The Administration Thread

[PistoldPete]

17 minutes ago, Brailsford Ram said:

Pete, you have read Morris' statement where he outlines his previous experience at the EFL hearings. He clearly has no faith in that organisation any more and would not expose his personal assets to any process overseen by them and who can really blame him for that? The majority on this forum has been shouting for weeks about the injustice DCFC has suffered at the hands of this inept organisation. Would you personally offer yourself up to the jurisdiction of the EFL from what you have now seen?

Mel is no longer a director of DCFC and as an individual citizen he does not have suffer them anymore. Nor should he have to indemnify DCFC for the parasite claims in the EFL arena. His voluntary offer to fight the parasite claims in the High Court is commendable, notwithstanding his previous conduct as the owner of DCFC. The High Court offers the highest and most equitable form of justice available in the UK. It settles claims between individuals, private sector companies, international companies and individuals, government and public bodies. It is available to all but not member clubs of the EFL because the organisation prefers to keep it within its own walls where kangaroo justice prevails.

DCFC has fully accepted the penalties handed down by the EFL - the 21 points deduction - and in terms of EFL jurisdiction there the matter should end. The claims of the parasite clubs are for them and them alone and the place to settle them is in the High Court if that body rules that it can hear them.

Whatever this week holds for us it going to be very interesting. Either all parties accept the chance of allowing the MFC/WW v Morris proposal or the EFL continues its path to looking increasingly ridiculous. Remember the millions of people across the world who have an interest in English football will be watching with close interest. If the EFL does nothing to remove the current impasse, many of those millions will begin to understand and sympathise withe the hurt and feelings of injustice that all of us as Derby supporters have shared for much too long now. The EFL could be on the brink of hari-kari.

Wednesday night's world premiere of the film 'Rooney' will help focus on what is being done to our football club. Now is the time for us to see if there is any common sense and fairness left behind the walls of that overwhelmingly self-interested body called the EFL.

I agree with everything you say Brailsford. No-one has been any more critical than me of the EFL, their processes  and everything. And although Mel's statement was again notably remiss in accepting blame himself, what he did say I agree with everything in it. 

My fear is that EFL wil still want it to be through LAP rather than High court. And I do fear yet another sticking point that we don't need just now. Let's hope not.

 

[ilkleyram]

7 minutes ago, Brailsford Ram said:

Pete, you have read Morris' statement where he outlines his previous experience at the EFL hearings. He clearly has no faith in that organisation any more and would not expose his personal assets to any process overseen by them and who can really blame him for that? The majority on this forum has been shouting for weeks about the injustice DCFC has suffered at the hands of this inept organisation. Would you personally offer yourself up to the jurisdiction of the EFL from what you have now seen?

Mel is no longer a director of DCFC and as an individual citizen he does not have suffer them anymore. Nor should he have to indemnify DCFC for the parasite claims in the EFL arena. His voluntary offer to fight the parasite claims in the High Court is commendable, notwithstanding his previous conduct as the owner of DCFC. The High Court offers the highest and most equitable form of justice available in the UK. It settles claims between individuals, private sector companies, international companies and individuals, government and public bodies. It is available to all but not member clubs of the EFL because the organisation prefers to keep it within its own walls where kangaroo justice prevails.

DCFC has fully accepted the penalties handed down by the EFL - the 21 points deduction - and in terms of EFL jurisdiction there the matter should end. The claims of the parasite clubs are for them and them alone and the place to settle them is in the High Court if that body rules that it can hear them.

Whatever this week holds for us it going to be very interesting. Either all parties accept the chance of allowing the MFC/WW v Morris proposal or the EFL continues its path to looking increasingly ridiculous. Remember the millions of people across the world who have an interest in English football will be watching with close interest. If the EFL does nothing to remove the current impasse, many of those millions will begin to understand and sympathise withe the hurt and feelings of injustice that all of us as Derby supporters have shared for much too long now. The EFL could be on the brink hari-kari.

Wednesday night's world premiere of the film 'Rooney' will help focus on what is being done to our football club. Now is the time for us to see if there is any common sense and fairness left behind the walls of that overwhelmingly self-interested body called the EFL.

Mel's offer, if allowable in the HC, is neat in that it allows M/WW to make their case and be awarded damages if they win; it allows the EFL a face saving way out of the impasse and, if the case is taken against Mel personally it allows the EFL 'rule' that clubs cannot take legal action against each other, to be set aside because the action is against Mel and not the club. And the EFL specifically offered the possibility of using the HC in their last statement, albeit not in quite this way.  It then allows Q and bidders to proceed and for whatever other problems/log jams there are to be sorted, alongside the EFL.  It also allows the EFL to make retrospective rule changes to prevent the league from becoming a future viper's nest of similar action in similar circumstances.

Whether M/WW and the EFL (who are clearly desperate to stay out of it as much as possible) are inclined to take up the offer of a way through, or find a variation on the theme, thereby demonstrating the truth of their remarks about not wanting to see DCFC liquidated, remains to be seen.  If they stick with the 'football matters should only be sorted by football processes' line then it's hard to see a solution any time soon.

[atherstoneram]

4 hours ago, ilkleyram said:

If, as Parry claims, the LAP is on a par with the High Court with its retired judges and stuff, then there’s no real reason not to go to the HC. Speed is clearly not a reason given its taken 12 months to get to this point and WW haven’t even made their claim yet. 

And the efl have specifically offered the HC as a route out of the impasse. The only thing that’s changed is that Mel has offered to step in for Dcfc as the target.

As Mel might be slightly more solvent than Dcfc and is still directly involved that would appear to be a good way forward and offer the claimant (s) a more likely way of recovering their supposed losses. 

But it is the actions that MM took whilst owner of DCFC that is the crux of the problem so the issue is with the club and not MM as an individual

[Jimbo Ram]

1 minute ago, ilkleyram said:

Mel's offer, if allowable in the HC, is neat in that it allows M/WW to make their case and be awarded damages if they win; it allows the EFL a face saving way out of the impasse and, if the case is taken against Mel personally it allows the EFL 'rule' that clubs cannot take legal action against each other, to be set aside because the action is against Mel and not the club. And the EFL specifically offered the possibility of using the HC in their last statement, albeit not in quite this way.  It then allows Q and bidders to proceed and for whatever other problems/log jams there are to be sorted, alongside the EFL.  It also allows the EFL to make retrospective rule changes to prevent the league from becoming a future viper's nest of similar action in similar circumstances.

Whether M/WW and the EFL (who are clearly desperate to stay out of it as much as possible) are inclined to take up the offer of a way through, or find a variation on the theme, thereby demonstrating the truth of their remarks about not wanting to see DCFC liquidated, remains to be seen.  If they stick with the 'football matters should only be sorted by football processes' line then it's hard to see a solution any time soon.

Why would they accept an invitation to a court hearing that they will lose? The Gibbon will delay as long as possible to cause maximum disruption. That’s what this is all about, not money…

[Rambalin]

Good discussion on talksport by Simon Jordan on this just after 12pm worth a listen even if you do not like Jordan. 

 

[Guest]

6 minutes ago, PistoldPete said:

My fear is that EFL wil still want it to be through LAP rather than High court. And I do fear yet another sticking point that we don't need just now. Let's hope not.

There are ways for the justice system to remove quite swiftly any fears we have of the EFL at this critical point in time. Court injunctions and if needs be a judicial review are possibilities but will require funding with the proviso that costs can be awarded against the appropriate party.

From the EFL's point of view if any part of these issues finds itself in front of the High Court then the EFL rule book will come under intense scrutiny. If I was the chump who had drawn up those rules, I would at this moment be ringing around with a view to securing future employment. elsewhere and probably beyond these shores  I think the dice are now loaded in DCFC's favour in comparison with a couple of weeks ago. This is the time for us to hit back. We are not dead yet.

[Sparkle]

1 hour ago, Rev said:

You have to pay a franchise fee to join the MLS. 

Around $300 million for the last entrant.

Need a yank then ?

[i-Ram]

Just now, Sparkle said:

Need a yank then ?

Dont we all.

[BramcoteRam84]

7 minutes ago, Rambalin said:

Good discussion on talksport by Simon Jordan on this just after 12pm worth a listen even if you do not like Jordan. 

 

What did he have to say for himself today?

[atherstoneram]

10 hours ago, PistoldPete said:

Limited Liability protection applies to the owners of a Company not being responsible for that Company’s debts.

it doesn’t necessarily prevent an employee of that Company being responsible for their own misconduct , thereby creating a debt for themselves.

especially where as you say Morris is publicly stating he is willing to accept that responsibility. 

That doesn't make sense,if you are implying that MM is responsible for his own misconduct then that misconduct also correlates to how he ran the club.

[Ghost of Clough]

21 minutes ago, PistoldPete said:

I agree with everything you say Brailsford. No-one has been any more critical than me of the EFL, their processes  and everything. And although Mel's statement was again notably remiss in accepting blame himself, what he did say I agree with everything in it. 

My fear is that EFL wil still want it to be through LAP rather than High court. And I do fear yet another sticking point that we don't need just now. Let's hope not.

 

I can't see the EFL backtrack now after issuing a statement saying we can go to the High Court

[Sparkle]

48 minutes ago, CornwallRam said:

To be fair, that would also be the cost of using the roadrider for a fan going to every away game.

Nah cheaper than a weekend in London 

[ilkleyram]

2 minutes ago, atherstoneram said:

But it is the actions that MM took whilst owner of DCFC that is the crux of the problem so the issue is with the club and not MM as an individual

Agreed.  But Mel - who still continues to have a substantial stake in the club, by owning the ground (and I know that there are different views on that) - not only was the club at the time that the 'offences' were allegedly committed, he is also now offering to be 'the club' again with regard to this one/two claim(s) only. 

He has effectively said to M/WW - if you are truthful in your wish to see DCFC continue in action, if you want your case to be heard in a neutral arena, if you want to win financial recompense to meet the damages you say has been caused by my action as owner of DCFC, then sue me in the HC and if I lose I will pay the damages awarded.

He's also saying that the claim/proposed claim are holding up the takeover process and that he doesn't trust the internal football processes to give him a fair hearing that he will get in a non-football setting.  Given his experiences so far and that he would have to be a significant part of any arbitration case given that he was the owner and decision maker at the time, you can't blame him from wanting nothing to do with a LAP run by the EFL.

Incidentally, whilst we presume that Mel's statement/offer was known in advance by Q, we don't know that was the case.  Nor do we know Q's view of it. A question for the supporters' groups tonight perhaps

[duncanjwitham]

2 minutes ago, Ghost of Clough said:

I can't see the EFL backtrack now after issuing a statement saying we can go to the High Court

There's no way the EFL block it, if us and M/W agree. I suspect the one thing the EFL want more than anything is just for the whole damn thing to be over - no more threats of action against them from 'Boro, no threats of independent regulators from the government etc.

[PistoldPete]

2 minutes ago, Ghost of Clough said:

I can't see the EFL backtrack now after issuing a statement saying we can go to the High Court

Do  we know what issue they wanted resolving in the Court? The footbal creditor issue or the merits of the Boro and Wycombe claims? EFL often try and weasel out of things.

[Sparkle]

24 minutes ago, PistoldPete said:

I agree with everything you say Brailsford. No-one has been any more critical than me of the EFL, their processes  and everything. And although Mel's statement was again notably remiss in accepting blame himself, what he did say I agree with everything in it. 

My fear is that EFL wil still want it to be through LAP rather than High court. And I do fear yet another sticking point that we don't need just now. Let's hope not.

 

He can’t say that currently if it goes to court - worth remembering the Wycombe owner has no case and is trying to make one on the words of MM or the administrators 

[duncanjwitham]

Just now, PistoldPete said:

Do  we know what issue they wanted resolving in the Court? The footbal creditor issue or the merits of the Boro and Wycombe claims? EFL often try and weasel out of things.

I think it was at least implied, if not completely clear, that it was arbitration if you want the merits of the claims deciding, or high court if you want to clarify some aspect of the law (football creditors, moratorium, changes in the insolvency act etc).

[Eddie]

3 minutes ago, Ghost of Clough said:

I can't see the EFL backtrack now after issuing a statement saying we can go to the High Court

Oh, I can.

Just about every utterance from Fortress EFL is 50% bluster, 50% backtracking. They see themselves as unaccountable - as logical as a cycling fish.

[atherstoneram]

4 hours ago, RadioactiveWaste said:

Here's a left field idea - the EFL's leverage is there's not another league we could play in.

But ..is there.....

In the same way the NFL wanted a UK team for years, could we join the MLS?!

We could get our Jonny Russell back.

Our version of MLS would be Midland League Soccer.

[atherstoneram]

4 hours ago, Curtains said:

According to the EFL the EFL rules are their law supervised by them .

 

With the rules drawn up/agreed by 72 associate members of the EFL.