I have truly mixed feelings over derby...

My mortgage company thinks my house is worth what it was when I took out the original mortgage in 2003, if I take out a new mortgage it will get revalued and could be double that.

Simon Jordan spoke well on this on Talksport this morning, said he spoke to Gibson last week and as much as he likes him this is a shake down, of a club in trouble. I'm not comfortable with that, in fact far from comfortable.

Simon Jordan or his co-hosts will say whatever gets the most reaction from their listeners.

He's most famous for mismanaging Crystal Palace and putting them in to administration.

He was also incredibly complimentary about Mel Morris whenever discussing him before the truth came out about his own mismanagement of Derby.
 
Simon Jordan spoke well on this on Talksport this morning,
Simon Jordan is a rent a quote, says whatever he feels will get him attention and keep him 'relevant', strangely his partner is probably even worse.

said he spoke to Gibson last week
There is simply no way that Gibson would share any information that isn't already in the public domain with Simon Jordan, and lets be honest about this, most of it will not be public because of the process that is being gone through

as much as he likes him this is a shake down, of a club in trouble.
That's his opinion, but it is no more informed than you or I

I'm not comfortable with that, in fact far from comfortable.
That's your choice. I'm not comfortable with a club disregarding the rules, forgetting to pay the tax man 28mill, cheating the footballing family, bragging about it, and failing to pay due compensation or even sell their players to pay the tax man.
 
And have been punished for each of their 'crimes' in accordance with the rules set at the outset, no?
Was just about to post the exact same response, it is not for any football club to hold the existence of another to ransom because they don't feel the EFL punishments are strict enough. The fact this is our club acting this way makes us no better than them, a club built from a working class background, a true community club, been there experienced it. Its true what people say about owners, this is not Gibsons club, its out club hes just the current custodian, and like Mel Morris he will go and there will be a time when another custodian holds the reigns. Who knows what type of owners we'll have at that point, but we'll still remain, we dictate the ethos of our football club, and how we want it to be seen.

This needs to stop, and before we truly do something permanently irreversible.
 
Simon Jordan is a rent a quote, says whatever he feels will get him attention and keep him 'relevant', strangely his partner is probably even worse.


There is simply no way that Gibson would share any information that isn't already in teh public domain with Simon Jordan


That's his opinion, but it is no more informed than you or I


That's your choice. I'm not comfortable with a club disregarding the rules, forgeting to pay the tax man 28mill, cheating the footballing family, bragging about it, and failing to pay due compensation or even sell their players to pay the tax man.
Nor am I, hence why they have received all due punishments for them acts as per the EFL rules.
 
it is not for any football club to hold the existence of another to ransom because they don't feel the EFL punishments are strict enough.
It is the right of any club to seek recompense for any wrong doing that materially harms them though, and that is what is happening.

Morris he will go and there will be a time when another custodian holds the reigns. Who knows what type of owners we'll have at that point, but we'll still remain, we dictate the ethos of our football club, and how we want it to be seen.

This needs to stop, and before we truly do something permanently irreversible.
there is a very easy way for this all to stop, and for Morris to leave and allow a new person to take the reigns. He can take responsibility for his actions and pay a compensation package to those he cheated. Why should Middlesbrough allow themselves to be cheated, allow Morris off the hook, and allow a new company to take over Derby with relief from its debts created by cheating?
 
Have the harmed companies received compensation? I.e. Middlesbrough and Wycombe? I'll save any waffle....the answer is no they haven't and under the law of the land they can claim so.

They can *try* to claim so. But they will fail because this is vexatious litigation designed to leverage a club on its knees. The perceived 'damage' is too remote, fails causation tests and as such the claim is simply designed so that MFC can benefit from the buggeration factor. Derby broke the rules in several ways, received punishment according to the rules of the competition set at the outset and our club is now pursuing a claim for loss that in reality cannot be proven purely our of either spite or to shake down a club in real trouble.
 
They can *try* to claim so. But they will fail because this is vexatious litigation designed to leverage a club on its knees. The perceived 'damage' is too remote, fails causation tests and as such the claim is simply designed so that MFC can benefit from the buggeration factor. Derby broke the rules in several ways, received punishment according to the rules of the competition set at the outset and our club is now pursuing a claim for loss that in reality cannot be proven purely our of either spite or to shake down a club in real trouble.

MFC were pursuing the claim well over a year before Derby were put in to administration or punished.
 
Have the harmed companies received compensation? I.e. Middlesbrough and Wycombe? I'll save any waffle....the answer is no they haven't and under the law of the land they can claim so.
As Adi has pointed out 'harm' is almost entirely impossible to quantify in sport.

If Derby had spent less on players and wages how can you possibly state how it would have effected them on the field.

Let me give you an example, Derbys budget, wages etc was considerably higher last season. This season they have a handful of senior professionals and kids, budget slashed massively and yet they have nearly picked up the same number of points half way through as the entirety of last season.

If football was determined on the balance sheets, Leicester would never have won the title, and we'd have never made it to Eindhoven.
 
If Derby had spent less on players and wages how can you possibly state how it would have effected them on the field.

Loss of chance in English law refers to a particular problem of causation, which arises in tort and contract. The law is invited to assess hypothetical outcomes, either affecting the claimant or a third party, where the defendant's breach of contract or of the duty of care for the purposes of negligence deprived the claimant of the opportunity to obtain a benefit and/or avoid a loss. For these purposes, the remedy of damages is normally intended to compensate for the claimant's loss of expectation (alternative rationales include restitution and reliance).

 
Loss of chance in English law refers to a particular problem of causation, which arises in tort and contract. The law is invited to assess hypothetical outcomes, either affecting the claimant or a third party, where the defendant's breach of contract or of the duty of care for the purposes of negligence deprived the claimant of the opportunity to obtain a benefit and/or avoid a loss. For these purposes, the remedy of damages is normally intended to compensate for the claimant's loss of expectation (alternative rationales include restitution and reliance).

Exactly, how could you ever possibly determine what we missed out on? Who says instead of signing Waghorn they'd got someone on a free and fired them to autos. Meanwhile, Waghorn came to us therefore we signed less players than we did and we finished 10th.

Unlimited iterations, thats the joy of sport.
 
Loss of chance in English law refers to a particular problem of causation, which arises in tort and contract. The law is invited to assess hypothetical outcomes, either affecting the claimant or a third party, where the defendant's breach of contract or of the duty of care for the purposes of negligence deprived the claimant of the opportunity to obtain a benefit and/or avoid a loss. For these purposes, the remedy of damages is normally intended to compensate for the claimant's loss of expectation (alternative rationales include restitution and reliance).


I do love google lawyers! You have to be able to prove causation i.e. that the breach caused the loss or damage on the balance of probabilities. We have discussed that on the other thread. On that basis it is almost certainly doomed to failure.

as previously discussed that is an opinion, but they have the right in law to try, and that is agreed by us both

It is my professional opinion based on the law of causation. Anybody has the right to pursue a claim, however weak, against anyone else. I am not sure that has ever been in dispute.

Whilst I have you - could you please point me to the breaches that are not mentioned in the Agreed Decision that you say Derby have not been punished for?
 
Exactly, how could you ever possibly determine what we missed out on? Who says instead of signing Waghorn they'd got someone on a free and fired them to autos. Meanwhile, Waghorn came to us therefore we signed less players than we did and we finished 10th.
Gibsons claim is a loss of chance, why choose waghorn as your example, Mason Mount and Harry Wilsons loan fees are equally as valid to look at.

Regardless of the permutations and unknowns, the fact is they broke the rules, and the fact is there is a potential of loss of chance. They didn't overspend to gain less advantage, they did it to gain advantage, the courts will decide, or maybe for once in his life Morris will do the right thing and pay due compensation
 
Not sure if this has already been posted.... interesting read
yes I read that yesterday, that precedent that the courts decided that the Ziege claim was a footballing debt appears to go against them, lots of tactics being used on both sides.

Personally I just hope they accept some blame and damage and pay something, Im' not expecting 45m, maybe 10-25% of that, and maybe 50% of Wycombe's. There needs to be a pragmatic approach from the administrators, Morris, Gibson, Wycombe and/or the preferred bidder to resolve this. Boro and Wycombe aren't going to go away and in my view neither should they, neither will Derby accept full liability and pay in full, without it going to court and that will likely never happen because of their finances, so the sooner a pragmatic approach is found the better for all.
 
Does anything typify this board more than a layman arguing with a professional, about a situation no one is in receipt of the full facts of,
I said last week, none of us are in possession of the facts, so making an absolute judgment is silly, regardless. Besides I'm not arguing with him, he's still on a temporary block from his micro-aggressions last week
 
Does anything typify this board more than a layman arguing with a professional, about a situation no one is in receipt of the full facts of, whilst someone else draws conclusions about someones political views because of a comment they made ?
That's why I love this board......we should scrap the Houses of Parliament and Judiciary and decide everything through FMTTM....what could possibly go wrong? :ROFLMAO:
 
Back
Top