The Administration Thread

[PistoldPete]

8 hours ago, Brailsford Ram said:

No Eaton, I do not think that Mel himself can force the issue to the High Court. There is no claim against him personally as yet. It is up to Gibson and Ironside (I struggle with his real name) to accept Mel's very generous offer of absolving his limited liability before the High Court can accept it for hearing.

Still banging on... so can't Boro claim  under these undertakings as per EFL rules...

"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."

Or if Boro can't  claim then DCFC can say its breach of contract by Morris.

[i-Ram]

14 minutes ago, PistoldPete said:

Still banging on... so can't Boro claim  under these undertakings as per EFL rules...

"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."

Or if Boro can't  claim then DCFC can say its breach of contract by Morris.

[BodminRam]

Pretty obvious why Mike Ashley wants to buy us , he would save money on ties, he has loads of black and white ones ?

[kevinhectoring]

10 hours ago, The Scarlet Pimpernel said:

Ive just dropped a line to Jim about getting a specific answer if possible to the 4.4/4.5 EFL rule about clubs not claiming off one another.

Well 4.4 says if a club has breached its duty of good faith re P&S, then it is only the EFL and not another club that can sue. 

So if MFC were only suing on that basis, MM is right, they can’t. 

But I’d think Gibbo has other grounds on which he is making his claim and if so these would not be subject to the restriction MM mentions. It’s quite possible Couhig has been scheming with Gibbo and dreamed up other grounds for the claim. All of them likely to be bogus imho but we’d need to see them to be sure 

I couldn’t find 4.5

[kevinhectoring]

5 hours ago, TuffLuff said:

If it wasn’t feasible then why release a statement to the Press Association? It’s just making yourself look silly if it’s not feasible

He issued the release to stop the phone ringing. He won’t look silly, all he said was: fine by me for them to slug it out in court if it’s doable . 
.. and it’s not 

[kevinhectoring]

5 hours ago, TuffLuff said:

Morris is not a lawyer. He wouldn’t offer it out to the Press Association if he hadn’t been advised by his legal outfit that it’s doability was doable.

His letter is a PR exercise not a legal treatise    
 

non es doable 

[Sparkle]

3 hours ago, Bald Eagle's Barmy Army said:

I'm starting to feel we might just be coming to the end of this shi7 show 

Really - please let me know when 

[TuffLuff]

21 minutes ago, kevinhectoring said:

His letter is a PR exercise not a legal treatise    
 

non es doable 

Who in the bloody hell is saying it’s a legal treatise? 

You’re bending arguments to try and suit your own now.

And no I won’t go to Nando’s

[rsmini]

Spotted this earlier on an instagram story. I’ve not seen much mention of this, do we know if it’s correct?

[MidWalesRam]

4 minutes ago, rsmini said:

Spotted this earlier on an instagram story. I’ve not seen much mention of this, do we know if it’s correct?

Poor spelling would suggest its fake.

[IslandExile]

1 minute ago, rsmini said:

Spotted this earlier on an instagram story. I’ve not seen much mention of this, do we know if it’s correct?

What have they been filled with - a whole load of numbers, good numbers, bad numbers, big numbers, little numbers?

Anyhow, we need the accounts to be filed to prevent a further 3 point deduction.

To fulfill the league season, we need some cash, spondoolies, readies, wonga.

[kevinhectoring]

5 hours ago, vonwright said:

It just isn't what happens in anything like the way you describe - and not just for sentencing. No magistrate ever says "Well the letter of the law says x but I'm finding you guilty because the intention of the law is y." And it doesn't happen in higher courts either. Yes, judges might consider the intention of the law if they need to resolve some tension or ambiguity, but that's a world away from using intention as a starting point, or ignoring the law, or "stretching" the law (your words), or simply inventing a law that doesn't exist. You should not (contra your example) be any more likely to be convicted if you are "a menace to public safety", and nor should you be. It might affect your sentence, and so it should. Both those things are entirely in accordance with the letter of the law. 

I'm baffled that you think this happens - do you perhaps live in Russia or China? - let alone that you think it's a fine and acceptable thing for courts (or the EFL) to do. 

 

open and shut cases tend not to come to court. So there’s usually a basis for a judge to support A or B if they see a compelling reason to do so. It’s reflected in the adage ‘hard cases make bad law’.  Of course the judge doesn’t say ‘I’m deciding this case on policy grounds, or ‘because I think the insurance company should pay, or ‘because I think the defendant is a lying toad’. But it is often clear to all involved that that’s what lies behind the decision. 
 

I think we lost in the LAP because the panel thought we had been sharp, probably dishonest, because they thought our method of amortisation was liable to be manipulated, and  if upheld would cause chaos in the FFP system. They mentioned our conduct but not the ‘policy’ point, because the policy issues had no strict legal bearing on the case. The  main justification they gave related to expert evidence. 
 

In short I am much more cynical than you are 
 

 

[kevinhectoring]

16 minutes ago, TuffLuff said:

Who in the bloody hell is saying it’s a legal treatise? 

You’re bending arguments to try and suit your own now.

And no I won’t go to Nando’s

I’m saying MM is fully aware his offer to be sued in the High Court is legal nonsense and cannot be taken up. And he is aware that if it is not taken up it, it weakens Gibbo’s criticism of him  

these open letters are a distraction, and a waste of valuable time - MM needs to indemnify the club against the claims 

[B4ev6is]

23 minutes ago, MidWalesRam said:

Poor spelling would suggest its fake.

It could be really also.

[Ghost of Clough]

47 minutes ago, rsmini said:

Spotted this earlier on an instagram story. I’ve not seen much mention of this, do we know if it’s correct?

An extension was given by the EFL. All required accounts will be submitted within the next couple of days.

[Gee SCREAMER !!]

29 minutes ago, kevinhectoring said:

I’m saying MM is fully aware his offer to be sued in the High Court is legal nonsense and cannot be taken up. And he is aware that if it is not taken up it, it weakens Gibbo’s criticism of him  

these open letters are a distraction, and a waste of valuable time - MM needs to indemnify the club against the claims 

I would suggest the only way he would do this, is if it was dealt with via high court rather than Gibsons EFL chimps.

[kevinhectoring]

3 hours ago, Retro_RAM said:

From what I understand that is correct, however it wouldn't be Mel vs Boro/Wycombe it would still be technically Derby County vs Boro/Wycombe HOWEVER Mel will sign a legal document stating should the court case be lost he will foot the bill, thus freeing any potential owner of this "debt".

What you describe should be a solution - it is legally possible and equivalent to MM indemnifying in the club. But it’s not what his letter described 

[Grumpy Git]

1 hour ago, MidWalesRam said:

Poor spelling would suggest its fake.

It was prepared by the BBC "The Apprentice" candidates. 

[Gritstone Ram]

6 hours ago, kevinhectoring said:

What you describe should be a solution - it is legally possible and equivalent to MM indemnifying in the club. But it’s not what his letter described 

Why would anyone guarantee something they don’t have control of. If MM indemnified the club he wouldn’t control its defence. Any new owner wouldn’t want to spend much on defending the case because it wouldn’t matter if they lost. The only way it could be done as a way out is how MM said if that is possible.

[BriggRam]

9 hours ago, i-Ram said:

Yeah, let’s really infuriate Appleby and the Binnie Bros while we have the chance.

Or give Ashley further reason to save us......pretty sure a few pro Ashley chants wouldn't be the cause of other bidders being put off