The Administration Thread

[kevinhectoring]

1 hour ago, i-Ram said:

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

I said you were maintaining that clubs could not sue each other (which is not correct, clearly they can), because you said:

“Yes, and to include @angieram, it seems to me that no Club can directly take action against another one...”

that’s all 

Edited February 15, 2022 by kevinhectoring

[kevinhectoring]

28 minutes ago, The Scarlet Pimpernel said:

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

No   I’m simply trying to point out that 95 does not give clubs the right to sue each other. Instead it tells clubs that if they have a right to sue each other, eg because someone has breached FFP, than this is how it must be done.  

that’s really isn’t splitting hairs !! 

[Jimbo Ram]

47 minutes ago, Sparkle said:

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 

Sorry, got my Wycombe's and Rotherham muddled, but I knew it wasn't a case of just one of us and the Wendies that could go down...

[Tyler Durden]

7 minutes ago, kevinhectoring said:

No   I’m simply trying to point out that 95 does not give clubs the right to sue each other. Instead it tells clubs that if they have a right to sue each other, eg because someone has breached FFP, than this is how it must be done.  

that’s really isn’t splitting hairs !! 

Read what you've just quoted back, its nonsensical. 

[PistoldPete]

32 minutes ago, kevinhectoring said:

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. 

Boro's  main claim does seem to have been based on breach of 4.4 .. they keep referring to us "cheating".. so that is a claim in which 4.4 would be dircetly relevant even if they try and dress it up some other way.

Neither Q nor I have said that clubs cannot  sue each other. But I think what Q has said in meetings with supporter groups is that there is no basis for a club to club claim in the circumstances that Boro are complaining about. Hosking was saying it would be riduculous if that was the case.. clubs suing for players diving and handling the ball, you would just get writs all over the place.

What you seem to be saying is because both Derby and Boro are subject to the same rules, they can sue us if we break the rules. If that is what you are saying, I think you are wrong.

If I have  car crash and that causes someone not involved in the crash to be late for work, can they sue me just because they are also subject to the same traffic laws that I am? It's just too tenuous.
 
 

Edited February 15, 2022 by PistoldPete

[jono]

2 hours ago, Oldben said:

Free agents don't help understand the embargo, sure the club can sign them as long as the current squad size isn't bigger than efl allowable size which just happens to be almost the minimum amount for a squad.

The next issue is derby can't compete on salaries for those free agents, spend amount on salaries is restricted under the embargo

The next is is that with Derby in its current position, which quality free agents would look derbys way, unless of course the salaries paid were high.

I don’t know the ins and outs of permissible signings (not sure the EFL does either ) but I genuinely suspect “competing” on salaries isn’t as big a problem as we might think. There are a lot of skint champ clubs out there, terrified of FFP and ordinary cash flow 

[Crewton]

2 hours 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?

As far as I've seen, their claim is based on the fact that we should have had our PD earlier but didn't because we deliberately delayed the proceedings.

If their argument IS as you say, we could easily counter-argue that the revised player amortisation figures are what put us over the limit but those amortisation figures included >£2M in respect of players who were out on loan all season and who consequently didn't strengthen us at all i.e Marriott, Jozefzoon, Malone and Carson.

[Tyler Durden]

1 hour 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 !! 

Suggest you should consider a career in lecturing on the EFL rules 

[Curtains]

33 minutes ago, kevinhectoring said:

No   I’m simply trying to point out that 95 does not give clubs the right to sue each other. Instead it tells clubs that if they have a right to sue each other, eg because someone has breached FFP, than this is how it must be done.  

that’s really isn’t splitting hairs !! 

What section of 95 applies then Zac !

 

95           Agreement to Arbitrate

95.1        Membership of The League shall constitute an agreement in writing between The League and Clubs and between each Club for the purposes of section 5 of the Arbitration Act:

95.1.1    to submit those disputes described out in Regulation 95.2 to final and binding arbitration in accordance with the provisions of the Arbitration Act and this Section of these Regulations;

95.1.2    that the seat of each such arbitration shall be in England and Wales;

95.1.3    that the issues in each such arbitration shall be decided in accordance with English law;

95.1.4    that no other system or mode of arbitration (including arbitration under Football Association Rules) will be invoked to resolve any such dispute.

95.2        The following disputes fall to be resolved under this Section of the Regulations:

95.2.1    subject to Regulation 95.3 below, disputes arising from a decision of The League or the Board (‘Board Disputes’);

95.2.2    Disciplinary Appeals;

95.2.3    ‘Force Majeure’ appeals pursuant to Regulation 12.3 (Sporting Sanction Appeal);

95.2.4    applications pursuant to Rule 6 of Appendix 3 (Appeal Application and/or Review Applications under the Owners’ and Directors’ Test);

95.2.5    other disputes between The League and Clubs and between each Club arising from these Regulations or otherwise (‘Other Disputes’), unless such disputes were dealt with by way of the following proceedings:

(a)           a Player Related Dispute Commission (or subsequent appeal to the League Appeals Committee (if any)); or

(b)           proceedings before the Professional Football Compensation Committee;

as the decisions of those bodies themselves are deemed to be final with no subsequent right of appeal or challenge.

95.3        Any application for a review of a decision of the League or the Board to commence disciplinary proceedings under Section 8 of the Regulations must be presented within 7 days of the date of commencement of those proceedings (time of the essence) and shall be determined by the Disciplinary Commission constituted in accordance with Regulation 90.  Any such application or challenge of similar effect shall not be deemed to be a Board Dispute.

95.4        In the case of a Board Dispute, the League Arbitration Panel sits as a review body exercising a supervisory jurisdiction and this section of the Regulations shall not operate to provide an appeal against the decision and shall operate only as a forum and procedure for a challenge to the validity of such decision under English law on the grounds of:

95.4.1    ultra vires (including error of law); or

95.4.2    irrationality; or

95.4.3    procedural unfairness,

and where the decision directly and foreseeably prejudices the interests of a person or persons who were in the contemplation of The League or Board.

95.5        In the case of a Disciplinary Appeal, the League Arbitration Panel sits as an appeal body and the standard of review is:

95.5.1    where required in order to do justice (for example to cure procedural errors in the proceedings before the Disciplinary Commission), the Disciplinary Appeal shall take the form of a re-hearing de novo of the issues raised in the proceedings i.e. the League Arbitration Panel shall hear the matter over again, from the beginning, without being bound in any way by the decision being appealed;

95.5.2    in all other cases, the Appeal shall not take the form of a de novo hearing but instead shall be limited to a consideration of whether the decision being appealed was in error and the burden of establishing the decision was in error shall rest with the appellant; and

95.5.3    in the case of appeal against sanction, the grounds are that the original sanction was too severe or too lenient having regard to all the circumstances.

95.6        The grounds for appeal / review applicable:

95.6.1    to a Sporting Sanction Appeal, are as set out in Regulation 11.2.3; and

95.6.2    to an Appeal Application and/or Review Application, are as set out in Rule 6 of Appendix 3.

95.6.3    Other Disputes are dealt with by the League Arbitration Panel as a first instance body.

 

[Woodypecker]

1 hour ago, Sparkle said:

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 

I was gonna suggest that we could play a weakened team in April if a DCFC defeat could negatively affect Middlebrow's play-off place chances - but we only play QPR (mid-April) - and it's difficult to weaken our team much more!

Plus, it seems possible that we won't be relegated at that stage and only then be 'playing out fixtures'!

Anyroadup, the way the FA appallingly forced DCFC to play that farcical Chorley FA Cup tie in January 2021 has negated most claims that the 'authorities' might ever have, to scrutinise a team for fielding a weakened team!

 

[I know nuffin]

3 hours ago, Oldben said:

Free agents don't help understand the embargo, sure the club can sign them as long as the current squad size isn't bigger than efl allowable size which just happens to be almost the minimum amount for a squad.

The next issue is derby can't compete on salaries for those free agents, spend amount on salaries is restricted under the embargo

The next is is that with Derby in its current position, which quality free agents would look derbys way, unless of course the salaries paid were high.

There must be some layers out there that are not under contract but want to carry on playing. They could look at Derby as a shop window for themselves for next season

[hintonsboots]

2 minutes ago, I know nuffin said:

There must be some layers out there that are not under contract but want to carry on playing. They could look at Derby as a shop window for themselves for next season

Brickies?

[Mucker1884]

5 minutes ago, I know nuffin said:

There must be some layers out there that are not under contract but want to carry on playing. They could look at Derby as a shop window for themselves for next season

[I know nuffin]

14 minutes ago, hintonsboots said:

Brickies?

Yep to build a wall Infront of our goal

[kevinhectoring]

22 minutes ago, PistoldPete said:

Boro's  main claim does seem to have been based on breach of 4.4 .. they keep referring to us "cheating".. so that is a claim in which 4.4 would be dircetly relevant even if they try and dress it up some other way.

Neither Q nor I have said that clubs cannot  sue each other. But I think what Q has said in meetings with supporter groups is that there is no basis for a club to club claim in the circumstances that Boro are complaining about. Hosking was saying it would be riduculous if that was the case.. clubs suing for players diving and handling the ball, you would just get writs all over the place.

What you seem to be saying is because both Derby and Boro are subject to the same rules, they can sue us if we break the rules. If that is what you are saying, I think you are wrong.

If I have  car crash and that causes someone not involved in the crash to be late for work, can they sue me just because they are also subject to the same traffic laws that I am? It's just too tenuous.
 
 

Well to state the obvious point, no, Boro were never going to sue under 4.4 because the rule says they can’t! They use the word cheating because this was a PR battle as well as blackmail. And breach of FFP can quite easily be described as cheating 

You’re right of course that not every breach of the rules is actionable by other clubs, for many reasons. I listed some of these in a post to you yesterday (implied terms, loss was not ‘foreseeable’, claimant failed to mitigate) 

Would be interesting to know on what basis Q’s 3 QCs advised that Boro would lose  - could have been a few grounds some of which you allude to 

 

[Eddie]

23 minutes ago, hintonsboots said:

Brickies?

I wasn't sure whether the typo was 'players' or 'lawyers', but yours is funnier.

[May Contain Nuts]

 

 

[i-Ram]

1 hour ago, kevinhectoring said:

I said you were maintaining that clubs could not sue each other (which is not correct, clearly they can), because you said:

“Yes, and to include @angieram, it seems to me that no Club can directly take action against another one...”

that’s all 

For someone who gets terribly worked up by the nuance of wording, you do sometimes miss the glaringly obvious. I was commenting on a direct response from Rick Parry to me, where he said only the EFL can take action under Regulation 4.4.

Based on that I proposed, but certainly did not maintain, that it seems to me no Club can directly take action against another one.  The clue as to me not maintaining that as fact is in the use of the words that it seems to me.

Now it does also seem to me that a Club can take action another one via an EFL Arbitration Hearing.

As I have often said on here, I am no legal, insolvency, or indeed banking expert. But even if I was, I doubt I could get anywhere close to being as certain on these issues as you are.

[kevinhectoring]

5 minutes ago, i-Ram said:

For someone who gets terribly worked up by the nuance of wording, you do sometimes miss the glaringly obvious. I was commenting on a direct response from Rick Parry to me, where he said only the EFL can take action under Regulation 4.4.

Based on that I proposed, but certainly did not maintain, that it seems to me no Club can directly take action against another one.  The clue as to me not maintaining that as fact is in the use of the words that it seems to me.

Now it does also seem to me that a Club can take action another one via an EFL Arbitration Hearing.

As I have often said on here, I am no legal, insolvency, or indeed banking expert. But even if I was, I doubt I could get anywhere close to being as certain on these issues as you are.

Apologies didn’t know you were talking about 4.4.  I’m certain you’re right 

[Jimbo Ram]

37 minutes ago, kevinhectoring said:

Well to state the obvious point, no, Boro were never going to sue under 4.4 because the rule says they can’t! They use the word cheating because this was a PR battle as well as blackmail. And breach of FFP can quite easily be described as cheating 

You’re right of course that not every breach of the rules is actionable by other clubs, for many reasons. I listed some of these in a post to you yesterday (implied terms, loss was not ‘foreseeable’, claimant failed to mitigate) 

Would be interesting to know on what basis Q’s 3 QCs advised that Boro would lose  - could have been a few grounds some of which you allude to 

 

How about we move on ?