kevinhectoring Posted January 20, 2022 Share Posted January 20, 2022 18 minutes ago, David said: I would argue it's far more unrealistic that Boro and Wycombe would drop their claims or accept a token settlement, listening to Couhig on RD and reading Gibson's statements, I think I have more chance of waking up in the morning as a multi millionaire female pop star. You are correct in that they have a responsibility for all 72 clubs, do you really think other clubs would want Boro and Wycombe to be successful in these claims? It would change the game, there would be lawsuits left right and centre. It would be in the best interests for all 72 clubs for the EFL to come out and shut this thing down and take whatever comes their way. If Boro go for the EFL in court, who do you think pays for that?......Championship clubs, and given the losses incurred during the pandemic, I highly doubt they will receive much support if they were to go down that path. I would love it if MM, or the City, were to say, “ok, we will take on these claims. Bring ‘em on.” Then we’d see Gibbo slither back to the sewer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Day Posted January 20, 2022 Author Share Posted January 20, 2022 3 minutes ago, kevinhectoring said: In the statement, EFl goes some way to explaining why they can’t do this. In more detail: 1 The claims are imho rubbish. But EFL can’t declare that they think M and W’s claims are going to fail on the merits because the two clubs are, under the rules, entitled to their day in court. If EFl were to say: “Gibbo, you just didn’t win enough matches”, he’d shrug his shoulders and - after our restructuring - engage us in arbitration. The EFl can’t stop him doing that, so far as I can see Under the rules they are not entitled to their day in court, moratorium prevents them from doing so, nor have Boro come out and said we want our day in court, they won't want this in court, they are looking for a financial settlement. A settlement they have no entitlement to. 3 minutes ago, kevinhectoring said: 2 Nor can the EFl state that M and W fail because contingent creditors can’t be football creditors. Similar to 1, the interpretation of the EFl articles is not down to the EFl, not least because those articles are a contract between all the members. So if EFl made a pronouncement ruling out contingent creditors, Gibbo is still entitled to engage us in arbitration. And he would tell the arbitrator he doesn’t care what the EFl says, it’s for the arbitrator to determine the meaning of the contract. And if, surprisingly, the arbitrator agreed with the EFl, M would likely sue the EFl arguing they had interfered with M’s claim, their contractual rights I'm led to believe a moratorium prevents arbitration. 3 minutes ago, kevinhectoring said: 3 The other reason against EFl ruling out contingent claims (putting aside that it’s almost definitely wrong as a legal matter), is that there may be other contingent claims that could arise between clubs and that the clubs at large would not want to be ruled out. Agreed, that's not our fault. 3 minutes ago, kevinhectoring said: David, on this point the EFl is between a rock and a hard place. For you to say the rule is ‘explicit’ is probably wrong because these complicated points of interpretation are often settled by implication. And you only need to read this thread to understand that the point is very far from ‘simple’ They are in a deep deep hole, and by "simple" I'm not suggesting it's easy for the EFL, they are in a world of trouble. It's simple in that all it takes is for a one paragraph statement to move this stalemate on. We can't be expected to just agree to some settlement just to make life easier for the EFL, we do that and it not only admits defeat but opens the floor for claims from other clubs that lose out on places in the Championship. Side note here, saw it raised on Twitter, let's say we settled, admitting that by cheating we cost Boro a place in the play offs, does that then allow Pulis and the squad of players during that season to then go knocking on Gibson's door asking for their bonuses for finishing top 6? I would love there to be a solution which the EFL, Derby, Boro and Wycombe are all happy with, but it's simply not possible. angieram, Norman and RammingStone66 1 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevinhectoring Posted January 20, 2022 Share Posted January 20, 2022 11 minutes ago, David said: It's simple in that all it takes is for a one paragraph statement to move this stalemate on. Seriously, what would this paragraph say ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Day Posted January 20, 2022 Author Share Posted January 20, 2022 2 minutes ago, kevinhectoring said: Seriously, what would this paragraph say ? The EFL are extremely disappointed that all parties could not come to a resolution, after review we would like to clarify our position is as follows, the EFL do/do not consider Middlesbrough and Wycombe to be football creditors. Don't get me wrong, I'm fully aware that is not a they all live happily ever after ending, it's not, but it would break the stalemate. I'm yet to see any alternative solutions as I say that would leave all parties satisfied and my primary concern is that of Derby County. If Boro want to thrash it out in court with the EFL, go for it, Rick Parry has admitted on a podcast their handling of this has been poor. I just want to go into the summer, looking forward to seeing our club rebuild. darren22, kevinhectoring and strawhillram 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Red Ram Posted January 20, 2022 Share Posted January 20, 2022 (edited) 6 minutes ago, David said: The EFL are extremely disappointed that all parties could not come to a resolution, after review we would like to clarify our position is as follows, the EFL do/do not consider Middlesbrough and Wycombe to be football creditors. Don't get me wrong, I'm fully aware that is not a they all live happily ever after ending, it's not, but it would break the stalemate. I'm yet to see any alternative solutions as I say that would leave all parties satisfied and my primary concern is that of Derby County. If Boro want to thrash it out in court with the EFL, go for it, Rick Parry has admitted on a podcast their handling of this has been poor. I just want to go into the summer, looking forward to seeing our club rebuild. They could only really say they were football creditors or they'd be contravening football League rules. There's clear precedent for legal compensation claims between clubs being treated as football debts. See https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/60031718 There were two clubs involved in the case cited here. Liverpool and ... Cue drumroll... You guessed it! Edited January 20, 2022 by Red Ram Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PistoldPete Posted January 20, 2022 Share Posted January 20, 2022 1 minute ago, Red Ram said: They could only really say they were football creditors or they'd be contravening football League rules. There's clear precedent for legal compensation claims between clubs bring treated as football debts. See https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/60031718 There were two clubs involved in the case cited here. Liverpool and ... Cue drumroll... You guessed it! But it only became football creditor when Liverpool were ordered to pay compo. Oh and Liverpool CEO was Rick Parry. So why didn't Boro sue Parry and his mob again? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Day Posted January 20, 2022 Author Share Posted January 20, 2022 2 minutes ago, Red Ram said: They could only really say they were football creditors or they'd be contravening football League rules. There's clear precedent for legal compensation claims between clubs being treated as football debts. See https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/60031718 There were two clubs involved in the case cited here. Liverpool and ... Cue drumroll... You guessed it! And it would break the stalemate, this leaves the admins with 2 options, go to court or agree a settlement. The longer the stalemate goes on, the less time it leaves to actually get any deal done. Administrators providing proof of funds, then taking this to court over the remainder of the season is the most likely scenario at this point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
i-Ram Posted January 20, 2022 Share Posted January 20, 2022 2 hours ago, kevinhectoring said: @David i know your support for our club and its interests is unparalleled. But you should read the EFL’s latest statement and close this thread down. The bad guys here are M and W. They have put the EFl in a bad place and us on the precipice. MM spent two fruitless years slagging off the EFl and it damaged us. We should learn from that. Suggesting the EFL can waive a magic wand and fix the ‘football creditors’ point is naive and - along with other posts on here, which they DO monitor - it has pi$$ed them off. Not least because it doubtless contravenes ALL the legal advice they are getting and that’s what they need to act on. We need their help. The fans - especially those on here - have worked wonders getting MPs, councillors, media people involved. More of that is what we need Kevin, you make some good points in this thread (as does @Red Ram) but the above post is pitiful. We are in a war my friend, and the EFL are the enemy. We fight them, and if they are monitoring this thread, and reading this post, well I say ‘duck you!’ And for the purposes of balance if Mel is reading this too, ‘duck you too!’. JoetheRam, Norman, angieram and 2 others 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RoyMac5 Posted January 20, 2022 Share Posted January 20, 2022 (edited) https://ramstrust.org.uk/wp/scg-quantuma-meeting-thursday-20th-january-2022-11am-via-ms-teams/ Edited January 20, 2022 by RoyMac5 Day and cstand 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RoyMac5 Posted January 20, 2022 Share Posted January 20, 2022 https://ramstrust.org.uk/wp/scg-quantuma-meeting-thursday-20th-january-2022-11am-via-ms-teams/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PistoldPete Posted January 20, 2022 Share Posted January 20, 2022 2 hours ago, i-Ram said: Kevin, you make some good points in this thread (as does @Red Ram) but the above post is pitiful. We are in a war my friend, and the EFL are the enemy. We fight them, and if they are monitoring this thread, and reading this post, well I say ‘duck you!’ And for the purposes of balance if Mel is reading this too, ‘duck you too!’. Well yes, especially as all the MPs are saying exactly what we are saying, EFL are being intransigent and bureaucratic and they must not allow this to happen. They are the ones who have given us an ultimatum, how is that helping? Actually it is because it means we are starting to fightback. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rev Posted January 20, 2022 Share Posted January 20, 2022 Just now, PistoldPete said: Well yes, especially as all the MPs are saying exactly what we are saying, EFL are being intransigent and bureaucratic and they must not allow this to happen. They are the ones who have given us an ultimatum, how is that helping? Actually it is because it means we are starting to fightback. What ultimatum? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
uttoxram75 Posted January 20, 2022 Share Posted January 20, 2022 1 minute ago, Rev said: What ultimatum? the ultimatum that states, "if you don't agree to pay Gibson and the other @^&£ how ever many £millions we decide, we'll shut your club down" that ultimatum I assume. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
europia Posted January 20, 2022 Share Posted January 20, 2022 On 18/01/2022 at 14:01, PistoldPete said: But if its a debt that could become due no buyer wants to take that on. That is true. However, all of the potential new owners seem very keen, otherwise they would already have walked away. Considering the amount of money it's going to cost them to to take control of DCFC, they could set some funds aside and engage the services of a serious legal expert who would almost certainly blow Middlesborough & Wycombes claims away in a court of law. Actually, the suggestion of a robust defence might well be enough to make Gibson and Couhig crawl back into their holes. They almost certainly know they don't have a case, hence their attempt to blackmail DCFC for an out of court arrangement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DerbysLane Posted January 20, 2022 Share Posted January 20, 2022 4 hours ago, kevinhectoring said: I would love it if MM, or the City, were to say, “ok, we will take on these claims. Bring ‘em on.” Then we’d see Gibbo slither back to the sewer Probably the worst thing to happen would be for MM to take this to court. It is clear Gibson's issue is with MM and he will pursue legal action until the bitter end if MM is funding it or even providing the evidence for dcfc. It will drag out for years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rev Posted January 20, 2022 Share Posted January 20, 2022 12 minutes ago, europia said: That is true. However, all of the potential new owners seem very keen, otherwise they would already have walked away. Considering the amount of money it's going to cost them to to take control of DCFC, they could set some funds aside and engage the services of a serious legal expert who would almost certainly blow Middlesborough & Wycombes claims away in a court of law. Actually, the suggestion of a robust defence might well be enough to make Gibson and Couhig crawl back into their holes. They almost certainly know they don't have a case, hence their attempt to blackmail DCFC for an out of court arrangement. The bolded bit is the point, and I don't know how people aren't grasping it. We have no recourse to the law, the only path is down the EFL tribunal route. We can have 100 QC's stating our case in a law court, but the EFL rules won't allow it. The only route open to hear the claims is an independent EFL tribunal, and we've already fallen foul of the same system, when a court of law would throw it out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DerbysLane Posted January 20, 2022 Share Posted January 20, 2022 3 hours ago, Red Ram said: They could only really say they were football creditors or they'd be contravening football League rules. There's clear precedent for legal compensation claims between clubs being treated as football debts. See https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/60031718 There were two clubs involved in the case cited here. Liverpool and ... Cue drumroll... You guessed it! You can read the appeal here https://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/format.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2002/1929.html&query=(title:(+Liverpool+))+AND+(title:(+MIDDLESBOROUGH+)) . It was settled out of court like Tevez. It doesn't set a precedent for what is or isn't a football creditor from what I can see (although I'm no lawyer). But it does demonstrate the possibility that compensation could be paid to clubs. And that sort of gives the possibility that Middlesbrough could be a football creditor in the future. kevinhectoring 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
europia Posted January 20, 2022 Share Posted January 20, 2022 14 minutes ago, Rev said: The bolded bit is the point, and I don't know how people aren't grasping it. We have no recourse to the law, the only path is down the EFL tribunal route. We can have 100 QC's stating our case in a law court, but the EFL rules won't allow it. The only route open to hear the claims is an independent EFL tribunal, and we've already fallen foul of the same system, when a court of law would throw it out. Not talking about a QC stating the case for DCFC, that counts for very little (other than educated opinion). The point is, should Boro and Wycombe decide to pursue this through the court, DCFC (new owners) should be very confident in defending such a weak case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevinhectoring Posted January 20, 2022 Share Posted January 20, 2022 (edited) 3 hours ago, i-Ram said: Kevin, you make some good points in this thread (as does @Red Ram) but the above post is pitiful. We are in a war my friend, and the EFL are the enemy. We fight them, and if they are monitoring this thread, and reading this post, well I say ‘duck you!’ And for the purposes of balance if Mel is reading this too, ‘duck you too!’. @i-ram you’ll get lots of claps and likes for this and yes my posts along these lines will get angry faces. But forget the popularity contest, you need to apply your not inconsiderable brainpower to working out what does and does not further our club’s interests. The EFl quite simply can’t do what you/@david are asking and they have explained that to you in a statement that was literally aimed at this thread (and at others). The enemy - forget MM, he’s old news - is M and W and they are making life difficult for the EFL as well as intolerable for us. We need EFL’s support. We will not get it if Q slag them off and not will we get it if @Davidrallies the troops against them under false pretences Edited January 20, 2022 by kevinhectoring Day 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
europia Posted January 20, 2022 Share Posted January 20, 2022 19 minutes ago, DerbysLane said: You can read the appeal here https://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/format.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2002/1929.html&query=(title:(+Liverpool+))+AND+(title:(+MIDDLESBOROUGH+)) . It was settled out of court like Tevez. It doesn't set a precedent for what is or isn't a football creditor from what I can see (although I'm no lawyer). But it does demonstrate the possibility that compensation could be paid to clubs. And that sort of gives the possibility that Middlesbrough could be a football creditor in the future. Yes, possibility, not even a probability. A very weak case and someone is probably going to have to call their bluff to move things forward. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts