I have truly mixed feelings over derby...

I don't know Adi and don't profess to be a lawyer of any kind. However I maintain it is the style and approach you don't like.
He may raise things he needn't, or ask things he needn't, but I would bet he leaves no exposure in having done so.

He obviously feels extremely aggrieved at what he perceives Morris, Derby County and the Administrators have done. Add to that the incredibly personal abuse he has suffered in the media and on social media then I can totally understand his frustration at his perception of injustice and stalling tactics.
You are absolutely right that the Adminstrators have to do the best thing re Derby County, not the quickest thing.
Steve Gibson is equally focused on the right thing for MFC and himself. I don't think he cares about how he is personally perceived outside of Teesside and is standing his corner.

I care only whether he is legally exposed or not. If he is not - and I believe he won't be - then I care far more that he gets a legal result for us and Boro, than I am whether he is seen to be a nasty man, or whether he fights rough.
Mel Morris put Derby where they are with the roughest, dirtiest fight by anybody. My support for Gibson on this issue could not be stronger.
All the moral weight is with Gibson. I hope and believe he will be on legal solid ground.
 
indeedido said:
Steve Gibson is equally focused on the right thing for MFC and himself. I don't think he cares about how he is personally perceived outside of Teesside and is standing his corner.
Click to expand...

Agreed, I can only imagine some of the disruption and probable harassment the club and it's employees have recieved over the recent days if what we've seen on social media and Derby's forums.
 
TeaCider said:
You asked for the attacks on his character, I provided them.

I would not consider any of them irrelevant.

If you think he should silently allow the idea that he's trying to wipe Derby out and he's the only thing holding up a takeover be spread, then we clearly have very different views on the situation.

The administrators have been pushing that very idea.

The Wycombe chairman had a public interview to dispute the claims as well.
Click to expand...

No, you said there were constant attacks on his character by the administrators, MPs and media. You have only identified attacks by the latter two. The administrators, to whom he addresses his letter, haven't attacked his character as far as I can see.

And yes, he should silently wait for the outcome of all of this rather than rambling on with a ridiculously bad letter like that. If he is going to respond though (that's a lengthy, rambling club statement full of holes yesterday and an equally poor letter today) then do so with a bit of class. Something simple that said he has every sympathy for the Derby fans, that he believes in the strength of his case which he is willing and ready to discuss and that he is keen to work with the administrators to reach an amicable solution that ensures Derby's survival. Short, to the point and maintaining some level of dignity.

indeedido said:
I don't know Adi and don't profess to be a lawyer of any kind. However I maintain it is the style and approach you don't like.
He may raise things he needn't, or ask things he needn't, but I would bet he leaves no exposure in having done so.
Click to expand...

I don't agree. It's not just the style but very much the content, which demonstrates that he doesn't understand the process he is in, doesn't understand the process Derby is in and moreover throwing around words like 'cheat' yesterday and today revealing confidential information about a multi-millionaire's financial guarantees in an open letter does and can leave him and the club open to liability.

indeedido said:
He obviously feels extremely aggrieved at what he perceives Morris, Derby County and the Administrators have done. Add to that the incredibly personal abuse he has suffered in the media and on social media then I can totally understand his frustration at his perception of injustice and stalling tactics.
You are absolutely right that the Adminstrators have to do the best thing re Derby County, not the quickest thing.
Steve Gibson is equally focused on the right thing for MFC and himself. I don't think he cares about how he is personally perceived outside of Teesside and is standing his corner.
Click to expand...

Then do it with a bit of class. This is classless in style and content.

indeedido said:
I care only whether he is legally exposed or not. If he is not - and I believe he won't be - then I care far more that he gets a legal result for us and Boro, than I am whether he is seen to be a nasty man, or whether he fights rough.
Mel Morris put Derby where they are with the roughest, dirtiest fight by anybody. My support for Gibson on this issue could not be stronger.
All the moral weight is with Gibson. I hope and believe he will be on legal solid ground.
Click to expand...

The moral high ground, such as it was, has long since crumbled in my view. With every utterance he confirms that this is vindictive, petty and personal. That's fine. It's his club and his money. Equally though, I have my long repeated views on the merits of this, the motivation for it and the classless way in which he is conducting himself.
 
Adi_Dem said:
The moral high ground, such as it was, has long since crumbled in my view.
Click to expand...
And there we differ. The moral high ground stands as high and firm as at the outset.
You might think he is as you describe. I know just what Steve is and how he can operate, but I have to say on this matter I think he is morally justified and believe he will be legally secure too. I really wish him every success.
You may not like what he says, or how he says it, but I don't believe he is exposed. (Note believe, not know)
 
indeedido said:
And there we differ. The moral high ground stands as high and firm as at the outset.
You might think he is as you describe. I know just what Steve is and how he can operate, but I have to say on this matter I think he is morally justified and believe he will be legally secure too. I really wish him every success.
You may not like what he says, or how he says it, but I don't believe he is exposed. (Note believe, not know)
Click to expand...

Well we will have to agree to disagree. Putting everything else to one side though, and this is me being genuinely interested so don't take it as Boromart has, if we assume that Morris' personal guarantees aren't in the public domain (I don't know and can't be bothered to check) do you genuinely think that revealing the existence of such personal guarantees publicly is without any risk of exposure to legal liability?
 
Adi_Dem said:
Well we will have to agree to disagree. Putting everything else to one side though, and this is me being genuinely interested so don't take it as Boromart has, if we assume that Morris' personal guarantees aren't in the public domain (I don't know and can't be bothered to check) do you genuinely think that revealing the existence of such personal guarantees publicly is without any risk of exposure to legal liability?
Click to expand...
I genuinely don't know. I am not clear what is in the public domain, but I am extremely confident Gibson will have that covered. I believe his lawyers would require each observation and request/demand to be legally sound and I don't believe Steve will have acted rogue. He may well be pushing his lawyers; but I don't think he would ignore them, nor they the law.
 
indeedido said:
I genuinely don't know. I am not clear what is in the public domain, but I am extremely confident Gibson will have that covered. I believe his lawyers would require each observation and request/demand to be legally sound and I don't believe Steve will have acted rogue. He may well be pushing his lawyers; but I don't think he would ignore them, nor they the law.
Click to expand...

But you agree that to do so (as I do suspect is the case) would be a ridiculously bad move!
 
Adi_Dem said:
But you agree that to do so (as I do suspect is the case) would be a ridiculously bad move!
Click to expand...
Of course he should not knowingly ignore the law, no matter how wronged he feels. Given his lawyers could tie him in legal knots I just don't think he would ignore their advice. It is what he pays them for and he doesn't like paying for much.
I have no problem repeating you are the lawyer and I am not, so I respect your expertise. I guess what so many laymen find irritating and confusing is that everyone is encouraged to get legal advice and yet it so often conflicts, or at least does not align!
There are lots of shades of opinions on here at the minute, but I'm not sure there are many who really want Derby to go bang. I personally don't think they will do so and so am not too bothered what else happens to them so long as the Club survives and the EFL/Authorities tighten up FFP/stop clubs "cheating".
 
Adi_Dem said:
THeir duty is to the creditors as a whole. What if the offers on the table are, for example, contingent on retention of playing staff? What if offers have been made for players, accepted and then players have refused to leave because of the size of their contracts? What if agenst are telling those players that they would be able to leave for free in liquidation and get a HUGE payday?
Click to expand...
I still think you are over complicating things Adi. Your club is being dragged through the mud publicly. The only person who can fight back is Steve Gibson. He is doing that. You seem to find fault in him but none of the other players. You even say you cannot be bothered looking up whether some of the things you are having a go about are right or wrong.

Why not focus your ire on the Administrator or Morris or some or the vile Derby fans?
 
It is mad when you think about it. Derby cheated, they know they've cheated, but because they're possibly going to go bust as a result of the consequences of that cheating, we're the bad guys.
 
edinboro said:
I still think you are over complicating things Adi. Your club is being dragged through the mud publicly. The only person who can fight back is Steve Gibson. He is doing that. You seem to find fault in him but none of the other players. You even say you cannot be bothered looking up whether some of the things you are having a go about are right or wrong.

Why not focus your ire on the Administrator or Morris or some or the vile Derby fans?
Click to expand...

I’m not over complicating anything. My ire is focussed on MFC because it is the only party in the whole thing that I care about. I don’t care one jot about the other players.

There’s nothing overly complicated about my view:

(a) I think the case is likely to fail on causation;
(b) I don’t think it’s a good look for the club and paints us in a bad light to pursue the action; and
(c) the comms from the club have been extremely poor.

All of those are just my views on it. Nothing more.

If you want my view on Derby’s shenanigans it’s that they’ve acted disgracefully, Mel Morris is a wrong en and he deserves everything that might come his way. I don’t think though that the fans as a whole or the club deserve the kind of punishments being discussed on here or that they deserve the kind of anger and vitriol on here. Some do (the minority of fuckwits making threats etc)

In terms of the administrators, I don’t see anything in what they’re doing or in what they’ve said that warrants the kind of attacks we are seeing on here. They’re independent officers of the court doing an incredibly complicated and difficult job.
 
Adi_Dem said:
I’m not over complicating anything. My ire is focussed on MFC because it is the only party in the whole thing that I care about. I don’t care one jot about the other players.

There’s nothing overly complicated about my view:

(a) I think the case is likely to fail on causation;
(b) I don’t think it’s a good look for the club and paints us in a bad light to pursue the action; and
(c) the comms from the club have been extremely poor.

All of those are just my views on it. Nothing more.

If you want my view on Derby’s shenanigans it’s that they’ve acted disgracefully, Mel Morris is a wrong en and he deserves everything that might come his iniway. I don’t think though that the fans as a whole or the club deserve the kind of punishments being discussed on here or that they deserve the kind of anger and vitriol on here. Some do (the minority of fuckwits making threats etc)

In terms of the administrators, I don’t see anything in what they’re doing or in what they’ve said that warrants the kind of attacks we are seeing on here. They’re independent officers of the court doing an incredibly complicated and difficult job.
Click to expand...
The administrator has ignored Boro and Wycombe for 3 months. They're gaming the situation. They're having conversations with Fan groups and winding them up. They are likely causing a riot when we play Derby. They have behaved appallingly.
 
edinboro said:
The administrator has ignored Boro and Wycombe for 3 months. They're gaming the situation. They're having conversations with Fan groups and winding them up. They are likely causing a riot when we play Derby. They have behaved appallingly.
Click to expand...

It’s not possible to intelligently judge that at all. Not corresponding with two claimants isn’t ‘gaming the situation’. It’s not unusual. I’ve read each of their statements and they don’t bear any resemblance to your characterisation of them. You’re entitled to any opinion you want. So am I.
 
Adi_Dem said:
It’s not possible to intelligently judge that at all. Not corresponding with two claimants isn’t ‘gaming the situation’. It’s not unusual. I’ve read each of their statements and they don’t bear any resemblance to your characterisation of them. You’re entitled to any opinion you want. So am I.
Click to expand...
Fair enough. But is it not odd to ignore the parties you perceive as the main blocker? Why would they do that? What is their legitimate motive? Also, they haven't resolved issues with HMRC. That will do for them like it did Rangers. But Boro and Wycombe are soft targets. To me it's pure politics. I really don't see how it is anything but that.
 
edinboro said:
Fair enough. But is it not odd to ignore the parties you perceive as the main blocker? Why would they do that? What is their legitimate motive? Also, they haven't resolved issues with HMRC. That will do for them like it did Rangers. But Boro and Wycombe are soft targets. To me it's pure politics. I really don't see how it is anything but that.
Click to expand...

Not in my experience, no. There are a multitude of possibilities and very often silence is an important negotiating tool. Look, I'm not here to defend Derby or their administrators. I couldn't care less about any of them to be perfectly honest beyond not wanting them to disappear. But here's a potential scenario; let's say you've got:

(a) HMRC sat as a preferential creditor (certainly in relation to some of the taxes owed);
(b) a bunch of potential buyers happy to structure some sort of deal with HMRC that needs to be negotiated;
(c) a couple of Claimants pursuing massive amounts in damages and arguing that they should be recorded as creditors (a pretty complicated technical legal point);
(d) that same bunch of buyers, whilst being happy to structure repayments to HMRC, being entirely unwilling to take the risk of pending multi-million pound claims from rival football clubs; and
(e) no doubt a heap of other unsecured and potentially secured creditors.

Then you put all of that in the mix in terms of what the duties of an administrator are i.e. to act in good faith, fairly and honourably, to be and be seen to be independent and impartial and to act as quickly and efficiently as is reasonably practicable with regard to the interests of the creditors as a whole.

So what do they have to think about here? Well, are the claimant football club's creditors? What is the strength of their respective legal cases? WHat is the advice on the technical legal status of those clubs? What is the position of the potential buyers in relation to HMRC? They also can't 'prefer' creditors and so negotiating settlements with two claimants who may or may not be creditors isn't easy either. What do the buyer's want to do with those claims? What mandate can there be in terms of negotiating settlement options with the clubs? If the advice is that the claims are weak, would it be in the best interests of creditors to settle claims that have little legal merit or defend them? Would creditors benefit more from a settlement of many millions (which by implication means the other creditors get less on a sale) or to spend money on legal costs defending them? What decision can be taken on these claims in the context of looking after the interests of the creditors as a whole?

You've got a massive, complex web of legality, decisions on merits, tactics, forecasting and any number of stakeholders and buyers. It doesn't strike me as odd in the least that in all of that a decision has been taken to say nothing to the two clubs for a couple of months whilst the administrators get their ducks in a row. In fact, I'd be more surprised if they dove into settlement discussions quickly.
 
Adi_Dem said:
Not in my experience, no. There are a multitude of possibilities and very often silence is an important negotiating tool. Look, I'm not here to defend Derby or their administrators. I couldn't care less about any of them to be perfectly honest beyond not wanting them to disappear. But here's a potential scenario; let's say you've got:

(a) HMRC sat as a preferential creditor (certainly in relation to some of the taxes owed);
(b) a bunch of potential buyers happy to structure some sort of deal with HMRC that needs to be negotiated;
(c) a couple of Claimants pursuing massive amounts in damages and arguing that they should be recorded as creditors (a pretty complicated technical legal point);
(d) that same bunch of buyers, whilst being happy to structure repayments to HMRC, being entirely unwilling to take the risk of pending multi-million pound claims from rival football clubs; and
(e) no doubt a heap of other unsecured and potentially secured creditors.

Then you put all of that in the mix in terms of what the duties of an administrator are i.e. to act in good faith, fairly and honourably, to be and be seen to be independent and impartial and to act as quickly and efficiently as is reasonably practicable with regard to the interests of the creditors as a whole.

So what do they have to think about here? Well, are the claimant football club's creditors? What is the strength of their respective legal cases? WHat is the advice on the technical legal status of those clubs? What is the position of the potential buyers in relation to HMRC? They also can't 'prefer' creditors and so negotiating settlements with two claimants who may or may not be creditors isn't easy either. What do the buyer's want to do with those claims? What mandate can there be in terms of negotiating settlement options with the clubs? If the advice is that the claims are weak, would it be in the best interests of creditors to settle claims that have little legal merit or defend them? Would creditors benefit more from a settlement of many millions (which by implication means the other creditors get less on a sale) or to spend money on legal costs defending them? What decision can be taken on these claims in the context of looking after the interests of the creditors as a whole?

You've got a massive, complex web of legality, decisions on merits, tactics, forecasting and any number of stakeholders and buyers. It doesn't strike me as odd in the least that in all of that a decision has been taken to say nothing to the two clubs for a couple of months whilst the administrators get their ducks in a row. In fact, I'd be more surprised if they dove into settlement discussions quickly.
Click to expand...
So should us and Wycombe walk away? Or is the onus on the administrator to negotiate? I struggle to see what we have done wrong?

I'm guessing Gibson, the club and probably his family have been subject to some pretty nasty stuff since the administrator told their fans he is to blame. Should he just stand by? Would you? I'm guessing here but I would think club staff have suffered abuse.

We've seen how supposed fans behave when upset - see Everton and others.

Rob already suggested the behaviour of Derby since administration has been awful and is why Gibson is so angry. That will be playing a part in this.
 
edinboro said:
So should us and Wycombe walk away? Or is the onus on the administrator to negotiate? I struggle to see what we have done wrong?

I'm guessing Gibson, the club and probably his family have been subject to some pretty nasty stuff since the administrator told their fans he is to blame. Should he just stand by? Would you? I'm guessing here but I would think club staff have suffered abuse.

We've seen how supposed fans behave when upset - see Everton and others.

Rob already suggested the behaviour of Derby since administration has been awful and is why Gibson is so angry. That will be playing a part in this.
Click to expand...

I’m not sure what else I can say. You’re asking a different set of questions now versus what I was answering which was around why the administrators don’t deserve the criticism they’ve got and why this whole ‘they’ve behaved really badly by not talking to us” or “they should be forced to sell players” is wrong and misunderstands the complexities.

In relation to this question, Gibson can and is doing what he likes. That’s up to him.

All I’ve done on this thread is explain that I don’t think the case has merit, I don’t think it’s a good look for us and we come out of it in a poor light and that the comms out of the club have been rank amateur. I’ve explained why I think that repeatedly. What more can I say?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top