MaltRam Posted February 2, 2022 Share Posted February 2, 2022 20 minutes ago, StrawHillRam said: I believe the efl pick the 3rd one If that's true, we're doomed. No ifs, no buts. Surely this has to be independent? Majority vote between our guy and two guys who's sole purpose and intent is to see us ducked? I've never been so scared for our future as I am this morning. Elwood P Dowd and jimtastic56 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramos Posted February 2, 2022 Share Posted February 2, 2022 5 minutes ago, Rich84 said: Agreef, I've mentioned this before, that is tangible and tbf to Boro I think it's right that they should have got the higher transfer that other clubs had actually bid, not the value of the 'secret' clause in his contract. The worry is if they use the Tevez example from WHU and Sheff Utd as that is compensation resulting from a 'what might have happened' scenario But wasn’t that case a lot more black and white than this? Tevez scored West Ham’s goal on the final day of the season to keep them up and send Sheffield United down. A player they specifically illegally signed. So Sheffield United could literally pinpoint a specific moment that cost them their prem status. In this instance, how does boro prove which of our players we overstretched to get? If they can’t how can the prove the true impact of said players on our so called sporting advantage? Bearing in mind their spend and wage bills were much higher than ours. RadioactiveWaste, CBRammette, r_wilcockson and 1 other 2 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tamworthram Posted February 2, 2022 Share Posted February 2, 2022 10 hours ago, Elwood P Dowd said: Yep But it doesn’t matter as we have no money to pay them. we need to focus on the fairness of the Arbitration, if we owe Boro And WW money at the end of it, it will probably the end of us ?? I still think that IF Boro and/or Wycombe win and IF they are deemed to be football creditors, they will wish to portray themselves as the good guys and knights in shining armour and say something like “We still think you owe us £xx million but, because we are really nice people and don’t want to see a fellow club fold, we’ll accept £x”. jimtastic56, RoyMac5, RadioactiveWaste and 1 other 1 1 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramos Posted February 2, 2022 Share Posted February 2, 2022 (edited) 10 hours ago, Elwood P Dowd said: Yep But it doesn’t matter as we have no money to pay them. we need to focus on the fairness of the Arbitration, if we owe Boro And WW money at the end of it, it will probably the end of us ?? Isn’t the whole point of this so the bidders can understand whether they need to face the claims or not? Rather than them being like o we wont take on the club at all if claims are there. I think whether they are dismissed or ratified, an exit from admin is still likely. It just means bidders will tweak their offers if they know they may have to set aside funds to pay wycombe and boro. Edited February 2, 2022 by Ramos jimtastic56, RadioactiveWaste and r_wilcockson 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PistoldPete Posted February 2, 2022 Share Posted February 2, 2022 17 minutes ago, Crewton said: The Tevez case was an out of court settlement and so should be irrelevant to our case. It wouldn't have been a precedent anyway even if there had been a court settlement. West Ham were in the Premier League. These are disputes between teams all of whom are in the EFL. So disputes are subject to EFL rules and processes. jono and Indy 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gritstone Ram Posted February 2, 2022 Share Posted February 2, 2022 12 minutes ago, Ramos said: But wasn’t that case a lot more black and white than this? Tevez scored West Ham’s goal on the final day of the season to keep them up and send Sheffield United down. A player they specifically illegally signed. So Sheffield United could literally pinpoint a specific moment that cost them their prem status. In this instance, how does boro prove which of our players we overstretched to get? If they can’t how can the prove the true impact of said players on our so called sporting advantage? Bearing in mind their spend and wage bills were much higher than ours. I think the other point is that West Ham gained a financial benefit from their actions. The other question would be how much money did each club spend that season to prove Derby spent more to gain an advantage. It has been posted earlier that Middle Borough spent more than us that season so who had an advantage? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CBRammette Posted February 2, 2022 Share Posted February 2, 2022 37 minutes ago, StrawHillRam said: I believe the efl pick the 3rd one If they want the process to be seen to be fair and draw a line, the third has to appointed by someone with no vested interest such as the Sports Minister or similar Tamworthram and jimtastic56 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NottsRammy Posted February 2, 2022 Share Posted February 2, 2022 Does anyone know when the meeting is actually taking place .What shocks me is surely as fans we ought to have had some info ( sometime this week ) seems a little unfair to me . Cant we know a time and what day please . Again unless its been published and ive missed it a shocking lack of info towards the fans seeing as what we did this weekend . Derby4Me 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CBRammette Posted February 2, 2022 Share Posted February 2, 2022 I cant imagine that any decision will be made public ahead of 12 Feb even with the urgency. That fixture must already be high risk to descend into carnage without this decision to really rile up one side or another. jimtastic56 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Indy Posted February 2, 2022 Share Posted February 2, 2022 45 minutes ago, Crewton said: The Tevez case was an out of court settlement and so should be irrelevant to our case. As was the Christian Ziege/Liverpool case wasn’t it? Neither set legal precedent as they weren’t fully tested in a court. RadioactiveWaste 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MackworthRamIsGod Posted February 2, 2022 Share Posted February 2, 2022 Surely the EFL won't appoint the 3rd person? It can't be the case. I know I'm stating the obvious here, but Boro has someone on the EFL board. The EFL want us punished the point of oblivion. So, if Boro/Wycombe choose 1 person, EFL choose 1 and we choose 1, how the hell can that be independent? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crewton Posted February 2, 2022 Share Posted February 2, 2022 10 minutes ago, Indy said: As was the Christian Ziege/Liverpool case wasn’t it? Neither set legal precedent as they weren’t fully tested in a court. Just checked - yes, it was, but Boro first won an appeal to the High Court which established their legal right to claim against Liverpool, so there was a degree of "precedent" there. It did demonstrate though that Gibson is willing to go all out to get what he thinks he's due. The big difference in our case though is there isn't going to be anyone to pay him even if he wins. r_wilcockson 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elwood P Dowd Posted February 2, 2022 Share Posted February 2, 2022 (edited) 1 hour ago, Ramos said: Isn’t the whole point of this so the bidders can understand whether they need to face the claims or not? Rather than them being like o we wont take on the club at all if claims are there. I think whether they are dismissed or ratified, an exit from admin is still likely. It just means bidders will tweak their offers if they know they may have to set aside funds to pay wycombe and boro. The whole point is to find out if Boro and WW claims are valid and if so how much compensation we would need to pay, but what happens if the Arbitration panel find for Boro and WW and we do owe them a substantial amout of money. If the amount of money we owe is large then some, or all, of the biders may walk away. The club has very few tangable assets, having to pay money to Boro and WW may tip the balance in making their bids unviable. Edited February 2, 2022 by Elwood P Dowd Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eddie Posted February 2, 2022 Share Posted February 2, 2022 59 minutes ago, PistoldPete said: It wouldn't have been a precedent anyway even if there had been a court settlement. West Ham were in the Premier League. These are disputes between teams all of whom are in the EFL. So disputes are subject to EFL rules and processes. I could sort-of understand Middlescum's argument if, for example, they had missed out on automatic promotion owing so some tangible deviousness, but finishing 3rd to 6th just allows you the privilege of buying a ticket for the four-team lottery. Crewton 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RadioactiveWaste Posted February 2, 2022 Share Posted February 2, 2022 37 minutes ago, Indy said: As was the Christian Ziege/Liverpool case wasn’t it? Neither set legal precedent as they weren’t fully tested in a court. I think after several appeals Boro eventually got a judge to agree the case could be brought to a court, so there was that precedent, but it was settled the case itself wasn't heard. Indy 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leeds Ram Posted February 2, 2022 Share Posted February 2, 2022 11 hours ago, uttoxram75 said: Why? Theres no precedent for it. A football creditor would normally be down to being owed money through ordinary football matters, transfer fees etc. Without the claim being judged on its merits as a viable claim and compensation awarded accordingly, I really cant see how it can even be considered as to whether it then becomes a football creditor situation. A precedent unfortunately has to happen for a first time to become a precedent. Although, I may be misunderstanding your point as I'm running low on both sleep and caffeine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gritstone Tup Posted February 2, 2022 Share Posted February 2, 2022 15 minutes ago, Elwood P Dowd said: The whole point is to find out if Boro and WW claims are valid and if so how much compensation we would need to pay, but what happens if the Arbitration panel find for Boro and WW and we do owe them a substantial amout of money. If the amount of money we owe is large then some, or all, of the biders may walk away. The club has very few tangable assets, having to pay money to Boro and WW may tip the balance in making their bids unviable. That’s exactly why we shouldn’t have got to this point. We can end up liquidated, stupidity by Pauline Latham and other MPs pushing for this! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tamworthram Posted February 2, 2022 Share Posted February 2, 2022 1 hour ago, CBRammette said: If they want the process to be seen to be fair and draw a line, the third has to appointed by someone with no vested interest such as the Sports Minister or similar I agree but the EFL rules state that they appoint the third arbitrator Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elwood P Dowd Posted February 2, 2022 Share Posted February 2, 2022 1 hour ago, Needlesh said: If that's true, we're doomed. No ifs, no buts. Surely this has to be independent? Majority vote between our guy and two guys who's sole purpose and intent is to see us ducked? I've never been so scared for our future as I am this morning. I share your concerns which is why we need somone like Margaret Becket or another MP to ensure the Arbitration process is fair. We do not want to put our trust in the EFL to ensure the process is fair, neither can we put our faith in Gibson's good nature if the ruling goes against us. Indy and Betty Swollocks 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RoyMac5 Posted February 2, 2022 Share Posted February 2, 2022 1 minute ago, Gritstone Tup said: That’s exactly why we shouldn’t have got to this point. We can end up liquidated, stupidity by Pauline Latham and other MPs pushing for this! Surely even if the AP found that Boro/WW would be 'football creditors', they then have to prove they are owed anything? 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