The Football Creditor rule is explicit, simple, and solves all of Derby's issues

[PistoldPete]

10 minutes ago, i-Ram said:

When you don’t know that a CVA stands for a Company Voluntary Arrangement you lose all credibility. I didn’t read anything else after your first sentence.

Doh! Fair comment, except  maybe focus on the substance rtaher than point scoring. 
 

[Day]

With regards to the Sheffield United case, in the Premier League it works a little bit different.

The Premier League Rule Book, contained within the Handbook (Download: Premier League Handbook; PDF 21.5MB), serves as a contract between the League, the Member Clubs and one another, defining the structure and running of the competition.

https://www.premierleague.com/about

This is why Sheffield United could go for West Ham in court. Where as in the EFL it’s between the club and league only, So Boro have no grounds to even go for us, as above 4.4, only the league can bring action.

 

[PistoldPete]

25 minutes ago, David said:

Couple of things to drop in here. Now I'm no legal expert, far from it, does this not read to you that only the League can take action against clubs that fail P&S?

Boro were also already been told they have no here business here when trying to get involved. 

Yet here they are....again....and the EFL are entertaining the idea Boro and Wycombe could be potentially football creditors.

Why?

When even if we move beyond that, 4.4 says only the league can bring action and they have been told already they have no business being involved.

Sorry but it stinks.

Does this relate to not "acting in good faith"? So Gibson allegations of "systematic cheating" are irrelevant if that rule is applied.

And actually EFL charged Sheff Wed with not acting in good faith (but failed). They didn't make that charge against Derby ,(presumably because they didn't think we were acting in bad faith)  although desperatly sought to make the allegation at the last minute when the hearing was held to decide what penalty to apply, and they wanted to get us relegated.  They failed there as well. 

So not only is Gibson not entitled to make the claim, he would almost certainly fail anyway even if he was.

 

Edited February 2, 2022 by PistoldPete

[Ghost of Clough]

5 minutes ago, David said:

With regards to the Sheffield United case, in the Premier League it works a little bit different.

The Premier League Rule Book, contained within the Handbook (Download: Premier League Handbook; PDF 21.5MB), serves as a contract between the League, the Member Clubs and one another, defining the structure and running of the competition.

https://www.premierleague.com/about

This is why Sheffield United could go for West Ham in court. Where as in the EFL it’s between the club and league only, So Boro have no grounds to even go for us, as above 4.4, only the league can bring action.

Get on the blower. Tell Hosking not to bother with arbitration... just get him to wave the rule book at Parry through his office window!

[i-Ram]

22 minutes ago, David said:

Couple of things to drop in here. Now I'm no legal expert, far from it, does this not read to you that only the League can take action against clubs that fail P&S?

Boro were also already been told they have no here business here when trying to get involved. 

Yet here they are....again....and the EFL are entertaining the idea Boro and Wycombe could be potentially football creditors.

Why?

When even if we move beyond that, 4.4 says only the league can bring action and they have been told already they have no business being involved.

Sorry but it stinks.

I am on a brief lunch hour (half hour) and have a busy afternoon ahead. Looking very briefly at the Arbitration miniutes above, I think no. 30 is salient. The LAP (3 QCs) are saying there is no need for Boro to be involved in that appeal process, but they equally seem to be stating that Boro would not be estopped (prevented) from bringing its own individual claim against Derby after the appeal has been heard.

[Day]

1 minute ago, PistoldPete said:

Does this relate to not "acting in good faith"? So Gibson allegations of "systematic cheating" are irrelevant if that rule is applied.

And actually EFL charged Sheff Wed with not acting in good faith (but failed). They didn't make that charge against Derby ,(presumably becasu ethe didnt think we were acting in bad faith)  although desperatly sought to make the allegation at the last minute when they hearing was held to decide what penalty to apply, and they wanted to get us relegated.  They failed there as well. 

So not only is Gibson not entitled to make the claim, he would almost certainly fail anyway even if he was.

 

Dare I say it’s pretty simple.

1) Under article 48 Boro and Wycombe are not football creditors. 

2) Boro and Wycombe are not even entitled to take action against other clubs, we couldn’t have gone for QPR even if we wanted. 4.4

So which ever way you go, we shouldn’t be here today being held up by these 2 clubs.

The administrators are taking a lot of stick, accused of dragging things out as they are getting paid X per hour which is unfair given they cannot move forward whilst this obstacle remains. 

We’re actually being punished further now with the added admin fees and legal costs to challenge these basic points through arbitration.

[PistoldPete]

5 minutes ago, i-Ram said:

I am on a brief lunch hour (half hour) and have a busy afternoon ahead. Looking very briefly at the Arbitration miniutes above, I think no. 30 is salient. The LAP (3 QCs) are saying there is no need for Boro to be involved in that appeal process, but they equally seem to be stating that Boro would not be estopped (prevented) from bringing its own individual claim against Derby after the appeal has been heard.

No 32 is relevant too. "It is difficult to see how a succesful appeal by EFL on the amortisation issue would affect MFC". Are you listening Gibson?

[Elwood P Dowd]

37 minutes ago, i-Ram said:

I am on a brief lunch hour (half hour) and have a busy afternoon ahead. Looking very briefly at the Arbitration miniutes above, I think no. 30 is salient. The LAP (3 QCs) are saying there is no need for Boro to be involved in that appeal process, but they equally seem to be stating that Boro would not be estopped (prevented) from bringing its own individual claim against Derby after the appeal has been heard.

I noticed the "would not be estopped", thats a shame 

Edited February 2, 2022 by Elwood P Dowd

[Elwood P Dowd]

34 minutes ago, PistoldPete said:

No 32 is relevant too. "It is difficult to see how a succesful appeal by EFL on the amortisation issue would affect MFC". Are you listening Gibson?

With the "would not be estopped"  wording Gibson can go over the same ground all over again, I do agree that "It is difficult to see how a succesful appeal by EFL on the amortisation issue would affect MFC" 

Estoppel is a legal principle that prevents someone from arguing something or asserting a right that contradicts what they previously said or agreed to by law. It is meant to prevent people from being unjustly wronged by the inconsistencies of another person's words or actions.

[PistoldPete]

5 minutes ago, Elwood P Dowd said:

With the "would not be estopped"  wording Gibson can go over the same ground all over again, I do agree that "It is difficult to see how a succesful appeal by EFL on the amortisation issue would affect MFC" 

Estoppel is a legal principle that prevents someone from arguing something or asserting a right that contradicts what they previously said or agreed to by law. It is meant to prevent people from being unjustly wronged by the inconsistencies of another person's words or actions.

But likewise we could go over the same issue again and argue that the amortisation policy was valid, whatever Professor Plum may have said.

Or we could just tell Gibson to do one.

[Day]

Whilst there is no estoppel, there is also still no contract/agreement between Boro and Derby that has been broken by "cheating" which can succeed in court.

The arbitration was between EFL and Derby County where the contract exists, hence why Boro were told to piss off basically as it had nothing to do with them. 

4.4 and 96.1

So yes, they are not prevented from trying a claim on (wasn't in administration at the time), although as @Elwood P Dowd has said, it would be going over old ground again.

[Elwood P Dowd]

10 minutes ago, PistoldPete said:

But likewise we could go over the same issue again and argue that the amortisation policy was valid, whatever Professor Plum may have said.

Or we could just tell Gibson to do one.

The issue is not the Amortisation policy itself but MFCs ability to prove its affects on MFC, all I can say on that one is, I'm glad I dont have to gather the proof, my feeling is there are so many "what ifs" and "could have beens" that finding a direct cause and effect between the Amortisation policy and an actual financial loss by MFC will be difficult.

[PistoldPete]

18 minutes ago, Elwood P Dowd said:

The issue is not the Amortisation policy itself but MFCs ability to prove its affects on MFC, all I can say on that one is, I'm glad I dont have to gather the proof, my feeling is there are so many "what ifs" and "could have beens" that finding a direct cause and effect between the Amortisation policy and an actual financial loss by MFC will be difficult.

I agree. But it won't help MFC if they have to prove the amortisation point all over again, they can't rely on the EFL hearing having gone their way.

[Elwood P Dowd]

Just now, PistoldPete said:

I agree. But it won't help MFC if they have to prove the amortisation point all over again, they can't rely on the EFL hearing having gone their way.

I doubt that MFC will have to prove the amortisation point all over again as we have already found to be in breach of the rules and punished. Its finding a direct cause and effect between the Amortisation policy and an actual financial loss by MFC that will be difficult.

[duncanjwitham]

I think the only claim that has any chance at all of succeeding is compensation for 'Boro from the amortization breach, and that's a very slim chance.  Any other claims from 'Boro can be cast out as we haven't been proved to have broken any rules, and only the EFL can bring disciplinary cases, so they can't argue that we have.  And the Wycombe claims are a nonsense for a whole load of reasons we've all gone through already.

But for that one claim, it's already established that we've broken the rules (officially anyway, despite what some of us on here might think), so they won't need to re-prove that, and you can certainly see the skeleton of an argument that it cost 'Boro, given how close the 2 teams were in the league.  But there's so much precedence in existing EFL judgments that you can't correlate overspending to actual on-field performance, I don't see how they actually win it.

[PistoldPete]

28 minutes ago, Elwood P Dowd said:

I doubt that MFC will have to prove the amortisation point all over again as we have already found to be in breach of the rules and punished. Its finding a direct cause and effect between the Amortisation policy and an actual financial loss by MFC that will be difficult.

Seems unfair if Boro can go over old ground but we can’t. Not that I would want either.

[kevinhectoring]

1 hour ago, David said:

Whilst there is no estoppel, there is also still no contract/agreement between Boro and Derby that has been broken by "cheating" which can succeed in court.

Assuming they sue on a contract I think the EFl rules would be the contract they sue on. I think you’ve said that the rule book is a series of bilateral contracts between the EFL and each club. But if that were right, then 

- why do the rules contain a provision that says that claims  between clubs under the rules need to be subject to arbitration ?

- why do the rules state in some provisions but not others that only the EFL can sue for breach? 
 

And obviously the EFl articles themselves are a contract between all the clubs (as members) because that’s what company articles are 

[RadioactiveWaste]

5 minutes ago, kevinhectoring said:

Assuming they sue on a contract I think the EFl rules would be the contract they sue on. I think you’ve said that the rule book is a series of bilateral contracts between the EFL and each club. But if that were right, then 

- why do the rules contain a provision that says that claims  between clubs under the rules need to be subject to arbitration ?

- why do the rules state in some provisions but not others that only the EFL can sue for breach? 
 

And obviously the EFl articles themselves are a contract between all the clubs (as members) because that’s what company articles are 

It could be the EFL rules are internally inconsistent and contradictory.

Of course, a governing body of the standard, competence and integrity of the EFL could never be accused of such an oversight...

[Elwood P Dowd]

27 minutes ago, PistoldPete said:

Seems unfair if Boro can go over old ground but we can’t. Not that I would want either.

We can go over old ground but there's no point, it is up the MFC to show that there is a direct cause and effect between the Amortisation policy and an actual financial loss by MFC if they unable to show, and prove, the direct cause and effect then there is no case to answer. 

[RoyMac5]

30 minutes ago, Elwood P Dowd said:

We can go over old ground but there's no point, it is up the MFC to show that there is a direct cause and effect between the Amortisation policy and an actual financial loss by MFC if they unable to show, and prove, the direct cause and effect then there is no case to answer. 

#simples Could you just tweet that at @EFL and @Boro and @Quantuma1 please?! ?