The Administration Thread

[TuffLuff]

5 minutes ago, Maharan said:

So Mel thinks, as do many, that he’s the saviour in this? He’s the reason that this whole mess has happened. He left the club for dead,he doesn’t deserve the adoration he’s getting tonight. 

What adoration?

[Yani P]

[Jimbo Ram]

2 minutes ago, Yani P said:

?

[Mucker1884]

15 minutes ago, duncanjwitham said:

?QC, give us a wave, QC QC give us a wave ?

 

12 minutes ago, ThePrisoner said:

? the barristers a banker, the barristers a banker ?

Who's the typist, Who's the typist, Who's the typist at the back?  

[Cook1988]

If they don't accept this then we need to make more noise 

Protest at EFL HQ, protest at every home and away game, protest at boro and wycomes grounds. 

WE ARE Derby!!!!! 

AND WE'LL FIGHT TO THE END!!!! 

 

[Gritstone Ram]

1 minute ago, Cook1988 said:

If they don't accept this then we need to make more noise 

Protest at EFL HQ, protest at every home and away game, protest at boro and wycomes grounds. 

WE ARE Derby!!!!! 

AND WE'LL FIGHT TO THE END!!!! 

 

Send Wycombe and Boro chickens.

[ossieram]

20 minutes ago, Maharan said:

So Mel thinks, as do many, that he’s the saviour in this? He’s the reason that this whole mess has happened. He left the club for dead,he doesn’t deserve the adoration he’s getting tonight. 

Who are the many and what adoration?

[angieram]

 

[WestKentRam]

I still think the EFL are digging themselves into a deeper and deeper hole here, using a spade that Boro have forced them to use while they oversee the EFL shovelling away.

In the League Arbitration Panel's ruling of 22nd October 2020, it is stated that:

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.

The key word here for me is 'stayed'. I did discuss this with a lawyer friend today and it does have the meaning that it implies of paused rather than stopped or terminated.

Surely if Boro initially wanted to commence proceedings directly against the EFL for not taking action against Derby, and the EFL only managed to convince Boro not to do so by saying they would commence disciplinary proceedings against Derby themselves, then the action by Boro against the EFL would not be stayed but stopped. It implies that Boro will hold the threat over the EFL that they will restart action against them if the EFL doesn't pursue Derby to their liking.

This point is also made by Mel Morris' letter today in which he says 'The root of this is that they are also under attack from Boro who basically said you pursue Derby at all costs, or we will continue with our action to pursue the EFL.'

This isn't just MM ranting or paranoia of the EFL's stance against Derby, it is spelled out in this ruling on the EFL website.

How possibly can Derby expect a fair hearing in any of the matters since the start of all this with the EFL actions clearly being influenced by the threat of a claim against them if things don't go Boro's way?

 

[papa_lazarou]

22 minutes ago, PistoldPete said:

I think that ship has sailed sadly. but the EFL actions this January are unforgivable losing so many of our players because of them giving in to Gibson and co.  

Well you say it's sailed, but that didn't stop the EFL retrospectively going back over our accounts which they'd already signed off years ago because Gibbo threatened to sue them..... 

[vonwright]

Still think the problem here is there is absolutely no agreement on what the court would be asked to determine:

a) is the EFL entitled to have specific 'football rules' which go beyond usual administration law, and to kick out clubs that don't abide by those rules?

b) is the EFL entitled to treat 'football claims' along the same lines as 'football debts' - ie to say to clubs 'either agree to pay the claim in full if that's what an EFL panel decides, or agree a settlement, or lose your place in the league?'

c) is it admissible to treat this specific claim as a 'football debt' as defined by the EFL rules?

d) do the claims have any merit and in which case how much are Boro and Wycombe owed in damages?

The EFL want to focus on the technicalities and process, basically a and b. But we need clarity on c and d. I think the EFL and Boro will be very keen to keep those 'in house' because once they are settled it becomes impossible to bully and blackmail us. 

[Guest]

At last after the constant worries of the last four months, hopefully we have a good news week to look forward to. I simply cannot see how the parasite clubs and/or the EFL can set Mel's offer aside. The High Court was always going to be the best venue to settle what is and always was a civil claim, no matter how uncomfortable it may or may not be for the other parties that the outcome will be decided by the judiciary with no interference from the incompetency of the EFL.

The statement was obviously crafted by Mel and his legal advisers and hits all the salient points to remove the obstructions thrown down by the EFL to prevent our swift exit from administration.

I found it astounding that arbitration was not intended until the end of the season because of the unavailability of Boro's counsel. That means that it has long been intended that DCFC would remain locked into  a strict and oppressive transfer embargo to the end of the season. Incredible.

Unavailability of counsel in a court of law for that length of time would not have been accepted by a judge. The parasites would simply have been told to instruct other counsel so that the matter could be dealt with expeditiously. We've been well and truly shafted by the EFL as many of have thought for a long time now.

Putting all other thought about Mel aside for now, I am very grateful tonight for what he has done today. Mind you I think he knows that he will easily defeat the claims but at least they can be taken away from our football club.

Edited February 4, 2022 by Guest

[CBRammette]

Assume someone has already said it so sorry but hope Man U sue MFC for that handball as obviously they would win FACup without it

[May Contain Nuts]

So it turns out Boro trying to say that they've tried to commence the proceedings against us and invited us to respond is pretty much along the same lines of the EFL saying that Derby didn't actually apply for the covid loan.

i.e. there would be absolutely no point in us doing so, but it's spun from their side as us failing to engage in the process because technical they have opened communications.

Funny that they seem to have both happened upon the same idea.

Edited February 4, 2022 by Coconut's Beard
thought I already posted this, may not have hit send. Can't see any reason it would have been deleted but if so, apologies.

[hintonsboots]

24 minutes ago, Brailsford Ram said:

I found it astounding that arbitration was not intended until the end of the season because of the unavailability of Boro's counsel. That means that it has long been intended that DCFC would remain locked into  a strict and oppressive transfer embargo to the end of the season. Incredible.

 

If true, would suggest major collusion between Boro and the EFL, in bringing DCFC to its knees and ensuring relegation.

The EFL need bringing down urgently.

[Norman]

So, the earliest Boro wanted an arbitration meeting, despite being confident they were owed vast sums of money, was late May 2022. 

Why do you think that was? 

Because MM was trying to sell us and they knew nobody serious would with that hanging over proceedings.

Boro, in my opinion, have been wanting us completely ruined from the start. 

Gibson is a Bamford. 

[Norman]

Oh, and I hope someone starts a crowd funder or someone rich or closely involved in this sues Boro and the EFL. Collusion is where I would start. 

I think there's enough evidence of that and we aren't able to see all the bits that are currently protected legally from being made public. 

[WestKentRam]

On 18/01/2022 at 05:50, PistoldPete said:

And Gibson has sued him before over Ziege.

This is just another example of how Boro and the EFL are so intertwined to mean anyone caught in the middle stands no chance of a fair hearing.

So, the facts.

In 2002, Boro, with Steve Gibson as their chairman, win an appeal court hearing against Liverpool, whose chief executive just happens to be Rick Parry, for the 'tapping up' of Boro player Christian Ziege prior to his signing for Liverpool.

Reading the reports of the case it is easy to see why Parry may be cautious in wanting to keep Gibson onside now with his dealings with him:

The two clubs were due to meet at the high court in London on March 22 for what was expected to be a 10-day hearing, with the suspicion being that the dispute had long since degenerated into little more than a personal grudge between the Boro chairman Steve Gibson and the Liverpool chief executive Rick Parry.

 

"They have treated us like dirt," [Boro chief executive] Lamb said of Liverpool.

Liverpool can now appeal against yesterday's ruling and may wish to settle out of court. But this has become such a vitriolic and personal argument, Middlesbrough will not consider such a response.

I assume that in any communication Boro has with the EFL that Gibson and Parry have no contact with each other and declare their previous history. Otherwise, surely, there is a major risk that this will influence, whether consciously or not, any future cases, such as exactly the one that the two men, in their respective roles with the EFL and Boro, have made against Derby.

 

 

 

[ossieram]

Boro lot reckon the permed one will reject this because his case is against Derby County Ltd. 

[angieram]

9 minutes ago, Coconut's Beard said:

So it turns out Boro trying to say that they've tried to commence the proceedings against us and invited us to respond is pretty much along the same lines of the EFL saying that Derby didn't actually apply for the covid loan.

i.e. there would be absolutely no point in us doing so, but it's spun from their side as us failing to engage in the process because technical they have opened communications.

Funny that they seem to have both happened upon the same idea.

No, not posted!