All clubs should pay in full or go back to the bottom of the ladder and start againWhat 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.
Good post mate ..makes me feel less torn and more ....it is what it isWhat 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.
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.
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.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.
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.
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?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.
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?
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.They can *try* to claim so. But they will fail because this is vexatious litigation designed to leverage a club on its knees
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?The perceived 'damage' is too remote, fails causation tests
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.Interesting view from the Wycombe chairman, a man who has 40 years experience as a trial lawyer
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.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.
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.
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?
Interesting view from the Wycombe chairman, a man who has 40 years experience as a trial lawyer