The Administration Thread

[duncanjwitham]

Just now, PistoldPete said:

What do you know about Boro claim? All I know is that they allege we cheated. And according to MM they refer to 4.4 in their claim. Well cheating is acting in bad faith I would say. 
 

so the only claim we know about should fail straightaway. 

I think there might be a few people in here not understanding what "good faith" means (not necessarily you, @PistoldPete, just clarifying before I make my main point...) - the way I understand 4.4 is that it requires clubs to act in "good faith" with their P&S/accounts submissions etc. So not to do things like lie or misrepresent amounts, or conceal how they are calculating things. It's one of the things the EFL accused us of, but we were cleared of.  We genuinely believed we were allowed to use our amortization model, so we were acting in good faith.  If we'd known it was wrong but did it anyway, or tried to conceal what we were doing, then the EFL would have had a case here.  The rider about "only the league..." is just to clarify that although clubs have a duty to each to act in good faith, like all disciplinary matters, only the league can actively prosecute breaches of it.

So the way I see it, the actual claims don't matter themselves, because there are only 2 possible classes of things that 'Boro can be after in their claim.  The first is things that we haven't been found guilty of by the EFL (either cleared of, or never even charged with). These claims simply have no merit because we are officially not guilty of them, and 'Boro do not have the power to make us guilty (only the league etc etc).  Any claim that falls under this class should be instantly dismissed at arbitration, including anything related to the stadium sale.  I think any claims under 4.4 fall here too, as we simply haven't been found guilty of acting in bad faith.

The second type of claim is something we've already been found guilty of, so that's very specifically the amortization issue and any arising overspend after restating etc.  In theory, 'Boro can pursue a case here, but they have to prove a loss.  And that's going to be very difficult, with multiple previous EFL cases making it clear that you can't correlate overspending to actual on-field results.

[kevinhectoring]

16 minutes ago, PistoldPete said:

What do you know about Boro claim? All I know is that they allege we cheated. And according to MM they refer to 4.4 in their claim. Well cheating is acting in bad faith I would say. 
 

so the only claim we know about should fail straightaway. 

I was talking about the LAP decision re their intervention in 2020. Worth a gander if you’ve not looked - it’s on the EFL site under decisions and judgements 20/21 

[kevinhectoring]

27 minutes ago, PistoldPete said:

What do you know about Boro claim? All I know is that they allege we cheated. And according to MM they refer to 4.4 in their claim. Well cheating is acting in bad faith I would say. 
 

so the only claim we know about should fail straightaway. 

  here you go : 
 

https://www.efl.com/contentassets/c9fc5dceaa7f4b62b81dca0b9e2f7c9d/2020.10.26---decision-on-mfc-redaction.pdf

[Day]

4.4 at the bottom if you get past good faith. 

"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"

I don't know, for example a stadium sale, amortisation method that's not inline with the rest of the league?

I'm really really sorry EFL, didn't mean to upset you again ?

[BoroWill]

1 hour ago, Gee SCREAMER !! said:

 

Not looked at the Boro forum before.  Most it is Mansonesque drivel about the football bastion who leads them.  The irony of this poo. Also some twit called Denzel who has changed his avatar to liquidate Derby County when he wasn't allowed to join this forum. I don't think I'll go on there again.  Nice to know that Gibsons got a huge personal security detail for the weekend though.  Sweet Jesus.?

Denzel is a dhead, you were right to reject him.

Edited February 10, 2022 by BoroWill

[Ram-Alf]

The words "good faith" seem to have different meaning to different people, I certainly can understand peoples opinion and understanding, I've been in many a Union Vs Management discussions where a memorandum of understanding has been drawn up by HR(Management fucussed)where we(Union)have told them to omit and put in a more conciliatory word/words to to placate the workforce.

[rsmini]

 

[Ram-Alf]

6 minutes ago, rsmini said:

 

I had a reply from Andrew Brigden some 10 days ago when emailed him, I told him what DCFC fans thought about the EFL and their underhand dealings with us, A nice reply...but what got my attention was..."we're aware and are on top of it" now going on my previous post, It has a lot of potential also not a great deal will be done

[The Scarlet Pimpernel]

Love that the suggestion by this guy on twitter that if Boro & Wycombe cause either DCFC to be liquidated or non-football creditors to lose out MP's are going to press to strip football of its preferred creditor status. This will effect the Premier League as well.

 

Ryan Bourne

@MrRBourne

·

1hcc:

@premierleague@trevor_east@DMAC102@Sjopinion10@sistoney67@JPercyTelegraph@RobDorsettSky@AndyhHolt@acunilicali@RCouhig9

Show this thread

Ryan Bourne

@MrRBourne

·

1hDear

@EFL

chairmen: Listen carefully. If taxpayers lose out due to Boro & Wycombe claims being judged as football debts, or Derby are liquidated due to that issue, MPs will likely remove football’s preferential status Still think

@EFL

working in your interest?

[PistoldPete]

31 minutes ago, kevinhectoring said:

  here you go : 
 

https://www.efl.com/contentassets/c9fc5dceaa7f4b62b81dca0b9e2f7c9d/2020.10.26---decision-on-mfc-redaction.pdf

I don’t think para13 says very much more than I have already said Kevin. The clubs , their officials and the Efl owe a number of duties under the Efl regulations. It is as the para says a multi party agreement between the Efl, the clubs and others ( including club officials).

But each Efl regulation has to be tested for 3 things:

1) what is the duty

2) who owes that duty

and 

3) who they owe that duty to 

 

only if the regulation satisfies the test 

1) a duty that has been broken by Derby

2) Derby owe the duty 

3)the duty is owed to boro. 

can Boro bring a claim for loss… assuming they can prove a causal link between the breach and the loss they are claiming.

that’s my understanding. PS I am not a lawyer so I could be wrong. Even if I was a lawyer I could be wrong too.

 

[CornwallRam]

Is it just me that's slightly concerned about the non-Derby MPs showing an interest?

I have a feeling that the EFL and football governance in general is on the 'hit list' for a lot of politicians. What better way to gain almost universal support for a complete overhaul than a big club failing completely? Especially when that big club isn't from London and doesn't have the international clout of the Manchesters or Liverpool. I am slightly worried that it would suit a lot of agendas if Derby County died.

I don't think it would help the EFL - but they do want to make an example of us for trying to get around FFP and Mel daring to criticise them. I suspect that they want to be able to point to Derby County in League 2 to say look what happens if you step out of line. I actually think the success of the team in making survival a possibility is potentially counter productive and making the EFL find reasons to harden the punishments and add conditions to emerging from administration. If we meekly went down, accepted the business plan, embargo and points decuction for next season, then all the EFL and parasite club stuff would vanish.

[Yani P]

Meanwhile in a different universe the rich fat pigs feeding at the trough of greed and entitlement decide they must make the richest richer and further destroy the game.. 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/60327152

[LazloW]

11 minutes ago, CornwallRam said:

Is it just me that's slightly concerned about the non-Derby MPs showing an interest?

Probably. Think you might be overthinking things a bit.

[Ram-Alf]

6 minutes ago, CornwallRam said:

Is it just me that's slightly concerned about the non-Derby MPs showing an interest?

I have a feeling that the EFL and football governance in general is on the 'hit list' for a lot of politicians. What better way to gain almost universal support for a complete overhaul than a big club failing completely? Especially when that big club isn't from London and doesn't have the international clout of the Manchesters or Liverpool. I am slightly worried that it would suit a lot of agendas if Derby County died.

 

Estimated loss of revenue to the City of Derby £100 million, Which will equate to business closures, Loss of jobs, Family break ups, Medical issues, The Government not subsidising big employers to take their business into Derby, Les tax revenue, More monies spent on Universal credit and the like, Plus much more.

Leeds, red dogs and boro fans may want to see a "big club failing" but I doubt there's many in Westminster who share that view.

[Ram-Alf]

4 minutes ago, Yani P said:

Meanwhile in a different universe the rich fat pigs feeding at the trough of greed and entitlement decide they must make the richest richer and further destroy the game.. 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/60327152

Not forgetting FIFA want a Biennial World Cup to generate more Billions into an already overflowing bank accounts

[Tamworthram]

5 minutes ago, Unlucky Alf said:

Estimated loss of revenue to the City of Derby £100 million, Which will equate to business closures, Loss of jobs, Family break ups, Medical issues, The Government not subsidising big employers to take their business into Derby, Les tax revenue, More monies spent on Universal credit and the like, Plus much more.

Leeds, red dogs and boro fans may want to see a "big club failing" but I doubt there's many in Westminster who share that view.

To be honest, I suspect not even the vast majority of Leeds, Red Dogs or Boro fans really want to see a “big club” fail even if that club is DCFC - the team they may well hate most.

[vonwright]

59 minutes ago, rsmini said:

 

Bridgen is spot on really. Football writes its own rules which turns out to mean, in a situation like ours, potentially no one gets any money (including the taxpayer via HMRC) because speculative football claims (not debts) have to be protected at 100pc of whatever their value turns out to be, whenever that is decided.

From a business point of view - we are talking about saving a stricken business here - it makes absolutely no sense. You are asking far too much of investors ("Buy this ruined business for £30m, but oh by the way we might decided you need to cough up a further £50m further down the line, depending on the results of an internal panel re: supposed wrongdoing that you had absolutely nothing to do with".) There's a reason administration law doesn't work like this in other industries. And surely football clubs are supposed to be more worthy of protection from liquidation - not more exposed to it by rules like this?

By all means increase the points penalty for administration, tighten FFP rules, whatever. God knows we need it: there are so many examples of clubs treading a very thin line, shifting huge debts around, selling things to themselves, etc etc. And then they get into trouble. 

But don't force those clubs out of business by imposing rules that simply don't exist in any other industry. 

Edited February 10, 2022 by vonwright

[GenBr]

8 hours ago, WestKentRam said:

The EFL have already answered this in their statement of 17th Jan 2022:

https://www.efl.com/news/2022/january/efl-statement-derby-county/

8. Is there a conflict of interest at EFL Board level? What involvement do all Board members have in decisions relating to Derby County?

Any EFL Board members conflicted on any matter do not take part in any discussion and are asked to leave the meeting. In addition, any Director who is conflicted does not receive any board papers in respect of the conflicted matter. The position on whether any director is conflicted is reviewed on a meeting-by-meeting basis. At present there are two Board Directors conflicted in respect of the matter with Derby County and as such do not participate or engage in any of the decisions. 

I assume the 'two Board Directors conflicted in respect of the matter' are those from Boro and Forest. If so, is the Forest representative truly conflicted, or is it someone else? Is Jez Moxey at Burton likely to have a conflict of interest??

Club representatives

Nicholas Randall QC - Championship - Nottingham Forest

Peter Ridsdale - Championship - Preston North End

Neil Bausor - Championship - Middlesbrough

Jez Moxey - League One – Burton Albion

Steven Curwood - League One - Fleetwood Town

John Nixon - League Two – Carlisle United

Considering trevor birch used to work for us and his time here didnt end too well i'd like to think he wasnt involved either, but thats probably wishful thinking

[G STAR RAM]

1 hour ago, Ghost of Clough said:

Yes.

Reading
4Y to 2021 - £18.809m

Derby
3Y to 2017 - £7.76m
3Y to 2019 - £11.72m
4Y to 2021 - £1.96m

 

If all breaches were treated independently, and as per the point deduction guidelines, it would be 12 points for Reading vs 17 (6+8+3) points for Derby.

In your opinion have both teams been treated equally?

[i-Ram]

6 minutes ago, G STAR RAM said:

In your opinion have both teams been treated equally?

Go on, I’ll bite. I will say yes.