The Administration Thread

[Day]

16 minutes ago, kevinhectoring said:

MFC can sue DCFC in contract under the EFl rules. It’s not under a bilateral contract between clubs (which I’ve never mentioned). It’s under the contract described in para 13 of the MFC LAP judgement: 

“The EFL Regulations constitute a multi lateral agreement between (amongst others) the EFL and the clubs”

Earlier you said:

"The clubs are in contract with each other under the rules" 

That's not true, even the piece you have quoted doesn't back that up.

Paragraph 13:

Multi-party agreement. Not multi lateral agreement. You're literally adding words in now that are not there to back up your argument, in the hope that nobody actually checks, no different to the Boro lawyers that omitted lines from 4.4

Multi-party agreement....

EFL and Derby

EFL and Boro

EFL and Blackpool

EFL and Preston

And on and on.

[PistoldPete]

11 minutes ago, kevinhectoring said:

Don’t understand why you still ask this question. I’m speaking about the contract referred to in para 13 of the LAP MFC decision 

I quote: 

“The EFl regulations constituted a multi party agreement between (amongst others) the EFL and the clubs”

So the main thrust of MFC’s claim will be a breach of contract claim 

Well then Kevin I suggest you heed David's advice and just pipe down if you don't mind. Because if you were right about that in your extremely wide interpretation (and I strongly believe you are not), then the whole of football is seriously ducked.  

So let me just quote again the line you quoted from: “The EFl regulations constituted a multi party agreement between (amongst others) the EFL and the clubs”.. my emphasis is (amongst others).  Because it is not just  EFL and every club that is party to the rules , but also , for example every player and every official of every club. If you were right in your interpretaion then by extension every player and every official or club could potentialy sue any other player or official or club under the rules for any breach whatsoever regardless of who they owed the duty to who under each rule. Yet you have already said Morris cannot be sued... and I think you are right because the duty he owed under the rules was to DCFC and to the EFL not to Boro. Ditto DCFC do not owe duty club to club under the rules except in a very limited aspect of the rules, one of which is 4.4 as David has highlighted. But that doesn't help Boro either, as David has also highlighted.    
 

[Arsene Titman]

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/sportsnews/article-10501877/Derby-Countys-former-owner-Mel-Morris-Boros-chairman-Steve-Gibson-FINALLY-open-talks.html
 

According to the Daily Mail, Gibson and Mel are talking

[Guest]

3 hours ago, PistoldPete said:

I noticed Reading were allowed to sign Tom Ince. I don’t imagine his wages are cheap. Embargo doesn’t appear to apply to Reading.

But to be fair, Reading had shifted n Andy Carroll's wages to WBA before they took Ince on loan.

[PistoldPete]

8 minutes ago, Brailsford Ram said:

But to be fair, Reading had shifted n Andy Carroll's wages to WBA before they took Ince on loan.

I’m not going to be fair. Reading took on Carroll’s wages after they broke FFP rule as well. Anyway for now they are still losing regularly and long May that continue. 

[Ram-Alf]

8 minutes ago, Brailsford Ram said:

But to be fair, Reading had shifted n Andy Carroll's wages to WBA before they took Ince on loan.

If Reading continue to free fall, Ince will go into his shell, He aint up for a fight, He'll stay out wide and look as tho he's doing something when actually he's doing nowt

[Tombo]

18 minutes ago, Arsene Titman said:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/sportsnews/article-10501877/Derby-Countys-former-owner-Mel-Morris-Boros-chairman-Steve-Gibson-FINALLY-open-talks.html
 

According to the Daily Mail, Gibson and Mel are talking

I expect this is Gibson asking Mel to settle out of court instead which I can't see happening

[Gee SCREAMER !!]

23 minutes ago, Brailsford Ram said:

But to be fair, Reading had shifted n Andy Carroll's wages to WBA before they took Ince on loan.

This assumes that whilst having 6 points deducted for 19 million of FFP breaches  they should have had Carroll and Drinkwater on loan the day after in the first place mind.  In the meantime, we lose Jagielka whose already here on 4.5 k a week, despite shifting in all likelihood, over 120k in wages per month and more since.  

Edited February 11, 2022 by Gee SCREAMER !!

[Gee SCREAMER !!]

4 minutes ago, Tombo said:

I expect this is Gibson asking Mel to settle out of court instead which I can't see happening

It's a difficult one .  If they get anything,  you'll have other clubs stepping in trying to get something as there FFP is going to the wall.  We'll be back to square one without the resource to bat it off.  Some clubs are trying to claim they will fail FFP but that's because they couldn't sell a player to a premier league for a large sums of 20 million due to covid .  There trying to change regs based on this hypothetical ******** Absolute desperation, they'll all come sniffing. 

[tinman]

8 minutes ago, Tombo said:

I expect this is Gibson asking Mel to settle out of court instead which I can't see happening

It does mention a donation to charity in the article. A nice get out for all involved. 

[PistoldPete]

4 minutes ago, tinman said:

It does mention a donation to charity in the article. A nice get out for all involved. 

how about this ?
 

 

https://www.justgiving.com/campaign/Rams-Family-Fund

 

[jcidaho]

If Gibson and Mel can have an amicable conversation, the collective face-saving will be to pile on the EFL and blame the organisation entirely for the whole poo-show.

[TomBustler1884]

Trying to be positive, I would hope this week has gone as follows - 

1. Mel makes his public offer, knowing it's not as simple as he says it is

2. Gibson responds saying it's not possible to transfer his claim and he should indemnify the club.

3. EFL tell all parties they would prefer to have the claim settled between Mel and Gibson so a preferred bidder can be named.

4. Mel and Gibson have been in discussions with their lawyers and each other to see if there is a way forward they can agree to. That's what everyone is waiting to hear.

I know that "Team Derby" met with the admins yesterday.

Really, really hope I'm right!!

[TuffLuff]

6 minutes ago, TomBustler1884 said:

Trying to be positive, I would hope this week has gone as follows - 

1. Mel makes his public offer, knowing it's not as simple as he says it is

2. Gibson responds saying it's not possible to transfer his claim and he should indemnify the club.

3. EFL tell all parties they would prefer to have the claim settled between Mel and Gibson so a preferred bidder can be named.

4. Mel and Gibson have been in discussions with their lawyers and each other to see if there is a way forward they can agree to. That's what everyone is waiting to hear.

I know that "Team Derby" met with the admins yesterday.

Really, really hope I'm right!!

It’s the most sensible chain of events to be honest. Mel and the council came to some sort of arrangement/plan, Mel offers the proposal knowing he won’t get it but then something gets thrashed out between Mel & Gibson. 
 

Been saying for a little while but that Mel/Council meeting was probably the most important thing to have happened, not sure what came out of it but something did which means that Mel turn came out publically. 

[Elwood P Dowd]

42 minutes ago, David said:

Earlier you said:

"The clubs are in contract with each other under the rules" 

That's not true, even the piece you have quoted doesn't back that up.

Paragraph 13:

Multi-party agreement. Not multi lateral agreement. You're literally adding words in now that are not there to back up your argument, in the hope that nobody actually checks, no different to the Boro lawyers that omitted lines from 4.4

Multi-party agreement....

EFL and Derby

EFL and Boro

EFL and Blackpool

EFL and Preston

And on and on.

I do not think that a contract exsists between each individual club via the EFL regulations,  the normal transactional events such as transfers etc are deal with on a club to club basis with their own T&Cs and the transaction may be subject to the EFL regulations. The multiparty agreement is simply an agreement to which all the clubs are party to but the regulations do not specify or  infer a contractual relationship between each individual club, in the EFL regulations it does not provide the essential elements of contract that would establish a legally binding contract between each individual club via the EFL regulations

   

[Tamworthram]

26 minutes ago, tinman said:

It does mention a donation to charity in the article. A nice get out for all involved. 

That would seem like an odd and unlikely outcome given Middlesbrough's claim is that they lost out financially and want compensation (as we're led to believe). It would effectively mean Gibson admitting it's not about the money/lost revenue but merely a desire to see Mel and/or Derby suffer even more.

[LazloW]

Simon Jordan putting the cat amongst the pigeons on TalkSport just now. Presumably with absolutely no evidence whatsoever, he is suggesting Mel is working behind the scenes to perhaps get the club back himself! ??

Just what we need. More baseless speculation. Sigh.

He’s also defending his mate Gibson too, which is annoying.

He does think we’ll come out of admin soon though, so while I think he completely full of poo, I’ll cling onto this point all the same ?

Edited February 11, 2022 by LazloW

[CBRammette]

8 minutes ago, TuffLuff said:

It’s the most sensible chain of events to be honest. Mel and the council came to some sort of arrangement/plan, Mel offers the proposal knowing he won’t get it but then something gets thrashed out between Mel & Gibson. 
 

Been saying for a little while but that Mel/Council meeting was probably the most important thing to have happened, not sure what came out of it but something did which means that Mel turn came out publically. 

Perhaps they just confirmed the status of PP will not change and any planning applications would not be favourably met meaning little commercial value to Mel if we are liquidated? Who knows? As long as it helped progress matters also who cares?!

[Ramos]

2 minutes ago, LazloW said:

Simon Jordan putting the cat amongst the pigeons on TalkSport just now. Presumably with absolutely no evidence whatsoever, he is suggesting Mel is working behind the scenes to perhaps get the club back himself! ??

Just we need. More baseless speculation. Sigh.

He’s also defending his mate Gibson too, which is annoying.

He does think we’ll come out of admin soon though, so while I think he completely full of poo, I’ll cling onto this point all the same ?

The same Mel who spent almost two years trying to get rid of us. He doesn’t want that and the EFL won’t allow it. The more this goes on the more I’m convinced Mike Ashley will takeover. 

[Mary Hindge]

Anyone just hear Simon "Big words" Jordon on talks sport? Said that Dell might be the ones paying the administrators but funding them might still be Mel? 

 

Went over my simple head a bit but what I got from it was Mel might want some involvement in the club he doubts he would ever be allowed by the EFL to be a majority shareholder but he might still be holding it up? 

 

Only sharing this as not read anything like that on this thread regarding Mel still wanting/having some say on what happens to us, could explain why the administrators are taking so long with everything