The Administration Thread

[kevinhectoring]

2 hours ago, FlyBritishMidland said:

think your absolutely right to keep going back to this.  The text in brackets is the important bit that everyone seems to be forgetting (or ignoring in some cases).

The problem with the words in brackets is not that people are forgetting them.  Or that people are ignoring them. The problem is the words ‘of this requirement’ which should not be ignored or forgotten. The words in brackets have a very very limited scope because the requirement relates to the obligation to act in ‘good faith’ 

Here’s the provision, for anyone who wants to read and understand it 

“ Each Club shall, at all times and in all matters within the scope of these Rules, behave with the utmost good faith both towards The League and the other Clubs (provided always that only The League shall have the right to bring any action whatsoever for any alleged breach of this requirement).  Without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing, Clubs shall not manage their affairs or submit information which is intended to seek to or take any unfair advantage in relation to the assessment of fulfilment (or non-fulfilment) of the requirements of the Rules.

Edited February 9, 2022 by kevinhectoring

[Day]

1 hour ago, kevinhectoring said:

your interpretation of this provision seems unjustifiably wide and seems to be at odds with the arbitration provisions which specifically refer to disputes between clubs relating to the EFl rules. Plus, MM’s messages seem to confirm that he’s been advised that clubs can sue each other under the rules (because he’s said: no way, the EFl process is unreliable, it’s the High Court for me ) 

I'm having a real hard time in understanding how you interpret written content. 

Having already covered what arbitration is referring to, I'll avoid going over old ground.

With regards to Mel's statement yet again you are skipping over key parts to find pieces that you can twist into fitting the narrative you want to push.

Go back and read the last line of the snippet I posted. 

Even at that stage Boro and their lawyers must have realised that such a claim was explicitly excluded from club to club.

So let's not skip over that part like you have continued to do so on 4.4.

Do you not think that having been involved in tribunals against the EFL he maybe referring to those, for example hearing Pride Park compared to Fleetwood Town, or the expert witnesses used by the EFL on the accountancy charge?

[Day]

1 hour ago, kevinhectoring said:

The problem is Gibbo, EFl is not now the enemy. No way is the EFL supporting him on this, they want us to win. And MM’s  desire to steer clear of the EFl disputes process because it’s ‘corrupt’ is barking mad. imho 

Again, let's not hear a bad word said against the EFL. Give me a break.

Do you not realise that they have multiple avenues to shut these cases down?

Insolvency law, something you dismissed.

reg 4.4, something again you have dismissed.

The EFL and Gibson are both the enemy at this point, you have absolutely no chance in changing my mind on this. 

As the league's governing body they could wake up and end this tomorrow if they wished, but they continue to choose not to.

[kevinhectoring]

39 minutes ago, David said:

Go back and read the last line of the snippet I posted. 

Even at that stage Boro and their lawyers must have realised that such a claim was explicitly excluded from club to club.

So let's not skip over that part like you have continued to do so on 4.4.

David. Having read the extract you post from MM’s letter, I’m more than happy once again to avail you free of charge of the services of KHtranslations. But only on account of the stunning and tireless work you do for this online community and not because of the quality of your posts on this particular topic. 
 

So here it is, in English. I’ve given you the full version not the summary because you are such a loyal customer 

“ I Mel am very angry. My football dream has turned to bats poo, most of the fans hate me despite that I wanted to realise their dreams as well as my own and at massive personal cost. And,  almost as bad, I am being tormented by Gibbo the poison dwarf who envies my riches and who has worked out what he needs to do to subject me to maximum humiliation and to squeeze out of me every last penny that he can. And to show you what a lying disingenuous toxic weasel he is, listen to this. When he first concocted his vile claim, before Saul Couhig explained to him how to up his legal game, he alleged I was in breach of the utmost good faith obligation in 4.4. And here’s the thing: in support of the claim he quoted from the rule book and omitted to include the words that make it clear beyond doubt that a breach of that particular requirement can only be acted on by the EFL. You see what an utter turd he is? I AM SO ANGRY I WILL TELL THE WORLD IN AN OPEN LETTER, AND I AM SO UNHINGED BY ALL OFTHIS I GENUINELY THINK IT WILL MAKE A DIFFERENCE TO WHAT PEOPLE THINK OF ME   [end of translation]
 

What’s sad is that, as with Sam Rush and Richard Keogh,  MM has become completely obsessed by a detailed matter of principle that has got under his skin and he can’t see the bigger picture.  
 

Here’s the rub: It’s likely - though we don’t know for sure - that Gibbo’s claim is no longer based [solely] on 4.4. Hence the words you put so much store by, David, can’t be relied on. 

If you need a translation of the translation, don’t hesitate to let me know I remain your obedient servant etc etc 
 

 

[Day]

3 minutes ago, kevinhectoring said:

David. Having read the extract you post from MM’s letter, I’m more than happy once again to avail you free of charge of the services of KHtranslations. But only on account of the stunning and tireless work you do for this online community and not because of the quality of your posts on this particular topic. 
 

So here it is, in English. I’ve given you the full version not the summary because you are such a loyal customer 

“ I Mel am very angry. My football dream has turned to bats poo, most of the fans hate me despite that I wanted to realise their dreams as well as my own and at massive personal cost. And,  almost as bad, I am being tormented by Gibbo the poison dwarf who envies my riches and who has worked out what he needs to do to subject me to maximum humiliation and to squeeze out of me every last penny that he can. And to show you what a lying disingenuous toxic weasel he is, listen to this. When he first concocted his vile claim, before Saul Couhig explained to him how to up his legal game, he alleged I was in breach of the utmost good faith obligation in 4.4. And here’s the thing: in support of the claim he quoted from the rule book and omitted to include the words that make it clear beyond doubt that a breach of that particular requirement can only be acted on by the EFL. You see what an utter turd he is? I AM SO ANGRY I WILL TELL THE WORLD IN AN OPEN LETTER, AND I AM SO UNHINGED BY ALL OFTHIS I GENUINELY THINK IT WILL MAKE A DIFFERENCE TO WHAT PEOPLE THINK OF ME   [end of translation]
 

What’s sad is that, as with Sam Rush and Richard Keogh,  MM has become completely obsessed by a detailed matter of principle that has got under his skin and he can’t see the bigger picture.  
 

Here’s the rub: It’s likely - though we don’t know for sure - that Gibbo’s claim is no longer based [solely] on 4.4. Hence the words you put so much store by, David, can’t be relied on. 

If you need a translation of the translation, don’t hesitate to let me know I remain your obedient servant etc etc 

Appreciate that. 

I will however continue to push on answers with regards to 4.4 though, your translation looks a little off in places. 

[kevinhectoring]

1 hour ago, David said:

As the league's governing body they could wake up and end this tomorrow if they wished, but they continue to choose not to.

Their options are very limited. What they certainly cannot do is dismiss,  or even comment on the substance of, a dispute between clubs that is pending. They just can’t 

What they can and should be doing is telling Gibbo: this is a pile of horse poo, we think you need to get it settled. And if you don’t do it before Saturday then you risk ugly scenes in Middlesborough which might just backfire on you as much as they will on Derby. And David, you and I have no idea whether that’s been said but if it hasn’t I’d be very disappointed 

[Day]

Doing some late night reading. Came across this quote from the Barnsley co owner back in 2020. 

Couple of things to take from this:

1) He threatens to sue the EFL, the league, not the clubs directly, one of which would be us.

2) He's an American, tells us that in America they self regulate when feel cheating has taken place. (See point 1, he still only threatens to sue the EFL)

3) £7m was the figure, roughly what Wycombe are reportedly looking for.

4) Not looking to change the rules, just that they are followed. Now we could argue the amortisation point here, but for arguments sake we accept we did wrong. 

He's looking to follow the rules, which according to regulation 4.4 states that only the EFL can take action, so he would be correct in taking legal action against the league if he felt they had not followed their own rules.

He could have gone rogue and threatened to sue the clubs involved to recoup the loss of earnings. But never.

https://fanbanter.co.uk/championship-chief-threatens-to-sue-efl-if-three-clubs-arent-deducted-points/

“People seem to think little old Barnsley will follow the rules and not make a fuss.

“If we’ve been wronged as a result of the league not following its own rules, then in stands to reason that we’d go against the league and its TV money and ask them to pay us the difference in revenue.

“We think that’s fair and we hope it will benefit other clubs who follow the rules and try to develop young talent.

“I’m an American and in American sports, we self-regulate – if someone breaks the rules they are cheating the rest of us and we take action.

“Relegation to League One cost us about £7million in revenue. If something like that happens again, we’ll make a claim and we think we’ll have a strong case. We’re not asking for a change in the rules, we’re asking for the rules to be followed.”

[Day]

Also with regards to Wycombe's claim. This is on the Blackstone Chambers website.

It's nothing new, but clearly lays out why their claim against Derby is utter nonsense.

https://www.sportslawbulletin.org/the-perilous-state-of-efl-club-finances-a-review-of-the-derby-county-and-sheffield-wednesday-cases/

- Independent tribunal ruled that a points deduction would be disproportionate. 

- Key point here, the EFL decided against appealing the decision.

- A points deduction would be applied if we failed P&S, however the deadline for those set by the EFL were after the start of the season, so no chance they could have been retrospectively applied.

In delivering its verdict, the independent commission highlighted that the purposes of the sanction were to punish the club for its breaches, to vindicate other clubs that had not breached the rules, to deter future breaches, and to preserve and restore public confidence in the competition’s fairness. A points deduction, the commission decided, would have been disproportionate in Derby’s case, particularly given that there was “no basis on which to conclude that the Club knew or even suspected that the policy was non-compliant during the relevant seasons”[23].

Initially, it was thought that the EFL would appeal the sanction and seek a points deduction. In an unprecedented move, an interchangeable fixture list had been announced for the 2021-22 season: one set of fixtures had Wycombe competing in the Championship; the other, Derby.[24] But the EFL has since decided that it will not appeal.[25] With the deadline for Derby’s resubmission of its accounts fast approaching on 18 August, the new season is in full swing, and there is no prospect that Wycombe and Derby will swap divisions even if breaches are found.

Why, someone please explain how the EFL are even entertaining these claims, even if Wycombe threatened to sue the EFL instead they have a strong case.

The only question would be why it took so long for them to pull us up on the amortisation, yet if they had done that at the start, Wycombe would not have been on the radar.

[Day]

A section on independent regulator in the same article, once again, threats to sue the EFL mentioned, not club v club.

Also raises the serious point on how can the EFL remain impartial when faced with legal threats themselves which I did the other day.

They appear to be turning a blind eye to their own regulations now to protect themselves.

Do the EFL not realise though that if all these clubs actually followed through with their threats and were successful, there would be no money left in the TV revenue pot to distribute across the leagues?

I'm sure that would be hugely popular with other clubs.

https://www.sportslawbulletin.org/the-perilous-state-of-efl-club-finances-a-review-of-the-derby-county-and-sheffield-wednesday-cases/

However, that is not the only story there is to tell: Derby’s owners in particular have made it clear that they feel as though the EFL has singled them out unfairly. In its judgment, the commission considered that this suggestion was unfounded.[26] Yet the mere fact that Mel Morris was prepared to describe himself in evidence as an “enemy of the EFL state”, and that clubs like Middlesbrough, Charlton and even Barnsley FC have been reported to have considered taking legal action against the EFL on these issues[27], indicates how difficult it might be for the governing body of the Championship, League One and League Two to maintain authority and the trust of its members at the same time as deciding whether and how far to pursue them for weighty fines, points deductions or worse.

[Day]

Final point for the night (technically morning).

We're back round to the main issue, the time it takes the EFL to investigate and punish clubs.

So Gibson, Couhig and anyone else looking for a pound of Derby flesh, you may feel wronged by our amortisation methods (and stadium sale), however had the EFL acted more swiftly in their complaints against us, not only would our "cheating" have had less of an impact on the league for so many seasons, but we may not have been sat here currently in administration.

Again the source below from the excellent article is not written by a coffee maker, but an actual barrister. 

https://www.sportslawbulletin.org/the-perilous-state-of-efl-club-finances-a-review-of-the-derby-county-and-sheffield-wednesday-cases/

Indeed, as far as the Premier League is concerned, Lord Justice Males in the Court of Appeal recently criticised the body’s investigatory and disciplinary process with respect to Manchester City FC’s financial dealings, which began as long ago as December 2018, describing it as “a matter of legitimate public concern, that so little progress has been made after two and a half years – during which, it may be noted, the Club has twice been crowned as Premier League champions”[29].

[kevinhectoring]

16 minutes ago, David said:

Why, someone please explain how the EFL are even entertaining these claims, even

David you’re totally and utterly correct in stating that the claims are spurious. But where you go off the rails is your claim that the EFL are ‘entertaining them’ 

The rules contain a mechanism - arbitration - to settle disputes between clubs. If a dispute is ongoing or even mooted, there is simply nothing the EFl can do - publicly - as regards the suit. Sure, they can have conversations behind the scenes and there is no doubt they have in our case.  But ‘entertaining the dispute’ is no more in their gift than dismissing it. 
 

I hope you have gone to bed already and that you don’t have nightmares about that imaginary goblin Rick Parry 

[Day]

ii Sports arbitration

Under English Law, the Arbitration Act 1996 authorises parties to resolve their disputes through arbitration, provided that all parties agree in writing. These disputes tend to be more beneficial to parties owing to the speed, confidentiality and cost of the process. However, exceptions such as criminal law, employee rights to enforce statutory rights in the Employment Tribunal or insolvency proceedings must be resolved through litigation before domestic courts.

https://thelawreviews.co.uk/title/the-sports-law-review/united-kingdom-england--wales

I know. Still here. It's pissing me off all this.

Football creditor status, something which I raised in a separate topic. Let's pretend for a second that it's ok for clubs to sue each other, the rules allowed to do so.

Insolvency proceedings are an exception to arbitration and must be resolved through litigation before domestic courts.

We know this, the football creditor status must be heard in a high court, where as arbitration can hear the claims.

Now let's go back to the EFL statement posted on 17th January.

7. Is the EFL acting unlawfully?

To be clear, the EFL is not and would not, attempt to overrule ‘statutory law’. 

Amanda Solloway's statement, Why have the EFL gone back on what was agreed? 

I have a proof of debt form from the administrators, so I know what it contains and can't possibly see where Boro could claim any kind of debt.

This is a form that would be used as evidence in court, so you would have to be confident in your claim.

I myself have invoices, copies of emails with the invoices if I was ever called to provide evidence of my claim. 

I also have the contract between the club and myself, the emails containing the adverts, the stats from the adverts.

What do Boro have to show as proof of their claim and I ask again, why would EFL go back on what would be the correct move in allowing this to play out in the high court?

[Day]

It's time for Derby to commence legal action against the EFL, the other clubs that have remained silent throughout this process will be hit in the pocket.

Why? Because it's the right thing to do to protect the game we all love. We cannot allow the EFL to continue as they are. Sooner we have an independent regulator the better.

They have broken the agreement that prevents clubs from taking action against each other, reg 4.4

They have failed to take action against both Middlesbrough and Wycombe under reg 3.5 which prevents clubs from unfairly criticising, disparaging, belittling or discrediting any other Club.

They are ignoring the Arbitration Act 1996 with regards to insolvency and the football creditor status, attempting to push this through arbitration regulations, ignoring 4.4.

Surely we have more grounds than any of the clubs that have threatened legal action.

With the above we have been forced to sell assets for a low fee as we were prevented by offering contracts. We have incurred additional administration costs, which will increase the purchase price of the club, potentially forcing us into liquidation if the cost continues to rise.

With that it's 3am and the dog is looking at me, I can feel the questioning why are we not going to bed with his eyes.

Feel free to rip apart any of tonight's rants, I'm not a legal expert, far from it, but I am capable of reading and processing words.

[May Contain Nuts]

3 hours ago, kevinhectoring said:

The problem with the words in brackets is not that people are forgetting them.  Or that people are ignoring them. The problem is the words ‘of this requirement’ which should not be ignored or forgotten. The words in brackets have a very very limited scope because the requirement relates to the obligation to act in ‘good faith’ 

Here’s the provision, for anyone who wants to read and understand it 

“ Each Club shall, at all times and in all matters within the scope of these Rules, behave with the utmost good faith both towards The League and the other Clubs (provided always that only The League shall have the right to bring any action whatsoever for any alleged breach of this requirement).  Without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing, Clubs shall not manage their affairs or submit information which is intended to seek to or take any unfair advantage in relation to the assessment of fulfilment (or non-fulfilment) of the requirements of the Rules.

Stoooooooooge

Never in my life have I seen someone so determined to go to such lengths to interpret information in favour of someone taking action against a party they purport to support.

Nor someone so angry at the defence of a club that they get so annoyed that THEY FEEL THE NEED TO TYPE THEIR POSTS WITH CAPS LOCK ON when they get frustrated that people who do support the club's position point out issues with their view.

I appreciate an unbiased opinion but come, you aren't actually providing that at this point no matter what you claim.

It's ducking bizarre at this point. 

You're great at quoting rules without any sort of context and applying every little twist the EFL could possibly point towards. 

I suppose at least you give us some idea what goes on in the minds of those entrenched in their position against Derby County, but you seem to present this opinion as the matter of inarguable fact, exactly as the 'opponents' would.

I'm really not sure what your deal is, and I don't really think you're a stooge, I just don't understand why you've taken your stance.

However if you did apply for a position within the EFL you'd fit right in.

Why do Derby fans defending Derby seem to rile you up so much?

Edited February 10, 2022 by Coconut's Beard

[Day]

2 hours ago, Coconut's Beard said:

Stoooooooooge

Never in my life have I seen someone so determined to go to such lengths to interpret information in favour of someone taking action against a party they purport to support.

Nor someone so angry at the defence of a club that they get so annoyed that THEY FEEL THE NEED TO TYPE THEIR POSTS WITH CAPS LOCK ON when they get frustrated that people who do support the club's position point out issues with their view.

I appreciate an unbiased opinion but come, you aren't actually providing that at this point no matter what you claim.

It's ducking bizarre at this point. 

You're great at quoting rules without any sort of context and applying every little twist the EFL could possibly point towards. 

I suppose at least you give us some idea what goes on in the minds of those entrenched in their position against Derby County, but you seem to present this opinion as the matter of inarguable fact, exactly as the 'opponents' would.

I'm really not sure what your deal is, and I don't really think you're a stooge, I just don't understand why you've taken your stance.

However if you did apply for a position within the EFL you'd fit right in.

Why do Derby fans defending Derby seem to rile you up so much?

I accept I am biased, I have a great interest in Derby being allowed to move forward, so much so I’m up until hours like this reading and trying to understand what is going on. I won’t be alone, and claim to be no better than any other fan for trying, even if I am slightly envious of those that have had a decent nights sleep!

I may have some bits wrong, misunderstood, applied an overly biased view but I’m more than willing to be corrected and put right if I feel a compelling argument can be made. I’m yet to hear one though. 

Both sides will have QC’s ready to defend their clients, so there will be counter arguments, even Rebekah Vardy has been able to find someone to tell a judge with a straight face that her agent lost her phone in the North Sea, her laptop broke and husbands phone which he refused to hand over was hacked and all evidence lost.

Right now it’s a community effort, pulling together, finding the correct questions to be asking of the EFL, applying the pressure to help get a resolution to this situation.

However, and I’m mindful of not turning this into a personal attack.

We have a member that does raise suspicions over their intentions on this forum and it’s becoming hard to ignore, the defence of the EFL is admirable and I’ve honestly enjoyed an opposing view as I’m sure the Rooney’s legal team are listening to Rebekah Vardy’s. As you say it gives an insight into the minds of those that are entrenched in their position against Derby County and the lengths they will go to.

Mel Morris has alleged Boro’s lawyers removed key lines from regulations and the counter arguments made by this member do not feel that dissimilar. Ignore that line, doesn’t matter, not that important.

Whilst being enjoyable, it’s also frustrating in equal measures as it appears to be blatantly obvious there is an agenda here against the club, we are in a fight and to be told that the organisation which has the power to stop all this right now, I’m being told by a fellow fan we should play nice with and stop antagonising them.

I don’t think this forum could ever be described as an echo chamber, disagreements are a daily occurrence, yet this sounds a lone voice.

Maybe others share his views, have remained quiet. I know a couple have raised potential issues in the Football Creditor topic, you don’t however question their intentions whilst sharing the view that Mel Morris should just indemnify the claims. 

It’s not that I don’t understand the logic behind that, the club is in this situation following his ownership, however I feel a strong argument can be made as to why it would be a waste of time, we also have a duty to expose the EFL’s poor handling of the situation for the good of the game.

His statement his revealing, his distrust in the system is clear so to sign what could be a potentially blank cheque is a huge ask of someone that’s also being told they are not welcome in Derby anymore.

I would love nothing more than the EFL coming out and clarifying why the Boro claims are excluded from regulation 4.4, and that comments made from both clubs have been fair and within 3.5 regulations, but I will need that from a more official source than an anonymous forum member.

[Sparkle]

3 hours ago, kevinhectoring said:

David you’re totally and utterly correct in stating that the claims are spurious. But where you go off the rails is your claim that the EFL are ‘entertaining them’ 

The rules contain a mechanism - arbitration - to settle disputes between clubs. If a dispute is ongoing or even mooted, there is simply nothing the EFl can do - publicly - as regards the suit. Sure, they can have conversations behind the scenes and there is no doubt they have in our case.  But ‘entertaining the dispute’ is no more in their gift than dismissing it. 
 

I hope you have gone to bed already and that you don’t have nightmares about that imaginary goblin Rick Parry 

You can’t settle a dispute if one or both sides won’t settle the dispute and what does settling a dispute actually mean - as always the EFL should be coordinating and ending the process when that can’t be achieved with its guidelines 

[i-Ram]

5 hours ago, kevinhectoring said:

What’s sad is that, as with Sam Rush and Richard Keogh,  MM has become completely obsessed by a detailed matter of principle that has got under his skin and he can’t see the bigger picture.  

[Rich84]

7 hours ago, kevinhectoring said:

The problem with the words in brackets is not that people are forgetting them.  Or that people are ignoring them. The problem is the words ‘of this requirement’ which should not be ignored or forgotten. The words in brackets have a very very limited scope because the requirement relates to the obligation to act in ‘good faith’ 

Here’s the provision, for anyone who wants to read and understand it 

“ Each Club shall, at all times and in all matters within the scope of these Rules, behave with the utmost good faith both towards The League and the other Clubs (provided always that only The League shall have the right to bring any action whatsoever for any alleged breach of this requirement).  Without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing, Clubs shall not manage their affairs or submit information which is intended to seek to or take any unfair advantage in relation to the assessment of fulfilment (or non-fulfilment) of the requirements of the Rules.

That's fine then, under your own argument the fact Boro are pursuing us directly means THEY are NOT acting in good faith.......

Irrespective of anyone's interpretation though, it only matters how the powers in the EFL interpret it, and it's been clear for 2 years now who's 'side' they will bias with.

[Day]

1 minute ago, Stockport Ram said:

I have to say that I enjoy reading David's posts more and more.

 

I only hope that he's on flexible working hours and getting some much needed zzzzz's now.

I'm actually off to work in an hour, which should be fun on 0 hours sleep.

Helping a mate on a house rewire job for 2 days. 

Wouldn't have agreed, but I have this burning desire to prove that @Boycie job ain't that hard and any one can do it.

At this point I should probably say that I'm not the qualified electrician, I'll be the one trying to stay awake feeding cables through a house where I'm told.

[Boycie]

4 minutes ago, David said:

I'm actually off to work in an hour, which should be fun on 0 hours sleep.

Helping a mate on a house rewire job for 2 days. 

Wouldn't have agreed, but I have this burning desire to prove that @Boycie job ain't that hard and any one can do it.

At this point I should probably say that I'm not the qualified electrician, I'll be the one trying to stay awake feeding cables through a house where I'm told.

Whist on his phone constantly.  I’ll give him 2 hours.