The Administration Thread

[The Scarlet Pimpernel]

11 minutes ago, The Scarlet Pimpernel said:

So what in essence is rule 95? 

Quoting myself but I've just read regulation 95 which does indeed in my opinion allow Boro to claim. It also therefore allows every other club to claim against each other if you can show you may have been affected by another's actions. 

Very dodgy waters now for the whole of the EFL. Perhaps we could do away with football and all gather to watch legal proceedings unfold. Forget Messi, it's Nick De-Marco, the new superstar. 

[Anag Ram]

4 minutes ago, The Scarlet Pimpernel said:

Quoting myself but I've just read regulation 95 which does indeed in my opinion allow Boro to claim. It also therefore allows every other club to claim against each other if you can show you may have been affected by another's actions. 

Very dodgy waters now for the whole of the EFL. Perhaps we could do away with football and all gather to watch legal proceedings unfold. Forget Messi, it's Nick De-Marco, the new superstar. 

Looking forward to the new stadium name

Derby County Court

 

[PistoldPete]

12 minutes ago, Van der MoodHoover said:

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. 

Actually I would argue reg 95 is itself contrary to the Arbitration Act Section 1

 "General principles.

The provisions of this Part are founded on the following principles, and shall be construed accordingly—

(a)the object of arbitration is to obtain the fair resolution of disputes by an impartial tribunal without unnecessary delay or expense;

(b)the parties should be free to agree how their disputes are resolved, subject only to such safeguards as are necessary in the public interest;

(c)in matters governed by this Part the court should not intervene except as provided by this Part."

Maybe EFL could explain how threatening to throw DCFC out of EFL if they do not go down arbitration route is allowing them to be free to agree how to resolve their dispute.

 

 

 

[The Scarlet Pimpernel]

However bad the EFL rules are all clubs as members have signed up to them. As it turns out this is misguided.  I think this fiasco, that has almost destroyed our club, is good for one thing only and that is it shows up the EFL rules for what they are, a load of contradictory rubbish. That in itself is not the fault of the EFL because they I presume are following the legal advice as written by their legal experts. Effectively what is normally kept in the shadows and is normally the preserve of the legal establishment has had a massive light shone upon it and now the lay man ( if interested) can see they haven't done a good enough job and in reality it isn't fit for purpose.

Of course most supporters of most clubs will be blissfully unaware of what potentially now could happen in respect of claims and counter claims and so the EFL will try to plod along as they always have. I expect after the dust has settled they will try to change or add a rule that stops clubs taking direct action against one another. Whether they do or not will depend upon how quickly they are put out of business by the government.

Oh well............ UTR

[Sparkle]

So let me get this correct - one club can hold a complete stranglehold on another club if both clubs don’t agree on a solution because the governing body won’t have anything to do with resolving it - ultimate BS don’t you think? - so we can have an obvious claim against QPR under that then !

[Seth's left foot]

10 minutes ago, Sparkle said:

So let me get this correct - one club can hold a complete stranglehold on another club if both clubs don’t agree on a solution because the governing body won’t have anything to do with resolving it - ultimate BS don’t you think? - so we can have an obvious claim against QPR under that then !

And Villa, escaping to the Promised land shouldn’t make them immune. 

[Gisby]

20 minutes ago, The Scarlet Pimpernel said:

However bad the EFL rules are all clubs as members have signed up to them. As it turns out this is misguided.  I think this fiasco, that has almost destroyed our club, is good for one thing only and that is it shows up the EFL rules for what they are, a load of contradictory rubbish. That in itself is not the fault of the EFL because they I presume are following the legal advice as written by their legal experts. Effectively what is normally kept in the shadows and is normally the preserve of the legal establishment has had a massive light shone upon it and now the lay man ( if interested) can see they haven't done a good enough job and in reality it isn't fit for purpose.

Of course most supporters of most clubs will be blissfully unaware of what potentially now could happen in respect of claims and counter claims and so the EFL will try to plod along as they always have. I expect after the dust has settled they will try to change or add a rule that stops clubs taking direct action against one another. Whether they do or not will depend upon how quickly they are put out of business by the government.

Oh well............ UTR

Just saying ……. So will the EFL now sue their own legal advisers for writing their own nonsensical rules!!!! It’s all complete madness. Disband the EFL, rip the rule book up and let’s start again. We need to break free from this crazy merry go round and get back to the actual football. 

[ollycutts1982]

1 minute ago, Seth's left foot said:

And Villa, escaping to the Promised land shouldn’t make them immune. 

Definitely agree with this. Should a team break FFP and gain promotion then any punishment should be suspended until such a time that they return to the league or even be able to be pursued and punished in the EPL. A points deduction in the EPL would almost certainly relegate any team so would act as a deterrent. It would never happen though. It’s like a criminal moving to a none extradition county to escape punishment. Shouldn’t be allowed. 

[duncanjwitham]

1 hour ago, i-Ram said:

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 ?

That's how it's supposed to work. The first stage of an arbitration hearing will be whether they actually have the standing to raise the claim, and if it isn't the claim will be tossed out.  You can see this working when 'Boro tried to appeal our hearing and were rejected.

Basically, the EFL don't want to be in the position of deciding what valid claims are, because they're effectively making themselves judge and jury on those claims if they decide they aren't valid. So everything goes to arbitration and everything gets a fair look with an independent panel.  (Different definitions of 'fair' may apply... etc etc.) 

Not saying that's necessarily right or wrong, but that is how it's intended to work.

[Ram-Alf]

1 hour ago, Van der MoodHoover said:

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. 

Yes yes I get all that, It's as simple as falling off a log that's going over Niagra Falls, One question tho...Who owns Pride Park?

[ColonelBlimp]

1 hour ago, Sparkle said:

So let me get this correct - one club can hold a complete stranglehold on another club if both clubs don’t agree on a solution because the governing body won’t have anything to do with resolving it - ultimate BS don’t you think? - so we can have an obvious claim against QPR under that then !

Is there a time limit for claims mentioned under EFL rules or do they default to UK company rules?

[Curtains]

Hope we hear of a Preferred Bidder sooner rather than later. 

[The Scarlet Pimpernel]

21 minutes ago, ColonelBlimp said:

Is there a time limit for claims mentioned under EFL rules or do they default to UK company rules?

They say their rules are based upon English law. Not sure how that applies to potential action against QPR. If its 6 years max as some say then it will count from when QPR were found guilty of FFP irregularities. Not sure when that was?

[The Scarlet Pimpernel]

It seems QPR were sanctioned at the end of 2013/14 season when they beat us to go up. There was then a three year legal battle which QPR lost. They then had to 20th November 2017 to appeal.

If we take the end of the three year battle as the date they were officially guilty then it seems we have until 20th November 2023 to bring a claim against them?

Edited February 15, 2022 by The Scarlet Pimpernel

[Curtains]

https://www.skysports.com/football/news/11696/12542599/derby-optimistic-of-naming-preferred-bidder-before-deadline-and-confident-of-fulfilling-fixtures
 

Boom 

[PistoldPete]

1 hour ago, duncanjwitham said:

That's how it's supposed to work. The first stage of an arbitration hearing will be whether they actually have the standing to raise the claim, and if it isn't the claim will be tossed out.  You can see this working when 'Boro tried to appeal our hearing and were rejected.

Basically, the EFL don't want to be in the position of deciding what valid claims are, because they're effectively making themselves judge and jury on those claims if they decide they aren't valid. So everything goes to arbitration and everything gets a fair look with an independent panel.  (Different definitions of 'fair' may apply... etc etc.) 

Not saying that's necessarily right or wrong, but that is how it's intended to work.

Problem being nobody would ever want to have it tested because if a chancy claim like Boro’s should by some fluke open the crack, it would open the flood gates.

you could understand why q wanted to squash this shocking claim whichever way they could. 

[Curtains]

1 hour ago, Curtains said:

Hope we hear of a Preferred Bidder sooner rather than later. 

https://www.skysports.com/football/news/11696/12542599/derby-optimistic-of-naming-preferred-bidder-before-deadline-and-confident-of-fulfilling-fixtures

[TomG]

15 minutes ago, Curtains said:

https://www.skysports.com/football/news/11696/12542599/derby-optimistic-of-naming-preferred-bidder-before-deadline-and-confident-of-fulfilling-fixtures

[Gee SCREAMER !!]

Dear QPR, Aston Villa and Bournmouth.

Following our ruse Gibson and myself have now found a legal way to get plenty of dollars from you outside the remit of the EFL.  Derby won't get a dime and I'll get a private island through my new business Morris and Gibson incorporated.  Steves paying for the speedos and cocktails.

[Curtains]

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/sportsnews/article-10514843/Derby-County-admins-meet-Wycombe-owner-preferred-bidder-expected-week.html