The Administration Thread

[strawhillram]

4 minutes ago, RoyMac5 said:

I hold Wycombe responsible for their mess and now ours! That Derby fan, well there's always one and they were there for hours!

If he is  a real Derby supporter, then he’ll come out publicly and deny it or say he was paid to say what he said. Otherwise he’s not a real Derby supporter and probably a red in disguise trying to stir it up.

[duncanjwitham]

10 minutes ago, davenportram said:

Section 69 is not mentioned but challenge can be made on point of law or public interest

 

from section 69 - c part iii could apply with the MO involvement - the court can award leave to appeal and the EFL can’t deny a right under statute.

 

(3)Leave to appeal shall be given only if the court is satisfied—

(a)that the determination of the question will substantially affect the rights of one or more of the parties,

(b)that the question is one which the tribunal was asked to determine,

(c)that, on the basis of the findings of fact in the award—

(i)the decision of the tribunal on the question is obviously wrong, or

(ii)the question is one of general public importance and the decision of the tribunal is at least open to serious doubt, and

(d)that, despite the agreement of the parties to resolve the matter by arbitration, it is just and proper in all the circumstances for the court to determine the question.

Section 69 is specifically mentioned in 103.2.1, we're not allowed to use it.

[sonofmidnight]

1 minute ago, RoyMac5 said:

I hold Wycombe responsible for their mess and now ours! That Derby fan, well there's always one and they were there for hours!

Yes but we've got a big enough fight on our hands  without one of our own apologising on behalf of Derby fans . He is entitled to his opinion but I object to him apologising on behalf of Derby fans. Needless to say Wycombe are bigging this Up!!

[BriggRam]

45 minutes ago, CBRammette said:

Sorry if already posted but amazing. Tissues at the ready

 

I'm sure Brian of that Wycombe tweet is on this 38 seconds

[strawhillram]

1 minute ago, Sinistra ram rousse said:

Yes but we've got a big enough fight on our hands  without one of our own apologising on behalf of Derby fans . He is entitled to his opinion but I object to him apologising on behalf of Derby fans. Needless to say Wycombe are bigging this Up!!

I wonder if they’ll call him as a witness in court?

I’d be happy to be interviewed by someone from Derby and I willl apologise on behalf of all MFC fans or WW fan for their bogus claims and unsportsmanlike conduct. If it means being a shirt for a few minutes so be it.

 

[PistoldPete]

3 minutes ago, duncanjwitham said:

Section 69 is specifically mentioned in 103.2.1, we're not allowed to use it.

I don't think the arbitration they are talking about is the LAP. Boro and Wycombe cannot use that whilst we are in administration..unless the 62k people signing the petition were wrong. 

[TooFarInToTurnRed]

14 minutes ago, Sinistra ram rousse said:

I am feeling a bit annoyed this morning.   A Derby fan who was interviewed by the journalists from Wycombe has said he would like to apologise to  Middlesborough and Wycombe  on behalf of the Derby fans. Well he doesn't speak for me. I hold the EFL responsible for the Wycombe mess.

The LAP that ruled and gave a deadline for resubmission of accounts are independent of the EFL are they not? An organisation called Sports Resolution or something like that.

That is what makes the claim laughable it wasn’t Derby or the EFL that set the deadline and even with the accounts submitted before the start of the season we would have needed to be charged with the breach and another LAP formed without an agreed sanction. We could have still been waiting for an outcome now!

 

[Guest]

5 minutes ago, duncanjwitham said:

LAP's are independent, that's the whole point of them.  I don't see how this can be anything other than a LAP through the official EFL arbitration process. It's the only tool they have for solving disputes, and all members are required to use it.

That's the Section 67 bit (regarding jurisdiction) - we could argue e.g. that the arbitrators compelled us to break insolvency law, which they don't have jurisdiction over.  But I don't think there's any scope for 'Boro or Wycombe to take things further if they lose.

You are wrong Duncan. Arbitration deals with statute law which is binding in this instance and it usurps the EFL who can do nothing to overturn its finding. There is a limited right of appeal to a higher court only if that higher court agrees that the legal process was not followed correctly by the arbiters. But all rights of EFL jurisdiction on the claims issue is removed forever when arbitration commences.

[Day]

18 minutes ago, RoyMac5 said:

I hold Wycombe responsible for their mess and now ours! That Derby fan, well there's always one and they were there for hours!

I've had a Derby fan also mention me this morning that shared the guys views in the video so he's not the only one. (This is just to show proof, do not go and flood his mentions)

I can only guess that some are unable to separate why we entered administration and what is preventing us from leaving administration.

I actually mistook him for a Boro fan at first as I've had a few like this now since sharing the video.

Let's be perfectly clear here and I won't make the mistake of talking on behalf of Derby fans.

I am personally not blaming Boro or Wycombe for the situation we find ourselves in.

What I am blaming Boro and Wycombe for is their claims against Derby as they are a huge obstacle in leaving administration.

Claims which I believe have no merit and completely laughable.

Had it not been for these claims, it's quite possible we could have been out of administration now and embargo, yet we're still here wracking up administrator fees having to fight these.

And when I say Boro and Wycombe, I'm not talking about the fans, players, staff but Gibson and Couhig.

As far as I'm aware, Boro fans were not complaining about our "cheating" costing them a place in the play offs, only now since the claims are under a spotlight have they come out to defend Gibson and attack our club.

Which I get. Totally get. But please don't twist this into blaming Boro and Wycombe for the entire mess as it's simply not true.

[davenportram]

7 minutes ago, duncanjwitham said:

Section 69 is specifically mentioned in 103.2.1, we're not allowed to use it.

I missed that, but I reckon you could argue that rules for an organisation aren’t allowed to revoke your rights under law of the land. 

[BriggRam]

6 minutes ago, BriggRam said:

I'm sure Brian of that Wycombe tweet is on this 38 seconds

[TooFarInToTurnRed]

9 minutes ago, StrawHillRam said:

If he is  a real Derby supporter, then he’ll come out publicly and deny it or say he was paid to say what he said. Otherwise he’s not a real Derby supporter and probably a red in disguise trying to stir it up.

From talking to many Derby friends and colleagues they just don’t get it and most seem to apportion the blame solely in one of 3 camps which are the EFL, Boro/Wycombe or Mel Morris when in reality it’s a mix. 

[davenportram]

11 minutes ago, duncanjwitham said:

Section 69 is specifically mentioned in 103.2.1, we're not allowed to use it.

Actually just read that again and the exclusions mentioned are added to those in the first paragraph and as such still subject to the “such a waiver can be validly applied” still scope to challenge the validity. Those rules are designed to stop the credibility of the EFL being questioned - well that’s already happening.

[strawhillram]

2 minutes ago, TooFarInToTurnRed said:

From talking to many Derby friends and colleagues they just don’t get it and most seem to apportion the blame solely in one of 3 camps which are the EFL, Boro/Wycombe or Mel Morris when in reality it’s a mix. 

MM is the cause

Gibson is the agitator and extortionist

EFL board members are the  *#*#** wanting retribution over and above the punishments already given. To protect their own interests /self preservation.

[Curtains]

Let’s face it we aren’t going to get through to all fans about the situation we are in .

The situation is serious and frivolous remarks from opposition fans won’t help our cause .

We just have to hope for the best .

Come on you Rams .

I ask  any Derby Fan be very careful about criticizing Derby in this situation to the media 

Do not give any openings for Derby to be criticized 

Edited January 29, 2022 by Curtains
Spelling and added

[duncanjwitham]

4 minutes ago, PistoldPete said:

I don't think the arbitration they are talking about is the LAP. Boro and Wycombe cannot use that whilst we are in administration..unless the 62k people signing the petition were wrong. 

 

3 minutes ago, Brailsford Ram said:

You are wrong Duncan. Arbitration deals with statute law which is binding in this instance and it usurps the EFL who can do nothing to overturn its finding. There is a limited right of appeal to a higher court only if that higher court agrees that the legal process was not followed correctly by the arbiters. But all rights of EFL jurisdiction on the claims issue is removed forever when arbitration commences.

I'm genuinely amazed that this is remotely controversial.  The EFL arbitration process *is* an instance of the official, legal arbitration process (see the repeated references to the Arbitration Act in the EFL rules).  The EFL rules are completely clear that it is the only tool available to solve disputes between clubs (of which this clearly is).  I 100% guarantee you that the process apparently being rushed through next week, is an official EFL LAP hearing, either to make some kind of quick ruling on the football creditor issue, or to run the entire cases through.  There's nothing else it can be.

[duncanjwitham]

14 minutes ago, davenportram said:

I missed that, but I reckon you could argue that rules for an organisation aren’t allowed to revoke your rights under law of the land. 

I’d guess the argument there is that the rights aren’t revoked, but if you want to continue being a member of that organisation, you agree not to use them.

[Curtains]

5 minutes ago, duncanjwitham said:

 

I'm genuinely amazed that this is remotely controversial.  The EFL arbitration process *is* an instance of the official, legal arbitration process (see the repeated references to the Arbitration Act in the EFL rules).  The EFL rules are completely clear that it is the only tool available to solve disputes between clubs (of which this clearly is).  I 100% guarantee you that the process apparently being rushed through next week, is an official EFL LAP hearing, either to make some kind of quick ruling on the football creditor issue, or to run the entire cases through.  There's nothing else it can be.

98           Appointing the Arbitrators

98.1        Subject to Regulation 98.6, the League Arbitration Panel shall comprise 3 members.

98.2        Within 14 days of service of the Notice of Arbitration, each party shall serve written notice on The League and all other parties to the arbitration of the details of the individual they wish to appoint to act as an arbitrator in the arbitration requested.  Any nominee must be:

98.2.1    a solicitor of no less than 10 years’ admission or a barrister of no less than 10 years’ call; and

98.2.2    independent of the party appointing him and able to render an impartial decision.

98.3        Within 14 days of service of the Notice of Arbitration The League shall appoint (or shall ask the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators (or such other body as appointed by the Board from time to time) if The League is a party) to appoint) the third arbitrator who shall be a legally qualified person who shall sit as chairperson.

98.4        If a party refuses or fails to appoint an arbitrator when it is obliged to do so in accordance with these Regulations the Board (or the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators (or such other body as appointed by the Board from time to time) if The League is a party) shall make the appointment giving notice in writing to that effect to each party.

98.5        Members of a League Arbitration Panel shall be entitled to receive from The League a reasonable sum by way of fees and expenses, as determined by the Board from time to time.  Where a party seeks to appoint an individual whose costs exceed those determined by the Board, that party will be responsible for any additional fees and expenses in any event, and such excess amounts cannot be the subject of an order for costs under any circumstances.

98.6        Notwithstanding the provisions of Regulation 98.1, the parties shall be at liberty to appoint a single arbitrator (who must be qualified in accordance with Regulation 98.2.1) in which case written notice of such agreement shall be provided to The League.  This Section of these Regulations shall thereafter be interpreted on the basis that the League Arbitration Panel comprises a single arbitrator who shall undertake the duties of the chairperson.

[kevinhectoring]

50 minutes ago, Brailsford Ram said:

Arbitration is binding so if we win the claims go out of the window, i'e. they have gone away. Nothing to see for the EFL anymore, regardless of how much that might disappoint them. Job done.

Completely agree. But why would EFl be disappointed if we win ? These claims are a nightmare for the EFl 

[Curtains]

Each group appoint an Arbitrator.

Administrators

The League 

Middlesbrough/Wycombe 

Edited January 29, 2022 by Curtains
Predictive text