The Administration Thread

[kevinhectoring]

1 hour ago, Brailsford Ram said:

But you would be incapable of understanding it. There you are....your 20 seconds is up ??

More flim flam, blather  .... and no substance

what’s the case against the EFL that you have been waxing so lyrical about ? 

[kevinhectoring]

1 hour ago, uttoxram75 said:

When they said in an official statement they were "disappointed" a ruling on one aspect went in our favour, then they showed a bias against us. A professional body should not, publicly at least, be "disappointed" that a member of that professional body had been found not to have broken a rule.

It was an adversarial proceeding between them and us. They are commenting not in their capacity as regulator, but as counterparty. Of course they can say they are disappointed. 
And in the real world, they have to, because they are (in part) speaking to all the other clubs who were funding the proceedings 

[jono]

5 hours ago, kevinhectoring said:

It was an adversarial proceeding between them and us. They are commenting not in their capacity as regulator, but as counterparty. Of course they can say they are disappointed. 
And in the real world, they have to, because they are (in part) speaking to all the other clubs who were funding the proceedings 

But they are a governing body with an independent panel .. appointed by them, precisely to remove that adversarial issue, yet they still chose to comment publicly .. twice .. first the “disappointment” and later the “with regret” 

In essence they appointed a referee, in accordance with rules agreed by all the other clubs, the they told everyone that the refs word is final …. And then still had a last word. So offside it beggars belief 

[Oldben]

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/mps-call-efl-apologise-bury-17202257.amp

Committee of mps found "despite being warned about the club's finances and ownership, and having multiple opportunities to intervene, the EFL failed to do so in 'an effectively or timely enough way' to prevent the problems escalating."

MPs demanded that the efl take urgent action be taken to prevent other clubs befalling the same fate.

Among the recommendations made are that the FA, EFL and Premier League establish a supporters’ ombudsman to hear concerns about how clubs are run, and r eform the Owners’ and Directors’ Test to disqualify buyers with a record of corporate insolvency.

They also want clubs to be banned from borrowing against fixed assets such as stadiums.

The committee's chair, Damian Collins, said: “Systematic and structural problems are responsible for the tragic expulsion of Bury FC from the League this year.

"These failures were avoidable, and it is essential that the authorities urgently overhaul their framework if they wish to avoid the same fate befalling other clubs.

Exactly the same is true of the efl with derby.

There had also been calls for an independent football regulator because of a lack of trust in the efl to resolve issues, the independent regulator might happen  now?

I could now discuss the efls failure to defend derby and put an end to wycombe and Boros claims which almost ended derby.

By the efls failure to defend derby, they have opened the possibility of disputes happening against other clubs and in my opinion it shows the powerless nature of the efl.

 

 

[kevinhectoring]

38 minutes ago, jono said:

But they are a governing body with an independent panel .. appointed by them, precisely to remove that adversarial issue, yet they still chose to comment publicly .. twice .. first the “disappointment” and later the “with regret” 

In essence they appointed a referee, in accordance with rules agreed by all the other clubs, the they told everyone that the refs word is final …. And then still had a last word. So offside it beggars belief 

I think the better analogy is that - in proceedings - the independent panel is the ref, DCFC is Frannie Lee and the EFl is Norman Hunter 

[PistoldPete]

26 minutes ago, Oldben said:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/mps-call-efl-apologise-bury-17202257.amp

Committee of mps found "despite being warned about the club's finances and ownership, and having multiple opportunities to intervene, the EFL failed to do so in 'an effectively or timely enough way' to prevent the problems escalating."

MPs demanded that the efl take urgent action be taken to prevent other clubs befalling the same fate.

Among the recommendations made are that the FA, EFL and Premier League establish a supporters’ ombudsman to hear concerns about how clubs are run, and r eform the Owners’ and Directors’ Test to disqualify buyers with a record of corporate insolvency.

They also want clubs to be banned from borrowing against fixed assets such as stadiums.

The committee's chair, Damian Collins, said: “Systematic and structural problems are responsible for the tragic expulsion of Bury FC from the League this year.

"These failures were avoidable, and it is essential that the authorities urgently overhaul their framework if they wish to avoid the same fate befalling other clubs.

Exactly the same is true of the efl with derby.

There had also been calls for an independent football regulator because of a lack of trust in the efl to resolve issues, the independent regulator might happen  now?

I could now discuss the efls failure to defend derby and put an end to wycombe and Boros claims which almost ended derby.

By the efls failure to defend derby, they have opened the possibility of disputes happening against other clubs and in my opinion it shows the powerless nature of the efl.

 

 

Despite the savaging by Parliament over Bury, EFL contrived to make an even bigger mess up over Derby. Thankfully that looks like it will not end for us as badly as it did for Bury but that wil be no thanks to EFL.

Perversely I think the Bury situation was a prompt for EFL to "do something" over Derby. But what EFL actually succeeded in doing was making things ten times worse. If they were going to take action they should have done it at the time , not retrospectively, and not drag things out for two and half years. 

 

 

[Alan Ramage 4 EVA]

9 minutes ago, kevinhectoring said:

I think the better analogy is that - in proceedings - the independent panel is the ref, DCFC is Frannie Lee and the EFl is Norman Hunter 

Didn`t know the EFL had died ?

GOOD

Edited May 21, 2022 by Alan Ramage 4 EVA

[G STAR RAM]

6 hours ago, kevinhectoring said:

More flim flam, blather  .... and no substance

what’s the case against the EFL that you have been waxing so lyrical about ? 

If you cant see any problem at all with what the EFL did over the ground sale then I think anyone will be forever wasting their time trying to convince you that there are any faults with the EFL.

Just to remind you, 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. 

[PistoldPete]

11 hours ago, kevinhectoring said:

EFL’s latest proposal doesn’t give us much of a clue because we don’t know what’s motivating it 

Q are of course free to resolve our administration in accordance with insolvency law. In fact they are obliged to and there’s nothing EFL can to about it. What the EFL told them that fateful Thursday was that Q’s exit plan would lead at the least to a points deduction. That’s nothing to do with insolvency law it’s to do with the EfL rules. 

Wrong again, Kevin. Q wanted to  rely on insolvency protection so they didnt have to deal with Boro's claim, except to squash the claim as part of the insolvency process. EFL said Q couldnt "ignore" the EFL rule that they had to go to arbitration to deal with Boro claim. Of course Q were not "ignoring" the Boro claim they were dealing with it in accordance with the law. Insolvency law conflicted with EFL rule. Q believe insolvency law takes precedence. If it had gone to Court I think Q would have won...  they were protected . But there wasn't time and it would have been too messy. EFL's intransigence and delay had already cost us.     

[jono]

33 minutes ago, kevinhectoring said:

I think the better analogy is that - in proceedings - the independent panel is the ref, DCFC is Frannie Lee and the EFl is Norman Hunter 

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 

[Oldben]

50 minutes ago, PistoldPete said:

Despite the savaging by Parliament over Bury, EFL contrived to make an even bigger mess up over Derby. Thankfully that looks like it will not end for us as badly as it did for Bury but that wil be no thanks to EFL.

Perversely I think the Bury situation was a prompt for EFL to "do something" over Derby. But what EFL actually succeeded in doing was making things ten times worse. If they were going to take action they should have done it at the time , not retrospectively, and not drag things out for two and half years. 

 

 

I'm concerned that nothing comes from this, that the efl doesn't change and that no independent regulator is established.

What worried me most about boro and Wycombe is that they took advantage of dcfc because there was no money to defend dcfc and the efl sat back and did nothing.

 

[The Scarlet Pimpernel]

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. 

[May Contain Nuts]

1 hour ago, PistoldPete said:

Wrong again, Kevin. Q wanted to  rely on insolvency protection so they didnt have to deal with Boro's claim, except to squash the claim as part of the insolvency process. EFL said Q couldnt "ignore" the EFL rule that they had to go to arbitration to deal with Boro claim. Of course Q were not "ignoring" the Boro claim they were dealing with it in accordance with the law. Insolvency law conflicted with EFL rule. Q believe insolvency law takes precedence. If it had gone to Court I think Q would have won...  they were protected . But there wasn't time and it would have been too messy. EFL's intransigence and delay had already cost us.     

Did you notice the deliberately downplayed "at the least to a points deduction" too? ?

...and at the most? Withhold our golden share, refuse to let us play in the league. Let's just gloss over the real threat though and word it so that people will think we didn't go through with it for fear of the lesser possible consequences. 

Its almost textbook EFL tactics. Like when they said that Derby didn't even apply for the covid loan, putting the onus on us even though they'd specifically put rules in place that meant we wouldn't have been eligible. 

If you accuse this bloke of being an EFL stooge (not saying he really is, but sometimes you have to wonder) or constantly defending them, he'll happily tell you "Oh no no no, if you look back you'll see I was critical of the way they did this and that" and yet somehow every single time it comes down to an argument on the EFL's stance vs anyone else's stance (be it Morris, Q, or even their own disciplinary panel) he'll always find some way to make out that the EFL were the ones in the right, entirely justified, just doing what they have to do within their rules. 

Says all this and all that to make himself sound reasonable, fair and unbiased but as they say, the proof of the pudding is in the eating - again reminiscent of a certain governing body. 

It's as watertight as Rebekah Vardy's evidence that she wasn't leaking info to the press! 

In any case the EFL rules are mainly guidelines in reality, they give themselves all sorts of scope to act at their discretion, it's baked in that they can interpret some of them however they see fit and revisit any decision at any time for any reason.

If they'd wanted to (or had the guts to) they could probably quite easily found a way to have 'followed their rules' and threatened to remove Boro's golden share for taking action against us. Stopped them dead in their tracks. 

Instead of course we all know what happened.

Edited May 21, 2022 by Coconut's Beard

[SirBrian]

2 hours ago, jono said:

But they are a governing body with an independent panel .. appointed by them, precisely to remove that adversarial issue, yet they still chose to comment publicly .. twice .. first the “disappointment” and later the “with regret” 

In essence they appointed a referee, in accordance with rules agreed by all the other clubs, the they told everyone that the refs word is final …. And then still had a last word. So offside it beggars belief 

There as to be an enquiry how they handled this fiasco, and if there is any corruption proven then there should be criminal charges taken against the EFL, no one expected Fifa, Uefa, Juventus and Sepp Blatter and many more in football to be corrupt.

Sure the MPs will not let this drop, and you in Derbyshire must push your MPs to push for an enquiry, for us fans certainly need answers.

[Oldben]

An opportunity to cheer on Sunderland fc today as they go to Wembley against Wycombe fc in the play off final.

After what wycombe fc put us through this year, I definitely want to see wycombe battered.

Wycombe fc have been adamant we should have been relegated rather than them, they didn't want to recognise that we weren't relegated last season due to efl rules.

Wycombe fc have mouthed off against to often.

come on sunderland.

Good game to watch.

 

Edited May 21, 2022 by Oldben
Added content

[kevinhectoring]

1 hour ago, PistoldPete said:

Wrong again, Kevin. Q wanted to  rely on insolvency protection so they didnt have to deal with Boro's claim, except to squash the claim as part of the insolvency process. EFL said Q couldnt "ignore" the EFL rule that they had to go to arbitration to deal with Boro claim. Of course Q were not "ignoring" the Boro claim they were dealing with it in accordance with the law. Insolvency law conflicted with EFL rule. Q believe insolvency law takes precedence. If it had gone to Court I think Q would have won...  they were protected . But there wasn't time and it would have been too messy. EFL's intransigence and delay had already cost us.     

There is no ‘conflict’. EFL had no problem with us cramming down Gibbo’s claim. And following the cram down, the claim would have ceased to exist. It’s just we would have had (more) points deducted as a result

You might just as well say: “filing for administration was perfectly in accordance with insolvency law, so it’s contrary to insolvency law for the EFL to apply a points deduction 

[strawhillram]

8 minutes ago, Oldben said:

An opportunity to cheer on Sunderland fc today as they go to Wembley against Wycombe fc in the play off final.

After what wycombe fc put us through this year, I definitely want to see wycombe battered.

Wycombe fc have been adamant we should have been relegated rather than them, they didn't want to recognise that we weren't relegated last season due to efl rules.

Wycombe fc have mouthed off against to often.

come on sunderland.

Good game to watch.

 

I have nothing against Wycombe but want to see them got totally hammered today.

 tin pot club with a scavenger stoolman 

never forget or forgive

[Elwood P Dowd]

2 hours ago, jono said:

But they are a governing body with an independent panel .. appointed by them, precisely to remove that adversarial issue, yet they still chose to comment publicly .. twice .. first the “disappointment” and later the “with regret” 

In essence they appointed a referee, in accordance with rules agreed by all the other clubs, the they told everyone that the refs word is final …. And then still had a last word. So offside it beggars belief 

It was at that point where the EFL revealed their true feelings towards Derby, I was always willing to accept the EFL were simply incompetent but the  “disappointment” and later the “with regret” remarks proved that they were both vindictive and incompetent. 

[Oldben]

5 minutes ago, StrawHillRam said:

I have nothing against Wycombe but want to see them got totally hammered today.

 tin pot club with a scavenger stoolman 

never forget or forgive

Everything I've read about the wycombe vs dcfc said that wycombe fc had zero case to answer, but that wycombe fc were chancers.

Wycombe fc will be laughing at us, if they get promoted. A relegated season, and straight back to the Championship.

I definitely want to face wycombe fc and beat them next season, but we can't do that if they are promoted.

[kevinhectoring]

1 hour ago, G STAR RAM said:

Just to remind you, 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. 

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’

Brailsford Ram - despite being very busy with his wife - has been chasing me all around the forum, flying from thread to thread like one of those tiny monkeys with long arms - to tell me in a completely non specific and flabby way that I incessantly post rubbish. He then posts that we have an excellent case against the EFL - I ask him what it is (because tbh I don’t think he’s right). OK, his personal abuse is like being savaged by a bowl of cold unsalted porridge but in the circumstances it seems fair to ask him to explain his thinking. Which he won’t ...

(If your point is we can sue EfL for challenging the stadium deal, that seems a stretch because we won that part of the case hands down )