OPEN LETTER TO TEAM Derby

[winktheram]

58 minutes ago, I know nuffin said:

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.....

there's no jury, it'll be heard by a single judge with knowledge in the field. Probs be Mercantile Court, which is for business disputes. And either side cannot choose the judge or indeed complain about who is appointed. Which is why MM would prefer this route, and you cant blame him.

[Red Ram]

On 05/02/2022 at 11:56, David said:

Team Derby, if you do read this open letter on the forum and think, you know what, he's right we need to focus on getting Mel Morris to indemnify claims.

Just read this section of his statement last night:

As you will have just read "Any wonder why I am sceptical of the EFL arbitral procedures"

So before you focus on this, think about what you are asking, you are asking a man that is sceptical of the EFL arbitral procedures to sign a piece of paper and say look, whatever is decided in the arbitration, which cannot take place until May as we wait for Boro's counsel, and I won't be involved in, I will cover any compensation awarded.

Maybe he would, maybe he will say well if it's either this or see the club liquidated and I have a stadium with £20m worth of debt that I have to cover if I don't. 

Personally, I would wait now, wait to see what the EFL say as Rick Parry appears to be on board with the possibility of the offer to personally take it on in the High Court, a fair battle ground.

Wait to see what Gibson and Couhig say before even starting to push for Mel to indemnify the claims.

Unfortunately this is pretty much a self-defeating argument. Either pursuing their claims against Mel Morris directly is a genuine and equivalent alternative to pursuing them against Derby County for Gibson and Couhig or it isn't. If it is, then Morris should just indemnify the club instead because by definition the risk to him would be the same. Crucially for Derby County, it would be both quicker and simpler and time is absolutely of the essence - waiting for the eleventh hour isn't an option when it's already 5 minutes to midnight.

However your post, in effect, suggests that Morris will be will not want to directly indemnify the club against the claims because to do so will reduce his chances of winning as it will mean going through the EFL Arbitration process rather than the high court. By extension, this means that pursing Morris personally (if this is even possible, which is highly doubtful) would give Gibson and Couhig less chance of winning, assuming Morris's sceptism about the objectiveness of the ELF abritration process has any basis. Which therefore means it's not a genuine and equivalent alternative to pursuing Derby County directly, in which case they have no reason to accept Morris's poposed solution. Can't have it both ways...

 

Edited February 7, 2022 by Red Ram

[Day]

6 minutes ago, Red Ram said:

Unfortunately this is pretty much a self-defeating argument. Either pursuing their claims against Mel Morris directly is a genuine and equivalent alternative to pursuing them against Derby County for Gibson and Couhig or it isn't. If it is, then Morris should just indemnify the club instead because by definition the risk to him would be the same. Crucially for Derby County, it would be both quicker and simpler and time is absolutely of the essence - waiting for the eleventh hour isn't an option when it's already 5 minutes to midnight.

However your post, in effect, suggests that Morris will be will not want to directly indemnify the club against the claims because to do so will reduce his chances of winning as it will mean going through the EFL Arbitration process rather than the high court. By extension, this means that pursing Morris personally (if this is even possible, which is highly doubtful) would give Gibson and Couhig less chance of winning if Morris's sceptism about the objectiveness of the ELF abritration process has any basis. Which therefore means it's not a genuine and equivalent alternative to pursuing Derby County directly, in which case they have no reason to accept Morris's poposed solution. Can't have it both ways...

 

I don’t think they would be willing to accept the offer, doesn’t mean the offer was a waste of time.

In both Boro’s statements they have tried to drag him into the discussions despite only owning Pride Park, which isn’t in administration, and quite frankly none of their business what is owed to MSD or what he is willing to accept for the stadium.

He has gone public now with a counter offer and I suspect counter offers will be served back and forth (preferably behind closed doors) until they meet in the middle to some kind of compromise.

Let’s be honest here, Boro were looking for a quick settlement, with their counsel apparently unavailable until May they were effectively ruling out arbitration as we could be out of business by then, which they would have known as it’s public knowledge our struggle to find proof of funds.

Why? Given we have already been cleared on the stadium sale, I don’t believe they would be overly confident in overturning that in the Kangaroo Court (pattern developing here) even with the EFL rooting for them to avoid getting sued themselves. 

I believe if Mel was willing to indemnify the claims, he would have been done already, that would have been the offer on Friday. As per the statement and not in his exact words, it’s a kangaroo court and wants it in the neutral venue.

Boro will also realise they cannot continue to stand their ground on this, if it pushed us into liquidation it would not go unnoticed and the ugly mess would be fully exposed.

They will have the option to continue their claims but against the EFL, although their hands will be covered in blood and as stubborn as Gibson is, I doubt he would want that.

As I say, I expect a counter offer would be made, not sure what that would be, but there would be some movement forward so that they can reach some compromise.  

 

[I know nuffin]

1 hour ago, winktheram said:

there's no jury, it'll be heard by a single judge with knowledge in the field. Probs be Mercantile Court, which is for business disputes. And either side cannot choose the judge or indeed complain about who is appointed. Which is why MM would prefer this route, and you cant blame him.

With the EFLs record I cannot blame him

[I know nuffin]

1 hour ago, Red Ram said:

Unfortunately this is pretty much a self-defeating argument. Either pursuing their claims against Mel Morris directly is a genuine and equivalent alternative to pursuing them against Derby County for Gibson and Couhig or it isn't. If it is, then Morris should just indemnify the club instead because by definition the risk to him would be the same. Crucially for Derby County, it would be both quicker and simpler and time is absolutely of the essence - waiting for the eleventh hour isn't an option when it's already 5 minutes to midnight.

However your post, in effect, suggests that Morris will be will not want to directly indemnify the club against the claims because to do so will reduce his chances of winning as it will mean going through the EFL Arbitration process rather than the high court. By extension, this means that pursing Morris personally (if this is even possible, which is highly doubtful) would give Gibson and Couhig less chance of winning, assuming Morris's sceptism about the objectiveness of the ELF abritration process has any basis. Which therefore means it's not a genuine and equivalent alternative to pursuing Derby County directly, in which case they have no reason to accept Morris's poposed solution. Can't have it both ways...

 

.these was me thinking the truth had something to do with it. Some if the things they and Parry come out with they have no perception of care about the truth or how to get at it

[Raich Carter]

6 hours ago, Indy said:

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. 

I thought the first hearing concluded that it was lawful (amortisation treatment) but the 2nd (at which there were no qualified accountants) hearing concluded it wasn't in line with EFL regs (as opposed to law). I could be wrong but that was my take on it at the time. 

[europia]

On 05/02/2022 at 09:59, RoyMac5 said:

I don't care how the boys play. It could be that this is finally what is needed to allow the Club to be sold. Mel's statement contained some interesting facts that it was good to get into the open and the timing was spot on. The tweet from Amanda Solloway saying the EFL reneged on letting Q go to Court over whether the claim was a football debt was also good to know.

 

The politicians should butt out now. Very little has changed since their initial intervention. 

[RoyMac5]

Just now, europia said:

The politicians should butt out now. Very little has changed since their initial intervention. 

Nope, the politicians should up their pressure now they have more information!

[Indy]

2 hours ago, Raich Carter said:

I thought the first hearing concluded that it was lawful (amortisation treatment) but the 2nd (at which there were no qualified accountants) hearing concluded it wasn't in line with EFL regs (as opposed to law). I could be wrong but that was my take on it at the time. 

I may be misremembering but my understanding was that they said it didn’t break the accounting standard (and therefore was in line with the regs) but wasn’t sufficiently explained in the notes. In my opinion, that secondary charge exists for two reasons:

1. To indemnify the EFL from the accusations that they cleared the accounts previously (“but only because Derby’s notes confused us”), and

2. To manufacture a guilty verdict to give the pretext for Gibson to pursue separate action. 
 

I don’t believe they didn’t understand the method, as their initial analysis was that the method was not contravening the standard but would likely lead to a glut of losses at a later period and enhanced risk - which sounds like they understood it perfectly!!

[B4ev6is]

Well a while back Gibson he dies not care if mel or new owners give him his money but for me gibson done nrothing but be a bully that why efl are taking his side of things and not hearing our side of things and that why mel come back to try to defend Derby county and city of Derby as well.

If he win can mel then start a claim against boro and wycombe for damages if he win can he give a portion back to Derby county.

[europia]

On 07/02/2022 at 22:20, RoyMac5 said:

Nope, the politicians should up their pressure now they have more information!

More information? I've not heard anything from any of them that wasn't stating the obvious. 

[RoyMac5]

26 minutes ago, europia said:

More information? I've not heard anything from any of them that wasn't stating the obvious. 

Try looking at some of their Twitter feeds then.

 

[europia]

23 hours ago, RoyMac5 said:

Try looking at some of their Twitter feeds then.

 

Life's too short. 

[RoyMac5]

8 minutes ago, europia said:

Life's too short. 

Well if you can't be bothered why should anyone else?