Jump to content

The Administration Thread


Boycie

Recommended Posts

15 minutes ago, kevinhectoring said:

Do the rules say clubs can’t  sue each other in the courts ...? Yes 

they say instead that claims between clubs arising under the rules have to be settled by arbitration 

So you can still sue in court then because it’s the law of the land 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, Oldben said:

Knowing which battles are worth fighting, is wisdom.

Making the efl our enemy, when they set the rules of the game is foolhardy.

We are better of leaving this to the politicians, and hopefully there will be an independent regulator.

Other clubs might criticise Derby for recent events, but that doesn't matter, because one day it will be there turn to ask for help and Derby might not be in their corner.

What is coming has to better for the club, than what the club has just been through.

 

 

The trouble is, the rules that nearly destroyed us, and will probably take us a decade to get over, are already being changed so that other clubs who get into similar difficulty won’t be punished like we were.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, kevinhectoring said:

Do the rules say clubs can’t  sue each other in the courts ...? Yes 

they say instead that claims between clubs arising under the rules have to be settled by arbitration 

And this is where the EFL fall down, If you're a Derby fan then we all know Gibson never had a case, Q were stuck between a hard rock and the deep blue sea, MM had to settle with Gibson to ensure we had a club, If he didn't where would we stand today?

Any road we've all been here before as I see Pops Simpson walking in then walking out ?

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, kevinhectoring said:

I don’t recall that from the judgement, but if that’s what happened, it’s obviously absurd. It’s not what my posts are about tho’

If you don't remember that then I am doubting if you have read the judgement in any great detail, and therefore, find it hard to believe that you are in any great position to be challenging anyone that says we have a good case against the EFL.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, StrawHillRam said:

I’m hoping for the perfect trilogy

 Notts Forest lose in play-offs

 Leeds relegated

 Wycombe lose in play-offs

Already got Middlesbrough missing out on the  play offs in the bag

I agree about Boro, Leeds and Forest, thats the real trio. I see Wycombe more as an added bonus, don't really care about that tinpot club.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, DavesaRam said:

All the recent talk about the stadium buyer is that it is a local business man. Then we get the news that it is David Clowes. Then the DET (or Derbyshire Live) statement that the Clowes company are not buying the stadium. So what? The news story was that David Clowes, the person, not the company, is the buyer, so the fact that the company has denied being the buyer is neither here nor there. It is a red herring. So unless David Clowes denies involvement, we live in hope, even if the fact has not yet been confirmed.

Unless you read something I did not, the new came from The Athletic which said the company not the man. After the company denial they stood by their story which makes me assume it is the man not the company. Back in January another rich supporter tweeted he was prepared to put money in to save the club so there might be two of the group. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, The Scarlet Pimpernel said:

I guess in future any club that "cheats" for any reason and either takes points off us preventing a play off place or ensuring a relegation place is fair game for a long drawn out claim. Same goes for any club really. 

Wycombe fc case against dcfc centred on a timeline, dcfc we were accused of delaying efl requested information returns and thereby wycombe fc were relegated.

The reason it was an empty case is that Derby didn't failure to meet deadlines set by the efl, they might have submitted the information on the last available day or be given an extension by the efl and submitted on the last available day for that.

In any case, they didn't breach the submission dates set by the efl, and as a direct result of which causes wycombe fc to be relegated.

Wycombe fc were wrongly in the Championship in the first place, they didn't get there by winning games, the efl promoted them by ending the league 1 season early due to covid, the season before.

The efl decided to manually calculate who should be promoted and then promoted that team, in this case wycombe fc.

Once in the Championship, wycombe fc were seen to be unfit for a place in the Championship.

Once there they simply were not good enough to warrant a place in the Championship and got relegated.

The wycombe fc owner being a chancer, decided to try and get millions for nothing and made a claim against dcfc.

If dcfc had money they could have taken the claim to court and received a payout worth a lot, as a false claim was made against them.

Wycombe fc like boro, knew they didn't have a valid case and that dcfc couldn't afford to defend itself.

The wycombe fc owner maintained that dcfc cost his club millions through their relegation, but the fault lies with him.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, I know nuffin said:

Unless you read something I did not, the new came from The Athletic which said the company not the man. After the company denial they stood by their story which makes me assume it is the man not the company. Back in January another rich supporter tweeted he was prepared to put money in to save the club so there might be two of the group. 

I know nuffin.. you said a rich supporter tweeted he was prepareed to put money in.. who was he? Or do you really know nuffin?  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, G STAR RAM said:

If you don't remember that then I am doubting if you have read the judgement in any great detail, and therefore, find it hard to believe that you are in any great position to be challenging anyone that says we have a good case against the EFL.

It’s more than likely you have a better memory than I do. You just wait 
 

Look again at para 135 of the Initial hearing, and the rest of the IDC’s comments on the point you raise - the so called first procedural defence. I just did.  

The IDC panel (you’ll recall) found strongly in our favour on all points but one - they were not supporters of the EFl at all. Yet they describe our defence based on the point you’ve raised (your comment is below in italics) as untenable or worse. Your summary of what happened (below) is a very small part of the story 

 

 the EFL told DCFC it was ok to sell the ground, advised them over what valuation to use and then charged them over the transaction. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...