Ramfambo Posted January 19, 2022 Share Posted January 19, 2022 The Boro and EFL collusion pact resulted in the embargoes and other santions against us then meaning no Covid relief funds pushing the club further towards the abyss. Calculating and callous like a something out of a godfather/mafia movie. Surely unethical at the absolute minimum and needs calling out furthet. uttoxram75, jono, Carnero and 8 others 7 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gritstone Tup Posted January 19, 2022 Share Posted January 19, 2022 39 minutes ago, ThePrisoner said: Unanimous vote from Derby City Council to support the club in all matters. Not quite sure what they’ll be doing. All a bit beyond me right now! So they can stump up the £7million we need to end the season then? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TooFarInToTurnRed Posted January 19, 2022 Share Posted January 19, 2022 2 minutes ago, chipperram said: I haven’t heard it, brilliant then, an audible admission of complicity in this whole sham. The police should be informed of this, hopefully some bigwig has heard it and may act on it. This is taken out of context somewhat, Boro took action against the EFL for not enforcing the rules which was halted when we were charged. https://www.efl.com/contentassets/c9fc5dceaa7f4b62b81dca0b9e2f7c9d/2020.10.26---decision-on-mfc-redaction.pdf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevinhectoring Posted January 19, 2022 Share Posted January 19, 2022 14 minutes ago, Gritstone Tup said: The “good to go” was a pathetic statement given he obviously didn’t understand the consequences of the Boro claim. Pinch of salt Pete! ‘Good to go’ meant: “yikes, the admins have stopped talking to us, we thought it was ours, we’re afraid we’ve lost it and that someone else has blown us out of the water. “Please Quantuma, answer our calls and we’ll sign on the dotted line”. The signs were that they were happy with the q plan. But now they might not be ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ram-Alf Posted January 19, 2022 Share Posted January 19, 2022 3 minutes ago, TooFarInToTurnRed said: This is taken out of context somewhat, Boro took action against the EFL for not enforcing the rules which was halted when we were charged. https://www.efl.com/contentassets/c9fc5dceaa7f4b62b81dca0b9e2f7c9d/2020.10.26---decision-on-mfc-redaction.pdf In what way taken out of context somewhat?, 4. On 6 September 2019 MFC commenced arbitration proceedings against EFL contending that EFL had failed to take timely disciplinary action against DCFC. On 29 November 2019 MFC and EFL agreed that this arbitration would be stayed and EFL would commence disciplinary proceedings against DCFC. MFC indicated that if EFL started such disciplinary proceedings, MFC would seek compensation from DCFC pursuant to EFL Reg 92.2.5. In other words, they would apply for compensation on the back of a finding of breach by DCFC. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PistoldPete Posted January 19, 2022 Share Posted January 19, 2022 7 minutes ago, Ramfambo said: The Boro and EFL collusion pact resulted in the embargoes and other santions against us then meaning no Covid relief funds pushing the club further towards the abyss. Calculating and callous like a something out of a godfather/mafia movie. Surely unethical at the absolute minimum and needs calling out furthet. Well even worse than that. The commencement of EFL action against us in January 2020 co-incided with the collapse of a deal to sell the club. So in January 2020 and now again in January 2022 EFL are preventing us from being taken over due to the pressure having been applied by Boro. RoyMac5 and Sparkle 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jono Posted January 19, 2022 Share Posted January 19, 2022 2 minutes ago, Unlucky Alf said: In what way taken out of context somewhat?, 4. On 6 September 2019 MFC commenced arbitration proceedings against EFL contending that EFL had failed to take timely disciplinary action against DCFC. On 29 November 2019 MFC and EFL agreed that this arbitration would be stayed and EFL would commence disciplinary proceedings against DCFC. MFC indicated that if EFL started such disciplinary proceedings, MFC would seek compensation from DCFC pursuant to EFL Reg 92.2.5. In other words, they would apply for compensation on the back of a finding of breach by DCFC. What is in regulation 92.2.5 I wonder ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
uttoxram75 Posted January 19, 2022 Share Posted January 19, 2022 2 minutes ago, Unlucky Alf said: In what way taken out of context somewhat?, 4. On 6 September 2019 MFC commenced arbitration proceedings against EFL contending that EFL had failed to take timely disciplinary action against DCFC. On 29 November 2019 MFC and EFL agreed that this arbitration would be stayed and EFL would commence disciplinary proceedings against DCFC. MFC indicated that if EFL started such disciplinary proceedings, MFC would seek compensation from DCFC pursuant to EFL Reg 92.2.5. In other words, they would apply for compensation on the back of a finding of breach by DCFC. Its amazing that people still don't understand that the above threat by Boro, and the subsequent cowardly reaction of the EFL, is the sole reason this is still unresolved. Indy, S8TY, Sparkle and 4 others 3 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ram-Alf Posted January 19, 2022 Share Posted January 19, 2022 1 minute ago, jono said: What is in regulation 92.2.5 I wonder ? Your going to have to check the EFL rules...I aint ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On the Ram Page Posted January 19, 2022 Share Posted January 19, 2022 We have constantly been advised by the EFL that any member of the EFL Board who has a personal interest in the Derby/Middlesborough/Wycombe saga is not allowed to sit in a meeting where discussions/decisions are held/made. Surely if the EFL Board, as a whole, have made an agreement with Middlesborough FC to take action against Derby, to avoid the EFL being sued by Middlesborough - then all of the Board (who made that agreement with Middlesborough) has a “conflict of interest” and should not decide whether Middlesborough’s current claim is a “Football Debt”. This decision should be taken by an independent body. 1967Ram, CBRammette, Ramfambo and 7 others 5 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chipperram Posted January 19, 2022 Share Posted January 19, 2022 7 minutes ago, TooFarInToTurnRed said: This is taken out of context somewhat, Boro took action against the EFL for not enforcing the rules which was halted when we were charged. https://www.efl.com/contentassets/c9fc5dceaa7f4b62b81dca0b9e2f7c9d/2020.10.26---decision-on-mfc-redaction.pdf Thanks TooFar, still seems like there was a level of manoeuvring going on between EFL and MFC, with EFL realised they were in the frame and acquiesced to MFC. I suppose it could be called implied blackmail. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gaspode Posted January 19, 2022 Share Posted January 19, 2022 1 minute ago, jono said: What is in regulation 92.2.5 I wonder ? It basically states that all and any complaints against the EFL must be blamed on Derby County…. Ram-Alf and Ramarena 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bubbles Posted January 19, 2022 Share Posted January 19, 2022 where on earth is this statement from quantuma. IslandExile 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RandomAccessMemory Posted January 19, 2022 Share Posted January 19, 2022 4 minutes ago, jono said: What is in regulation 92.2.5 I wonder ? https://www.efl.com/-more/governance/efl-rules--regulations/efl-regulations/section-8-investigations-and-disciplinary-proceedings/ Quote 92.2.5 order the payment of compensation to The League, any Club, any other club, Player or other person; Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tyler Durden Posted January 19, 2022 Share Posted January 19, 2022 4 minutes ago, jono said: What is in regulation 92.2.5 I wonder ? Mick Harford and TaahnRam 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BondJovi Posted January 19, 2022 Share Posted January 19, 2022 3 minutes ago, chipperram said: Thanks TooFar, still seems like there was a level of manoeuvring going on between EFL and MFC, with EFL realised they were in the frame and acquiesced to MFC. I suppose it could be called implied blackmail. Could be? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ram-Alf Posted January 19, 2022 Share Posted January 19, 2022 1 minute ago, Bubbles said: where on earth is this statement from quantuma. ?♂️ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gritstone Tup Posted January 19, 2022 Share Posted January 19, 2022 11 minutes ago, kevinhectoring said: ‘Good to go’ meant: “yikes, the admins have stopped talking to us, we thought it was ours, we’re afraid we’ve lost it and that someone else has blown us out of the water. “Please Quantuma, answer our calls and we’ll sign on the dotted line”. The signs were that they were happy with the q plan. But now they might not be ... Exactly what I’m saying! kevinhectoring 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nuwtfly Posted January 19, 2022 Share Posted January 19, 2022 How late is too late for this Quantuma statement?! IslandExile 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tyler Durden Posted January 19, 2022 Share Posted January 19, 2022 5 minutes ago, Bubbles said: where on earth is this statement from quantuma. Because like historically they've been really good at keeping their promises regards updates. A month since they used the word imminent. Says it all. Bubbles 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account.
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now