Leeds Ram Posted February 2, 2022 Share Posted February 2, 2022 1 hour 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 don't know about the EFL rulebook but couldn't they use a similar framework in an attempt to build a case? I believe that whilst it was settled out of court, Sheffield united did get a judgement in their favour that has never really been used because of the implications. My concern with this is if Middlesbrough and Wycombe's claims had as little chance of succeeding as we all think they do they'd be unlikely to have taken it this far. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RoyMac5 Posted February 2, 2022 Share Posted February 2, 2022 Just now, Leeds Ram said: I don't know about the EFL rulebook but couldn't they use a similar framework in an attempt to build a case? I believe that whilst it was settled out of court, Sheffield united did get a judgement in their favour that has never really been used because of the implications. My concern with this is if Middlesbrough and Wycombe's claims had as little chance of succeeding as we all think they do they'd be unlikely to have taken it this far. Why, what has it cost them so far? Remember Gibson, the man who threatened the Church team because of a badge! Elwood P Dowd, Indyram, r_wilcockson and 1 other 3 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
duncanjwitham Posted February 2, 2022 Share Posted February 2, 2022 14 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. It's still not really clear what the arbitration hearing that's supposed to be happening this week is actually about. The suggestion seems to be that it's purely a question about football creditors - i.e. are 'Boro/Wycombe football creditors even if their claims haven't been heard yet, or can they be compressed to nothing, or treated as unsecured creditors or whatever. So in theory that could resolve everything if they rule that we can compress those claims to zero and move on, although it doesn't necessarily prevent 'Boro and Wycombe filing future claims, or other clubs filing claims against us. What it wouldn't do is resolve the case if they find in 'Boro/Wycombe's favour (on the football creditor issue) - their cases would need to be heard to see if they actually have valid claims, and how much those claims are. The other possibility is they are actually hearing the full cases this week, but I'm not sure anybody is suggesting that - in fact Nixon (I think?) was saying Wycombe haven't even filed a formal case yet, just a notice of intent. That would certainly resolve those 2 cases one way or the other though. And I think any kind of substantial award to those 2 clubs would result in us being effectively liquidated on the spot. Elwood P Dowd and Indy 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leeds Ram Posted February 2, 2022 Share Posted February 2, 2022 Just now, RoyMac5 said: Why, what has it cost them so far? Remember Gibson, the man who threatened the Church team because of a badge! The legal fees of this venture must eventually pile up (apparently our early offer to settle them has been turned down) and if those claims have 0 chance of succeeding then why generate a lot of bad feeling and ill will? I have heard about the badge incident which again highlights what a pretty terrible human being the bloke is but that's a little besides the point. I believe it was radio Derby who said they'd tried to contact sports lawyers to discuss it and said they'd need a lot more detail to make a determination. I think I've made this point before that none of us are sports lawyers as far as I'm aware so our ability to assess the validity of these claims is somewhat limited but it does make me a little nervous that neither of them are backing down. Maharan 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
i-Ram Posted February 2, 2022 Share Posted February 2, 2022 21 minutes 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! I am intrigued to know how you would have resolved the problem young Gritstone. Elwood P Dowd and Crewton 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tamworthram Posted February 2, 2022 Share Posted February 2, 2022 59 minutes ago, MackworthRamIsGod said: 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? The counter argument is that maybe the EFL don’t want Wycombe and Boro to win because of the can of worms that may open. Whilst they may have done their best in the past, I don’t think the EFL actually want us to go into liquidation especially given the added attention our case has gained. Let’s hope that is the case the Boro representative has to declare a conflict of interest and can’t be (formally) involved in the selection of the third arbitrator. RadioactiveWaste and r_wilcockson 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ian Buxton's Bat Posted February 2, 2022 Share Posted February 2, 2022 They've not slithered away after the transfer window 'slammed shut' so now the parasites' motives are becoming clearer - money or liquidation. Or the real threat of liquidation to get SOME money......where they take their knees off our neck at the 11th hour. I'm actually heartened by the radio silence from the MP's. They pushed to bring this to a head and almost certainly pushed for the arbitration / civil case - and I would hope that they would have got satisfactory assurances from the EFL that the process that was about to happen would be fair and proper. As fans, what we could do with is at least some sort of trusted overseer - such as one of the MP's - to have access to a timetable, structure and process so they could at least reassure us that things are progressing and being done fairly even if they can't share details. I'm thinking along the lines of the American chap that oversaw the IRA destroying their arms so they could do it in private but without suspicion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PistoldPete Posted February 2, 2022 Share Posted February 2, 2022 1 hour ago, Gritstone Ram said: 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? West Ham gained an obvious advantage by signing Tevez and the other guy. did we gain an advantage in signing butterfield , anya , Blackman and co? Plus west ham got to stay in the premier league. We didn’t get there , and neither would Boro so the whole thing is just one big Shizzle from Gibson. r_wilcockson 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RadioactiveWaste Posted February 2, 2022 Share Posted February 2, 2022 2 minutes ago, Tamworthram said: The counter argument is that maybe the EFL don’t want Wycombe and Boro to win because of the can of worms that may open. Whilst they may have done their best in the past, I don’t think the EFL actually want us to go into liquidation especially given the added attention our case has gained. Let’s hope that is the case the Boro representative has to declare a conflict of interest and can’t be (formally) involved in the selection of the third arbitrator. Clearly the Boro board member can't be involved in nominating the EFL's representative. I think the EFL's first and only goal is to not be sued at the end of all this. Their secondary goal is "not be replaced by Tracy crouch" Dordogne-Ram and CornwallRam 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PistoldPete Posted February 2, 2022 Share Posted February 2, 2022 4 minutes ago, RadioactiveWaste said: Clearly the Boro board member can't be involved in nominating the EFL's representative. I think the EFL's first and only goal is to not be sued at the end of all this. Their secondary goal is "not be replaced by Tracy crouch" That second goal has already failed The EFL is toast as a regulator it will be replaced. and if EFL do any further harm to dcfc I think they will also fail in that first goal. Indy and RadioactiveWaste 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tamworthram Posted February 2, 2022 Share Posted February 2, 2022 8 minutes ago, RadioactiveWaste said: Clearly the Boro board member can't be involved in nominating the EFL's representative. I think the EFL's first and only goal is to not be sued at the end of all this. Their secondary goal is "not be replaced by Tracy crouch" I’m hoping they have third goal and fourth goals: 3) not for another club, especially of the size of Derby, to go into liquidation during their watch especially given the high profile criticism that has been aimed at them recently. 4) not to open the floodgates for other clubs to start bringing similar cases against each other RadioactiveWaste 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arsene Titman Posted February 2, 2022 Share Posted February 2, 2022 (edited) 21 hours ago, Curtains said: These are the EFL's arbitration regulations: https://efl.com/-more/governance/efl-rules--regulations/efl-regulations/section-9--arbitration/ Unless I have misread the above, the arbitration panel will pass judgement on both the merit of the claims and the issue of whether Middlesbrough and Wycombe would be football creditors. There will be no appeal but the case can go legal if either side are unhappy with the judgement. Edited February 2, 2022 by Arsene Titman Clarity RadioactiveWaste, r_wilcockson, Curtains and 1 other 2 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elwood P Dowd Posted February 2, 2022 Share Posted February 2, 2022 16 minutes ago, RadioactiveWaste said: Clearly the Boro board member can't be involved in nominating the EFL's representative. I I would like to think not but we have no oversight and the EFL is accountable to no one. RoyMac5, Richard Dastard Lee, Dordogne-Ram and 1 other 1 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
duncanjwitham Posted February 2, 2022 Share Posted February 2, 2022 3 minutes ago, Arsene Titman said: Unless I have misread the above, the arbitration panel will pass judgement on both the merit of the claims and the issue of whether Middlesbrough and Wycombe would be football creditors. There will be no appeal but the case can go legal if either side are unhappy with the judgement. We don't know anything for sure, but the suggestion seems to be it's specifically on the football creditors issue, not the claims as a whole. So it might not even involve 'Boro and Wycombe at all, it's a dispute between Derby and the EFL over the interpretation of it's rules (although I'm sure 'Boro and Wycombe will want to stick their oars in). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
duncanjwitham Posted February 2, 2022 Share Posted February 2, 2022 Slight diversion, but I was re-reading the EFL's statement following our sanction hearing, and the following sections jumped out at me in relation to the Wycombe chairman's statement the other day: and: Surely the first one destroys his argument that submitting our accounts would trigger an automatic deduction. It's very clear that submission will trigger a "consideration" and "re-assess" (-ment), not an automatic deduction. And the second one removes any doubt that the EFL would move us between leagues at that point. They are on record as stating the fixture lists would have us in the championship, irrespective of what happened with the accounts. There's no question of any delays affecting anything, since this statement was literally issued at the same time as the requirement to restate. Eatonram, CornwallRam, FlyBritishMidland and 6 others 4 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
atherstoneram Posted February 2, 2022 Share Posted February 2, 2022 People were saying that Boro'/WW would drop their claims after the transfer window shut,well that hasn't happened. I still think there is a smoking gun somewhere, genuine question, how deep do the arbiters delve before coming to their decision. I wouldn't imagine they just sit round a table discussing the ifs and buts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rambalin Posted February 2, 2022 Share Posted February 2, 2022 32 minutes ago, RadioactiveWaste said: Clearly the Boro board member can't be involved in nominating the EFL's representative. I think the EFL's first and only goal is to not be sued at the end of all this. Their secondary goal is "not be replaced by Tracy crouch" The secondary goal I would suggest they have already lost RadioactiveWaste 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of Clough Posted February 2, 2022 Share Posted February 2, 2022 A little background info on P&S (previously FFP) FFP was introduced in the 12/13 season with the monitoring period over just a single season. In the 12/13 season, accounts for the 11/12 season were submitted, in 13/14 the 12/13 accounts were submitted, etc... It was voted in by 21 of the 24 Championship clubs. Clubs who exceeded the allowable limits were punished, with the penalty being different if promoted or not. If relegated from the PL - not subject to penalties for losses in PL If promoted to the PL - the club was fined a proportion of their overspend, with the money then being distributed evenly with the compliant clubs. If remaining in the Championship - embargoes If relegated to L1 - Will not be punished by a fine or embargo, but will not receive the 'Fair Play Tax'. Under FFP, we'd owe a total of £12.36m for the three breaches IF PROMOTED. 3Y to 2017 - £4.89m 3Y to 2019 - £6.61m 4Y to 2021 - £0.86m However, a year later, due to 'unknown reasons' (PL) the Fair Play Tax would no longer go to compliant clubs but to charity instead. This was implemented without a vote! Due to so many teams exceeding the limits and clubs coming down with parachute payments, clubs threatened the EFL with legal action resulting in P&S being implemented. Please also note, the vast increase in the size of parachute payments: 12/13 - £48m over 4 years (£12m per season) 13/14 - £57m over 4 years (£14.25m per season) 16/17 - £90m over 3 years (£30m per season!!!) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PistoldPete Posted February 2, 2022 Share Posted February 2, 2022 7 minutes ago, Rambalin said: The secondary goal I would suggest they have already lost That’s exactly what I said. Even Parry admits this now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevinhectoring Posted February 2, 2022 Share Posted February 2, 2022 1 hour ago, duncanjwitham said: The other possibility is they are actually hearing the full cases this week, but I'm not sure anybody is suggesting that - in fact Nixon (I think?) was saying Wycombe haven't even filed a formal case yet, just a notice of intent. That would certainly resolve those 2 cases one way or the other though I think this is the only way to completely sort the issue, and that this is what is being discussed. And that the proposed timescale will not be met because agreeing the framework with M/W will be like pinning jelly to the ceiling 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