The Administration Thread

[Curtains]

: Dave seems a complete muppet!! Wouldn’t listen to the reasoned debate and just quoted the “Derby soundbite”. Some fans are either deluded or just thick. YOUR CLUB BROKE THE RULES

Just on of the quotes

[Curtains]

Another quote on the situation by a Derby fan 

“Been a Derby County fan for 45 years. If it wasn’t for Simon I would still be in the dark about what is going on. Thanks for shining some light on this whole sham for me. And thanks to Jim and Simon for all the coverage concerning Derby County over the past few months…”

I personally remember Simon Jordan loving MM 

 

https://fanbanter.co.uk/simon-jordan-rages-at-derby-fans-on-air-and-makes-controversial-efl-claim/

Edited February 9, 2022 by Curtains
Added

[Scott129]

22 minutes ago, Curtains said:

Simon Jordan said 

 

 

“Derby supporters are beyond worried, with the threat of liquidation hanging over the club, with bidders put off by Middlesbrough and Wycombe’s compensation demands.

Simon Jordan controversially said the EFL can “go and burn”, with the exception of its chief executive Trevor Birch.

“I’m sorry, Derby fans, but unfortunately once upon a time, you liked Mel (Morris),” Jordan said on talkSPORT.

“You allowed Mel, to some extent, to run your football club – not that you could do much about it.

“The sins of Mel, as much as I like him, are being visited on a bad process.

“I really think Derby fans are not helping by becoming enraged by the processes because the processes are the processes. And it was your owner that put you into this.

“There’s no point barking at the moon. There’s no point suggesting the EFL have got a conspiracy.

“You know my view of the EFL. With the exception of Trevor Birch, they can all go and burn. But the bottom line is that the EFL are not sitting here trying to liquidate this club.

“There are opportunities for them to involve themselves in certain situations but they cannot circumvent an arbitration process so one club’s caught up on another.”

Completely undone his own argument there. Good one, Simon ?

[Day]

10 minutes ago, ilkleyram said:

Downsides are that the parasites get money - there will have to be some agreement from the EFL's perspective that this doesn't set a precedent

I'm sat here thinking, if we have to hand over a penny, the only way I will ever feel comfortable with that is if this does set a precedent.

We can then go and recoup money from QPR and Villa where the EFL will bend over backwards, even bend their regulations to help us claim our compensation.

If the week after any settlement is paid clubs then go and clarify the rules, make it crystal clear that only the EFL can punish clubs I would feel very bitter against all those clubs that voted it through, whilst not speaking up now.

As I posted the other day, the only reason clubs are not is they don't want Boro to turn round and sue the EFL instead which will come out of their pockets.

I put this to Rick Parry in an email, along with questioning the regulation 4.4, funny enough I'm yet to receive a reply. 

If anyone is already planning to email him, would be worth including this question in your email.

To be clear I'm not suggesting you all flood his email inbox, just if you were already planning on raising points could you include this question as I think it's important to clarify with them why Boro's claim appears to be outside of this regulation.

Frustrating that all the media and journalists that have interviewed Rick haven't asked.

Most questions have been easily swerved, even the football creditor status has been cleverly worded not to say they are football debts, despite Boro also claiming it as a mini victory with their statement.

Regulation 4.4, under financial fair play, all of us familiarise ourselves and let's try to get answers. 

(provided always that only the League shall have the right to bring action whatsoever for any alleged breach of this requirement)

Also save screenshots, because if you see any wording of this edited in future, you will know that they have voted through the change following our case.

[Nookiebear1]

25 minutes ago, S8TY said:

oooh be careful with your commodore comments you might offend the ZX Spectrum fans ?

Yeah sorry. I had a Spectrum 128k floppy too? doesnt sound great now actually ?

[i-Ram]

2 minutes ago, David said:

I'm sat here thinking, if we have to hand over a penny, the only way I will ever feel comfortable with that is if this does set a precedent.

We can then go and recoup money from QPR and Villa where the EFL will bend over backwards, even bend their regulations to help us claim our compensation.

If the week after any settlement is paid clubs then go and clarify the rules, make it crystal clear that only the EFL can punish clubs I would feel very bitter against all those clubs that voted it through, whilst not speaking up now.

As I posted the other day, the only reason clubs are not is they don't want Boro to turn round and sue the EFL instead which will come out of their pockets.

I put this to Rick Parry in an email, along with questioning the regulation 4.4, funny enough I'm yet to receive a reply. 

If anyone is already planning to email him, would be worth including this question in your email.

To be clear I'm not suggesting you all flood his email inbox, just if you were already planning on raising points could you include this question as I think it's important to clarify with them why Boro's claim appears to be outside of this regulation.

Frustrating that all the media and journalists that have interviewed Rick haven't asked.

Most questions have been easily swerved, even the football creditor status has been cleverly worded not to say they are football debts, despite Boro also claiming it as a mini victory with their statement.

Regulation 4.4, under financial fair play, all of us familiarise ourselves and let's try to get answers. 

(provided always that only the League shall have the right to bring action whatsoever for any alleged breach of this requirement)

Also save screenshots, because if you see any wording of this edited in future, you will know that they have voted through the change following our case.

Remind me of his email address David. I am happy to drop him a polite line.

[TheresOnlyWanChope]

1 minute ago, Curtains said:

: Dave seems a complete muppet!! Wouldn’t listen to the reasoned debate and just quoted the “Derby soundbite”. Some fans are either deluded or just thick. YOUR CLUB BROKE THE RULES

Just on of the quotes

If that’s from one of the Boro forums it makes sense, theyre deluded on there 

[Woodypecker]

33 minutes ago, David said:

I'm sat here thinking, if we have to hand over a penny, the only way I will ever feel comfortable with that is if this does set a precedent.

We can then go and recoup money from QPR and Villa where the EFL will bend over backwards, even bend their regulations to help us claim our compensation.

If the week after any settlement is paid clubs then go and clarify the rules, make it crystal clear that only the EFL can punish clubs I would feel very bitter against all those clubs that voted it through, whilst not speaking up now.

As I posted the other day, the only reason clubs are not is they don't want Boro to turn round and sue the EFL instead which will come out of their pockets.

I put this to Rick Parry in an email, along with questioning the regulation 4.4, funny enough I'm yet to receive a reply. 

If anyone is already planning to email him, would be worth including this question in your email.

To be clear I'm not suggesting you all flood his email inbox, just if you were already planning on raising points could you include this question as I think it's important to clarify with them why Boro's claim appears to be outside of this regulation.

Frustrating that all the media and journalists that have interviewed Rick haven't asked.

Most questions have been easily swerved, even the football creditor status has been cleverly worded not to say they are football debts, despite Boro also claiming it as a mini victory with their statement.

Regulation 4.4, under financial fair play, all of us familiarise ourselves and let's try to get answers. 

(provided always that only the League shall have the right to bring action whatsoever for any alleged breach of this requirement)

Also save screenshots, because if you see any wording of this edited in future, you will know that they have voted through the change following our case.

Parry is a spineless, acquiescent snake. We know that regime will burn soon - and we will have a party when Parry & Co get the chop.

David, I think you should re-send your question - and set a deadline for the EFL to reply (say, 1 week); tell Pariah Parry that the EFL exist to set deadlines and uphold rules and so Derby fans expect nothing less.

Ask him about regulation 3.5 below too, on the conduct between member clubs - and request a public statement regarding sanctions upon MFC & WW on charges of bringing the game into disrepute with their false 'systematic cheating' assertions.

Stuff it, I will probably follow suit and pepper the EFL with questions too. We should all do so. Make them squeak, the complacent bustards. 

It's the modern equivalent of us old 'uns bombarding Maxwell's Mirror Building switchboard and fax machines with complaints, to make him move hiss ass away from our

club (and, thankfully, into an ocean).

C O Y F R

Reg 3.5 states: “No Club, either by itself, its servants or agents, shall by any means whatsoever unfairly criticise, disparage or belittle any other Club or The League or in either case any of its directors, officers, employees or agents”.

Edited February 9, 2022 by Woodypecker

[Elwood P Dowd]

5 minutes ago, TheresOnlyWanChope said:

If that’s from one of the Boro forums it makes sense, theyre deluded on there 

It’s all the smog around Middlesbrough that’s stops them having a clear view of the issue.?

[Day]

39 minutes ago, Woodypecker said:

Parry is a spineless, acquiescent snake. We know that regime will burn soon - and we will have a party when Parry & Co get the chop.

David, I think you should re-send your question - and set a deadline for the EFL to reply (say, 1 week); tell Pariah Parry that the EFL exist to set deadlines and uphold rules and so Derby fans expect nothing less.

Ask him about regulation 3.5 below too, on the conduct between member clubs - and request a public statement regarding sanctions upon MFC & WW on charges of bringing the game into disrepute with their false 'systematic cheating' assertions.

Stuff it, I will probably follow suit and pepper the EFL with questions too. We should all do so. Make them squeak, the complacent bustards. 

It's the modern equivalent of us old 'uns bombarding Maxwell's Mirror Building switchboard and fax machines with complaints, to make him move hiss ass away from our

club (and, thankfully, into an ocean).

C O Y F R

Reg 3.5 states: “No Club, either by itself, its servants or agents, shall by any means whatsoever unfairly criticise, disparage or belittle any other Club or The League or in either case any of its directors, officers, employees or agents”.

Reg 3.5 looks to be another that absolutely needs to be raised.

Although, I'm not sure if Rick Parry's email address is meant to be public knowledge, is he expected to communicate with fans via email?

Why do the EFL not have a Supporters Liaison Officer like the clubs have, someone that's role is to reply to issues being raised. Surely Covid showed football governing bodies that football without fans is nothing?

Anyhow, without knowing this, I wouldn't feel comfortable setting deadlines as you suggest, even if it would be slightly amusing to turn the tables on them.

Just knowing that he will have read the email is enough, reply's to quite a few to believe he just cherry picks which to read.

The knowing that we all have Google, we can all read the regulations, the knowing that we're clearly not incapable of having a fair understanding of what the regulations mean.

The silence, the lack of a reply on a key question actually speaks volumes, it says to me that they are ignoring that regulation the same way as they are ignoring questions on it.

It is a fair question to ask, and the answer shouldn't be too difficult reply with. 

Maybe, just maybe there is a perfectly valid reason but he's just too busy doing chores round his mate Steve Gibson's house.

[RoyMac5]

1 minute ago, David said:

Reg 3.5 looks to be another that absolutely needs to be raised.

Although, I'm not sure if Rick Parry's email address is meant to be public knowledge, is he expected to communicate with fans via email?

Why do the EFL not have a Supporters Liaison Officer like the clubs have, someone that's role is to reply to issues being raised. Surely Covid showed football governing bodies that football without fans is nothing?

Anyhow, without knowing this, I wouldn't feel comfortable setting deadlines as you suggest, even if it would be slightly amusing to turn the tables on them.

Just knowing that he will have read the email is enough, replies to quite a few to believe he just cherry picks which to read.

The knowing that we all have Google, we can all read the regulations, the knowing that we're clearly not incapable of having a fair understanding of what the regulations mean.

The silence, the lack of a reply on a key question actually speaks volumes, it says to me that they are ignoring that regulation the same way as they are ignoring questions on it.

It is a fair question to ask, and the answer shouldn't be too difficult reply with. 

Maybe, just maybe there is a perfectly valid reason but he's just too busy doing chores round his mate Steve Gibson's house.

Could you also ask which of the EFL regulations stop us 'class cramming' Boro?

[Eddie]

1 hour ago, Nookiebear1 said:

Commadore fans?? What go to 64 games? Called Sid and like chips? Bit of retro gaming humour, if you know.. Youknow? 

Stop it.

Do I have to type SYS64738 at you?

[WhiteHorseRam]

45 minutes ago, David said:

I'm sat here thinking, if we have to hand over a penny, the only way I will ever feel comfortable with that is if this does set a precedent.

I have thought all along that if we have to pay over any money at all it sets a big precedent.

 

I watched the Man U game on Friday - I didn't think it was a handball with my football fan head on.

But my Rsole work head on?

Lawyer up and let's get going. Ref's eyesight/competence/historical bias based on his background, etc etc. Player's arm at an odd angle away from his body etc.

How much have Man U lost by being knocked out of the Cup at that point? Got to be worth a punt.

Then miserable Sword of Damocles hanging over Boro and the Ref for several months.

 

[ossieram]

2 hours ago, IslandExile said:

Ah, the Jimmy Carr argument. It's funny to those not offended by it and sod those that are affected.

The targets of "humour" may not be physically harmed but the cumulative negative effects on society are great.

TBH I'm surprised at you @i-Ram.

Anyway, as you say, back to Administration - which is far from humorous to most of us.

What do you joke about?

[Woodypecker]

The Concise Oxford Dictionary, definition:

"Parry: ward off, avert (i.e., awkward question)"

It's in the DNA, youth...to ignore, acquiesce, deflect, obfuscate, postpone, fudge, deny!

Favourite foods: Waffles; Bubble & Squeak; Marmite!

 

[PistoldPete]

43 minutes ago, David said:

I'm sat here thinking, if we have to hand over a penny, the only way I will ever feel comfortable with that is if this does set a precedent.

We can then go and recoup money from QPR and Villa where the EFL will bend over backwards, even bend their regulations to help us claim our compensation.

If the week after any settlement is paid clubs then go and clarify the rules, make it crystal clear that only the EFL can punish clubs I would feel very bitter against all those clubs that voted it through, whilst not speaking up now.

As I posted the other day, the only reason clubs are not is they don't want Boro to turn round and sue the EFL instead which will come out of their pockets.

I put this to Rick Parry in an email, along with questioning the regulation 4.4, funny enough I'm yet to receive a reply. 

If anyone is already planning to email him, would be worth including this question in your email.

To be clear I'm not suggesting you all flood his email inbox, just if you were already planning on raising points could you include this question as I think it's important to clarify with them why Boro's claim appears to be outside of this regulation.

Frustrating that all the media and journalists that have interviewed Rick haven't asked.

Most questions have been easily swerved, even the football creditor status has been cleverly worded not to say they are football debts, despite Boro also claiming it as a mini victory with their statement.

Regulation 4.4, under financial fair play, all of us familiarise ourselves and let's try to get answers. 

(provided always that only the League shall have the right to bring action whatsoever for any alleged breach of this requirement)

Also save screenshots, because if you see any wording of this edited in future, you will know that they have voted through the change following our case.

After my rather sad trawl through the Efl rules this week I concluded that there were very few duties owed by individuals to the Efl other than duty not to bring football into disrepute.

so no using cats as footballs please. 

nearly all the duties that are specified in the rules are duties owed by the club to the Efl. 
 

there are also very few duties owed club to club.  The exceptions include duty for one club not to disparage the other. And the duty of utmost good faith one to the other which you have highlighted dAvid . Which as you say is expressly only for the Efl to bring action.

and as for duty not to disparage.. which club has been disparaging who , Mr Gibson?

[We'll be back in 81]

1 hour ago, David said:

 

To be clear I'm not suggesting you all flood his email inbox, just if you were already planning on raising points could you include this question as I think it's important to clarify with them why Boro's claim appears to be outside of this regulation.

 

David, I am going to write to my MP again, do you have any bullet points I should put to them besides the one you have pointed out above?

I think it's time for the MP's to put the pressure on because the EFL have ignored their requests first time around.

[R@M]

6 minutes ago, ossieram said:

What do you joke about?

The perfectly able intelligent chicken crossing the road of non determinable straightness who is just going about his/her/their business. There isn’t a punchline as that may offend him/her/them. Cluck. 

[Ram-Alf]

1 hour ago, i-Ram said:

Remind me of his email address David. I am happy to drop him a polite line.

rickparry@mumsnet.com

[RoyMac5]

6 minutes ago, R@M said:

The perfectly able intelligent chicken crossing the road of non determinable straightness who is just going about his/her/their business. There isn’t a punchline as that may offend him/her/them. Cluck. 

It's funnier when you can see the actions! ?