EFL statement

[Sparkle]

What are we talking about exactly? Which law ? - is it the law of the land or just the EFL farting around as usual 

[RoyMac5]

6 minutes ago, Sparkle said:

What are we talking about exactly? Which law ? - is it the law of the land or just the EFL farting around as usual 

I presume that the EFL regs no longer reflect 'the law of the land' hence the 'against statute' comment from the Admin last Friday?

[Indy]

4 minutes ago, Sparkle said:

What are we talking about exactly? Which law ? - is it the law of the land or just the EFL farting around as usual 

My understanding is that the insolvency law changed with who had preferred creditor status. So football creditors are prioritised. 

Where the EFL rule book hasn’t kept up is that it doesn’t yet define what a ‘football creditor’ is. They seem to be saying that any football body making a claim is. But as Boro/Wycombe claims are not related to a contracted debt that we have defaulted on, they aren’t legally creditors, so their status as football bodies is irrelevant. 
 

Waiting for someone who understands this better than me to let me know if this is incorrect!!

[BaaLocks]

I always try to see the other side in sitautions like this. From the EFL perspective I do get that they need to break this cycle somehow - this will be the third year running when clubs are relegated for financial matters rather than playing performance and the fourth year running where clubs have been docked points for failing to comply. That can't be how a sporting league operates. So I do, reluctantly, understand their desire to take a hard line on clubs who fall foul - much though we can try to argue it was our owner, not the club, and we are being punished for their decisions.

But there are two parts where it all falls down. The Boro / Wycombe argument is just lunacy. Are we now to sue Chorley, or the Government, because it can be shown that we were unfairly punished for comlying with Covid guidelines? Should we claim we would have actually won the Cup otherwise and now require a share of Europa League payments?

The second point is the clear delay tactics of the EFL, all the way through, to use uncertainty as the ultimate punishment. I get that the EFL are the body to support all clubs, and that means taking the line that best does that for the overall league, but their total lack of ownership of the issue should leave the whole league realising they are not capable as a governing body.

Where it ends nobody really knows but the salutory tale of Bury tends to suggest the worst case scenario is a very real prospect and the EFL either cannot, or will not, stop that happening. I fear they now cannot, particularly as the Boro / Wycombe cases are actually more then law of the land than internal matters that they can adjudicate over.

The whole thing has, sadly, gone beyond them though that does not in one iota remove the ultimate blame that lies on them. They could have sorted this, while achieving their aims of punishing 'us' for our offences, months ago. I've signed the petition, I've written to my MP (Nadham Zahawi - whistle if you think that's going to do anything) but the very present issue has, imho, passed that. There is only one real factor on the table with three options, with 'we' being any potential new owner.

OPTION ONE: We settle out of court with Boro and Wycombe

OPTION TWO: We convince them to cease proceedings

OPTION THREE: We fight it in court

I can't see any of those options being realistically palatable to all parties, so I take a very dim view of what the future holds.

[RoyMac5]

5 minutes ago, BaaLocks said:

OPTION ONE: We settle out of court with Boro and Wycombe

OPTION TWO: We convince them to cease proceedings

OPTION THREE: We fight it in court

I can't see any of those options being realistically palatable to all parties, so I take a very dim view of what the future holds.

Well the EFL are suggesting (according to Parry's email?)

OPTION 4: arbitration

I presume we need to have funds until the seasons end for that to go ahead? 

[JuanFloEvraTheCocu'sNesta]

Given the speed at which the EFL arbitration processes move when they involve DCFC we'll need to find the funds to keep ourselves going until 2024 before a takeover can be concluded

Edited January 17, 2022 by JuanFloEvraTheCocu'sNesta

[NottsRam77]

27 minutes ago, BaaLocks said:

I always try to see the other side in sitautions like this. From the EFL perspective I do get that they need to break this cycle somehow - this will be the third year running when clubs are relegated for financial matters rather than playing performance and the fourth year running where clubs have been docked points for failing to comply. That can't be how a sporting league operates. So I do, reluctantly, understand their desire to take a hard line on clubs who fall foul - much though we can try to argue it was our owner, not the club, and we are being punished for their decisions.

But there are two parts where it all falls down. The Boro / Wycombe argument is just lunacy. Are we now to sue Chorley, or the Government, because it can be shown that we were unfairly punished for comlying with Covid guidelines? Should we claim we would have actually won the Cup otherwise and now require a share of Europa League payments?

The second point is the clear delay tactics of the EFL, all the way through, to use uncertainty as the ultimate punishment. I get that the EFL are the body to support all clubs, and that means taking the line that best does that for the overall league, but their total lack of ownership of the issue should leave the whole league realising they are not capable as a governing body.

Where it ends nobody really knows but the salutory tale of Bury tends to suggest the worst case scenario is a very real prospect and the EFL either cannot, or will not, stop that happening. I fear they now cannot, particularly as the Boro / Wycombe cases are actually more then law of the land than internal matters that they can adjudicate over.

The whole thing has, sadly, gone beyond them though that does not in one iota remove the ultimate blame that lies on them. They could have sorted this, while achieving their aims of punishing 'us' for our offences, months ago. I've signed the petition, I've written to my MP (Nadham Zahawi - whistle if you think that's going to do anything) but the very present issue has, imho, passed that. There is only one real factor on the table with three options, with 'we' being any potential new owner.

OPTION ONE: We settle out of court with Boro and Wycombe

OPTION TWO: We convince them to cease proceedings

OPTION THREE: We fight it in court

I can't see any of those options being realistically palatable to all parties, so I take a very dim view of what the future holds.

Maybe if their fit and proper person test was more thorough or they intervened in finacial matters before breaking points were reached then clubs being relagted for finacial breaches would be less common 

[StaffsRam]

1 minute ago, NottsRam77 said:

Maybe if their fit and proper person test was more thorough or they intervened in finacial matters before breaking points were reached then clubs being relagted for finacial breaches would be less common 

Governance needs to be independent. How can you expect fair decisions and outcomes when every single member on the board has a vested interest AGAINST whoever they decide is in for a kicking this week?

[PistoldPete]

3 minutes ago, StaffsRam said:

Governance needs to be independent. How can you expect fair decisions and outcomes when every single member on the board has a vested interest AGAINST whoever they decide is in for a kicking this week?

Exactly. 

[roboto]

13 minutes ago, JuanFloEvraTheCocu'sNesta said:

Given the speed at which the EFL arbitration processes move when they involve DCFC we'll need to find the funds to keep ourselves going until 2024 before a takeover can be concluded

Give or take 48 hours.

[strawhillram]

8 minutes ago, NottsRam77 said:

Maybe if their fit and proper person test was more thorough or they intervened in finacial matters before breaking points were reached then clubs being relagted for finacial breaches would be less common 

The efl board should be subject to a fit and proper test themselves. They’d all fail

[Carl Sagan]

14 minutes ago, JuanFloEvraTheCocu'sNesta said:

Given the speed at which the EFL arbitration processes move when they involve DCFC we'll need to find the funds to keep ourselves going until 2024 before a takeover can be concluded

Exactly this. The EFL plan is always to kick things into the long grass to prevent Derby moving forward. Hence why we were forced to drop the appeal against the points deduction. We're not helped by the Administrators appearing completely spineless. The EFL, Boro and Wycombe are manifestly in the wrong and they should come out and say so.

[duncanjwitham]

4 minutes ago, StaffsRam said:

Governance needs to be independent. How can you expect fair decisions and outcomes when every single member on the board has a vested interest AGAINST whoever they decide is in for a kicking this week?

It's more accountability than independence for me (although they probably do go at least partly hand in hand).

The moment it came out in our first hearing that they'd appointed a property valuer that had no actual experience in valuing stadiums, who'd then screwed up their valuation because he didn't know what he was doing, and they'd blown through hundreds of thousands of pounds of their members money pursuing a court case off the back of it, heads should have rolled.  Like literally all of the heads.  But no, they carry on as if nothing had gone wrong and now they appear to be doing the same thing again. And again. And again.

I don't care if they're independent or not, but there has to be some process of holding them accountable when things go wrong, whoever they are.

[RoyMac5]

1 minute ago, duncanjwitham said:

and they'd blown through hundreds of thousands of pounds of their members money pursuing a court case off the back of it, heads should have rolled.  Like literally all of the heads.  But no, they carry on as if nothing had gone wrong and now they appear to be doing the same thing again. And again. And again.

Turkeys don't vote for Christmas. Why would they get off the gravy train? Indeed look who they've just let on board!

[scout's dad]

EFL don't need to impose to impose any points deductions for breaking ffp. Seeing how this has been allowed to drag on and on will likely end us. Other clubs will will be too scared to break the rules in case the same happens to them.

[duncanjwitham]

6 minutes ago, RoyMac5 said:

Turkeys don't vote for Christmas. Why would they get off the gravy train? Indeed look who they've just let on board!

Honestly, I'm surprised there wasn't more uproar from other clubs over that.  The EFL basically wasted a whole pile of their cash for zero gain, and the clubs just went along with it.

[StaffsRam]

13 minutes ago, RoyMac5 said:

Indeed look who they've just let on board!

At least he’ll be used to confusion and delay….

[1of4]

[JuanFloEvraTheCocu'sNesta]

Just had a browse on twitter on my lunch, seems to be a lot more "How can this be allowed to happen?" type comment and coverage as opposed to the "just kill them" it had been up until now. Maybe the message is getting through.
 

It was Bury before. It's DCFC now. Could be anyone next. The EFL are a law unto themselves and that needs to change.

[BaaLocks]

2 hours ago, RoyMac5 said:

Well the EFL are suggesting (according to Parry's email?)

OPTION 4: arbitration

I presume we need to have funds until the seasons end for that to go ahead? 

Arbitration is setting out of court really, isn't it? You're just asking someome else to agree how that number is agreed upon. Of course, as with everything else, your point is well made in that we will need to prove we have the funds to cover the delays others will impose. A bit like Novak in Melbourne, he could fight all he wanted but once his first round match was due to start the whole thing becomes irrelevant.