The Administration Thread

[PistoldPete]

39 minutes ago, Crewton said:

So why isn't Mel Morris "reaching out" to Couhig, as he apparently did to Gibson, to resolve this? 

I'd have hoped that Quantuma would have prepared the defence to Couhig's claim (which only really needs the timelines of the process and the various areas of responsibility setting out) and suggested to the bidders that the claim is about as valid as last year's TV license so why not just take the minimal risk and get on with it, but Mel did offer to sort it, did he not? 

Has the Cowboy Clown rejected Mel's advances?

As an aside, I noticed that he only spends a maximum of 25% of his time in the UK, so he's not even a taxpayer here. He probably even claims back the VAT on horse-shoeing services...

Maybe Boro claimed against Morris already .. they alleged against Derby and their directors but maybe couhig didn’t ?

But his claim is even more poo than Gibson’s. So we tell him to get lost or we just get the claim thrown out whichever is cheaper. 

[StarterForTen]

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but didn't we not fail the P&S limit for the 20/21 season - by a couple of million if I recall?

If that is the case, then isn't Wycombe's argument exactly the same as Middlesbrough's appeared to be, in that because Derby 'cheated' we had a stronger team than allowable finances would have created and, therefore, finished higher in the League as a consequence?

[ColonelBlimp]

It's a nonsense claim because on that last day it was either us or Wednesday who could stay up, not Wycombe.

What would the league table look like if all our results for last season were removed? How about 18/19?

Has anyone done this? I'd be curious to see it.

[kevinhectoring]

7 hours ago, The Scarlet Pimpernel said:

Quoting myself but I've just read regulation 95 which does indeed in my opinion allow Boro to claim. It also therefore allows every other club to claim against each other if you can show you may have been affected by another's actions. 

Very dodgy waters now for the whole of the EFL. Perhaps we could do away with football and all gather to watch legal proceedings unfold. Forget Messi, it's Nick De-Marco, the new superstar. 

95 doesn’t allow Boro to claim. 95 tells you what sort of disputes are required to be subject to arbitration (rather than action in the courts)

@i-Ram is maintaining that clubs can’t sue each other under the rules. We know that this is not the view held by sports lawyers. Because when Boro tried to intervene in our EFl dispute, we and Boro agreed the starting point is that the EFl rules are a multilateral contract to which all clubs are party which allows clubs in principle to sue each other for breach. If you read para 13 of the LAP decision in the Middlesborough intervention you will see that this is unarguable. Nevertheless a number of people on here continue to argue against it !! 

Edited February 15, 2022 by kevinhectoring

[B4ev6is]

11 minutes ago, StarterForTen said:

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but didn't we not fail the P&S limit for the 20/21 season - by a couple of million if I recall?

If that is the case, then isn't Wycombe's argument exactly the same as Middlesbrough's appeared to be, in that because Derby 'cheated' we had a stronger team than allowable finances would have created and, therefore, finished higher in the League as a consequence?

When this all kicked they were not even in the champership at the time and only reason that they were in it last season points thing that got them in league one play offs and even last season we were in soft transfear embargo so no they dont have a claim.

[Jimbo Ram]

7 minutes ago, ColonelBlimp said:

It's a nonsense claim because on that last day it was either us or Wednesday who could stay up, not Wycombe.

What would the league table look like if all our results for last season were removed? How about 18/19?

Has anyone done this? I'd be curious to see it.

No, both us and Wednesday were down and Wycombe would have stayed up without the late equaliser v Wycombe…….

[i-Ram]

10 minutes ago, kevinhectoring said:

95 doesn’t allow Boro to claim. 95 tells you what sort of disputes are required to be subject to arbitration (rather than action in the courts)

@i-Ram is maintaining that clubs can’t sue each other under the rules. We know that this is not the view held by sports lawyers. Because when Boro tried to intervene in our EFl dispute, we and Boro agreed the starting point is that the EFl rules are a multilateral contract to which all clubs are party which allows clubs in principle to sue each other for breach. If you read para 13 of the LAP decision in the Middlesborough intervention you will see that this is unarguable. Nevertheless a number of people on here continue to argue against it !! 

Not sure I have maintained anything. Anyway, carry on.

[DerbysLane]

25 minutes ago, StarterForTen said:

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but didn't we not fail the P&S limit for the 20/21 season - by a couple of million if I recall?

If that is the case, then isn't Wycombe's argument exactly the same as Middlesbrough's appeared to be, in that because Derby 'cheated' we had a stronger team than allowable finances would have created and, therefore, finished higher in the League as a consequence?

Well yes, but probably best not to make a big thing of that until it's settled.

[PistoldPete]

12 minutes ago, kevinhectoring said:

95 doesn’t allow Boro to claim. 95 tells you what sort of disputes are required to be subject to arbitration (rather than action in the courts)

@i-Ram is maintaining that clubs can’t sue each other under the rules. We know that this is not the view held by sports lawyers. Because when Boro tried to intervene in our EFl dispute, we and Boro agreed the starting point is that the EFl rules are a multilateral contract to which all clubs are party which allows clubs in principle to sue each other for breach. If you read para 13 of the LAP decision in the Middlesborough intervention you will see that this is unarguable. Nevertheless a number of people on here continue to argue against it !! 

Yes I do Kevin because the key words  are “in principle. “
 

There are rules within the Efl regulations that you could break that could indeed lead to a dispute and the club being sued. But not any rule that we know Derby has alleged to have broken… especially given rule 4.4 which expressly disallows it. 

What you say is unarguable has in fact been argued the exact opposite by three Qcs advising quantuma. 

so unless you are a QC yourself and have at least two others who agree with you I think my money will be firmly on quantuma being correct. 

[ollycutts1982]

1 hour ago, Rambalin said:

Re your last point Derby may be a attractive proposition 4.5k a week is better than 0 a week. A short 3 month contract puts the player in the shop window and if he preforms well  the chance to pick up a better deal elsewhere next season 

It certainly worked for Andy Carroll. The stint at Reading got him a more lucrative contract at WBA.

[Sparkle]

34 minutes ago, Jimbo Ram said:

No, both us and Wednesday were down and Wycombe would have stayed up without the late equaliser v Wycombe…….

Middlesbrough fielded a weakened team to play Wycombe in the last game of the season so lost 0-3 at home - no investigation no punishment and so on 

Rotherham blew it at Cardiff in a draw - whilst we drew with Sheffield Wednesday but if we had known how parasitic Wycombe were we would have given Sheffield Wednesday the win out of decency 

[Tyler Durden]

54 minutes ago, kevinhectoring said:

95 doesn’t allow Boro to claim. 95 tells you what sort of disputes are required to be subject to arbitration (rather than action in the courts)

@i-Ram is maintaining that clubs can’t sue each other under the rules. We know that this is not the view held by sports lawyers. Because when Boro tried to intervene in our EFl dispute, we and Boro agreed the starting point is that the EFl rules are a multilateral contract to which all clubs are party which allows clubs in principle to sue each other for breach. If you read para 13 of the LAP decision in the Middlesborough intervention you will see that this is unarguable. Nevertheless a number of people on here continue to argue against it !! 

In principle and unarguable are two totally different entities whatsoever. 

That's ten seconds of my life that I won't get back.

[The Scarlet Pimpernel]

56 minutes ago, kevinhectoring said:

95 doesn’t allow Boro to claim. 95 tells you what sort of disputes are required to be subject to arbitration (rather than action in the courts)

@i-Ram is maintaining that clubs can’t sue each other under the rules. We know that this is not the view held by sports lawyers. Because when Boro tried to intervene in our EFl dispute, we and Boro agreed the starting point is that the EFl rules are a multilateral contract to which all clubs are party which allows clubs in principle to sue each other for breach. If you read para 13 of the LAP decision in the Middlesborough intervention you will see that this is unarguable. Nevertheless a number of people on here continue to argue against it !! 

According to Parry and as I read it 95 was used in the Boro claim. Are you trying to split hairs by any chance?

[Big Trav]

rumours are that gibson recieved no money. Apparently him and Morris both spoke and came to an agreement that gibson would leave derby put of it and go after him personally

[RadioactiveWaste]

2 minutes ago, Big Trav said:

rumours are that gibson recieved no money. Apparently him and Morris both spoke and came to an agreement that gibson would leave derby put of it and go after him personally

If true, I like.

[Tyler Durden]

4 minutes ago, Big Trav said:

rumours are that gibson recieved no money. Apparently him and Morris both spoke and came to an agreement that gibson would leave derby put of it and go after him personally

Aha Prince Andrew is well placed to advise on matters such as that. Allegedly. 

[ollycutts1982]

4 minutes ago, Big Trav said:

rumours are that gibson recieved no money. Apparently him and Morris both spoke and came to an agreement that gibson would leave derby put of it and go after him personally

I doubt that, he stands absolutely no chance of winning against Morris, due to the eneptability of the EFL Pube headed wobble gob held all the cards. 

[kevinhectoring]

6 hours ago, ColonelBlimp said:

Is there a time limit for claims mentioned under EFL rules or do they default to UK company rules?

Any claims between clubs are subject to the normal rules (eg 6 year limitation period for breach of contract). Don’t think the fact they are subject to an arbitration agreement changes that

[PistoldPete]

18 minutes ago, Tyler Durden said:

In principle and unarguable are two totally different entities whatsoever. 

That's ten seconds of my life that I won't get back.

Exactly. Derby may have agreed in principle they can be sued.. but when they were sued they argued that in the circumstances Boro were trying to claim for they couldn't. 

Kevin says something is unarguable, but then starts an argument about it.
 

[kevinhectoring]

51 minutes ago, PistoldPete said:

Yes I do Kevin because the key words  are “in principle. “
 

There are rules within the Efl regulations that you could break that could indeed lead to a dispute and the club being sued. But not any rule that we know Derby has alleged to have broken… especially given rule 4.4 which expressly disallows it. 

What you say is unarguable has in fact been argued the exact opposite by three Qcs advising quantuma. 

so unless you are a QC yourself and have at least two others who agree with you I think my money will be firmly on quantuma being correct. 

Boro’s main claim would not have been based on a breach of 4.4 (good faith). It would have referenced the breach of FFP rules which we admitted in the 9 point agreed decision. 

And Q has certainly never said that clubs can’t sue each other. Instead, they have been advised that the Boro claims are crap, of no substance. That’s what the 3 QCs told them.