The Administration Thread

[I know nuffin]

4 minutes ago, ram59 said:

Also likes cricket?

 

[B4ev6is]

I think kircher needs to do a update state of play over pp even if just to stay progress being made or to say when he thinks he will get done by.

[Boycie]

4 minutes ago, B4ev6is said:

I think kircher needs to do a update state of play over pp even if just to stay progress being made or to say when he thinks he will get done by.

The sale of the ground is out his hands, he’ll know as much as we do about that. (Well, officially)

[I know nuffin]

2 minutes ago, Boycie said:

The sale of the ground is out his hands, he’ll know as much as we do about that. (Well, officially)

Dont be want updates we want it done and dusted

[B4ev6is]

Surely gary cook who brought with him to help run daily stuff running derby county day to day stuff.

[nogbad van 50]

2 hours ago, Ramitupper said:

*misspelt (unless you’re American?) just sayin’ ?

Funny old world! I’d blame predictive text if it went to court!?
 

https://www.grammar-monster.com/easily_confused/misspelled_misspelt.htm

[Gone]

2 hours ago, Ramitupper said:

*misspelt (unless you’re American?) just sayin’ ?

 

[hintonsboots]

[PistoldPete]

1 hour ago, Boycie said:

The sale of the ground is out his hands, he’ll know as much as we do about that. (Well, officially)

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. 

[Oldben]

https://www.derbytelegraph.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/derby-county-wycombe-compensation-claim-7112104

Now at last with ck as the new owner, perhaps we can take legal action against Wycombe for pursuing dcfc with a baseless claim.

 

 

[Jimbo Ram]

2 hours ago, kevinhectoring said:

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. 

???

[jono]

10 hours ago, kevinhectoring said:

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 

I notice you failed to respond to my response. Was it too difficult ? Does the truth rather than spin or angles cause you problems ? .. no it doesn’t, you just shift a few degrees and answer the question you wanted to be asked. You really have little concept of logical progression in an argument, or indeed truth and common sense. DCFC under Morris we’re not saints but your defence of the EFL’s abject ethical and procedural failings is limp, wrong and devoid of any honesty and integrity. 
 

I do wonder what your angle is . No one denies our failings or that we were probably due some sanction ( and so are others who have managed so far to avoid the inquisition ) but your continued staunch defence of the EFL is perverse 

[Jimbo Ram]

16 minutes ago, jono said:

I notice you failed to respond to my response. Was it too difficult ? Does the truth rather than spin or angles cause you problems ? .. no it doesn’t, you just shift a few degrees and answer the question you wanted to be asked. You really have little concept of logical progression in an argument, or indeed truth and common sense. DCFC under Morris we’re not saints but your defence of the EFL’s abject ethical and procedural failings is limp, wrong and devoid of any honesty and integrity. 
 

I do wonder what your angle is . No one denies our failings or that we were probably due some sanction ( and so are others who have managed so far to avoid the inquisition ) but your continued staunch defence of the EFL is perverse 

Is this the right forum for an argument ?

[Anag Ram]

Just now, Jimbo Ram said:

Is this the right forum for an argument ?

Have you paid for the full half hour ?

[Jimbo Ram]

3 minutes ago, Anag Ram said:

Have you paid for the full half hour ?

No just the 5 minutes ?

[G STAR RAM]

3 hours ago, kevinhectoring said:

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. 

To be fair that did not need to be used as our defence, we had an Independent valuation for a transaction that was fully within the rules, not sure what defence you think was required.

Also, if you can't clear a transaction with the regulator prior to carrying out I'm really not sure who you should clear it with?

Maybe we could have taken ourselves to arbitration? ?

[Ram-Alf]

EFLs misgivings.

1. Capitulated when Anderson wanted his money or Bolton would be no more

2. Let Macclesfield's owner kill off the club

3. Didn't investigate when Bury were sold for £1 then threw them out of the league

4. Bring in a disqualified person into the EFL when he diverted £350k into his own bank account 

5. Accepted DCFCs accounts, Then had a change of heart.

6. Wouldn't let DCFC take out a Covid 19 loan

7. Sided 100% with Gibson

8. Changed the Profitability and Sustainability Rules once we'd been ducked over

9. Refused to let us extend Jagielka's contract

10. The head of the EFL must have a shyte perm for a hair do

As Jimmy Cricket would say...."come here there's more" 

 

[jono]

26 minutes ago, Unlucky Alf said:

EFLs misgivings.

1. Capitulated when Anderson wanted his money or Bolton would be no more

2. Let Macclesfield's owner kill off the club

3. Didn't investigate when Bury were sold for £1 then threw them out of the league

4. Bring in a disqualified person into the EFL when he diverted £350k into his own bank account 

5. Accepted DCFCs accounts, Then had a change of heart.

6. Wouldn't let DCFC take out a Covid 19 loan

7. Sided 100% with Gibson

8. Changed the Profitability and Sustainability Rules once we'd been ducked over

9. Refused to let us extend Jagielka's contract

10. The head of the EFL must have a shyte perm for a hair do

As Jimmy Cricket would say...."come here there's more" 

 

And then you have the … you must complete this fixture even if it means you play your under 16’s

The one that really gets me is your No 4 .. I mean hang on .. we all make mistakes, do things that we shouldn’t have done. Forgiveness is one thing but elevating someone of that ilk to a position on a panel of of law givers when they are demonstrably NOT of the right stuff is sickening. How did he get on the list ? Never mind how he got voted in ? I mean who did that ? Who thought “that’s ok, let’s have old Pete .. he’s sound ? 
The purse lipped moralising for the EFL is vomit inducing. They deserve every brick bat thrown at them. It doesn’t matter how misguided some of them are. How can you respect, honour or accept judgment from a group that is so evidently bereft of decency ? It isn’t about Derby County. We did what we did and take the consequences  ….. It’s about what should be a more straight sided none commercial sporting entity, something to revere and respect even when something goes against you. EFL ? No thanks. Putrid, rotten filthy !
 I wouldn’t trust them to sit the right way round on a lavatory ( copyright to Rowan Atkinson ) 

PS .. you can tell from the above that I don’t like them very much ! 

[kevinhectoring]

14 hours ago, Coconut's Beard said:

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. 

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 

[Ghost of Clough]

26 minutes ago, kevinhectoring said:

The question the EFL had to consider when faced with Q’s cram down proposal was: does this contravene the FC rule

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.