I have truly mixed feelings over derby...
- Thread starter Ian Bairds Ears
- Start date
DrummerMan
Well-known member
At the end of the day.... why are Derby paying (reportedly) Tom Lawrence £27,000 PER WEEK? If they are bust?
There's money in the football club, whether that's selling players, whatever - yet they are attempting to blame MFC, Wycombe, etc
There's money in the football club, whether that's selling players, whatever - yet they are attempting to blame MFC, Wycombe, etc
Adi_Dem
Well-known member
The role of an administrator is not to flog all the assets and get in what he can to divy up. Their duty is to perform his/her function as quickly as reasonably practicable and having regard to the best interests of the creditors as a whole.
The company is not ‘bust’. The first objective of administration is to rescue the company so that it can continue trading as a going concern. If the rescue of the company is impossible, the administrator must aim to achieve a better result for the company's creditors as a whole than would be likely if the company were put into liquidation.
To allow those statutory objectives to be achieved, a moratorium is provided. Creditors are precluded from taking or pursuing legal proceedings.
There are multiple moving parts here and it is often a very difficult proposition to balance what is in the best interests of creditors as a whole. Here, we’ve got the potential sale of assets to bring in funds but then that is likely to make a material difference to the offers made by potential buyers. It also adversely affects the chances of avoiding relegation which whilst still unlikely is still possible. Maybe the possibility of staying up has a material impact. Then there are the players themselves. They have contracts. They can’t be forced out. What does trying to sell players who might not want to leave do?
It’s far, far more complex than saying that they should be forced (how that would work I have no idea) to simply flog all their players.
The company is not ‘bust’. The first objective of administration is to rescue the company so that it can continue trading as a going concern. If the rescue of the company is impossible, the administrator must aim to achieve a better result for the company's creditors as a whole than would be likely if the company were put into liquidation.
To allow those statutory objectives to be achieved, a moratorium is provided. Creditors are precluded from taking or pursuing legal proceedings.
There are multiple moving parts here and it is often a very difficult proposition to balance what is in the best interests of creditors as a whole. Here, we’ve got the potential sale of assets to bring in funds but then that is likely to make a material difference to the offers made by potential buyers. It also adversely affects the chances of avoiding relegation which whilst still unlikely is still possible. Maybe the possibility of staying up has a material impact. Then there are the players themselves. They have contracts. They can’t be forced out. What does trying to sell players who might not want to leave do?
It’s far, far more complex than saying that they should be forced (how that would work I have no idea) to simply flog all their players.
Last edited:
What would you be thinking if they’d won the playoffs that season they pipped us to them and were now sitting pretty in a top six Premier League spot?
Nobody, and I mean nobody gave us and sympathy or leeway in ‘86 or ‘97 for that matter. Prior to ‘86, lots of clubs, the likes of Wolves included were allowed to reform paying only a fraction ( 10p in the pound comes to mind and even less) of their debts but the FA made an example of us and insisted on full payment of all liabilities. Then, allowed others to not have to follow the same criteria. I identify with what the Derby fans are going through but have little sympathy for them because of their scapegoating of us for their predicament.
Nobody, and I mean nobody gave us and sympathy or leeway in ‘86 or ‘97 for that matter. Prior to ‘86, lots of clubs, the likes of Wolves included were allowed to reform paying only a fraction ( 10p in the pound comes to mind and even less) of their debts but the FA made an example of us and insisted on full payment of all liabilities. Then, allowed others to not have to follow the same criteria. I identify with what the Derby fans are going through but have little sympathy for them because of their scapegoating of us for their predicament.
BoroMart
Well-known member
All clubs should pay in full or go back to the bottom of the ladder and start again
brattleboro
Well-known member
no sympathy from me,we got non either!!!!
Ian Bairds Ears
Well-known member
Good post mate ..makes me feel less torn and more ....it is what it is
Derby fans are being very emotive on the issue - which is understandable given they don't want anything bad to happen to their club - many of us would be the same. But it isn't helping their cause at all.
On the one hand they'll accept they've done wrong in cooking the books but fail to accept how their cheating turned into an advantage that has impacted on other clubs. They can't do that because the only advantage that comes from football in a league scenario is more points :
Cheating = Advantage = More Points = Higher Finishing Position
So to them .. "yeah, we cheated but .. but .. we never got an advantage .. Boro lost 6 on the trot in the run in - that why they missed out on the the play offs by 1pt and 1 position - not because of any advantage our cheating granted us" ..
So if not for advantage why did they cheat? For sh1ts and giggles?
They have a lot of cognitive dissonance surrounding all this and many of them are just not thinking straight .. too many hearts ruling heads.
On the one hand they'll accept they've done wrong in cooking the books but fail to accept how their cheating turned into an advantage that has impacted on other clubs. They can't do that because the only advantage that comes from football in a league scenario is more points :
Cheating = Advantage = More Points = Higher Finishing Position
So to them .. "yeah, we cheated but .. but .. we never got an advantage .. Boro lost 6 on the trot in the run in - that why they missed out on the the play offs by 1pt and 1 position - not because of any advantage our cheating granted us" ..
So if not for advantage why did they cheat? For sh1ts and giggles?
They have a lot of cognitive dissonance surrounding all this and many of them are just not thinking straight .. too many hearts ruling heads.
Ian Bairds Ears
Well-known member
To sum up the thread Mel Morris you are a penny pinching charlatan and you...yes You..are going to possibly send derby to the wall...
You cheated ....you took a shot at even bigger wealth by cheating those around you...shame on you ..
Sorry derby fans....I don't wish your clubs extinction...I really don't....I wish there was a way round it but there isn't...
As a club the Boro got hammered in 86....
Cheaters cannot win...you signed players you couldn't afford and deprived us
Time to pay the piper.....
Great thread by the way....it has helped me get my head around things again...
You cheated ....you took a shot at even bigger wealth by cheating those around you...shame on you ..
Sorry derby fans....I don't wish your clubs extinction...I really don't....I wish there was a way round it but there isn't...
As a club the Boro got hammered in 86....
Cheaters cannot win...you signed players you couldn't afford and deprived us
Time to pay the piper.....
Great thread by the way....it has helped me get my head around things again...
Otto42
Well-known member
Very measured debate as always on Murray's show last night. The Derby fans on were hopefully more representative than some of the social media keyboard warriors seen elsewhere.
I came away thinking that we are a very small player in any potential demise and those involved in Derby Co, current, past and potential future owners aren't necessarily working in the best interests of Derby fans, to put it mildly.
FatCat
Well-known member
Given the rules and the way the EFL handle this situation I want one thing out of this.
I want Derby to be punished but not out of existence.
what I don’t want is for them to stay in this league or drop down only to be taken over and be bank rolled right back into the championship and or Premiership. That will give the wrong signal. Anyone buying them on the cheap should get what they pay for and not excuse themselves of the previous owners wrongdoing.advantage should not be made of this situation.
I want Derby to be punished but not out of existence.
what I don’t want is for them to stay in this league or drop down only to be taken over and be bank rolled right back into the championship and or Premiership. That will give the wrong signal. Anyone buying them on the cheap should get what they pay for and not excuse themselves of the previous owners wrongdoing.advantage should not be made of this situation.
BoroMart
Well-known member
Any new owner should certainly not be allowed to buy the stadium back at a fee drastically below the £80m it was sold for, without further points punishment. They should not be able to wipe out debts while retaining their current playing staff, the administrators should be selling them off to cover debts.
I want them to exist, but like Bolton, like Pompey, they should have a spell in tier 4 and find tier 3 difficult to escape.
Adi_Dem
Well-known member
It is not as simplistic as that and that is not what is likely to happen. See my post above about the role the administrator has and don’t confuse administration with liquidation.
MickaelDebevePhenomenal
Well-known member
If this is the case why are the solicitors working for the Administrators and for any new potential owners not advising of this? Surely they would advise that there will be no liability as the claim is worthless so the new owners can carry on regardless knowing they will have to pay zip all?
Adi_Dem
Well-known member
Because there is always litigation risk and the costs of defending the action. No lawyer would ever argue that a claim has 0% chances of success and any due diligence that revealed multi-million pound claims, no matter what their merits' would act as a stick in the spokes of any sale. The logic you're applying is the same as that which was evident in the club's statement yesterday. It's extremely naive.
BoroMart
Well-known member
As confirmed yesterday Derby were not 'on it's knees' when we started the legal process against them, thus the claim of vexatious, is an opinion, and is your opinion, but it doesn't seem to match the known facts.
Exactly the same could and was said about the Sheff Utd vs West Ham (Carlos Tevez) affair. West Ham had access to players outside of the rules. Now there are no guarentees that West Ham wouldn't have stayed up without Tevez, that sheff Utd would have survived, however in arbitration Sheff Utd were awarded 30mill. From a causation and damage effect, there are very strong parallels. We are in arbitration still ( 2 1/2 years of waiting for Derby to come to that particular table), a recent precedent exists for that Arbitration Panel to refer to, that would indicate our case has merit in that arbitration. What have I missed?
He would say that wouldn't he, hes wanting to negotiate, not like hes going to sabotage his own hand. I think the point you miss is because he has 40 years trial experience, and they lodged theirs post administration he knows that despite almost no chance of success they are now also in a position where Derby have to negotiate, or defend and go bust. Wouldn't be a good look if he came on and said that though would it.
BoroMart
Well-known member
Of course he would say that, but it's also true and true of Gibson who started action over 2 years before Derby went into Admin. As already stated, the Sheff Utd vs West Ham case is a great example of why we have a case and so do Wycombe.
Adi_Dem
Well-known member
Of course it is my opinion. It is my opinion that it was vexatious then and remains vexatious today.
Really? You still want to continue flogging this dead horse rather than just accepting that I have an opinion that differs from your own?
Ok.
Putting to one side that just a few days ago you were adamant that there was no legal precedent in order to add weight to your argument of the day and ignoring this insane notion that your Wiki law degree has any equivalence here, I'd say that you've missed quite a lot.
The fundamental reason that Sheffield United were able to leverage a settlement is that their formal appeal against demotion was initially rejected by the Premier League only for an arbitration panel to later concede that it would have in all probability deducted points for fielding ineligible players and that the decision not to deduct points had therefore been incorrect.
On that basis, Sheffiled United were able to mathematically prove causation i.e. had the correct punishment been dished out we would have stayed up as a mathematical certainty. It is not analogous to this situation in which Derby have been punished absolutely in accordance with the rules for all of their breaches and where we are claiming that had they not overspent across these various FFP windows we would have definitely got into the play offs and had a shot at promotion. That is far from a certainty. It relies on supposition, scenario building based on a number of assumptions not the least of which is everything else being static and only the points difference between Middlesbrough and Derby mattering - what about all of the other Derby wins and draws, do they need to be expunged in this theoretical scenario? It is far more remote and far more difficult to prove a key element of any such case i.e. causation.
So that means we have got on the one hand a case in which an incorrect penalty was imposed, an arbitration panel went on record confirming that the incorrect penalty was imposed and as a result a causation test that reads "but for the failure to deduct points Sheffiled United would have stayed up". Can you not see that is a bit different to the argument on the other hand that says "Derby overspent across a number of years but despite having received an appropriate penalty in accordance with the rules in one of those years MFC would have won a play off spot because we were only one point behind them"?
40 years as a US trial lawyer. The very fact that he is talking about having tried cases in front of juries should really tell you everything you need to know. There is no comparison between a case like this and its equivalent in the US. In any event he is unlikely to be anything other than bombastic and confident. It would be naive to think otherwise. What he does appear to concede though is that he is on a hiding to nothing financially.