The Administration Thread

[kevinhectoring]

4 hours ago, jono said:

It’s quite simple as I see it, regardless of any merit to the claims

Boro claim we should have been sanctioned/fined or whatever… at a specific time period ..because it affected their possible play off spot. We weren’t - because those matters are normally dealt with by the EFL’s agreed procedures. Their quarrel / dispute therefore, should have been with the EFL and the timing of how the EFL applied their rules. 
THEIR CLAIM AGAINST THE EFL ABOUT SANCTIONING US WAS PROBABLY WEAKER THAN THEIR CLAIM AGAINST US. THE CLAIM AGAINST US WAS VERY DIFFERENT - IT WAS A CLAIM THAT WE BREACHED THE RULES AND THEY SUFFERED DAMAGE AS A RESULT. THEY WERE ENTITLED TO BRING EITHER CLAIM OR BOTH CLAIMS. THEY WERE NOT OBLIGED TO PURSUE EITHER CLAIM EXPEDITIOUSLY AND THEY WERE IN A POSITION TO  CAUSE MAXIMUM DAMAGE WHICH THEY DISGRACEFULLY DID. 
 

Looking at it another way - We have now been sanctioned according to those same procedures. Derby and Boro played in the same league run by the same association which makes the rules. This was a dispute relating to the competition. In the first instance they should have challenged the EFL a long time ago .. which they didn’t, despite considerable time passing.

UNFORTUNATELY WE AGREED SOMETHING DIFFERENT:  WE AGREED THAT IN PRINCIPLE THEY COULD SUE US IF WE BROKE THE EFL RULES. ONCE WE HAD DONE THIS, WE GAVE THEM THE POWER TO STOP A SALE 

If that didn’t work or wasn’t workable, then they had the option to sue Derby in court according to the law, long before administration  .. it could be seen as a simple civil case for damages. Or alternatively sue the EFL in court for the same reasons. They did neither ! 

THEY DO NOT HAVE AN OPTION TO SUE US IN COURT. THE EFL RULES SAY THEY HAVE TO GO TO THE TRIBUNAL. 
 

All they did was imply threats and make damaging allegations to a club in administration. To be frank, if one is wanting to feed lawyers and apply logic, then Quantuma might have a case, on behalf of the creditors, for Boro’s vexatious claims that were clearly damaging to the creditors and administration process in general. 
 

YES. ONE OPTION WAS FOR Q TO GO TO THE COURT AND COMPLAIN THAT GIBBO WAS FRUSTRATING THE PURPOSE OF THE ADMINISTRATION (ie a sale) . PROBABLY A LONG SHOT. SO INSTEAD, HOSKIN TOLD US WHAT A NICE MAN GIBBO IS. 

The EFL buried their heads in the sand and walked away from their responsibilities to the competition for what motive or under whatever influence I don’t care to speculate. A simple solution was available to the EFL as the law givers. They bottled it in a disgraceful way. 

YES THE EFL WERE WEAK IN DEALING WITH THIS. BUT THE EFL ARE NOT LAW GIVERS AND WHAT THAT SIMPLE SOLUTION IS I DON’T KNOW.  FOR MANY MONTHS NOW THE EFL SETTING HAS BEEN: GO WITH THE LEGAL ADVICE 

There’s a lot in this ! I have put some thoughts in your post above. I think some people underestimate the extent to which Gibbo has contributed to our problems

I don’t agree with you when you say it’s quite simple. 

[kevinhectoring]

56 minutes ago, Needlesh said:

Basically Kev, you're an unacceptable and vexatious noise. Blocked.

Why not just explain where I’m going wrong? If you’re convincing I’ll certainly change my mind.  
 

[ilkleyram]

12 hours ago, Abu Derby said:

How on earth did Mel pass the ‘fit and proper test’?

I hope that the EFL have a more searching set of questions after this debacle. 

There are many things you can rightly blame the EFL for but passing Mel in 2015 or whenever it was done, is not one of them.

A multi millionaire businessman, with a long history of supporting his local club, zero criminal record, takes a substantial financial  interest in the club in 2014 and a year later buys the remaining shares, and you want the EFL to stop him from doing so? Imagine the outcry. If that was the bar there'd be no owners of any club.
 

Talk about hindsight

[Eddie]

13 hours ago, Abu Derby said:

How on earth did Mel pass the ‘fit and proper test’?

I hope that the EFL have a more searching set of questions after this debacle. 

If you were the only Derby fan to have reservations about his ambition and his takeover at that time, well done.

[Yani P]

And he would actually pass the test again if he took it tomorrow..

[Tamworthram]

9 hours ago, B4ev6is said:

Well I do

Even they had the balls to say to gibson back off leave derby alone they been dealing with it oh know perfectly fine go right do what you like mr gibson.

I’m not saying I don’t blame the EFL for anything. Just we can criticise or blame them for approving Mel as a suitable new owner way back when he bought the club. That’s what this little debate is about not the EFL’s overall conduct.

[Abu Derby]

7 hours ago, Yani P said:

And he would actually pass the test again if he took it tomorrow..

That’s the point I want to make. He shouldn’t and neither should anyone else who has a propensity to break rules i.e. creative accounting. 
 

[G STAR RAM]

36 minutes ago, Abu Derby said:

That’s the point I want to make. He shouldn’t and neither should anyone else who has a propensity to break rules i.e. creative accounting. 
 

He didn't break any rules though?

[Abu Derby]

9 minutes ago, G STAR RAM said:

He didn't break any rules though?

The 9 point deduction was imposed for exactly that reason. 

[Arsene Titman]

10 minutes ago, G STAR RAM said:

He didn't break any rules though?

He did. He used a method of player amortisation which was not in accordance with EFL rules. If he wasn’t aware of EFL rules then he should have been. If he was  aware then the only reason for using an alternative method was to achieve an unfair financial advantage.

[PistoldPete]

48 minutes ago, Abu Derby said:

That’s the point I want to make. He shouldn’t and neither should anyone else who has a propensity to break rules i.e. creative accounting. 
 

Creative accounting does not usually break rules, and didn't in Derby's case.

If the practice of creative accounting in general was regarded as grounds for being barred as an owner then nobody would own a football club. Not Gibson for a start, not the Greeks up the a52 etc.

[PistoldPete]

Just now, Arsene Titman said:

He did. He used a method of player amortisation which was not in accordance with EFL rules. If he wasn’t aware of EFL rules then he should have been. If he was  aware then the only reason for using an alternative method was to achieve an unfair financial advantage.

EFL only changed their rules in February. There was no reason to believe the amortisation method was against the rules at the time and certainly no reason to believe the EFL would challenge it retrospectively three years after it was introduced.

I don't think the amortisation method was a good idea becasue of the risk that we would have to write players values down sharply at the end of contracts. but there was no reason to believe it was against the rules especially as the auditors and the EFL signed off on it.

[Abu Derby]

4 minutes ago, PistoldPete said:

Creative accounting does not usually break rules, and didn't in Derby's case.

If the practice of creative accounting in general was regarded as grounds for being barred as an owner then nobody would own a football club. Not Gibson for a start, not the Greeks up the a52 etc.

Then Mel wasn’t as clever then; he was tried and proven guilty. 

[Crewton]

2 minutes ago, Arsene Titman said:

He did. He used a method of player amortisation which was not in accordance with EFL rules. If he wasn’t aware of EFL rules then he should have been. If he was  aware then the only reason for using an alternative method was to achieve an unfair financial advantage.

To be strictly accurate, it was deemed appropriate by one Tribunal that included an Accountancy expert, but ruled innappropriate on appeal by a second tribunal that didn't include an Accountancy expert. The EFL's designated method of player amortisation was NOT set out in their rules. The fact that DCFC were ultimately found "guilty" can't be disputed, but the assertion that "rules were broken" is patently and demonstrably untrue. 

It is what it is now, the repercussions have been catastrophic for DCFC and our fans and creditors, but let's not pretend that this was an open and shut case of "rule breaking" or that there weren't other factors involved in the EFL's pursuit of DCFC through the disciplinary process. 

Morris' reckless spending and catastrophic financial management has ultimately led us to this point, but I doubt that the EFL’s case would have stood up in a court of law. 

[PistoldPete]

13 minutes ago, Abu Derby said:

Then Mel wasn’t as clever then; he was tried and proven guilty. 

True, he was not clever at all and certainly not as clever as he thought he was. And what caps it all of course is then sending us into admin, a catastrophic failure for which no one here is going to forgive him.

[G STAR RAM]

26 minutes ago, Abu Derby said:

The 9 point deduction was imposed for exactly that reason. 

Was it? I was under the impression that the 9 point deduction was an agreed decision between the EFL and administrators, based on amended accounts which an Independent Disciplinary Commission did not recommend needed to be done?

[G STAR RAM]

23 minutes ago, Arsene Titman said:

He did. He used a method of player amortisation which was not in accordance with EFL rules. If he wasn’t aware of EFL rules then he should have been. If he was  aware then the only reason for using an alternative method was to achieve an unfair financial advantage.

It was fully in accordance with the EFL rules, that is what everyone concluded apart from the EFLs own panel.

If it wasnt in accordance with the rules, why did the EFL feel it necessary to retrospectively amend their rules to outlaw its use?

[MackworthRamIsGod]

Kirchner seems to have gone quiet.

 

[Animal is a Ram]

2 minutes ago, MackworthRamIsGod said:

Kirchner seems to have gone quiet.

 

Not too much to say at the moment I guess. Biz plan is with the EFL, probably take them 5 business days just to get round to finding their reading glasses.

[kevinhectoring]

50 minutes ago, Arsene Titman said:

He did. He used a method of player amortisation which was not in accordance with EFL rules. If he wasn’t aware of EFL rules then he should have been. If he was  aware then the only reason for using an alternative method was to achieve an unfair financial advantage.

the auditors signed off on the accounts. So don’t think that alone would be enough for EFL now to refuse him ownership of a club. A somewhat hypothetical question tho