The Administration Thread

[Boycie]

5 hours ago, PistoldPete said:

I don’t think so. He needs to sign a lease. And the terms to be agreed with the tenant will also be key to the purchase. The two are intrinsically linked. 

Hence the ( well officially) ??

[kevinhectoring]

16 hours ago, jono said:

That doesn’t work does it. You argue against yourself. … But maybe you meant to ?

A Dirty player with a conflict of interest doesn’t get to appoint the referee 

Sorry I didn’t answer this specifically

if the EFL takes enforcement action against a club, the proceedings are adversarial. The Francis Lee / Hunter analogy is a good one. 
 

your assertion that the EFl appoints the ‘referee’ (ie the panel) is wrong. The panel is independent, and the proceedings are run by Sports Resolution in accordance with the EFl rules. You seem to think that means the process is controlled by the EFl. But it’s not 

[kevinhectoring]

24 minutes ago, Ghost of Clough said:

Perhaps they should have asked a different question instead: is this allowable within the rules?

As with a lot of decisions under Parry, the EFL have looked for ways to block and punish clubs. Harvey, despite all his flaws are chairman, always looked for ways to allow clubs to remain compliant to the rules.

EFl’s failure to manage the Boro angle left them no choice I reckon. They put themselves in a position where they simply had to follow the lawyers’ advice, for defensive reasons. 

[Gee SCREAMER !!]

13 minutes ago, kevinhectoring said:

Sorry I didn’t answer this specifically

if the EFL takes enforcement action against a club, the proceedings are adversarial. The Francis Lee / Hunter analogy is a good one. 
 

your assertion that the EFl appoints the ‘referee’ (ie the panel) is wrong. The panel is independent, and the proceedings are run by Sports Resolution in accordance with the EFl rules. You seem to think that means the process is controlled by the EFl. But it’s not 

They sound independent

Members of a League Arbitration Panel shall be entitled to receive from The League a reasonable sum by way of fees and expenses, as determined by the Board from time to time. 

[PistoldPete]

5 hours ago, Gee SCREAMER !! said:

They sound independent

Members of a League Arbitration Panel shall be entitled to receive from The League a reasonable sum by way of fees and expenses, as determined by the Board from time to time. 

Yes, despite what Kevin says, it was surprising how uncritical and unchallenging the IDC and especially the LAP were of EFL. Perhaps as you say that may be because EFL were paying them. Less cynically it was after all Derby who were in the dock. I would like to see EFL in the dock, when things would be seen in a different light. I think the savaging EFL got over Bury would be nothing to what a genuinely independent inquiry would make of EFL's conduct over Derby. Damian Collins former chair of select sport and culture committee would be a good candidate. Or Susan Gray.  

[jono]

6 hours ago, kevinhectoring said:

Sorry I didn’t answer this specifically

if the EFL takes enforcement action against a club, the proceedings are adversarial. The Francis Lee / Hunter analogy is a good one. 
 

your assertion that the EFl appoints the ‘referee’ (ie the panel) is wrong. The panel is independent, and the proceedings are run by Sports Resolution in accordance with the EFl rules. You seem to think that means the process is controlled by the EFl. But it’s not 

It is controlled by the rules and processes laid down by the EFL.

I dispute that it is adversarial. If it is, then it shouldn’t be. The EFL’s remit is investigate on behalf of other members and pass it to an independent panel for judgement.  As an equal representative of all the clubs it should not be adversarial (even though they made it so ) It should be an examination of an alleged breach with a verdict made and accepted respectfully by all parties 

The EFL made it adversarial when they had no place to do so, because they were overly influenced and pressured by other parties. They needed guilty verdicts because of that pressure, not because of the facts of the matter. They did not fairly represent all clubs because of that undue pressure. 

[Mucker1884]

On 20/05/2022 at 21:33, Mostyn6 said:

B4, please read this carefully as it’s been said a few times and you look very silly ignoring it! 
 

it does not matter how much money we want to spend or how rich the owners might be, as part of the deal we will be limited by rules on how much we can spend on players and wages! 
 

There are businesses only being paid 35p (over 3 years) for every £1 Derby owe them.
 

To put this into context, pretend I owe you £1000. Now imagine I’m only going to pay you £120 this year, £120 next year and £110 in two years, you won’t be getting the remaining £650 I owe you because I say that I can’t afford it. Now imagine that at the same time as paying you only £120, you find out I’ve spent £2000 on buying the same thing you sold me but from someone else. You’d be upset right??

well, to prevent this happening, EFL force clubs coming out of administration to sign up to a business plan limiting spending and budgets. If the club doesn’t stick to it, point deductions and embargos happen. 
 

So please please stop saying Derby will spend decent money. We wont. It’s not allowed. 

Only just catching up...

What I want to know is, why are you paying £2000 now, for something B4 recently sold you for a £1000?  Did he sell you a dud?  Has it broke already?  That's just not on!  No wonder you don't want to pay him what you owe him!  What a rip off!  I reckon I'd rather go bust too, than be forced to pay someone for some old tat that isn't fit for purpose!    

This sort of thing really riles me.  And we're all supposed to be bloody mates!  Yeah right!

Grrrr.  Rant.  Seethe.  etc.

[Ram-Alf]

7 hours ago, kevinhectoring said:

EFl’s failure to manage the Boro angle left them no choice I reckon. They put themselves in a position where they simply had to follow the lawyers’ advice, for defensive reasons. 

Nail on the head there Kevin...Failure!, They failed to protect a fellow member from being screwed over by a fellow member, What are they there for?...end of school report...should do better, More concerned with looking after themselves...not a team player.

[Ram-Alf]

21 hours ago, Unlucky Alf said:

Just rang my Son, Stuck £20 on those 3 he has an online account, Very very rare I bet, But something to look forward too 

Easy this betting lark ?, I might bottle it if Leeds are relegated ?

[G STAR RAM]

11 minutes ago, Unlucky Alf said:

Easy this betting lark ?, I might bottle it WHEN Leeds are relegated ?

FTFY

[RAM1966]

2 hours ago, jono said:

It is controlled by the rules and processes laid down by the EFL.

I dispute that it is adversarial. If it is, then it shouldn’t be. The EFL’s remit is investigate on behalf of other members and pass it to an independent panel for judgement.  As an equal representative of all the clubs it should not be adversarial (even though they made it so ) It should be an examination of an alleged breach with a verdict made and accepted respectfully by all parties 

The EFL made it adversarial when they had no place to do so, because they were overly influenced and pressured by other parties. They needed guilty verdicts because of that pressure, not because of the facts of the matter. They did not fairly represent all clubs because of that undue pressure. 

For me the most hypocritical thing they've done was the rule change on the amortisation of player.  It stated on the EFLs minutes it was a rule change. 

This centres around the justification of the resubmission of the accounts and us subsequently failing FFP.  Had this not of happened no Boro or Wycombe cases, Mel would of probably been able to sell the club etc.

The whole house of cards came crashing down as a result, transfer embargos.  Admin  losing valuable players for nothing instead of fees.

This needs looking into, Admin may have accepted the decision without the right to appeal.  This rule change since surely is justification that we were ducked over and there was no justification....

Edited May 22, 2022 by RAM1966

[May Contain Nuts]

10 hours ago, kevinhectoring said:

This was directed at me I think

The question the EFL had to consider when faced with Q’s cram down proposal was: does this contravene the FC rule? By that stage the stakes were very high and Parry and his Merry men would have done just one thing: asked their internal (and possibly external) lawyers what the answer was. 
 

You’re suggesting it was relevant - in answering the question - to consider what the possible sanction was. If the application of the rule was marginal, that suggestion might make some sense. But if the EFL’s advice from its lawyers was ‘we just don’t think Q’s proposal works’, then that’s the answer regardless of what the sanction was

We certainly know EFl was advised Q had got this wrong. Whether or not that advice was marginal, we’ll never know

You also state that EFl had the discretion to disapply the rule in our favour. I’ve not read the rules with that question in mind. Sure there are various discretions scattered throughout the rules but I’m not aware of one that applies here and I’ve not seen any other suggestion that one applies 

Your imply I am disloyal because I defend the EFl on this point. Well I’m not interested in the echo chamber I’m just saying what I think the evidence suggests 

Another flailing response full of vague nonspecifics, a lot of words to say nothing of any merit.

Or in your own words: More flim flam, blather .... and no substance. ?

You're continually telling us what this or that person will or should have said and done, all with an assumed authority to your tone that makes it sound like you were party to the discussions and are knowledgeable of the processes.

...but you've been proven to talk rubbish! When it's pointed out that you're wrong it's "oh I didn't know that, you must have a better memory than me" or similar so clearly you can acknowledge that you're wrong and perhaps shouldn't have said what you did without first having something solid to back it up. 

You'd think, then, that someone of your intelligence would take this on board and alter their approach, stick to what they do know and stop positing BS as matter of fact. It would save us all a heck of a lot of time. 

...but no! It's like there's a little reset button on the side of your head that you're programmed to hit daily. You come back and repeat the trick time and time again. 

There's nothing wrong with admitting you don't know something, but you've backed yourself into a corner by pretending you do and making arguments on the back of this pretense. 

Edited May 22, 2022 by Coconut's Beard

[kevinhectoring]

2 hours ago, jono said:

It is controlled by the rules and processes laid down by the EFL.

I dispute that it is adversarial. If it is, then it shouldn’t be. The EFL’s remit is investigate on behalf of other members and pass it to an independent panel for judgement.  As an equal representative of all the clubs it should not be adversarial (even though they made it so ) It should be an examination of an alleged breach with a verdict made and accepted respectfully by all parties 

The EFL made it adversarial when they had no place to do so, because they were overly influenced and pressured by other parties. They needed guilty verdicts because of that pressure, not because of the facts of the matter. They did not fairly represent all clubs because of that undue pressure. 

Have to agree there’s scope for conflict and improper influence. I’m not going to argue that the process is pure 

Cc @G STAR RAM

[I know nuffin]

2 hours ago, jono said:

It is controlled by the rules and processes laid down by the EFL.

I dispute that it is adversarial. If it is, then it shouldn’t be. The EFL’s remit is investigate on behalf of other members and pass it to an independent panel for judgement.  As an equal representative of all the clubs it should not be adversarial (even though they made it so ) It should be an examination of an alleged breach with a verdict made and accepted respectfully by all parties 

The EFL made it adversarial when they had no place to do so, because they were overly influenced and pressured by other parties. They needed guilty verdicts because of that pressure, not because of the facts of the matter. They did not fairly represent all clubs because of that undue pressure. 

They were influenced because they were frightened that Boro and Wycombe would sue them if derby were allowed off the hook

Edited May 22, 2022 by I know nuffin

[kevinhectoring]

2 minutes ago, Coconut's Beard said:

Another flailing response full of vague nonspecifics, a lot of words to say nothing of any merit.

Masterful comic irony    

I have been very specific. In return, just please be specific in telling me where you disagree, and I’ll respond without insult. And don’t just try to bully and insult me with offensive blather 

[May Contain Nuts]

31 minutes ago, kevinhectoring said:

Masterful comic irony    

I have been very specific. In return, just please be specific in telling me where you disagree, and I’ll respond without insult. And don’t just try to bully and insult me with offensive blather 

I couldn't see anything in your post to agree or disagree with. You don't actually seem to be making any kind of point with it. 

All I see is a whole load of conjecture mixed with your trademark theory posed as fact. 

I'm sorry that you feel bullied and insulted, I'm not trying to do either I just can't help but voice my exasperation at your posting style. 

For someone who likes to pick others to bits to find fault, to slag them off, question their competence - or in your words again, eviscerate them -  you don't seem to like it being done in return. 

Edited May 22, 2022 by Coconut's Beard

[Phuket Ram]

15 hours ago, PistoldPete said:

I don’t think so. He needs to sign a lease. And the terms to be agreed with the tenant will also be key to the purchase. The two are intrinsically linked. 

There’s already a signed and registered lease, nobody needs to sign another one unless they want to extend or replace it. The existing lease doesn’t just stop when the stadium is sold, the stadium is sold with the lease attached.. unless the parties to the lease agree on something different. 

[RadioactiveWaste]

13 minutes ago, Ramitupper said:

There’s already a signed and registered lease, nobody needs to sign another one unless they want to extend or replace it. The existing lease doesn’t just stop when the stadium is sold, the stadium is sold with the lease attached.. unless the parties to the lease agree on something different. 

It's always seemed the issue is far more the debt secured against the stadium than the stadium itself - that's why Mel wouldn't budge on his price, that's why CK was stalling on buying the club.

[Elwood P Dowd]

7 minutes ago, Ramitupper said:

There’s already a signed and registered lease, nobody needs to sign another one unless they want to extend or replace it. The existing lease doesn’t just stop when the stadium is sold, the stadium is sold with the lease attached.. unless the parties to the lease agree on something different. 

We don't know the outstanding term of the existing lease,  to satisfy the EFL the (CK) club my need to enter into a fresh 10 year + lease, I think a minimum of 10 years was specified by the EFL!

[PistoldPete]

Anyway… time to Clowes this deal.