The Administration Thread

[G STAR RAM]

52 minutes ago, atherstoneram said:

If i was the EFL i would tell you to go through the correct channels and raise the matter with the clubs administrators,they don't have to respond to you in any way,shape or form.

Yeah because it's the administrators job to charge members of the EFL isnt it? ?

They dont have to respond to me but maybe you should have a read of the EFL Supporters Charter.

By the way, I don't have to respond to you so could you please send any future responses via the correct channels...

[Indy]

34 minutes ago, PistoldPete said:

Where does it say it has to be another Club that brings a breach to the attention of the EFL? Why can't you or I do it, or anyone, or maybe even the EFL using its own initiative? 

Indeed - didn’t Kieran Maguire first raise issues with our amortisation with the EFL, not another club? Be interesting to hear if the EFL told @The Baron that only other clubs could raise issues or - as I suspect - the EFL are still making up the interpretation of their own regulations as they go along. 

[ollycutts1982]

2 hours ago, PistoldPete said:

Whenever EFL talk about "maintaining the integrity of the League", just cut and paste the Ridsdale comment. It's all you need to know about the level of integrity the EFL Board itself has.

 

2 hours ago, jono said:

I had a deja but moment as well, but thing is … Olly is right.

How can you maintain the supposed moral superiority that they parade at every opportunity and yet have folk like that on the board ? How on earth did he get elected with his track record ? 

Exactly this. The fact stands and I will keep repeating it. Yes cut and paste as the statement stands the test of time. I don’t really think anything else is needed. Having him (Ridsdale) in any kind of role in football makes the ‘fit and proper test’ totally hypocritical in my opinion along with any other regulations they try to enforce. 
 

Another statement I stand by is that regardless of what happens to us the EFL have walked to the gallows, tied the noose around their neck and are about to pull the lever. They have even been so kind as to dig their own grave.
 

This whole episode will be the end of the rotten cancerous dictatorship that rules over the 72 clubs. Despite all the pain and suffering we have all been through I will take solace in the fact that we were the reason the EFL crumbled. 

[PistoldPete]

14 minutes ago, Indy said:

Indeed - didn’t Kieran Maguire first raise issues with our amortisation with the EFL, not another club? Be interesting to hear if the EFL told @The Baron that only other clubs could raise issues or - as I suspect - the EFL are still making up the interpretation of their own regulations as they go along. 

I think the EFL told him to take it up with the clubs auditors. To be fair that would seem a reasonable response...  if he had a professional issue with the accounts that had been signed off by auditors. I don't know whether he did ever take it up with the auditors, but nothing seemed to happen for another two years nearly.   

[Indy]

1 minute ago, PistoldPete said:

I think the EFL told him to take it up with the clubs auditors. To be fair that would seem a reasonable response...  if he had a professional issue with the accounts that had been signed off by auditors. I don't know whether he did ever take it up with the auditors, but nothing seemed to happen for another two years nearly.   

So from that can we infer that the EFL’s position was that if it was passed by auditors, then it was no concern of theirs? Wonder when EFL/Gibson’s back room deal came into play. 

[PistoldPete]

14 minutes ago, ollycutts1982 said:

 

Exactly this. The fact stands and I will keep repeating it. Yes cut and paste as the statement stands the test of time. I don’t really think anything else is needed. Having him (Ridsdale) in any kind of role in football makes the ‘fit and proper test’ totally hypocritical in my opinion along with any other regulations they try to enforce. 
 

Another statement I stand by is that regardless of what happens to us the EFL have walked to the gallows, tied the noose around their neck and are about to pull the lever. They have even been so kind as to dig their own grave.
 

This whole episode will be the end of the rotten cancerous dictatorship that rules over the 72 clubs. Despite all the pain and suffering we have all been through I will take solace in the fact that we were the reason the EFL crumbled. 

Derby County were founding  members of the Football League. We were there before the Football League, and we will be there after the Football League (in its current form) is no more .

[PistoldPete]

3 minutes ago, Indy said:

So from that can we infer that the EFL’s position was that if it was passed by auditors, then it was no concern of theirs? Wonder when EFL/Gibson’s back room deal came into play. 

I think it had more to do with change of personnel at EFL. Parry came in autumn 2019 and  had other ideas, especially having been bullied by Gibson.  

[Rev]

I think having Peter Ridsdale as a board member is perfectly acceptable.

This is a guy who knows full well what it means to chase the dream, and the pitfalls that can befall an owner. 

Real life experiences of the highs and lows of football club ownership is a valuable and rare commodity, I'm glad the EFL are taking advantage of such knowledge.

[EtoileSportiveDeDerby]

12 minutes ago, Rev said:

I think having Peter Ridsdale as a board member is perfectly acceptable.

This is a guy who knows full well what it means to chase the dream, and the pitfalls that can befall an owner. 

Real life experiences of the highs and lows of football club ownership is a valuable and rare commodity, I'm glad the EFL are taking advantage of such knowledge.

And he can look after the fresh water fish tank at the efl 

[RadioactiveWaste]

2 hours ago, Rev said:

I think having Peter Ridsdale as a board member is perfectly acceptable.

This is a guy who knows full well what it means to chase the dream, and the pitfalls that can befall an owner. 

Real life experiences of the highs and lows of football club ownership is a valuable and rare commodity, I'm glad the EFL are taking advantage of such knowledge.

When the money was just resting in your account.

[StantonRam]

At 779 pages, is this the longest ever thread?

 

[hintonsboots]

10 minutes ago, LondonRam2 said:

At 779 pages, is this the longest ever thread?

 

It will be in 48 hours.

[i-Ram]

Had a reply from Rick Parry, although it did need me to go back a second time to actually get the answer. it’s for information only: @David you might be interested, perhaps others to who felt the wording of Reg 4.4 was ambiguous.  On the basis that Q are in a position to move forward positively I am not going to revert to Parry at this stage ?

 

Dear Mr I-Ram

You are right that only the EFL can take action under Regulation 4.4.

Middlesbrough, however, made a claim under Regulation 95 which they are entitled to do.

Regards

Rick Parry 

———————————————————————————————————————

Dear Mr. Parry

I know you must be deluged by emails regarding matters DCFC.

I am here to have no great beef with you; I fully accept that much of the blame as to where we are at can be put at our former Club-owner’s door (Morris).

However I am keen to ensure that the Club, which I have followed home and away for some 50 years now, does not get dragged into the footnotes of footballing history by another vindicative Club owner (Gibson). FWIW it seems to me Gibson has fallen out big time on a personal level with Morris, and my Club is stuck in the middle of a battle between two very big egos.

Anyway, no need for you to comment on any of the above.

My simple question of you, is under which EFL Rule or Procedure is Gibson or Middlesbrough FC allowed to make a claim or commence proceedings directly against Derby County FC?  It seems to me that Section 4.4 of your Governance procedures makes it very clear that only the League (EFL) have the right to bring any action whatsoever for any alleged breach.  Such action was taken, LAP processes were completed, decisions were made, and ultimately a fine and point deductions were awarded against Derby County FC. Justice served. Close the book. So why is it, for the first time in the EFL’s history that another Club is being allowed by the League to pursue another? If you could offer clarity on this for me it would be greatly appreciated.

Thank you in advance.

Mr I-Ram

[Ted McMinn Football Genius]

8 minutes ago, i-Ram said:

Had a reply from Rick Parry, although it did need me to go back a second time to actually get the answer. it’s for information only: @David you might be interested, perhaps others to who felt the wording of Reg 4.4 was ambiguous.  On the basis that Q are in a position to move forward positively I am not going to revert to Parry at this stage ?

 

Dear Mr I-Ram

You are right that only the EFL can take action under Regulation 4.4.

Middlesbrough, however, made a claim under Regulation 95 which they are entitled to do.

Regards

Rick Parry 

———————————————————————————————————————

Dear Mr. Parry

I know you must be deluged by emails regarding matters DCFC.

I am here to have no great beef with you; I fully accept that much of the blame as to where we are at can be put at our former Club-owner’s door (Morris).

However I am keen to ensure that the Club, which I have followed home and away for some 50 years now, does not get dragged into the footnotes of footballing history by another vindicative Club owner (Gibson). FWIW it seems to me Gibson has fallen out big time on a personal level with Morris, and my Club is stuck in the middle of a battle between two very big egos.

Anyway, no need for you to comment on any of the above.

My simple question of you, is under which EFL Rule or Procedure is Gibson or Middlesbrough FC allowed to make a claim or commence proceedings directly against Derby County FC?  It seems to me that Section 4.4 of your Governance procedures makes it very clear that only the League (EFL) have the right to bring any action whatsoever for any alleged breach.  Such action was taken, LAP processes were completed, decisions were made, and ultimately a fine and point deductions were awarded against Derby County FC. Justice served. Close the book. So why is it, for the first time in the EFL’s history that another Club is being allowed by the League to pursue another? If you could offer clarity on this for me it would be greatly appreciated.

Thank you in advance.

Mr I-Ram

That’s a very balanced and reasonably worded retort ????.

I hope RP does respond, however I fear this is such a well worded response it will be met with silence.

Hope I’m wrong, it’s a point that is way to close to the bone for all involved though.

[The Scarlet Pimpernel]

So what in essence is rule 95? 

[angieram]

14 minutes ago, i-Ram said:

Had a reply from Rick Parry, although it did need me to go back a second time to actually get the answer. it’s for information only: @David you might be interested, perhaps others to who felt the wording of Reg 4.4 was ambiguous.  On the basis that Q are in a position to move forward positively I am not going to revert to Parry at this stage ?

 

Dear Mr I-Ram

You are right that only the EFL can take action under Regulation 4.4.

Middlesbrough, however, made a claim under Regulation 95 which they are entitled to do.

Regards

Rick Parry 

———————————————————————————————————————

Dear Mr. Parry

I know you must be deluged by emails regarding matters DCFC.

I am here to have no great beef with you; I fully accept that much of the blame as to where we are at can be put at our former Club-owner’s door (Morris).

However I am keen to ensure that the Club, which I have followed home and away for some 50 years now, does not get dragged into the footnotes of footballing history by another vindicative Club owner (Gibson). FWIW it seems to me Gibson has fallen out big time on a personal level with Morris, and my Club is stuck in the middle of a battle between two very big egos.

Anyway, no need for you to comment on any of the above.

My simple question of you, is under which EFL Rule or Procedure is Gibson or Middlesbrough FC allowed to make a claim or commence proceedings directly against Derby County FC?  It seems to me that Section 4.4 of your Governance procedures makes it very clear that only the League (EFL) have the right to bring any action whatsoever for any alleged breach.  Such action was taken, LAP processes were completed, decisions were made, and ultimately a fine and point deductions were awarded against Derby County FC. Justice served. Close the book. So why is it, for the first time in the EFL’s history that another Club is being allowed by the League to pursue another? If you could offer clarity on this for me it would be greatly appreciated.

Thank you in advance.

Mr I-Ram

Interesting. So does that mean Regulation 95 contradicts Regulation 4.4? 

[PistoldPete]

17 minutes ago, i-Ram said:

Had a reply from Rick Parry, although it did need me to go back a second time to actually get the answer. it’s for information only: @David you might be interested, perhaps others to who felt the wording of Reg 4.4 was ambiguous.  On the basis that Q are in a position to move forward positively I am not going to revert to Parry at this stage ?

 

Dear Mr I-Ram

You are right that only the EFL can take action under Regulation 4.4.

Middlesbrough, however, made a claim under Regulation 95 which they are entitled to do.

Regards

Rick Parry 

———————————————————————————————————————

Dear Mr. Parry

I know you must be deluged by emails regarding matters DCFC.

I am here to have no great beef with you; I fully accept that much of the blame as to where we are at can be put at our former Club-owner’s door (Morris).

However I am keen to ensure that the Club, which I have followed home and away for some 50 years now, does not get dragged into the footnotes of footballing history by another vindicative Club owner (Gibson). FWIW it seems to me Gibson has fallen out big time on a personal level with Morris, and my Club is stuck in the middle of a battle between two very big egos.

Anyway, no need for you to comment on any of the above.

My simple question of you, is under which EFL Rule or Procedure is Gibson or Middlesbrough FC allowed to make a claim or commence proceedings directly against Derby County FC?  It seems to me that Section 4.4 of your Governance procedures makes it very clear that only the League (EFL) have the right to bring any action whatsoever for any alleged breach.  Such action was taken, LAP processes were completed, decisions were made, and ultimately a fine and point deductions were awarded against Derby County FC. Justice served. Close the book. So why is it, for the first time in the EFL’s history that another Club is being allowed by the League to pursue another? If you could offer clarity on this for me it would be greatly appreciated.

Thank you in advance.

Mr I-Ram

Is that the arbitration clause? So is he saying that it doesn't matter what it says in any other rule, they can bring a complaint about anything they like because of the requirement to arbitrate? 

 

[PistoldPete]

2 minutes ago, PistoldPete said:

Is that the arbitration clause? So is he saying that it doesn't matter what it says in any other rule, they can bring a complaint about anything they like because of the requirement to arbitrate? 

 

Answering my own question, yes it is the requirement to arbitrate.

SO basically an attempt by Boro to get around the rules. A try-on, as i thought.

And actually the requirement to arbitrate is a bit suspect anyway, so the whole things is well dodgy. 

Anyway it's done now. Parasite Gibson is off our back but I for one will never forgive him for what he did. 

 

[Van der MoodHoover]

8 minutes ago, The Scarlet Pimpernel said:

So what in essence is rule 95? 

It's titled "Agreement to Arbitrate" 

95.2 sets out the scope to which 95 applies. 95.2.5 is interesting 

 

95.2        The following disputes fall to be resolved under this Section of the Regulations:

95.2.5    other disputes between The League and Clubs and between each Club arising from these Regulations or otherwise (‘Other Disputes’), unless such disputes were dealt with by way of the following proceedings:

(a)           a Player Related Dispute Commission (or subsequent appeal to the League Appeals Committee (if any)); or

(b)           proceedings before the Professional Football Compensation Committee;

 

So this does seem to give MFC scope to bring a dispute. The preamble states that all these rules emanate from the Arbitration Act so my guess is that they were hastily drafted to meet a new legal requirement and nobody spotted that they contradict other rules. 

Also, it looks like nobody realised that in certain circumstances there is a conflict between arbitration law and insolvency law. 

 

A complete mess. 

[i-Ram]

5 minutes ago, PistoldPete said:

Is that the arbitration clause? So is he saying that it doesn't matter what it says in any other rule, they can bring a complaint about anything they like because of the requirement to arbitrate? 

Yes, and to include @angieram, it seems to me that no Club can directly take action against another one, but they are permitted to raise practically anything as a dispute under the Arbitration regulations (to be progressed through EFL facilitated independent hearing processes). Got a busy office day today, but will try and pop back in around noon to read the chatter ?