The Administration Thread

[Indy]

9 minutes ago, BoroWill said:

Your submissions up to that period could have been recalculated by an independent set of accountants using the standard amortisation policy used by other clubs in the league at that point though, which would have provided basis for a claim if the other party felt that these were not in line with the rules.

But it wasn’t. Unless I’ve missed that submission somewhere. 

[BoroWill]

5 minutes ago, PistoldPete said:

It is making allegations against directors. It doesn't say "facilitate cheating", there are no qualifying words used at all. It doesn't say which directors so presumably all of them are implicated in Gibson's fantasy world.

It is pure scandalising nonsense.

It is making allegations against directors in their roles as directors, not pursuing them in a court of law after they have stepped down from a limited company. There really is no connection whatsoever.

[mozza]

 

It's the fear that we might pull off the impossible and stay up, that's why they are keeping their thumbs firmly pushed into our windpipes..

 

[BoroWill]

2 minutes ago, Gaspode said:

Remarkably that's what most sane people believe about the chances of a team getting through the playoffs - yet your owner pushes the idea that Boro would definately have been promoted if we hadn't signed Martyn Waghorn and that we therefore owe him many millions in compensation....perhaps you can see why the majority consider his claims to be speculative at best.....

He has literally never claimed this.

[BoroWill]

4 minutes ago, PistoldPete said:

There is no "standard amortisation poilcy " used by everyone.

There absolutely is a standard amortisation policy used by football clubs.

[PistoldPete]

2 minutes ago, BoroWill said:

The only realistic claim we'd have any chance of winning is on the lost ticket and TV revenue from the playoff semi finals, however much that is. I'd guess that is much closer to the £5-6m number that I saw the Sunday Times claiming.

can you respond in kind and refer me to this sunday times article in £5 m to  £6 million is quoted. Not that Boro are getting anything like that by the way. And neither are the Sunday Times.

[Foreveram]

21 minutes ago, nottingram said:

And Aston Villa.

And Twycross Zoo for having loads of Middlesbrough logos wandering around their enclosures.

And eggs

[Crewton]

3 hours ago, kevinhectoring said:

There was apparently a solicitor on RD last night who confirmed MM’s whacky scheme would get thrown out.  
 

Someone on here suggested something different : that Gibbo sue the club in the HIgh Court and MM should bear the cost. This is perfectly doable and equivalent to MM giving the club an indemnity. It might need EFl consent tho’
 

Yes, I heard him, but he wasn't coming from quite the same angle that I was. 

To my mind, it's no different to any private dispute resolution process - if the parties agree to be bound by it, there's no-one to object to the dispute being resolved that way.

Yes, I acknowledge that it could be a mad idea, but I'd like to know if it's feasible.

Your other scenario is pretty much what I'm suggesting anyway, isn't it?

[Crewton]

3 minutes ago, BoroWill said:

There absolutely is a standard amortisation policy used by football clubs.

But it's not prescribed in the EFL rules, so using a different method isn't "cheating", the lie that Gibson and Couhig have peddled.

[Foreveram]

15 minutes ago, BoroWill said:

I think we'll probably finish top 6, then it's pot luck from that point.

If you fail you could try suing somebody 

[Tamworthram]

48 minutes ago, BoroWill said:

He absolutely would take it to court. See here for him taking previously unprecedented cases that we had a low chance of winning to court.

Cheers for that. Who knows what he thought his chances of winning were in that case compared to what he thinks his chances are in this one.

In my mind, he would have to convince a court:

1) Derby gained an advantage that prevented Middlesbrough from taking the final automatic promotion place

2) If Middlesbrough had finished 6th they would have beaten Leeds ( which, it could be argued, we only did by “cheating”)

3) Had they reached the final, they would then have beaten Villa.

I reckon points 2 & 3 would be a hard case to argue given, over the last 20 years, only 10% of teams finishing 6th have won the play off final.

 

 

 

[BoroWill]

8 minutes ago, PistoldPete said:

can you respond in kind and refer me to this sunday times article in £5 m to  £6 million is quoted. Not that Boro are getting anything like that by the way. And neither are the Sunday Times.

I will continue to try and find the link. The article stated something along the lines of our claim being smaller than what the administrators would end up taking as their final payment, and had £5-6m as the ballpark figure.

Edit: Found it

Edited February 8, 2022 by BoroWill

[Animal is a Ram]

7 minutes ago, BoroWill said:

There absolutely is a standard amortisation policy used by football clubs.

Straight-line amortisation isn't a 'standard' - it's just what every other club used. Not the same thing. 

There's nothing in the rules to force one method or another.

[WhiteHorseRam]

8 minutes ago, mozza said:

 

It's the fear that we might pull off the impossible and stay up, that's why they are keeping their thumbs firmly pushed into our windpipes..

 

The EFL nightmare scenario.

 

We stay up on the last day, nice new owner comes in.

ITV make lovely heart-warming TV film about us. 

Boris needs polls boost - after bad local elections in May - so cuts EFL's nuts off to secure East Midlands marginal seats.

[BoroWill]

5 minutes ago, Crewton said:

But it's not prescribed in the EFL rules, so using a different method isn't "cheating", the lie that Gibson and Couhig have peddled.

Using a different method isn't cheating. Using a different method to show that you passed FFP when in fact you failed is cheating, which is why your club accepted a 9 point deduction for it.

[BoroWill]

2 minutes ago, Animal is a Ram said:

Straight-line amortisation isn't a 'standard' - it's just what every other club used. Not the same thing. 

There's nothing in the rules to force one method or another.

My original wording was that every other club used it, somebody else introduced the word standard and I carried on with it. 

[TheresOnlyWanChope]

7 minutes ago, Crewton said:

But it's not prescribed in the EFL rules, so using a different method isn't "cheating", the lie that Gibson and Couhig have peddled.

Dodgy in accounting practice if industry standard is ignored. Not illegal but could be scrutinised according to accountants and auditors. 

[Chris_D]

3 minutes ago, Animal is a Ram said:

Straight-line amortisation isn't a 'standard' - it's just what every other club used. Not the same thing. 

There's nothing in the rules to force one method or another.

Standard can mean both enforced under a requirement, or what was usual in the circumstances.

[Ram-Alf]

2 minutes ago, Foreveram said:

If you fail you could try suing somebody 

My fear is this, We beat Boro on Saturday, They miss out on a playoff place, Those 3 points keep us up, And yet the EFL and Boro take us to court for a breach of non regulatory kit as Curtis "Davis" had the wrong spelling of his name as they missed the "E" off, Which is against EFL policy

[PistoldPete]

7 minutes ago, BoroWill said:

I will continue to try and find the link. The article stated something along the lines of our claim being smaller than what the administrators would end up taking as their final payment, and had £5-6m as the ballpark figure.

Edit: Found it

Oh yes. I think i remember that now. You do realise  EFL and Boro are leaking like sieves to the media. There was a £7 m combined offer for Boro and Wycombe claims . Didn't come from the admin team yet leaked by someone to the BBC.  The whole thing is so shabby...  and needs to stop.