Pragmatic Solutions wanted

[Old Spalding Ram]

57 minutes ago, Dean (hick) Saunders said:

Not advocating at all but is a NUCLEAR CLUB SAVE option to accept relegation if the vulture clubs dropped their claims?

No.

Mind you, if nothings sorted, come one minute to midnight on the 31st of January I’d snap ya hand off for that!

[DerbysLane]

Personally I don't think fans should be focusing on what is and isn't a football creditor.  Few of us have the legal expertise to make solid arguments about this or the finer points of insolvency law.  Besides it is moving the focus away from where it should be.

This whole mess started because the EFL gave the green light for Middlesbrough to sue Derby.  When they did this they lost control of the league.  The pragmatic solution is for the EFL to regain control.

Presumably Middlesbrough presented evidence to the EFL about our "cheating".  If the EFL didn't act on that then I have no problem with Middlesbrough threatening to sue the EFL.  But what should never have taken place, was for the EFL to say you can sue Derby on the back of our investigation.  That was effectively saying the punishment - and crucially the recompense - would not be appropriate.  

Middlesbrough are suing Derby because they don't think they've been compensated.  However, that isn't true and we need to be making this point a lot louder.  Firstly, Derby have been hit by transfer embargos for 3 seasons (or more?) now.  That has severely weakened us and consequently helped every other club (including Middlesbrough) in the league over those seasons.  The original transfer embargo was for the stadium sale which we were ultimately cleared of, so we have been wrongly punished too. 

The Tevez saga has been quoted a few times in reports and there are similarities to our case, but there are significant differences.  West Ham knowingly broke and hid their illegal registration of Tevez.  They were fined for this during the season, but continued to play Tevez.  Sheffield Utd had a collapse of form and were relegated on goal difference.  Sheffield Utd were able to demonstrate that the fine was not appropriate (it should have been a points deduction) and by continuing to play Tevez West Ham earned a minimum of three points.  It was settled out of court because the West Ham owners were desperate to sell the club (the owners had financial issues).

Unlike West Ham we have received a points deduction and therefore the appropriate punishment.  Like the transfer embargos it has weakened us and helped all other clubs, giving them a 9 point head start on us.  If this was a normal season it would have ended our playoff hopes.  Surely removing a promotion rival is compensation?

A points deduction is the most appropriate punishment for FFP/P&S breaches as far as I can see.  Fining clubs would only mean they'll breach P&S again in subsequent seasons.  The Middlesbrough and Wycombe claims if paid in instalments would screw us for years and we'll be hit with P&S breach after breach with of course other clubs potentially suing us on the back of those breaches should we interfere with their promotion/relegation.  What a mess!

Middlesbrough's action is implying that they were uniquely wronged by us in the Lampard season, but of course that isn't true if the basis of their claim is that our squad was stronger than it should have been.  Bristol City for example would have an equal grievance.  This is why the EFL should never have agreed to Middlesbrough suing.  If they win their claim they have a competitive advantage over Bristol City unless they sue us too.

If Middlesbrough's claim is that we should have received a points deduction in the Lampard season for previous season's breaches, then their claim is on similar grounds to Wycombe's, but the two clubs are asking for points deductions to be applied differently.  Middlesbrough are asking for points deductions on a season following a breach.  Wycombe are asking for a points deduction to be applied on the same season as a breach.  They cannot both be right.  There is no guarantee in the rules on when a points deduction would be applied, and if a proper investigation and appeals process are to happen then it would be impossible to do so.  If these are the basis of the claims it should be the EFL who is being sued if anyone.

What happens if Middlesbrough reach the playoff final and loose controversially, for example a deliberate (unpunished) handball scoring or stopping a goal? Are they then going to sue the opposition or the EFL for the rules not being properly applied and the other club cheating?  Where does this litigation end?

When a manager or player questions (particularly using threatening language) how rules are being applied by referees they are fined.  Presumably on the grounds of bringing the game into disrepute.

Middlesbrough and Wycombe through their legal cases are bringing the game into disrepute.  Their claims are clearly vexatious.  The EFL need to call this out and it is staggering after Tuesdays grilling in the House of Commons that they don't do this!  There is nothing controversial in saying we stand by our own disciplinary procedures. It is what people would expect them to say.  This should be the pragmatic solution.

Yet their latest statement still rules this out.  So on that basis the idea of getting Tracey Crouch or somebody else in as an independent opinion (not necessarily arbitration) seems the next best option. 

[DerbysLane]

Continuing the above rather long post...

I can't believe the statements/interviews still coming from Parry/the EFL and the new liquidation/league 2 rumour from Nixon.  I suppose we should be congratulating the EFL on thinking outside the box for the latter, but I think they've lost the plot or at the least dropped their moral compass.  Why can't they see that litigation is not good for the game and this trumps the interests of two clubs?  Why can't they see that the losers of administration are the non-football creditors, why pursue an outcome that damages those creditors even more?  

It seems so obvious to me that they should be discouraging the two claims against Derby.  This is the best route for the real creditors.  If I were the EFL I'd release a statement along the lines of:

The EFL are saddened by the disputes that have arisen in relation to Derby County's Profit and Sustainability (P&S) submissions.  Derby County have been through an extensive and thorough disciplinary procedure lasting over several years.  This has culminated in the 9 point deduction this season.  The EFL consider this a suitable outcome and would like to now draw a line under this matter.  We expect clubs to respect the leagues disciplinary procedure for on-field events.  We ask that clubs do the same for off-field events.

P&S was never intended to give a level financial playing field for clubs.  It is a limit and deterrent for reckless spending by owners and is there to protect the future of clubs, fans and the many creditors.  When the P&S rules are broken it is the fans, staff and creditors of the offending club who potentially suffer.  This unfortunately can currently be seen in Derby County's administration.  P&S was not intended to be a reason for litigation between clubs.  The disputes that have arisen against Derby County are currently a significant hurdle to securing the future of the club, the very opposite of the P&S aims.

Many fans have expressed their concerns about football being decided in the courtroom and the EFL share those concerns.  EFL club disputes are resolved through an arbitration process, but we recognise this is still not the beautiful game.  The EFL will review and if necessary amend their policies to discourage disputes that harm the interests of the league as a whole.

 

If I can write the above in five minutes, why are the EFL finding it so hard to do the same?

[DerbysLane]

On 20/01/2022 at 20:24, DerbysLane said:

What happens if Middlesbrough reach the playoff final and loose controversially, for example a deliberate (unpunished) handball scoring or stopping a goal? Are they then going to sue the opposition or the EFL for the rules not being properly applied and the other club cheating?  Where does this litigation end?

Or sue a player?  Have the PFA considered that?

[BucksRam]

On 20/01/2022 at 20:24, DerbysLane said:

Personally I don't think fans should be focusing on what is and isn't a football creditor.  Few of us have the legal expertise to make solid arguments about this or the finer points of insolvency law.  Besides it is moving the focus away from where it should be.

This whole mess started because the EFL gave the green light for Middlesbrough to sue Derby.  When they did this they lost control of the league.  The pragmatic solution is for the EFL to regain control.

Presumably Middlesbrough presented evidence to the EFL about our "cheating".  If the EFL didn't act on that then I have no problem with Middlesbrough threatening to sue the EFL.  But what should never have taken place, was for the EFL to say you can sue Derby on the back of our investigation.  That was effectively saying the punishment - and crucially the recompense - would not be appropriate.  

Middlesbrough are suing Derby because they don't think they've been compensated.  However, that isn't true and we need to be making this point a lot louder.  Firstly, Derby have been hit by transfer embargos for 3 seasons (or more?) now.  That has severely weakened us and consequently helped every other club (including Middlesbrough) in the league over those seasons.  The original transfer embargo was for the stadium sale which we were ultimately cleared of, so we have been wrongly punished too. 

The Tevez saga has been quoted a few times in reports and there are similarities to our case, but there are significant differences.  West Ham knowingly broke and hid their illegal registration of Tevez.  They were fined for this during the season, but continued to play Tevez.  Sheffield Utd had a collapse of form and were relegated on goal difference.  Sheffield Utd were able to demonstrate that the fine was not appropriate (it should have been a points deduction) and by continuing to play Tevez West Ham earned a minimum of three points.  It was settled out of court because the West Ham owners were desperate to sell the club (the owners had financial issues).

Unlike West Ham we have received a points deduction and therefore the appropriate punishment.  Like the transfer embargos it has weakened us and helped all other clubs, giving them a 9 point head start on us.  If this was a normal season it would have ended our playoff hopes.  Surely removing a promotion rival is compensation?

A points deduction is the most appropriate punishment for FFP/P&S breaches as far as I can see.  Fining clubs would only mean they'll breach P&S again in subsequent seasons.  The Middlesbrough and Wycombe claims if paid in instalments would screw us for years and we'll be hit with P&S breach after breach with of course other clubs potentially suing us on the back of those breaches should we interfere with their promotion/relegation.  What a mess!

Middlesbrough's action is implying that they were uniquely wronged by us in the Lampard season, but of course that isn't true if the basis of their claim is that our squad was stronger than it should have been.  Bristol City for example would have an equal grievance.  This is why the EFL should never have agreed to Middlesbrough suing.  If they win their claim they have a competitive advantage over Bristol City unless they sue us too.

If Middlesbrough's claim is that we should have received a points deduction in the Lampard season for previous season's breaches, then their claim is on similar grounds to Wycombe's, but the two clubs are asking for points deductions to be applied differently.  Middlesbrough are asking for points deductions on a season following a breach.  Wycombe are asking for a points deduction to be applied on the same season as a breach.  They cannot both be right.  There is no guarantee in the rules on when a points deduction would be applied, and if a proper investigation and appeals process are to happen then it would be impossible to do so.  If these are the basis of the claims it should be the EFL who is being sued if anyone.

What happens if Middlesbrough reach the playoff final and loose controversially, for example a deliberate (unpunished) handball scoring or stopping a goal? Are they then going to sue the opposition or the EFL for the rules not being properly applied and the other club cheating?  Where does this litigation end?

When a manager or player questions (particularly using threatening language) how rules are being applied by referees they are fined.  Presumably on the grounds of bringing the game into disrepute.

Middlesbrough and Wycombe through their legal cases are bringing the game into disrepute.  Their claims are clearly vexatious.  The EFL need to call this out and it is staggering after Tuesdays grilling in the House of Commons that they don't do this!  There is nothing controversial in saying we stand by our own disciplinary procedures. It is what people would expect them to say.  This should be the pragmatic solution.

Yet their latest statement still rules this out.  So on that basis the idea of getting Tracey Crouch or somebody else in as an independent opinion (not necessarily arbitration) seems the next best option. 

Have my like purely for using the word vexatious.  A word my old nan used to use and one I've not heard since she passed over 20 years ago.