OPEN LETTER TO TEAM Derby

[Day]

One more post then I really am signing off for the weekend, putting it here as this is an "open letter", otherwise the missus will kill me.

What I would personally like is that:

- Boro drop their claim and Wycombe announce they will not be making a claim against the club.

Failing that.

- EFL rule that according to regulation 4.4, Boro's claim has been dismissed and Wycombe told they are unable to make a claim.

Failing that.

- EFL rule that neither have football debts and cannot be considered as football creditors.

Failing that.

- EFL accept Mel's offer to fight the claim and any further claim from Wycombe in the High Court, with the EFL referring back to reg 4.4.

Failing that.

- Quantuma go for a High Court ruling on football creditor status.

That is 4 options which ultimately save the football club, plus a final option for Quantuma.

Decline Boro's offer of mediation, mediation would be nothing more than settling with Gibson and Couhig who is yet to even file a claim for X, the administrators won't go against legal advice, they won't take extortion money out the creditors pot.

It's unlikely Mel would agree to pay anything without it being settled on a neutral battleground, the High Court.

Boro's offer of arbitration is also declined, we cannot wait until May, they know this which is why what they are doing is nothing more than extortion.

Quantuma have no reason to go into arbitration when they have the faster option of a High Court ruling.

The only way arbitration becomes a possibility is if Mel agrees to indemnify, see earlier post why I don't believe this should be considered until the very last hour before the lights are turned off.

Enjoy your weekends!

[Ram1988]

I agree this needs to go to high court now to be settled, the EFL have shown they have an agenda and aren't fit for purpose. Let's get delt with in court as soon as possible, the likes of Gibson's claims have a leg to stand on.

Then that is one less obstacle to bashing out a deal with a new protential buyer and the rest of our genuine creditors.

[Raich Carter]

4 hours ago, kevinhectoring said:

Well done for getting MM into the fray.

 

Errr kinda. It's a win-win-win for MM really. 

Win 1 : If Boro take the claim up with him personally (which I doubt is legal) then that enables MM to sell the stadium

Win 2: PR - obviously this make MM look... better to some

Win 3 : His chances of winning at the High Court, without the EFL amateurs/crooks involved, are vastly improved. The accountancy practises that MM employed are perfectly legal, just not acceptable by EFL rules so on that basis alone, will win (IMO).

Bonus Win 4 : If he loses, he will then file the same claims against QPR, Leeds, et al as if Boro win against us, the other claims  demonstrably all have validity in the eyes of the law.

None of that is a criticism of the OP or MM btw, just an opinion.

[PistoldPete]

4 hours ago, Red Ram said:

Agreed. This is the most obvious way forward if Mel can be persuaded to do it. Yesterday's 'sue me personally' challenge is superficially similar but is not actually a credible solution because legally the claims are against Derby County rather than Mel Morris and therefore could almost certainly not be pursued. Mel can partially redeem his legacy by taking this final step and thereby helping to save our club. And he'll get his chance to vanquish Gibson into the bargain!

The claims are against Derby and their directors I believe.  So that would include Mel personally just as EFL charged Chansiri personally along with Sheff Wed when they took their action against them jointly.    

[kevinhectoring]

On 05/02/2022 at 13:33, PistoldPete said:

The claims are against Derby and their directors I believe.  So that would include Mel personally just as EFL charged Chansiri personally along with Sheff Wed when they took their action against them jointly.    

The directors are very difficult to sue. In practical terms,  the only people who can sue the directors are the admins 

[Ghost of Clough]

8 hours ago, kevinhectoring said:

The directors are very difficult to sue. In practical terms,  the only people who can sue the directors are the admins 

Ordinarily, yes.
But when the director invites the challenge, with all parties agreeing, I'm sure there will be some legal clause allowing it to happen.

[Curtains]

3 minutes ago, Ghost of Clough said:

Ordinarily, yes.
But when the director invites the challenge, with all parties agreeing, I'm sure there will be some legal clause allowing it to happen.

All Gibson will do is ignore Mel.

I think it’s an own goal 

[RoyMac5]

13 minutes ago, Curtains said:

All Gibson will do is ignore Mel.

I think it’s an own goal 

We'll see.

But what it did was put more ammunition out there to be aimed at the Parasites.

[Curtains]

3 minutes ago, RoyMac5 said:

We'll see.

But what it did was put more ammunition out there to be aimed at the Parasites.

Where do you stand on the Stadium mate .

Do you think Mel wants 20 Million to pay off MSD because Ashley seems to intimate he offered less and it wasn’t excepted.

He also offered les than 3 Million to Quantuma allegedly 

[Raich Carter]

8 hours ago, kevinhectoring said:

The directors are very difficult to sue. In practical terms,  the only people who can sue the directors are the admins 

I think it's only a few things that Directors can be sued for - such as :

Contracting personally

Acting beyond company authority

Misrepresentation

Bribery and corruption

Health and Safety

Serious Data Protection Breaches

Fraudulent trading

Technically, I'm not sure Boro's claims are any of those... They're about an unfair advantage... what that means legally I'm not sure! In fact, I don't think anyone is! Surely FFP is "just" a rule of the competition, not a law.

 

[RoyMac5]

1 hour ago, Curtains said:

Where do you stand on the Stadium mate .

Do you think Mel wants 20 Million to pay off MSD because Ashley seems to intimate he offered less and it wasn’t excepted.

He also offered les than 3 Million to Quantuma allegedly 

Yes I think Mel wants his £20m. Ashley is a renowned 'low bidder'. Kirchner too it seems.

If it wasn't for the two Parasites then Admin could get a proper bidding war going - I mean 4 potential buyers, all being stalled. I wonder why HMRC and other creditors stand for it, this going against statute by the EFL. But I don't know what can be done as Nixon has suggested the EFL has had legal advice suggesting they are able to put their Rules above statute - or that is what he seemed to be suggesting.

[Lots of 'suggests' there!]

Edited February 7, 2022 by RoyMac5

[Curtains]

Just now, RoyMac5 said:

Yes I think Mel wants his £20m. Ashley is a renowned 'low bidder'. Kirchner too it seems.

If it wasn't for the two Parasites then Admin could get a proper bidding war going - I mean 4 potential buyers, all being stalled. I wonder why HMRC and other creditors stand for it, this going against statute by the EFL. But I don't know what can be done as Nixon has suggested the EFL has had legal advice suggesting they are able to put their Rules above statute - or that is what he seemed to be suggesting.

Mel wants his 20 Million yet he is willing to take on Gibson even though none of the potential bidders are !

[RoyMac5]

1 minute ago, Curtains said:

Mel wants his 20 Million yet he is willing to take on Gibson even though none of the potential bidders are !

Because he no doubt has taken legal advice on the potential outcome. But I can't see either of the parasites taking him on in court, I think (hope) it's just an opening gambit from Morris. But who knows.

[Ghost of Clough]

1 hour ago, Curtains said:

All Gibson will do is ignore Mel.

I think it’s an own goal 

Gibson's ego can't allow it to be ignored. He'll either reject it on legal grounds, or counter-propose taking it to arbitration or for Mel to take indemnity

[winktheram]

20 minutes ago, Curtains said:

Mel wants his 20 Million yet he is willing to take on Gibson even though none of the potential bidders are !

Kirchner was, had put $1.5m set aside for it in his business plan.

[Indy]

2 hours ago, Raich Carter said:

I think it's only a few things that Directors can be sued for - such as :

Contracting personally

Acting beyond company authority

Misrepresentation

Bribery and corruption

Health and Safety

Serious Data Protection Breaches

Fraudulent trading

Technically, I'm not sure Boro's claims are any of those... They're about an unfair advantage... what that means legally I'm not sure! In fact, I don't think anyone is! Surely FFP is "just" a rule of the competition, not a law.

 

Gibson’s accusations are regarding “systematic cheating” relating to either the stadium valuation and/or amortisation method. 
 

If the valuation was manipulated, there would be questions under tax law. 
 

The EFL regs as written define acceptable accounts as meeting the accountancy standard, so if he contends that they are not correct, then they must not meet the standard. That was the basis of much of the EFL argument at the time. 
 

Either way, to break EFL regs in both these circumstances in the way Gibson claims would require the officers of Derby County to have misrepresented the position under tax and/or accountancy law. 
 

Even if Gibson hasn’t got the stones to accept Morris’s offer to resolve in court, I think his open letter could amount to a libel case that MM could initiate, rather than sit around whilst SG/EFL sit on their hands and watch us bleed out. 

Edited February 7, 2022 by Indy

[Gaspode]

7 minutes ago, Indy said:

Gibson’s accusations are regarding “systematic cheating” relating to either the stadium valuation and/or amortisation method. 
 

If the valuation was manipulated, there would be questions under tax law. 
 

The EFL regs as written define acceptable accounts as meeting the accountancy standard, so if he contends that they are not correct, then they must not meet the standard. That was the basis of much of the EFL argument at the time. 
 

Either way, to break EFL regs in both these circumstances in the way Gibson claims would require the officers of Derby County to have misrepresented the position under tax and/or accountancy law. 
 

Even if Gibson hasn’t got the stones to accept Morris’s offer to resolve in court, I think his open letter could amount to a libel case that MM could initiate, rather than sit around whilst SG/EFL sit on their hands and watch us bleed out. 

Pretty sure they also said some fairly iffy things about the Administrators in their open lettter - which named three individuals as well as the company - thereby also leaving them open to potential libel claims. Suspect this could get quite messy for Mr Gibson after the dust settles on DCFC....

[Raich Carter]

47 minutes ago, Indy said:

Gibson’s accusations are regarding “systematic cheating” relating to either the stadium valuation and/or amortisation method. 
 

If the valuation was manipulated, there would be questions under tax law. 
 

The EFL regs as written define acceptable accounts as meeting the accountancy standard, so if he contends that they are not correct, then they must not meet the standard. That was the basis of much of the EFL argument at the time. 
 

Either way, to break EFL regs in both these circumstances in the way Gibson claims would require the officers of Derby County to have misrepresented the position under tax and/or accountancy law. 
 

Even if Gibson hasn’t got the stones to accept Morris’s offer to resolve in court, I think his open letter could amount to a libel case that MM could initiate, rather than sit around whilst SG/EFL sit on their hands and watch us bleed out. 

But 'systematic cheating' is not breaking laws, it's breaking the rules set out by the EFL.

Valuation - was agreed in law but not in EFL hearing.

The EFL regs are different from law and we're talking about Directors responsibilities here and whether MM can actually legally take this on - i.e. it was the Ltd Company that did 'stuff' and not MM.

Fundamentally the EFL are there to represent all members and they are patently not doing this by allowing member clubs to circumvent their own rules and principles. The only reason can be to save their own skin.

[I know nuffin]

On 05/02/2022 at 13:02, Ram1988 said:

I agree this needs to go to high court now to be settled, the EFL have shown they have an agenda and aren't fit for purpose. Let's get delt with in court as soon as possible, the likes of Gibson's claims have a leg to stand on.

Then that is one less obstacle to bashing out a deal with a new protential buyer and the rest of our genuine creditors.

If it goes to the high court does it get a jury? If so either side can object to particular juror  and I think even the judge if they can prove bias. With the EFL you get what they choose, no challenges no appeal after. Now which one would you pick.....

[Indy]

16 minutes ago, Raich Carter said:

But 'systematic cheating' is not breaking laws, it's breaking the rules set out by the EFL.

Valuation - was agreed in law but not in EFL hearing.

The EFL regs are different from law and we're talking about Directors responsibilities here and whether MM can actually legally take this on - i.e. it was the Ltd Company that did 'stuff' and not MM.

Fundamentally the EFL are there to represent all members and they are patently not doing this by allowing member clubs to circumvent their own rules and principles. The only reason can be to save their own skin.

But that’s entirely my point in my post. The valuation was agreed in law (as it has to be for tax purposes) and also by the EFL convened panel.
 

And the EFL regs on the amortisation states that they have to meet accountancy standards. If they had said they had to be “straight line amortisation only” then, in that case, the regs could be different from the law and be applied differently - but they didn’t and they still don’t. 
 

In these two instances, the EFL regulations and the law are concurrent, so to say there is systematic cheating in breaking EFL rules I my makes sense if your accusation is that the relevant laws have also been broken.