The Administration Thread

[Mihangel]

3 minutes ago, 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.............."

 

One of the greatest tracks ever. Just saying....

[BondJovi]

13 minutes ago, Rammy03 said:

Spot on.

Neville has been one of the keen advocates for independant governance of football. You would think this story would give all the ammo you would ever need for that change to happen.  I expected more from him, especially given the Rooney connection. Well done OB.

[TooFarInToTurnRed]

1 hour 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.

Your assertion was clearly that there was some sort of clandestine pact between the EFL and Boro when it was all done through proper procedure. Nowhere near as dodgy as it was made out to be.

Boro took issue with the EFL for not applying the the rules, the EFL applied the rules and Boro dropped the claim simple. This part seems fairly reasonable to me. 

[Bubbles]

“I was told this morning (Wednesday) that Ashley is quite happy to go to the wire with making an offer as long as there is a reduction in the debt from the tax debt that is owed as well as from the administrators with regards to the creditors as well.

Again, Ashley is a shrewd businessman so it is hardly surprising this is something, or certainly a way of operating in terms of getting more value for the money he is willing to invest.

It is still quite a dangerous strategy, more for Derby than it is for Ashley, because of course he can probably take it or leave it, though it is clear he likes the prestige and profile of owning a football club.”

- Transfer Window Podcast (Ian McGarry & Duncan Castles)

[Ghost of Clough]

50 minutes ago, San Fran Van Rams said:

 

 

 

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. 

Their complaint was against the stadium sale up until the punishment was announced following the LAPs decision against Derby. At which point they decided the amortisation policy was bad.

[Sparkle]

2 hours ago, Van der MoodHoover said:

Just need to persuade Ashley to part with some compromise cash, then when the dust is settled, we crowd fund him suing Gibson personally for extortion and racketeering..... ?

Whilst the HMRC, environmental health, Health and safety all make the required visits to follow up the reported transgressions on Gibsons various business operations 

[Barney1991]

3 minutes ago, Bubbles said:

“I was told this morning (Wednesday) that Ashley is quite happy to go to the wire with making an offer as long as there is a reduction in the debt from the tax debt that is owed as well as from the administrators with regards to the creditors as well.

Again, Ashley is a shrewd businessman so it is hardly surprising this is something, or certainly a way of operating in terms of getting more value for the money he is willing to invest.

It is still quite a dangerous strategy, more for Derby than it is for Ashley, because of course he can probably take it or leave it, though it is clear he likes the prestige and profile of owning a football club.”

- Transfer Window Podcast (Ian McGarry & Duncan Castles)

This doesn’t surprise me one bit. This is Ashley all over. I see it now he will swoop in with a day to go save it. It’s the type of guy he is he will want a bargain which will happen as creditors will be pooping it and he will be a hero 

[duncanjwitham]

Just now, Ghost of Clough said:

Their complaint was against the stadium sale up until the punishment was announced following the LAPs decision against Derby. At which point they decided the amortisation policy was bad.

Their statement yesterday indicated there was also something else beside the amortisation. I assume that has to be the stadium still, since I can’t believe there’s something else massive in the accounts that nobody has spotted in 7 years of heavy scrutiny.

[G STAR RAM]

1 hour ago, uttoxram75 said:

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.

To be fair, I think 50% of the people going on about us cheating and getting what we deserve, still think this is to do with the ground sale.

Shows how well the EFL have done at keeping this whole thing on the sly.

Think I must have asked about 20 people on Facebook today to explain how we have been found guilty of cheating, not had one even sightly plausible reply yet.

Edited January 19, 2022 by G STAR RAM

[DCFC1388]

If we get funds to see us through to the end of the season, does that mean the new embargo is removed & we can go back to signing players?

Obviously still within the no transfer/loan fee & would have to have the funds to cover it.

[Guest]

30 minutes ago, Gisby said:

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. 

 Derby were beaten to promotion by Leicester, QPR, Bournemouth,Villa and others who all breached P&S to get there but we just left the EFL to deal with the matter as they saw fit. When we were found out, Gibson threatened to sue the EFL because they had allowed Derby to cheat. The EFL had allowed us to cheat just like they had all the others before us because they did not have an efficient regulatory framework in place to prevent the breaches.

The EFL were in a corner with Gibson and they got out of it by telling him to make a claim against Derby, not them and they would support him. It is a corrupt can of worms and we are the victims. We have been victimised with embargoes and restrictions so that the EFL can get themselves off the hook and satisfy Gibson. That is not a conspiracy theory, it is a reasonable and likely hypothesis that a senior criminal investigating officer, looking into this matter, would be entitled to arrive at following the information we have been given about today's meeting between the administrators and the MPs.

I think the EFL now have very serious questions to answer about how they have treated Derby County. Parliament yesterday put them on notice to get their act together. Today's disclosures have amplified the need for them to heed that warning. I actually think that today has been as good as yesterday in moving us nearer to a resolution of our predicament.

Come On You Rams.

Edited January 19, 2022 by Guest

[RadioactiveWaste]

1 minute ago, duncanjwitham said:

Their statement yesterday indicated there was also something else beside the amortisation. I assume that has to be the stadium still, since I can’t believe there’s something else massive in the accounts that nobody has spotted in 7 years of heavy scrutiny.

If it is the stadium sale, we just refer to the decision of the EFL disciplinary and say go away.

[MK-Ram]

3 minutes ago, DCFC1388 said:

If we get funds to see us through to the end of the season, does that mean the new embargo is removed & we can go back to signing players?

Obviously still within the no transfer/loan fee & would have to have the funds to cover it.

Based on the EFL's statement, I would believe so.

[FlyBritishMidland]

1 hour 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

I’ve lost count of the number of times I’ve read this document in the last few days.  I think paragraphs 12 - 26 are quite interesting as they discuss the jurisdiction for MFC to go to arbitration, the EFL Regs (in particular sections 8 and 9) and discuss whether MFC can bring the arbitration.

This case was brought based on over valuing PP.  Importantly, they do not discuss the cause reason.  They discuss whether the Regs allow them to bring the claim in principle.  This is always the first point to establish in contract law - establish the principle, then establish the quantum.  Para 26 states “we therefore conclude there is no power for MFC to bring the MFC arbitration”.

Regardless that MFC launched a claim under different guise, the principle has been established.

[Andicis]

The more time passes, the more I'm convinced that the EFL are going to blink before it comes down to it. Liquidating Derby outside of actually doing it, causes a whole host of other issues to contend with too.

Do they scrub all results from teams that have played us? I.e. the teams that beat us get screwed by losing the points? And how does that account for intangibles such as teams that may have had to play us in busy schedules and picked up injuries/suspensions vs teams that didn't play us for a second time avoiding all of that.

It creates absolutely poo loads of more complaints for the EFL to deal with, and we've seen how efficient that are at dealing with such things. 

[Sparkle]

1 hour ago, On the Ram Page said:

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.

Excellent point and well made 

[Shipley Ram]

5 minutes ago, G STAR RAM said:

To be fair, I think 50% of the people going on about us cheating and getting what we deserve, still think this is to do with the ground sale.

Shows how well the EFL have done at keeping this whole thing on the sly.

Think I must have asked about 20 people on Facebook today to explain how we have been found guilty of cheating, not had one even sightly pausible reply yet.

You are spot on we have lost the propaganda war, it's another wat the EFL have stitched us up. They should have charged Middlesabrough and Wycombe for bringing us into disrepute. Their inaction has us to be smeared as cheats (who deserve all we get), when the truth about our wrongdoing is more complicated.

 

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;

 

I have raised this point with Rick but he's not got back to me yet.

 

[Crewton]

1 hour 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

You have to read between the lines. 

[San Fran Van Rams]

15 minutes ago, Ghost of Clough said:

Their complaint was against the stadium sale up until the punishment was announced following the LAPs decision against Derby. At which point they decided the amortisation policy was bad.

When was the LAP?  From their club statement, MFC started arbitration proceedings before Derby were sanctioned and required to resubmit accounts. The DC made its final decision in July 2021... https://www.dcfc.co.uk/news/2021/07/efl-statement-Derby-county-sanction-written-reasons, a full 6 months after the arbitration began. 

MFC became aware that Derby County was cheating under the P&S Rules during 2018/19. MFC first intimated a claim against Derby County in May 2019 immediately following the end of the 2018/19 season. The claim was held in abeyance whilst the EFL Disciplinary Proceedings against Derby County were followed through to a conclusion. MFC then sent Derby County a Letter Before Action in the autumn of 2020 and started arbitration proceedings against Derby County in January 2021.

[kevinhectoring]

1 hour 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. 

Seems to me this is quite a strong point in favour of our position ie that clubs can’t sue for breach of FFP - it is all to be decided by proceedings brought by the EFL.