, the £45m is a work of fiction and come from no one at the Middlesbrough end, Boro have a legitimate concern and the administrators need to talk to them to rectify it rather than throw around legal jargon and say you’ve got no case.

If anyone is interested - all details are in a re-hashed DET article ??

[Carnero]

Just now, BramcoteRam84 said:

Anyone hear Simon Jordan’s take on this today. Basically speaking up for Gibson saying he’s a fair guy and if he has an issue it’s usually a legitimate one, the £45m is a work of fiction and come from no one at the Middlesbrough end, Boro have a legitimate concern and the administrators need to talk to them to rectify it rather than throw around legal jargon and say you’ve got no case.

If anyone is interested - all details are in a re-hashed DET article ??

Yes I heard it too.

It was on around 11.45am if anyone wants to listen to it back on youtube.