PistoldPete Posted February 10, 2022 Share Posted February 10, 2022 38 minutes ago, David said: Another good question. It will come from this section of their latest statement which I will link below Derby County considers those claims should not be treated as football related debts and that it would be wrong for the EFL to require the Club to have to continue to defend the claims as a condition of continuing membership in circumstances where they have been compromised by way of a restructuring plan. The EFL does not agree with that analysis. https://www.efl.com/news/2022/february/efl-statement-derby-county-update/ They can argue they haven’t said they are football debts, but that bit in bold does suggest they side with Boro which is why they have gone on to use it in their statement. I read it that way as well rightly or wrongly, when they have been suggesting the High Court to decide, there was no need to add “The EFL does not agree with that analysis” likewise when they voiced their “disappointment” with regards to the Stadium Sale verdict. I think what's happening is that EFL do not like the idea of the "claims" being compressed now , even though they are not football creditors. Nor do they like the connected idea of using statutory protection under insolvency law to avoid dealing with them now instead via the League's arbitration process. DerbysLane 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WestKentRam Posted February 10, 2022 Share Posted February 10, 2022 2 minutes ago, G STAR RAM said: Difference is that Gibson had probably had prior sight or maybe even helped draft the EFL statements... I do not believe that for a second. It is a shame, however, that the Freedom of Information Act only covers data with regard to public authorities and not bodies such as the EFL. It would help give clarity as to the content of contacts and discussions that we are not party to, and allay the concerns of fans sceptical as to the impartiality of the EFL. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G STAR RAM Posted February 10, 2022 Share Posted February 10, 2022 1 minute ago, WestKentRam said: I do not believe that for a second. It is a shame, however, that the Freedom of Information Act only covers data with regard to public authorities and not bodies such as the EFL. It would help give clarity as to the content of contacts and discussions that we are not party to, and allay the concerns of fans sceptical as to the impartiality of the EFL. With Boro representation on the board I'm almost certain that Gibson will have known what the EFL statement was going to say prior to it being released. David Graham Brown, r_wilcockson and BriggRam 1 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CBRammette Posted February 10, 2022 Share Posted February 10, 2022 6 minutes ago, Tamworthram said: I’m not expecting the release of any sensitive or confidential information. Nor even the name of the preferred bidder yet. What I do want to know though is what is the next stage, what are the blockers that need to be overcome and what are the timescales. Are we going to arbitration? If so, when and when will a decision be reached? If we’re not what is the alternative path to resolving the situation and what are its timescales? If arbitration is the way forward but there are barriers to overcome, what are the barriers and when can we expect them to be resolved? (Some have talked about Mel’s offer needs to be considered first. If this is true, what timescales have been put on obtaining a response?) If an alternative path is the way forward, what is it and what is preventing progress? If we’re at a total impasse, what are the EFL’s proposal (as the governing body) for forcing a way forward? As I say, I completely understand certain information cannot be divulged but the apparent deafening silence (other than straight bat answers to questions put forward) from the EFL and administrators is frustrating. Maybe this is where the MP’s step forward again and demand a route to resolution. Exactly my thoughts today just what the heck is actually happening? Mel's statement then big fat zero. Is that because there is frantic action picking up on the proposal from Mel or just all seeing who blinks first? Not even any totally unreliable info from Nixon David Graham Brown, r_wilcockson and Tamworthram 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kingpin Posted February 10, 2022 Share Posted February 10, 2022 Surely NOBODY was naive enough to think he’d come straight out and say “ok Mel, as you wish. Me and you to court it is..” ? ?? jimtastic56 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PistoldPete Posted February 10, 2022 Share Posted February 10, 2022 9 hours ago, kevinhectoring said: your interpretation of this provision seems unjustifiably wide and seems to be at odds with the arbitration provisions which specifically refer to disputes between clubs relating to the EFl rules. Plus, MM’s messages seem to confirm that he’s been advised that clubs can sue each other under the rules (because he’s said: no way, the EFl process is unreliable, it’s the High Court for me ) The " club to club" duties within the EFL rules are very limited. The requirement to arbitrate is one of them, as you have rightly pointed out, but even that requirement may have a statutory override for example due to insolvency protection. And it's no real use on its own. One of the few other club to club duties within the rules has been highlighted by David, and it seems to be the one most relevant in our circumstances. In fact, Boro's letter of claim referred to it (selectively) according to MM. And that rule specifically states that only EFL may bring an action in those circumstances. So isn't that clear that EFL rules do not encourage club to club disputes of the kind contemplated by Boro and Wycombe? I don't know what other reasonable interpretation there can be. Eatonram, r_wilcockson and David Graham Brown 1 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oldben Posted February 10, 2022 Share Posted February 10, 2022 10 hours ago, PistoldPete said: MAybe. Hopefully though the more pressure on wycombe hopeless case the more the stupid claim is likely to get kicked into touch. Agreed ? When I look at Wycombe, I see a club that was promoted in a dubious manner from league one (efl fault for the way their promotion was calculated, the season ending early due to covid). Then I also see a club wanting to blame us for their season of poor performances, they weren't strong enough to compete in the Championship. Now to try and get money due to losses sustained when they were relegated, they have unfairly targeted derby due to their belief that they wouldn't have been relegated if derby resubmitted accounts earlier than deadlines for resubmitted accounts given to derby by the efl. Ramrob 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WestKentRam Posted February 10, 2022 Share Posted February 10, 2022 9 minutes ago, G STAR RAM said: With Boro representation on the board I'm almost certain that Gibson will have known what the EFL statement was going to say prior to it being released. The EFL have already answered this in their statement of 17th Jan 2022: https://www.efl.com/news/2022/january/efl-statement-derby-county/ 8. Is there a conflict of interest at EFL Board level? What involvement do all Board members have in decisions relating to Derby County? Any EFL Board members conflicted on any matter do not take part in any discussion and are asked to leave the meeting. In addition, any Director who is conflicted does not receive any board papers in respect of the conflicted matter. The position on whether any director is conflicted is reviewed on a meeting-by-meeting basis. At present there are two Board Directors conflicted in respect of the matter with Derby County and as such do not participate or engage in any of the decisions. I assume the 'two Board Directors conflicted in respect of the matter' are those from Boro and Forest. If so, is the Forest representative truly conflicted, or is it someone else? Is Jez Moxey at Burton likely to have a conflict of interest?? Club representatives Nicholas Randall QC - Championship - Nottingham Forest Peter Ridsdale - Championship - Preston North End Neil Bausor - Championship - Middlesbrough Jez Moxey - League One – Burton Albion Steven Curwood - League One - Fleetwood Town John Nixon - League Two – Carlisle United Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G STAR RAM Posted February 10, 2022 Share Posted February 10, 2022 3 minutes ago, WestKentRam said: The EFL have already answered this in their statement of 17th Jan 2022: https://www.efl.com/news/2022/january/efl-statement-derby-county/ 8. Is there a conflict of interest at EFL Board level? What involvement do all Board members have in decisions relating to Derby County? Any EFL Board members conflicted on any matter do not take part in any discussion and are asked to leave the meeting. In addition, any Director who is conflicted does not receive any board papers in respect of the conflicted matter. The position on whether any director is conflicted is reviewed on a meeting-by-meeting basis. At present there are two Board Directors conflicted in respect of the matter with Derby County and as such do not participate or engage in any of the decisions. I assume the 'two Board Directors conflicted in respect of the matter' are those from Boro and Forest. If so, is the Forest representative truly conflicted, or is it someone else? Is Jez Moxey at Burton likely to have a conflict of interest?? Club representatives Nicholas Randall QC - Championship - Nottingham Forest Peter Ridsdale - Championship - Preston North End Neil Bausor - Championship - Middlesbrough Jez Moxey - League One – Burton Albion Steven Curwood - League One - Fleetwood Town John Nixon - League Two – Carlisle United As we are increasingly seeing, what the EFL statements say and what is happening in reality, don't always tend to marry up. May Contain Nuts and Eatonram 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 10, 2022 Share Posted February 10, 2022 3 minutes ago, PistoldPete said: The " club to club" duties within the EFL rules are very limited. The requirement to arbitrate is one of them, as you have rightly pointed out, but even that requirement may have a statutory override for example due to insolvency protection. And it's no real use on its own. One of the few other club to club duties within the rules has been highlighted by David, and it seems to be the one most relevant in our circumstances. In fact, Boro's letter of claim referred to it (selectively) according to MM. And that rule specifically states that only EFL may bring an action in those circumstances. So isn't that clear that EFL rules do not encourage club to club disputes of the kind contemplated by Boro and Wycombe? I don't know what other reasonable interpretation there can be. The use of parentheses in Rule 4.4 would appear to refer and restrict to action only by the league in respect to the utmost good faith requirement in isolation. Taken as a single clause it does not preclude action by an individual club against another individual club for other reasons - at least that’s how I read it. Clearly this needs professional legal interpretation and possibly testing in court Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CBRammette Posted February 10, 2022 Share Posted February 10, 2022 16 minutes ago, Kingpin said: Surely NOBODY was naive enough to think he’d come straight out and say “ok Mel, as you wish. Me and you to court it is..” ? ?? No of course not but you would expect some movement in impasse once he emerged as all apparently want to save Derby and be pragmatic Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 10, 2022 Share Posted February 10, 2022 39 minutes ago, David said: I sent one on the 20/01/22 with regards to the football creditor status, received a copy and paste reply on the 22/01/22. I sent another to ask if they have received Mel Morris’s statement and offer on the 4th February, received a reply on the 5th to say that had and that it may be a solution for one part of the jam. Third email went out on Monday with regards to their ability to be impartial and regulation 4.4 and yet to receive any kind of response. Wasn’t fully aware of 3.5 on Monday otherwise I would have probably included that although I try not to send lengthy emails where certain parts could be easily ignored. David congratulations and thank you. I have trawled through the fruits which you have harvested while burning the midnight oil last night and this morning. I find your search for evidence, the analysis you have applied and the interpretations that you have arrived at quite outstanding. For many years I worked as a senior detective on major crime investigations. During that time, I frequently returned analysis of evidence undertaken by skilled and experienced detectives for amendment, clarification and further work. If I was still working and your findings had landed on my desk this morning then I would be putting them on the fast track to counsel before lunch. Well done. Might I suggest that once you have physically recovered from your endeavours that you trawl through your posts and cut and paste your findings into an email to send to both the EFL & Q. While I expect that counsel briefed by Q will be of the highest standard, barristers are always willing and eager to consider any sensible helpful arguments in case they contain points that they may have overlooked or not been aware of. While I am sure you will make a valuable contribution to wiring the house today, in these times of policing cuts, I feel you could be better used by assisting Grimsby CID instead. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grumpy Git Posted February 10, 2022 Share Posted February 10, 2022 Time to stop all the posts relating to the impartiality or otherwise of the EFL, we all know they couldn't run a bath. jimtastic56 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PistoldPete Posted February 10, 2022 Share Posted February 10, 2022 3 minutes ago, Monty said: The use of parentheses in Rule 4.4 would appear to refer and restrict to action only by the league in respect to the utmost good faith requirement in isolation. Taken as a single clause it does not preclude action by an individual club against another individual club for other reasons - at least that’s how I read it. Clearly this needs professional legal interpretation and possibly testing in court Monty what I am saying is that nearly all the duties under Efl rules are from the club to the Efl , not club to club. there are a few exceptions and 4.4 is one of them. But even on that there is an explicit statement that only the EFL can bring an action. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Scarlet Pimpernel Posted February 10, 2022 Share Posted February 10, 2022 1 hour ago, David said: These are questions that need to be directed to the EFL, as far as I’m aware only RamsTrust and MP’s have that direct line to hold meetings with them outside of Quantuma. I have put across these to RamsTrust on Twitter, received a reply to say they will look into them. The Supporters Charter Group hold meetings with Quantuma, who can’t really answer them and possibly want answers themselves. Needless to say, still no reply from the EFL to the email I sent questioning the ability to be impartial and regulation 4.4 Can your excellent points be sent to Margaret Beckett? At least she I believe would wade in if given the ammo. Indy, Miggins, Dordogne-Ram and 2 others 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ian Buxton's Bat Posted February 10, 2022 Share Posted February 10, 2022 29 minutes ago, Tamworthram said: I’m not expecting the release of any sensitive or confidential information. Nor even the name of the preferred bidder yet. What I do want to know though is what is the next stage, what are the blockers that need to be overcome and what are the timescales. Are we going to arbitration? If so, when and when will a decision be reached? If we’re not what is the alternative path to resolving the situation and what are its timescales? If arbitration is the way forward but there are barriers to overcome, what are the barriers and when can we expect them to be resolved? (Some have talked about Mel’s offer needs to be considered first. If this is true, what timescales have been put on obtaining a response?) If an alternative path is the way forward, what is it and what is preventing progress? If we’re at a total impasse, what are the EFL’s proposal (as the governing body) for forcing a way forward? As I say, I completely understand certain information cannot be divulged but the apparent deafening silence (other than straight bat answers to questions put forward) from the EFL and administrators is frustrating. Maybe this is where the MP’s step forward again and demand a route to resolution. Agree. We need someone reasonably independent like an MP to provide timetables and updates without divulging sensitive information or breaching NDA's - fully understanding that timetables may not be fixed and will be subject to change. What we don't want is for precious time to ebb away and look back in 10 years and say "if only we'd not lost momentum in early Feb 22". Tamworthram 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eddie Posted February 10, 2022 Share Posted February 10, 2022 5 hours ago, Coconut's Beard said: Stoooooooooge Never in my life have I seen someone so determined to go to such lengths to interpret information in favour of someone taking action against a party they purport to support. Nor someone so angry at the defence of a club that they get so annoyed that THEY FEEL THE NEED TO TYPE THEIR POSTS WITH CAPS LOCK ON when they get frustrated that people who do support the club's position point out issues with their view. I appreciate an unbiased opinion but come, you aren't actually providing that at this point no matter what you claim. It's ducking bizarre at this point. You're great at quoting rules without any sort of context and applying every little twist the EFL could possibly point towards. I suppose at least you give us some idea what goes on in the minds of those entrenched in their position against Derby County, but you seem to present this opinion as the matter of inarguable fact, exactly as the 'opponents' would. I'm really not sure what your deal is, and I don't really think you're a stooge, I just don't understand why you've taken your stance. However if you did apply for a position within the EFL you'd fit right in. Why do Derby fans defending Derby seem to rile you up so much? Hectoring... adjective talking in a bullying way. "a brusque, hectoring manner" RoyMac5 and angieram 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Scarlet Pimpernel Posted February 10, 2022 Share Posted February 10, 2022 Like all of us I don't know what's going on but surely DCFC or Mel Morris have to take this to court and fast. We have at least two parties waiting to buy us.....the delays are scandalous. PistoldPete and Tamworthram 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grumpy Git Posted February 10, 2022 Share Posted February 10, 2022 (edited) What about Margaret Beckett using her "Parliamentary Privilege" in the HoC and calling Rick Parry a twit? Edited February 10, 2022 by Grumpy Git CBRammette 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
R@M Posted February 10, 2022 Share Posted February 10, 2022 (edited) 1 hour ago, Kingpin said: Surely NOBODY was naive enough to think he’d come straight out and say “ok Mel, as you wish. Me and you to court it is..” ? ?? But there should be more people calling his claim out for what it is, and what he is if he does not accept? A spurious claim. Edited February 10, 2022 by angieram Remove personal insults Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now