The Administration Thread

[StaffsRam]

Said in the next 24 hours, so probably tomorrow morning.

[Indy]

1 hour ago, kevinhectoring said:

Shame no one told Toby Perkins that the last solution we want is more player sales 

I think this is right though. Puts on the record that the ‘solution’ that people keep suggesting to us isn’t actually viable.

[IslandExile]

2 minutes ago, Nuwtfly said:

How late is too late for this Quantuma statement?!

[alexxxxx]

..... 

Edited January 19, 2022 by alexxxxx

[jono]

12 minutes ago, RandomAccessMemory said:

https://www.efl.com/-more/governance/efl-rules--regulations/efl-regulations/section-8-investigations-and-disciplinary-proceedings/

 

This only means that the EFL order compensation not Gibsons fantasy claim that would have to go through the EFL anyway 

[San Fran Van Rams]

14 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

 

 

 

This screen shot reads that MFC's issue was not with the amortization policy, but with the stadium valuation which has since been proven to be innocent. Is the original claim of MFC and the one they are pursuing therefore not valid on that basis, that no wrong doing was found with respect to their grievance? 

Nonetheless, I'd also be interested to know if there are other precedents set whereby action by a sporting/membership body that showed wrong doing by a party, was followed up by another party seeking compensation for said wrong doing. I'd thought the EFL rules were clear that members couldn't seek damages against each other although I admit I haven't found the exact wording to prove that point. 

[Albert]

1 hour ago, kevinhectoring said:

I’ve answered that more than once on here

the REASON q said that, and the reason they told MPs today that this has all happened because M threatened to sue EFl, is the same reason. Namely, that Q’s plan is in tatters and so they are looking to deflect blame. 
 

don’t worry, this will be sorted. But 3 things are clear:

1 q had a plan and it is in shreds

2 They have therefore resorted to default, ar$e covering  mode so they are blaming EFl, which has seriously pi$$ed off the EFl

3 this can be resolved, I think it will be resolved. But pi$$ing off the EFL by misrepresenting the position is NOT helpful to resolving it 

I mean, this situation is the fault of the EFL from everything available to the public. 

The spurious claims by Middlesbrough and Wycombe could be dealt with near instantly, which from what Quantuma have said, will lead to Derby being bought. The reason the EFL are doing nothing, is that they are covering themselves. 

They have failed English Football, the EFL are no longer fit for purpose. It's time for them to go, however this situation resolves. 

[Gee SCREAMER !!]

1 hour ago, DarkFruitsRam7 said:

Just ventured over to LTLF to see what the Forest fans are saying. It's not nice.

Derby County Football Club going bust will be a devastating blow to the city, to people's livelihoods and to people's mental health. The fact that the vast majority of them are laughing and saying it's what we deserve is sickening.

Utterly sickening.

Posted similar yesterday.  I'm not having their all 15 year olds either

That won't be Forest then.  Their whole forums full of Bamfords.  Thought they had a better class of fan compared to the Leeds of this world but their forums page after page of  horrendous wallowing in our demise. Does MP stand for Mick Philpott.  Turn Moor farm into more housing for Oakwood and there the milder ones.  Were talking proper stomach turning poo counting down to our liquidation.  

[San Fran Van Rams]

22 minutes ago, RandomAccessMemory said:

https://www.efl.com/-more/governance/efl-rules--regulations/efl-regulations/section-8-investigations-and-disciplinary-proceedings/

 

 

92           Decisions

92.1        The Disciplinary Commission may at any time make a decision, and may make more than one decision at different times on different aspects of the matters to be determined.

92.2        A decision may:

92.2.1    order a party to do or refrain from doing anything;

92.2.2    order a specific performance;

92.2.3    make a declaration on any matter to be determined;

92.2.4    issue a reprimand or warning as to the future conduct of a party;

92.2.5    order the payment of compensation to The League, any Club, any other club, Player or other person;

 

Yes but the decision to require Derby to pay compensation to MFC should have been made by the DC at the time of the trial and not brought retrospectively by MFC. 

Edited January 19, 2022 by San Fran Van Rams
typo

[Albert]

Surely our creditors are seething seeing this all playout. There is a deal in place, they will get what they need, but if this farce continues to go on, they surely aren't anymore. Middlesbrough killing the club at this point just comes across as vindictive, particularly as the claim appears to have limited actual legal basis. 

The EFL using Derby as a shield to protect themselves is also abhorrent. Again, I don't see how the EFL can continue in its current form after this. They are clearly not fit for purpose, such a body is there to manage and protect the clubs, not use the clubs as a shield to protect from their own incompetence. 

[jono]

2 minutes ago, San Fran Van Rams said:

 

92           Decisions

92.1        The Disciplinary Commission may at any time make a decision, and may make more than one decision at different times on different aspects of the matters to be determined.

92.2        A decision may:

92.2.1    order a party to do or refrain from doing anything;

92.2.2    order a specific performance;

92.2.3    make a declaration on any matter to be determined;

92.2.4    issue a reprimand or warning as to the future conduct of a party;

92.2.5    order the payment of compensation to The League, any Club, any other club, Player or other person;

 

Yes but the decision to require Derby to pay compensation to MFC should have been made by the DC at the time of the trail and not brought retrospectively by MFC. 

Exactly .. and in any case it is the EFL who act on the EFL’s rules. The only thing Boro can do is complain to the EFL and say “you have to act according to this regulation.” To which the EFL must respond, either by rejecting the complaint or issuing a sanction to Derby. It’s an action that should take place between Boro and the governing body .. NOT between clubs .. that isn’t in the regulation. 

[JfR]

22 minutes ago, Nuwtfly said:

How late is too late for this Quantuma statement?!

If we use the times that EFL release statements at as a benchmark, then if Quantuma posted a statement now they'd be posting incredibly early

[RandomAccessMemory]

12 minutes ago, jono said:

This only means that the EFL order compensation not Gibsons fantasy claim that would have to go through the EFL anyway 

 

3 minutes ago, San Fran Van Rams said:

 

92           Decisions

92.1        The Disciplinary Commission may at any time make a decision, and may make more than one decision at different times on different aspects of the matters to be determined.

92.2        A decision may:

92.2.1    order a party to do or refrain from doing anything;

92.2.2    order a specific performance;

92.2.3    make a declaration on any matter to be determined;

92.2.4    issue a reprimand or warning as to the future conduct of a party;

92.2.5    order the payment of compensation to The League, any Club, any other club, Player or other person;

 

Yes but the decision to require Derby to pay compensation to MFC should have been made by the DC at the time of the trial and not brought retrospectively by MFC. 

It’s like they’ve opened the regulations, searched for the word compensation, and run with it.

Unless there’s another rule 92.2.5 somewhere and I quoted the wrong one? But I found that one and it seemed to fit what with mentioning paying compensation.

[Rammy03]

Spot on.

Edited January 19, 2022 by Rammy03

[San Fran Van Rams]

1 minute ago, RandomAccessMemory said:

 

It’s like they’ve opened the regulations, searched for the word compensation, and run with it.

Unless there’s another rule 92.2.5 somewhere and I quoted the wrong one? But I found that one and it seemed to fit what with mentioning paying compensation.

The rule 92.2.5 is clear that any MFC compensation would have been directed by the DC so I don't know what leg they have to stand on in that respect. This for me raises the question as to what claim they've initiated.

Perhaps the issue is that MFC are seeking damages outside of the EFL's jurisdiction and that there needs to be a determination as to whether such claims if successful would make MFC a football creditor. 

My question to this is whether MFC is allowed to make such a claim outside of the jurisdiction of the EFL. The rules states that clubs must agree to fall under the jurisdiction of the league but I'm not clear on if this means they can't pursue damages outside of it...

21           Undertakings to be given by Club Officials

21.1        All Clubs must incorporate in any contracts of employment (or other contract for services) with their Officials and Players:

21.1.1    an undertaking on the part of the Official or Player not to bring The League or any Club into disrepute;

21.1.2    an undertaking on the part of the Official or Player not to do anything or omit to do anything which will cause the Club to be in breach of the Laws of the Game, the Football Association Rules, the rules of the Premier League, these Regulations or the Articles of Association; and

21.1.3    an acknowledgement that they are subject to the jurisdiction of The League and Football Association.

21.2        Notwithstanding the provisions of Regulation 21.1, all Officials and Players shall by virtue of their fulfilment of those roles be deemed to have given to The League:

21.2.1    an undertaking to The League not to bring The League or any Club, into disrepute;

21.2.2    an undertaking not to do anything or omit to do anything which will cause a Club to be in breach of the Laws of the Game, the Football Association Rules, these Regulations or the Articles of Association; and

21.2.3    an acknowledgement that they are subject to the jurisdiction of The League and Football Association.

[Gisby]

11 minutes ago, Albert said:

Surely our creditors are seething seeing this all playout. There is a deal in place, they will get what they need, but if this farce continues to go on, they surely aren't anymore. Middlesbrough killing the club at this point just comes across as vindictive, particularly as the claim appears to have limited actual legal basis. 

The EFL using Derby as a shield to protect themselves is also abhorrent. Again, I don't see how the EFL can continue in its current form after this. They are clearly not fit for purpose, such a body is there to manage and protect the clubs, not use the clubs as a shield to protect from their own incompetence. 

The EFL are done my friend. Plenty of brinkmanship going on by all parties but at the end of the day this will be the action that brings them down. 

[Bubbles]

44 minutes ago, Tyler Durden said:

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.

Very good point. ?

[Inverurie Ram]

Are the Administrators spending too much time with MP's just talking about the problem?

Meeting after meeting to highlight the same problem that we have all known about for months. 

Would they not be better spending such quality time in working on and delivering the required solution?

Or will they choose to have more meetings to discuss previous meetings and schedule new meetings to work out how they word information and what information they can share about the same problem we have all shared for 4 months and continue to do so in their regurgitated messages.

 

 "I'm going round the bend again......and I left it up to you.............."

 

[Maharan]

Just now, Inverurie Ram said:

Are the Administrators spending too much time with MP's just talking about the problem?

Meeting after meeting to highlight the same problem that we have all known about for months. 

Would they not be better spending such quality time in working on and delivering the required solution?

Or will they choose to have more meetings to discuss previous meetings and schedule new meetings to work out how they word information and what information they can share about the same problem we have all shared for 4 months and continue to do so in their regurgitated messages.

 

 "I'm going round the bend again......and I left it up to you.............."

 

Kudos for the Paris Angels link. Killer track 

[falconram]

We are also the pawn in the game between Boro and the EFL.