Ramos Posted January 17, 2022 Share Posted January 17, 2022 Just now, Gee SCREAMER !! said: I believe he was removed by request of the board from anything to do with Derby. True but he was still on the board for a good while after our first charge. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevinhectoring Posted January 17, 2022 Share Posted January 17, 2022 43 minutes ago, LauraH said: 10pm statement, they're flapping. What the fans are doing is working. They're feeling the pressure. They are indeed flapping. There is only one point in this that is surprising: they have said that they are looking at the substance of the 2 claims and will try to help resolve them. I’ve not seen this before. It’s a sign that we are getting to them and that they will put more overt pressure on Gibson r_wilcockson, LauraH and Caerphilly Ram 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RoyMac5 Posted January 17, 2022 Share Posted January 17, 2022 13 minutes ago, Van der MoodHoover said: That was my implicit assumption. So one spurious claim can be disregarded or found invalid within the rules but the second cannot? I didn't use plural but will if you like. I think the claims were dealt with by the LAP and have been one or more, resurrected by Boro when we went into admin. This is of course why the EFL can say the have no exact knowledge of them. The claims were creditor claims (or whatever the terminology) made against the Club when it went into admin. Nothing to do with the EFL. In fact is there anything in their statement about either claim being viewed as 'football creditors'? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barney1991 Posted January 17, 2022 Share Posted January 17, 2022 6 minutes ago, The Baron said: The ITV interview went on for 15 minutes and they take a couple of ten second sound bites out of it. I did cover the claims from both those clubs but they weren’t broadcast presumably. As much as Rick Parry loathes me he’s not attempting to put Derby out of business, why would he do that, and also why would I want it either? Because Rick party answers to his master who is Steve Gibson. In fact I’ve just heard parry is running Gibson a bath as we speak The Baron 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zag zig Posted January 17, 2022 Share Posted January 17, 2022 1 minute ago, BondJovi said: Made this point earlier. We can have a huge part to play in who gets the play offs. Stoke would love 6 points... It could easily descend into a farce. Did the same, imagine though if we were to have all results forfeited, what would happen if Boro and Stoke were level on points, only for Stoke to go to the play offs on goal difference. That 1 point missing for Boro being draw away at Derby. The whole concept of not looking to resolve our situation could have so many repercussions. r_wilcockson 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevinhectoring Posted January 17, 2022 Share Posted January 17, 2022 25 minutes ago, chipperram said: In Para two it implies we have been given an extension to the end of season to provide a funding plan. If I have read that right You’ve not read it right but you can be excused for not following their garbled prose. What they are trying to say is that they gave the admins an extension when they were appointed; and that as things stand that extension runs out on 1/2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JPRamFan Posted January 17, 2022 Share Posted January 17, 2022 Vendetta - there are countless examples 1. Brought a case against the club for PP sale and amortisation policy after signing both off. Had incompetent experts witnesses. Were forced into doing this by the muppet Gibson. 2. LAP finds us gulity of over estimating player values without an accounting expert on the panel. 3. Having us over the barrel when we went into admin, and having to accept a 9 point deduction. Reading only got 6. 4. Transfer Embargo and not being able to play some academy players, when Reading can go out and get Drinkwater and Carroll. 5. Now this crap, having to sell players to survive until the end of the season, because of stupid claims. In conclusion a vendetta yes. Ramewe, Ramarena, IslandExile and 8 others 3 7 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StaffsRam Posted January 17, 2022 Share Posted January 17, 2022 1 minute ago, Zag zig said: Did the same, imagine though if we were to have all results forfeited, what would happen if Boro and Stoke were level on points, only for Stoke to go to the play offs on goal difference. That 1 point missing for Boro being draw away at Derby. The whole concept of not looking to resolve our situation could have so many repercussions. EFL boffins will currently be burning the midnight oil, going through the various permutations, to ensure that Boro are not disadvantaged in any way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlyBritishMidland Posted January 17, 2022 Share Posted January 17, 2022 34 minutes ago, StarterForTen said: Being pedantic, it actually says that Boro commenced claims (plural) 12 months ago, which of course covers their highly spurious one against the stadium sale, which was thrown out or withdrawn (can’t remember which) This claim followed was at the same time the EFL appealed the original decision around our accounting treatment of player amortisation. This claim was about the value of PP which they claimed was over-estimated by £40M and allowed us to stay in FFP limits and sign players. The LAP said that as this focused on the value of PP, which did not form part of the EFL’s appeal, they had no basis for the arbitration. It also states that the EFL appeal was around player amortisation and that Middlesbrough’s evidence said little about the player amortisation. To me, this is evidence that Middlesbrough are making it up as they go along. The original claim was for £40M and the latest one for £45M??!! Also, the EFL appeal judgement that showed our player amortisation policy was wrong was in May 2021, eight months ago. We submitted the accounts in August - I think it was extended to the end of August - which is five months ago. I fail to see how the Middlesbrough claim could have been submitted over 12 months ago as that has been dealt with. I wonder if it’s worth putting this in an email to Trevor Birch, as he’s posted the statement, and my MP who was at the meeting? Indy and Caerphilly Ram 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
uttoxram75 Posted January 17, 2022 Share Posted January 17, 2022 25 minutes ago, kevinhectoring said: How can EFl stop us from naming a preferred bidder ?!! Of course they can’t. And they didn’t. We’re in the position where the putative preferred bidder (Ashley) is refusing to step forward and meet the admins’ conditions until the 2 claims are sorted. Theres nothing in the EFL regulations that state the spurious claims need to be sorted. Its difficult to understand how you cannot see this. The EFL could allow the new owner to take control anytime it wanted to and let the claims from Boro and Wycombe then take their course with the new owners. It seems that the EFL are demanding that the new owners prove they have funds to pay a claim that has not officially been made yet, just threatened. The EFL are scared of claims from Boro but may well end up with claims from other clubs when we have to play severely weakened teams against them because of the weak, cowardly behaviour of the EFL. r_wilcockson and Inverurie Ram 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MaltRam Posted January 17, 2022 Share Posted January 17, 2022 2 minutes ago, FlyBritishMidland said: I wonder if it’s worth putting this in an email to Trevor Birch, as he’s posted the statement, and my MP who was at the meeting? Yes. Everything, all the time. All avenues. Indy 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramos Posted January 17, 2022 Share Posted January 17, 2022 Is it me or is Alan starting to sound more and more critical of the EFL? Inverurie Ram, Zag zig, Indy and 3 others 1 4 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Curtains Posted January 17, 2022 Share Posted January 17, 2022 28 minutes ago, chipperram said: In Para two it implies we have been given an extension to the end of season to provide a funding plan. If I have read that right we are not up the Swan you on Feb 1st. Hope I have read it right. Para 1 states Feb 1st which is specific. It is incredible that they have released this statement at 10 pm . Just proves they are not dealing very well with any of this . Their incompetence is the problem and has been all along but unfortunately it’s to our detriment. The EFL are useless and completely ungoverned and are answerable to no one other than themselves. I have always said this and I believe the chickens are coming home to roost . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StaffsRam Posted January 17, 2022 Share Posted January 17, 2022 1 minute ago, Ramos said: Is it me or is Alan starting to sound more and more critical of the EFL? Of course he is, because he can see which way wider public opinion is leaning, and it isn’t towards the charlatans in Preston. Caerphilly Ram, RadioactiveWaste, Inverurie Ram and 2 others 1 3 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chipperram Posted January 17, 2022 Share Posted January 17, 2022 2 minutes ago, Curtains said: Para 1 states Feb 1st which is specific. It is incredible that they have released this statement at 10 pm . Just proves they are not dealing very well with any of this . Their incompetence is the problem and has been all along but unfortunately it’s to our detriment. The EFL are useless and completely ungoverned and are answerable to no one other than themselves. I have always said this and I believe the chickens are coming home to roost . Para one does indeed state Feb 1st, however the actually call it a “further extension” when we originally had to the end of the season. Not sure hoe that is a further extension. Inverurie Ram and Curtains 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nottingram Posted January 17, 2022 Share Posted January 17, 2022 Quick check of league tables from 2013/14 through to last year (it only took ten minutes, I promise) don’t make for pretty reading for anyone other than lawyers I’m afraid. Middlesbrough do quite well out of it so if Gibbo plays his cards right he might be able to afford a few more Britt Assombalonga’s, or maybe a mirror he can look into to understand how he failed to get Boro promoted despite having parachute payments for 3 years. 2013/14: Derby, Wigan and Reading all have a case against QPR. 2014/15: Middlesbrough, Brentford, Wolves and Ipswich have a case against Bournemouth. 2015/16: Ipswich and Cardiff have a case against Derby and Sheffield Wednesday (maybe, depends when the breaches started but this was the season after THE big summer of spend for both us and Wednesday) 2016/17: Leeds have a case v Sheffield Wednesday 2017/18: Preston have a case v Derby 2018/19: Boro and Leeds have a case v Derby 2019/20: Charlton have a case v Sheffield Wednesday 2020/21: Wycombe have a case v Derby These are only based on league tables, not connotations of any individual results. I’m sad but not that sad. I hope the EFL understand the can of worms they may be allowing open here. They say they have no bearing on the result, seems a big risk they’re willing to take on by not nipping this in the bud. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RadioactiveWaste Posted January 17, 2022 Share Posted January 17, 2022 Just maybe, a little tiny bit, the wider world is starting to see that we're not perhaps entirly the baddies and thus deserving of everything we get, which is a pretty big shift considering the last two years DCFC being uniquely the worst most cheatingist awful club to have played the game, but now that it is shifting, it's putting some spotlight back onto how the EFL handed things (badly, even if you're of an entirly DCFC = bad standpoint, the EFL hadling it badly is a big part of this) and opinion shifting towards "Boro are entitled to claim, cheating Derby cost them a play off place" towards "why are you suing a club that's in administration, you won't get any money and are doing a bad thing stopping them surviving" - I don't think Gibson ever considered he might be in the wrong in his actions, i don't think thw wycombe bloke cares, he's just chancing it. Caerphilly Ram 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StaffsRam Posted January 17, 2022 Share Posted January 17, 2022 1 minute ago, chipperram said: Para one does indeed state Feb 1st, however the actually call it a “further extension” when we originally had to the end of the season. Not sure hoe that is a further extension. Time doesn’t work the same way at EFL HQ as it does for the rest of us. Much like integrity and common sense it seems… Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramos Posted January 17, 2022 Share Posted January 17, 2022 1 hour ago, Ramos said: Someone on Twitter stole my meme. I am going to put a Steve Gibson style claim in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sparkle Posted January 17, 2022 Share Posted January 17, 2022 1 hour ago, RoyMac5 said: Love this para from her statement: Which means the EFL will bully Derby into paying money to the parasite clubs before the EFL allows Derby a new owner S8TY 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now