I have truly mixed feelings over derby...

uncle_rico said:
What is 'ridiculous' about it?
Click to expand...

Just about everything tbh.

This childlike analysis is one highlight:

"On the one hand, it is said that there is no prospect of the claim succeeding, in which case there is no risk for a new owner. But, on the other hand, the administrator apparently cannot find a new owner because they will not proceed without the claim being settled due, presumably, to the fact that it has merit and might succeed. If the claim has no prospect of success MFC does not understand why a new owner would resolve the matter by accepting that the arbitration decision should be honoured. Of course, if the claim has a value as MFC believes, there is no reason why MFC should not, as a Football Creditor, be entitled to recover the monies due to it."
 
Adi_Dem said:
Just about everything tbh.

This childlike analysis is one highlight:

"On the one hand, it is said that there is no prospect of the claim succeeding, in which case there is no risk for a new owner. But, on the other hand, the administrator apparently cannot find a new owner because they will not proceed without the claim being settled due, presumably, to the fact that it has merit and might succeed. If the claim has no prospect of success MFC does not understand why a new owner would resolve the matter by accepting that the arbitration decision should be honoured. Of course, if the claim has a value as MFC believes, there is no reason why MFC should not, as a Football Creditor, be entitled to recover the monies due to it."
Click to expand...
Again, what is ridiculous about it? You can't say it is ridiculous, then just quote part of it but not give a reason.
 
Last edited:
BoroMart said:
it doesn't fit with his preconceived notion, based on zero access to the information at hand, thus it's "rediculous"
Click to expand...

There you go again with the unnecessary snark. I don't have any pre-conceived notion. I am offering a legal opinion on that which is in the public domain. I am presenting it reasonably and with courtesy. I think you need to grow up a little and accept that sometimes people will (a) hold different views than you and (b) have more expertise on a subject than you. You've spent this thread and the other related thread pontificating on something you don't understand, including posting absolutely irrelevant wiki analysis of the law, ignoring reasonable questions and debating the law with a lawyer. If you are entitled to offer an opinion on this case based on zero access to the information at hand (and also then try to educate me on the law bizarrely) then I am sure I am entitled to do the same.

uncle_rico said:
Again, what is ridiculous about it? You can't say it is ridiculous, and just quote it but not give a reason.
Click to expand...

Firstly it is petty and amateur. It is not the action of a grown up company but instead seems to be a public airing of the case and a response, as it admits, to ill-informed speculation. Proper companies don't do that. They're above it. Or they should be.

Secondly, there is the content. Truly amateur hour. Take the quote above as the example. Such a poor and naive interpretation. Due diligence when buying a company revealing litigation for many millions of pounds will always have a material effect on a buying decision. It is not evidence of the merits of the case but rather the attitude and approach of the buyer. It is an absolute nonsense to suggest that the administrator is being in any way inconsistent. "If the claim has no prospect of success MFC does not understand why a new owner would resolve the matter by accepting that the arbitration decision should be honoured." - idiotic.
 
Millbrook said:
Don't be silly. He is a lawyer and puts forward a reasoned and well explained point of view.
He is open to it being disagreed with if the opinion has substance and is based on the law.

Certainly does not deserve comments like that.
Click to expand...

Thanks. That is all I am doing. I can obviously only base it on what is in the public domain and there is a chance that there are facts we don't know that would change the analysis. But I'm not claiming otherwise.
 
Millbrook said:
Don't be silly. He is a lawyer and puts forward a reasoned and well explained point of view.
He is open to it being disagreed with if the opinion has substance and is based on the law.

Certainly does not deserve comments like that.
Click to expand...
All Lawyers are confident until they lose
 
Now I Like Adi and have loved his contributions over the decades on this and the old board. I miss his transfer gossip, he said one that didn't come off but that's standard.

But I'm surprised about his lack of confidence in Gibson here. There is clearly a lot to this and Gibson is clearly fuming. We know he behaves differently with Boro than a normal company. And we love him because of it.

He is spending his money on this case. He believes it is the right thing to do. And he has had enough of the slagging he and we are getting.

So I'm rolling with it. Let's see what the Administrator for DCFC does now.
 
Adi_Dem said:
That’s not what I asked. I asked what breach has gone unpunished as has been suggested on this and other threads.
Click to expand...
The FFP framework is a rolling 3 year framework.
We simply can't see what the FFP misdemeanours are because shamefully their Accounts for year to June 2019 and June 2020 have had to be re-produced as their original submissions have been deemed unacceptable. They have yet to publish their Accounts for 2021 not surprisingly.
They sold the stadium at a supposed profit of c£40m in the year to June 2018. This sale stopped an otherwise £25m loss in 2018, which would have made a PBT loss of £37m in the 3 years to June 2018, with no equity injected to offset. As it is, with the bloated value stadium sale they would not be in breach in that cycle, especially after allowables like Academy etc.

That Derby's accounts had to be re-submitted past the nonsense of their 2019 and 2020 submissions and presumably 2021 projection, is embarrassing and should be punished. I don't know if that is in the rules or not, or whether they have been deducted points for this. The MFC statement indicates the 9 point deduction was for Amortisation breaches.
It will probably emerge that they will be in breach of more than one 3 year cycle. That they have been penalised 9 points makes it impossible for outsiders to deduce what has been penalised and what hasn't.
If it is only one breach and there are no penalties for unsatisfactory returns and there is nothing wrong with the valuation of their stadium and the accounting of it then they have been penalised according to the rules - albeit late.
The Administration penalty is a completely different issue and was self timed and imposed.

So, it is possible that they have received the correct punishment according to existing rules.

Many however will question - are questioning - the process, framework, rules and penalties around FFP. To most people being penalised 9 points two seasons after your offence points to ridiculous lack of control by the EFL and paltry penalties. Why wouldn't you take the risk for a single 9 point penalty?
The suspicion (which is all it can be to us) of multiple year breaking FFP rules makes this paltry penalty idea even more annoying.

Derby have stretched the (terrible) rules to breaking point with how they have wanted to amortise, how they have wanted to hide wages, how they have abused Fixed Assets and seemingly got away with it. I would be delighted if they have not got away with breaking the FFP allowable losses when their accounts have finally been produced properly.

I have empathy with Derby fans until they behave in the swaggering way they did around Mel Morris' actions and how they are reacting to the strong bloke calling them out.
I think the manager and players have been first class.

I hope they are relegated without hoping for any further penalties this season. I hope Rooney goes to Everton or somewhere else and their form collapses. The rules and penalties are not firm enough IMHO and one way or another they should be playing League One football next season. From a legal perspective it would appear it will have to be via that collapse in form.

Them going pop or not is a separate question - not the one you asked.
 
In terms of PR that reads truly awful.

The non-descript 'cheating' we were unhappy with was the stadium sale, this is entirely unrelated to our complaint but we'll put it under the umbrella of 'cheating' to take some sort of credit?!

Statement basically confirms that we have very little legal basis but will hold the sword of Damocles over them til they either go bust or give us some money. Most worrying between this and the EFLs statement is that all parties are aware that Derby couldn't possibly defend this because of time constraints in them needing a takeover but we will press on anyway.
 
Won't pretend to understand the legal basis of the claim and it's merits.

To me this noise and fuss is being created by the administrators to get the best deal for their prospective buyer, which is what they are employed to do. What sticks in my craw is that also ensures Morris doesn't suffer for his financial gymnastics and probably gains. He keeps his £81m asset, which he will no doubt seek to sell back to the new owner. Hopefully this is all bluster and can be resolved, bringing this into the public domain doesn't reflect well on the Derby administrator imho.

Based on Adi's legal analysis makes me wonder who is providing Steve Gibson with legal advice, or is this just speculative and vindictive, which wouldn't reflect well on Steve Gibson
 
Muttley said:
Yes, the stadium is going to let Morris escape from the financial damage he has initiated and possibly even profit from it.
Click to expand...
No way will he be able to sell it for that kind of cost. It isn't worth that, you could see Derby having to play at Notts County or some other ground share for a few years a la Coventry City
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top