Jump to content

The Administration Thread


Boycie

Recommended Posts

EFL and MFC agree a deal to go after us not them. WW get upset last season as they believe we should have had some points deducted and complain to the EFL who say please dont be nasty to us. However, there may be way we can advise you of - lets get together for a chat. Too many similarities in both cases surely with the EFL as the common denominator.  Absolutely stinks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Made the same point in another post.  In October 2020 MFC claim was rebuffed.  Para 4 of that decisions states that they told the EFL of their intention to claim against us if we were found guilty of a breach.  That didn’t happen until May 2021.  Their claim in January 2021 is invalid as at that time we hadn’t been found guilty of anything.  Unless they resubmitted within 14 days of the decision in May, there is no claim.  And, that judgement in October 2020 said MFC had no power under the Regs to bring an arbitration.

MFC basically submitted their claim in 12 months ago on the assumption we would be found guilty.  If we all follow that approach before the season starts we should submit a claim against all 23 other clubs just in case they breach FFP and finish above us!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, RadioactiveWaste said:

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

Boro were previously quoted as saying they'll wait for a guilty verdict before claiming compensation. Their claim will almost certainly be for the amortisation policy and systematic cheating.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. 

Can somebody who is a constituent of Margaret Becket draw her attention to this fact? If Boro’s entire case is based on the EFL misreading it’s own regulations, this should go away. She seems in the mood to get in touch with Rick Parry and make him aware of this fact. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Ghost of Clough said:

Boro were previously quoted as saying they'll wait for a guilty verdict before claiming compensation. Their claim will almost certainly be for the amortisation policy and systematic cheating.

The only thing we have been found guilty of is not explaining the policy succinctly. We weren’t found guilty of the policy itself or of any systematic cheating.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Bubbles said:

Extremely disappointed to not hear anything from Quantuma, nor RamsTrust, after this from earlier.

Even if it’s just an update as to when tomorrow to expect a statement, it’s another night where we have to go to sleep wondering.

Perhaps I am reading too much into it, but that decision by RamsTrust comes across to me as them really not wanting to be the bearers of bad (possibly very bad) news…

Link to comment
Share on other sites

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.derbytelegraph.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/Derby-county-takeover-mike-ashley-6519706.amp
 

I don’t like the sound of this story at all.

1) Ashley is waiting for hmrc to strike a deal, very unlikely in my opinion flood gates would open.

2) He wants the creditors to have already accepted a deal from the administrators. That takes time we haven’t got.

3) He’s prepared to take it to the wire, we certainly can’t afford anyone else playing silly beggars with our club.

This is probably Simon Jordan’s epiphany he mentioned this morning. Great!!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can we just wear hair shirts for a few seasons? And to show our contrition, walk out to the centre circle on our knees reach match, and then lie prostate in the direction of Middlesbrough in supplication each week.

And the crowd can all be required to chant, "All hail, O Gibson the Powerful!"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, FlyBritishMidland said:

Made the same point in another post.  In October 2020 MFC claim was rebuffed.  Para 4 of that decisions states that they told the EFL of their intention to claim against us if we were found guilty of a breach.  That didn’t happen until May 2021.  Their claim in January 2021 is invalid as at that time we hadn’t been found guilty of anything.  Unless they resubmitted within 14 days of the decision in May, there is no claim.  And, that judgement in October 2020 said MFC had no power under the Regs to bring an arbitration.

MFC basically submitted their claim in 12 months ago on the assumption we would be found guilty.  If we all follow that approach before the season starts we should submit a claim against all 23 other clubs just in case they breach FFP and finish above us!!

Not sure that’s quite right. The October 2020 claim was ‘Boro trying to either latch into the EFL’s appeal, or start their own appeal. They were denied both times on the grounds they had no jurisdiction or standing.  The 14 days thing only applies to appeals. They are free to file a general notice of arbitration against any club, at any time, for any reason.  Which is what they’ve apparently done in January 2021.

The way I see it, any argument over the stadium should be shot down straightaway. The rules are clear that only the league can initiate disciplinary cases. By trying to rerun the charge that we have already been completely cleared of, they are trying to start a disciplinary case, and have no jurisdiction. That also applies to any brand new claims they make.  They need to raise their case with the EFL and get them to prosecute it.

For the amortisation issue, they maybe have some grounds, but there is ample precedent in existing EFL disciplinary cases that you can’t correlate overspending with specific sporting outcomes, to suggest they have no case.  I’m sure there’s also a reference (in DC2, I think) that states that points deductions are deterrents, they are not meant to be corrective actions to level things up again. So there’s no argument there. You can also argue that if DC2 had felt that ‘Boro had been sufficiently harmed, then they had the power to award them compensation, but actively chose not to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, curb said:

The only thing we have been found guilty of is not explaining the policy succinctly. We weren’t found guilty of the policy itself or of any systematic cheating.

Correct for DC decision, but that was appealed by the EFL which went to the LAP. They determined the amortisation policy to be non-compliant with FRS 102 (note: the LAP comprised of lawyers and not accountants), the result being to restate the accounts using a compliant policy.

The club tried to use a 'new Derby method' which they felt was now compliant, but this was rejected by the EFL. Upon the administrators taking over, an agreement between them and the EFL was made to use the commonly used policy, which in turn resulted in our agreed points penalty.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Nuwtfly said:

Perhaps I am reading too much into it, but that decision by RamsTrust comes across to me as them really not wanting to be the bearers of bad (possibly very bad) news…

It made me think they didn’t want to get grief because of a delay by having to write minutes and then wait to get them approved, as has happened in the past. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Nuwtfly said:

Perhaps I am reading too much into it, but that decision by RamsTrust comes across to me as them really not wanting to be the bearers of bad (possibly very bad) news…

Or given the nature of the subject, felt it was best left to the administrators (and their lawyers) to write up something suitable for the public

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Nuwtfly said:

Perhaps I am reading too much into it, but that decision by RamsTrust comes across to me as them really not wanting to be the bearers of bad (possibly very bad) news…

I am *hoping* that it is more RamsTrust trying to get Quantuma to improve their communication to fans, rather than letting speculation run wild.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Bubbles said:

Extremely disappointed to not hear anything from Quantuma, nor RamsTrust, after this from earlier.

Even if it’s just an update as to when tomorrow to expect a statement, it’s another night where we have to go to sleep wondering.

It is frustrating, but it would be equally annoying if the administrators made a statement saying that there has been little progress and so not much to report. 

Edited by europia
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, angieram said:

 

Jack's a family friend and I've watched him in the DCFC Academy since he was nine years old. He's now 15 and a first year Academy scholar but still at school. He's the current England U16 goalkeeper and I'm really hoping that in the not too distant future I'm watching him in the first team goal at Pride Park. On top of that he's just a smashing lad who loves the Rams. He's desperate that our club survives.

"There's only one Jack Thompson..........................."

Come On You Rams

Come On You Rams

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...