Derby finally accept 21 point deduction.

[Mucker1884]

We are appealing on the grounds of "force majeure", no?

Force majeure is a French term that literally means "greater force." It is related to the concept of an act of God, an event for which no party can be held accountable, such as a hurricane or a tornado. Force majeure also encompasses human actions, however, such as armed conflict. Generally speaking, for events to constitute force majeure, they must be unforeseeable, external to the parties of the contract, and unavoidable.

 

Covid19 was so unforeseeable, it never got a specific mention anywhere in the rules of the game, the rules pertaining to The EFL, or the laws of governments around the world! 

Good luck to all those clubs that... "In Future"... make plans, provisions, and financial decisions with such "unthinkable events" very much  at the forefront of their thinking!

Takes "Saving for a rainy day" to a whole new stratosphere!   

Edited October 31, 2021 by Mucker1884

[Ted McMinn Football Genius]

2 hours ago, hintonsboots said:

should have extra penalties in future if people try to take a chance by getting it reduced ... that is IN FUTURE and not the Derby case.

I wouldn’t describe it as taking a chance. Each potential appeal will be looked at by the respective clubs legal advisors before deciding on the potential success of taking it to an independent panel ? If the EFL are once again changing the rules then I would suspect Derby have a more than 50% chance of overturning the 12 point penalty.

That’s how I read it to ???? we have got this points deduction reduced.
 

It’s clear for all to see, the EFL wouldn’t look to make such a change in the process if we were to be unsuccessful in our appeal in this instance 

The dictatorship rolls on, those who dare to challenge their authority in the future will be punished further. How can they be allowed to behave in such a manner.

The infallible EFL is a truly frightening prospect.

 

[PistoldPete]

5 hours ago, 86 Hair Islands said:

Read what I wrote. I stated that from a moral standpoint, it could be argued that it should not be treated differently to the subsidiaries but that legally, there is no case for doing so. It's quite clear! Not sure what point you're trying to make ?

That fact that a company is not trading (by your metrics at least) does not mean it is dormant. See below. It seems the only year it has been legally dormant was 2017 but perhaps I'm misunderstanding what I'm reading.

No you're right buddy. It's hard to tell but it appears that the asset was listed against 101 until June 2021 then ownership was transferred. The same rules apply in terms of the creditor claims, however. 

For clarity, I understand why we've gone into admin, I just see zero basis for a claim against the stadium, or Mel personally, for that matter. The only way this would change is if Mel decides to let the stadium go to MSD which I am near certain will not happen. Mel's praise for MSD in his post-admin new conference was gushing. A deal has been stuck and if my hunch is correct, it's a deal that will please us fans.

I'm going to leave it here as this thread tends to go around in circles and it's probably best if I don't add to the melee. We'll know soon enough in any case.

I've read what you wrote twice and it isn't clear.

My understanding is that Gellaw 101 is a dormant company, and the fact the accounts are described differently in different years doesn't mean anything has changed ... it is a dormant company.

 I think it also has no assets.   So whether you are suggesting from a moral or legal basis that the creditors of Derby County should be allowed to make a claim against the assets as creditors i think is irrelevant.. there are no assets to claim.

 

and if its a moral issue that you think assets of Mel Morris should be fair game for creditors of Derby County.. well maybe that is the case from a moral perspective, although the concept of limited liability is there for a a reason . But if Morris gifts PPS to the buyer of DCFC to help the creditors, well no doubt there will be another moral argument about that from our friends in Bristol who will say that's just dodgy dealing. Can't win.    

Edited October 31, 2021 by PistoldPete

[NottsRammy]

I have already siad this is going to be the case we have either got it totally written off or its been reduced by half but i think getting this we have had to accept no appealing on the over spending charge .Personally think its got to be -6 + -9 = -15 or just -9 . 

The -9 makes the lovely man in middlesborough happy but he wont half be hopping about on the admin charge failing lol . 

Think this is going to happen as there are bigger wheels turning with the people who want to takeover and hmrc getting their slice as well .Alot is going off behind the scenes the idea of the panel being independant is laughable .It might be independent but the result isnt its already in the brown envelopes . Just like the brown envelope that made sure there wasnt an accountant on the 2nd hearing .

Trust me its all already sorted . 

[Comrade 86]

54 minutes ago, PistoldPete said:

I've read what you wrote twice and it isn't clear.

My understanding is that Gellaw 101 is a dormant company, and the fact the accounts are described differently in different years doesn't mean anything has changed ... it is a dormant company.

 I think it also has no assets.   So whether you are suggesting from a moral or legal basis that the creditors of Derby County should be allowed to make a claim against the assets as creditors i think is irrelevant.. there are no assets to claim.

 

and if its a moral issue that you think assets of Mel Morris should be fair game for creditors of Derby County.. well maybe that is the case from a moral perspective, although the concept of limited liability is there for a a reason . But if Morris gifts PPS to the buyer of DCFC to help the creditors, well no doubt there will be another moral argument about that from our friends in Bristol who will say that's just dodgy dealing. Can't win.    

I give up!

[PistoldPete]

1 hour ago, 86 Hair Islands said:

I give up!

Ha ha. Well I think either your are confused or me or maybe both. Not surprised given Mel's complex Company structures.

 

[Woodley Ram]

2 hours ago, NottsRammy said:

I have already siad this is going to be the case we have either got it totally written off or its been reduced by half but i think getting this we have had to accept no appealing on the over spending charge .Personally think its got to be -6 + -9 = -15 or just -9 . 

The -9 makes the lovely man in middlesborough happy but he wont half be hopping about on the admin charge failing lol . 

Think this is going to happen as there are bigger wheels turning with the people who want to takeover and hmrc getting their slice as well .Alot is going off behind the scenes the idea of the panel being independant is laughable .It might be independent but the result isnt its already in the brown envelopes . Just like the brown envelope that made sure there wasnt an accountant on the 2nd hearing .

Trust me its all already sorted . 

I sort of agree with you. I think it will either be a compromise or our case will be blown out of the water and we will be done like a kipper 

[Ram-Alf]

13 minutes ago, Woodley Ram said:

I sort of agree with you. I think it will either be a compromise or our case will be blown out of the water and we will be done like a kipper 

I don't se how a compromise can work, Either Force majeure is proven in which case we get our 12 points back, Or Force majeure is thrown out by the indipendant panell as we should have seen Covid-19 coming.

 

[hintonsboots]

2 minutes ago, Unlucky Alf said:

as we should have seen Covid-19 coming

I think that only applies to a few people in that laboratory in Wuhan.

[PistoldPete]

4 minutes ago, Unlucky Alf said:

I don't se how a compromise can work, Either Force majeure is proven in which case we get our 12 points back, Or Force majeure is thrown out by the indipendant panell as we should have seen Covid-19 coming.

 

I think its still open for EFL having received the appeal , to agree with us. And that oinking sound up in the sky , is that a pig? 

[Sparkle]

7 hours ago, RoyMac5 said:

That’s actually quite disgraceful that the EFL wants to stop clubs from appealing a decision that they feel is unjust - it’s a similar system used in a far left or far right country 

[Sparkle]

6 hours ago, hintonsboots said:

should have extra penalties in future if people try to take a chance by getting it reduced ... that is IN FUTURE and not the Derby case.

I wouldn’t describe it as taking a chance. Each potential appeal will be looked at by the respective clubs legal advisors before deciding on the potential success of taking it to an independent panel ? If the EFL are once again changing the rules then I would suspect Derby have a more than 50% chance of overturning the 12 point penalty.

Dam straight we have a very decent chance of overturning the points deduction - the whole country was in lockdown not to mention even the EFL acknowledged that clubs have no cash coming in which is why they expended the P&S 3 year period to a four year period and if that’s not saying clubs income has been wrecked then I don’t know what is? 

[Sparkle]

5 hours ago, Indy said:

With my optimistic head on, I think this looks like the EFL putting something in place to announce the same time as losing the appeal so they can continue their feeble narrative of being in charge and/or competent. 

They are just being mardy - just a vindictive body with little respect given by it’s members

[Ram-Alf]

13 minutes ago, Sparkle said:

That’s actually quite disgraceful that the EFL wants to stop clubs from appealing a decision that they feel is unjust - it’s a similar system used in a far left or far right country 

Just another threat to show who's boss, Just like appealing a sending off, Lose the appeal and another game gets tagged on, They don't like it up em I tell ya.

[Comrade 86]

1 hour ago, Sparkle said:

That’s actually quite disgraceful that the EFL wants to stop clubs from appealing a decision that they feel is unjust - it’s a similar system used in a far left or far right country 

Which one are we? Asking for a friend...

[Indy]

1 hour ago, Sparkle said:

That’s actually quite disgraceful that the EFL wants to stop clubs from appealing a decision that they feel is unjust - it’s a similar system used in a far left or far right country 

It’s actually worse than it looks as it’s not even about challenging their authority on an unjust decision, but about stopping clubs putting forward mitigation against an automatic deduction from administration. Ridiculous. 

[Ghost of Clough]

Why did the appeal rule not need revoking after Wigan's attempt?

[Indy]

Just now, Ghost of Clough said:

Why did the appeal rule not need revoking after Wigan's attempt?

A cynic would say because they won that appeal. Changing the rules because you lose would be the equivalent of taking your ball home with you. 

[jono]

Am I right that the 21 days is up on Monday ? . or have we got to wait 48 hours while they dream up some new rules ?

[Tyler Durden]

3 hours ago, Sparkle said:

That’s actually quite disgraceful that the EFL wants to stop clubs from appealing a decision that they feel is unjust - it’s a similar system used in a far left or far right country 

I've worked for several companies where they have the pendulum system to disciplinary appeals - anyone can appeal the sanction meted out to them but with the caveat that if they don't convince the new manager overseeing the appeal and they think that the initial punishment was actually too lean then they can increase the punishment and there will be no further recourse for appeal beyond this.