Next Derby owners face extra £1m legal bill as Middlesbrough and Wycombe compensation claims head for ugly court battle

[BoroMart]

Boro failed to fulfil a fixture and were penalised. Relegation proved to be a minor inconvenience for us. Generally it is seen by our fans as a very harsh punishment despite being clear in the rules.

It's very different. There have been 75 fixtures cancelled in the last month because of a virus...and...the key is that we asked the Prem League if we could cancel, and they failed in their duty of care to tell us that we would be docked three points if we did. Had they said that, we would have played the kids. We didn't know we were doing wrong, until afterwards, when it was decided it was wrong.

Mel Morris knew what he was doing was wrong. When Gibson pointed out it was wrong he doubled down. Until eventually it was properly investigated

 

[Adi_Dem]

It's very different. There have been 75 fixtures cancelled in the last month because of a virus...and...the key is that we asked the Prem League if we could cancel, and they failed in their duty of care to tell us that we would be docked three points if we did. Had they said that, we would have played the kids.

And those arguments failed. We broke the rules and were punished in accordance with those rules yet that is seen as too harsh a punishment given the consequences. I made that point in response to coluka’s view that punishment here in accordance with the rules isn’t harsh enough and that in fact liquidation is the appropriate punishment. My question that came out of that was where that line is and what is it about this example with Derby that means kicking them to the bottom of the league pyramid or legal action that will see them liquidated is justified.

COVID cancellations are completely irrelevant.

 

[BoroMart]

I think most of this mess is of the EFL's making, in not being able to write water tight rules and enforce them adequately enough in a timely manner.

There is a saying, when you write fool-proof rules, along comes a bigger fool. Substitute the word fool for cheat and that's Morris

 

[BoroMart]

And those arguments failed. We broke the rules and were punished in accordance with those rules

Yes they failed, we know why. Yes technically we broke the rules.....but you cannot and nobody can say we were punished "in accordance with those rules", because no punishment was described, and certainly not a 3 point deduction, it was a unilateral and arbitrary decision how to punish us.

 

[Caesium137]

There is a saying, when you write fool-proof rules, along comes a bigger fool. Substitute the word fool for cheat and that's Morris

But surely only one club in the country submitting their accounts amortising players values in another way (that benefitted them) should have been a sharp 'get fuqued' from the EFL?

And why are EFL punishments immediately able to be appealed to a three man panel, one from the guilty club, someone independent and another, seems mental.

Rules are rules and punishments should be fixed, like the -12 points for entering administration (which is Derby's biggest punishment to date I believe?). Not the actual cheating.

 

[coluka]

Well yes I do!

What I said is that the argument has nothing to do with Derby per se but rather an attack on the severity of the penalties available. I think we agree on that so I’m not sure why you’re so keen to argue the point.

The reason I keep replying is because I’m genuinely keen to understand. So what is it specifically about this case and these breaches that makes you think the punishment should be administration?

Where have i said the punishment should be administration? I think you have just made that up, I appreciate it could be a consequence of such a penalty, but that is for a clubs owner to weigh up the risk, just like they do in all their dealings with their clubs running. Derby may be higher profile than the clubs i mentioned earlier, but their supporters suffered for their clubs being run badly, where was the empathy for them. Nobody wants Derby or any club to go under, Nobody.

I said I feel that the punishment is not a severe enough deterrent to others v possible reward especially given the extent of the actions in my opinion, I believe that the seriousness of the rule breaking merits relegation to the bottom tier, again my opinion. I have never once advocated they should be forced into insolvency by anyone other than by themselves or the courts. It is for a company owner(s) to determine whether to risk the crime and so risk a penalty v reward of succeeding. We really do need greater regulation of football to prevent unscrupulous goings on and risking the future of clubs in this country.

 

[TeaCider]

Yeah, Derby would actually be 19th without their self inflicted administration.

9 points deducted definitely doesn't guarantee anything.

 

[Caesium137]

Yeah, Derby would actually be 19th without their self inflicted administration.

9 points deducted definitely doesn't guarantee anything.

And they had the cheek to appeal the -12 deduction because Covid only effected one club in the league apparently.

 

[JackG]

Points deductions are punishments. Administration, demotions, possible liquidation are consequences.

 

[Adi_Dem]

Yes they failed, we know why. Yes technically we broke the rules.....but you cannot and nobody can say we were punished in accordance with those rules, because no punishment was described, and certainly not a 3 point deduction, it was unilateral and arbitrary decision how to punish us.

You’re still ignoring or missing the actual point I was making and yet you’re kind of answering it anyway. Essentially, it is extremely subjective. I am neither defending Derby nor saying that Boro were fairly treated in 1996. However, you say that the punishment was too harsh, based on a technicality (which administrative crimes aren't btw?) and ultra vires in 1996 and yet don't think a 21 point deduction (which was prescribed in the rules in advance) here fits the crime. You want more. You also think it reasonable to bring a frivolous legal action designed either to send the club into liquidation OR to apply maximum leverage at their weakest moment to achieve some sort of settlement. I don't think there is anything that justifies that and I think it shows our club in a bad light.

And why are EFL punishments immediately able to be appealed to a three man panel, one from the guilty club, someone independent and another, seems mental.

Because a right of appeal is a fundamental part of any justice system and doing that quickly is necessary given that seasons come and go very quickly.

Rules are rules and punishments should be fixed, like the -12 points for entering administration (which is Derby's biggest punishment to date I believe?). Not the actual cheating.

But as we are discovering in this thread, there are shades of cheating and so a fixed penalty would be draconian, punishing minor infringements in the same way as full on fraud. That can't be right either can it? Administration is a question of fact. There is no nuance, you have either applied for the protection of administration or you haven't and so the points deduction is applied universally. FFp breaches though can range wildly in severity and intent and so it wouldn't be right to punish every infringement in the same way. And that neatly brings me on to the next point with coluka:

Where have i said the punishment should be administration? I think you have just made that up, I appreciate it could be a consequence of such a penalty, but that is for a clubs owner to weigh up the risk, just like they do in all their dealings with their clubs running. Derby may be higher profile than the clubs i mentioned earlier, but their supporters suffered for their clubs being run badly, where was the empathy for them. Nobody wants Derby or any club to go under, Nobody.

You are advocating that any club breaching the rules (or going across the line you have drwan) be dumped to the bottom of the pyramid. You have to accept that for almost any club in the Champo that means immediate administration? So the effect of the very punishment you seek is administration in almost every case.

I am not sure it is true to say that nobody wants Derby to go under. You're advocating for a punishment that would guarantee it and defending a legal action by MFC that materially increases the risk of it.

I said I feel that the punishment is not a severe enough deterrent to others v possible reward especially given the extent of the actions in my opinion, I believe that the seriousness of the rule breaking merits relegation to the bottom tier, again my opinion. I have never once advocated they should be forced into insolvency by anyone other than by themselves or the courts. It is for a company owner(s) to determine whether to risk the crime and so risk a penalty v reward of succeeding. We really do need greater regulation of football to prevent unscrupulous goings on and risking the future of clubs in this country.

So I ask again, what is it about this specific example in Derby that means they deserve this severe punishment that you're advocating for? What are the features of their breach that justify it?

 

[coluka]

You are advocating that any club breaching the rules (or going across the line you have drwan) be dumped to the bottom of the pyramid. You have to accept that for almost any club in the Champo that means immediate administration? So the effect of the very punishment you seek is administration in almost every case.

I am not sure it is true to say that nobody wants Derby to go under. You're advocating for a punishment that would guarantee it and defending a legal action by MFC that materially increases the risk of it.



So I ask again, what is it about this specific example in Derby that means they deserve this severe punishment that you're advocating for? What are the features of their breach that justify it?

Again no. I am giving my view. It is not up to me to draw any line. I merely suggest that the rules as they currently stand do not remotely disincentivize a club from risking the sporting integrity of the league who were willing to break the rules to such a degree that it gave them a greater advantage over other clubs in the league than should have been the case and as such feel the rules applied were too soft. They did get a 21 point deduction. However 12 of those were due to going into administration out of choice, they blamed a failure to find new owners and the pandemic on that, only 9 were due to breaching the EFL rules (which i find incredibly lenient, just my opinion).

I do accept that if my idea were adopted, that would likely mean administration for some clubs owners, that does not mean liquidation is inevitable though. Lets not forget Derby have put themselves already in administration anyway so I don’t quite understand your argument on that. Again I ask where was the empathy and support for little old Aldershot, Scarborough, Bury and the other liquidated clubs badly run by their owners? They were badly run companies that paid a financial price, to my knowledge they never tried to break the rules of the league itself and it’s entire sporting integrity to boot.

Were Derby or anyone else to go under, they could reform and start a fresh with new owners with no debts hanging over them from the base of the pyramid and work their way back up like Scarborough and others are trying to do. Shame for the fans that they have been treated so badly by their owner, but lets not rewrite the truth as to why they are in this position and whose fault it really is. I am sure Mr Gibson knows what he is doing and why and despite your undoubted legal talent, he will have consulted lawyers on the subject and weighed up the pro’s and cons of his actions. I doubt he is seeking to see Derby ultimately liquidated, but I think he is teaching a very valuable lesson to both the EFL and other owners to play fair, by the rules, whatever they are, whatever they evolve into in the future. Derby were they ever to be liquidated, it would not be because of Mr Gibson, it would be because of the clubs actions and the courts.

 

[Adi_Dem]

Again no. I am giving my view. It is not up to me to draw any line. I merely suggest that the rules as they currently stand do not remotely disincentivize a club from risking the sporting integrity of the league who were willing to break the rules to such a degree that it gave them a greater advantage over other clubs in the league than should have been the case and as such feel the rules applied were too soft. They did get a 21 point deduction. However 12 of those were due to going into administration out of choice, they blamed a failure to find new owners and the pandemic on that, only 9 were due to breaching the EFL rules (which i find incredibly lenient, just my opinion).

Well, I would argue that a 21 point deduction, relegation and possible liquidation is punishment a plenty. But that’s just me.

I’m not close to it but my understanding is that Derby argued (and the panel accepted) that this wasn’t a deliberate attempt to cheat but rather they thought they’d identified a genuine loophole and sought to exploit it.

And I’m sorry but I think that’s a cop out. You say that there should be greater punishments and that Derby should be sentenced to multiple relegations and yet aren’t prepared to say why. You’re not prepared to say where the line is that they have crossed.

I do accept that if my idea were adopted, that would likely mean administration for some clubs owners, that does not mean liquidation is inevitable though. Lets not forget Derby have put themselves already in administration anyway so I don’t quite understand your argument on that. Again I ask where was the empathy and support for little old Aldershot, Scarborough, Bury and the other liquidated clubs badly run by their owners? They were badly run companies that paid a financial price, to my knowledge they never tried to break the rules of the league itself and it’s entire sporting integrity to boot.

Well, administration and liquidation aren’t the same thing as you know. So my argument is that being in administration buys breathing space and protection from creditors. Sending that club tumbling down the pyramid all but guarantees that administration becomes liquidation.

And I’m not sure why you’re talking about empathy or sympathy for the clubs you mention. I remember there being lots and lots of both at the time. They should have been supported. Not sure what relevance that has here. None in truth.

Were Derby or anyone else to go under, they could reform and start a fresh with new owners with no debts hanging over them from the base of the pyramid and work their way back up like Scarborough and others are trying to do. Shame for the fans that they have been treated so badly by their owner, but lets not rewrite the truth as to why they are in this position and whose fault it really is.

Putting to one side how incredibly difficult what you describe would be (read almost impossible), they are indeed in this position ie 21 point deduction and administration because of the actions of their owner. But you want more than that. My question remains: why?

I am sure Mr Gibson knows what he is doing and why and despite your undoubted legal talent, he will have consulted lawyers on the subject and weighed up the pro’s and cons of his actions. I doubt he is seeking to see Derby ultimately liquidated, but I think he is teaching a very valuable lesson to both the EFL and other owners to play fair, by the rules, whatever they are, whatever they evolve into in the future. Derby were they ever to be liquidated, it would not be because of Mr Gibson, it would be because of the clubs actions and the courts.

I am equally sure Gibson knows what he is doing and that’s why I think it is so abhorrent. And if this court case causes their liquidation then I’m sorry but it would be because of Gibson. Derby were punished in accordance with the rules. Like you, Gibson wants more. He wants blood. That’s on him. But it leaves the question that you still haven’t answered: what is it about this case that pushes it across the line and thereby justifies the harsher punishment you are advocating?

 

[r00fie1]

Again no. I am giving my view. It is not up to me to draw any line. I merely suggest that the rules as they currently stand do not remotely disincentivize a club from risking the sporting integrity of the league who were willing to break the rules to such a degree that it gave them a greater advantage over other clubs in the league than should have been the case and as such feel the rules applied were too soft. They did get a 21 point deduction. However 12 of those were due to going into administration out of choice, they blamed a failure to find new owners and the pandemic on that, only 9 were due to breaching the EFL rules (which i find incredibly lenient, just my opinion).

I do accept that if my idea were adopted, that would likely mean administration for some clubs owners, that does not mean liquidation is inevitable though. Lets not forget Derby have put themselves already in administration anyway so I don’t quite understand your argument on that. Again I ask where was the empathy and support for little old Aldershot, Scarborough, Bury and the other liquidated clubs badly run by their owners? They were badly run companies that paid a financial price, to my knowledge they never tried to break the rules of the league itself and it’s entire sporting integrity to boot.

Were Derby or anyone else to go under, they could reform and start a fresh with new owners with no debts hanging over them from the base of the pyramid and work their way back up like Scarborough and others are trying to do. Shame for the fans that they have been treated so badly by their owner, but lets not rewrite the truth as to why they are in this position and whose fault it really is. I am sure Mr Gibson knows what he is doing and why and despite your undoubted legal talent, he will have consulted lawyers on the subject and weighed up the pro’s and cons of his actions. I doubt he is seeking to see Derby ultimately liquidated, but I think he is teaching a very valuable lesson to both the EFL and other owners to play fair, by the rules, whatever they are, whatever they evolve into in the future. Derby were they ever to be liquidated, it would not be because of Mr Gibson, it would be because of the clubs actions and the courts.

Spot on.

 

[coluka]

Well, I would argue that a 21 point deduction, relegation and possible liquidation is punishment a plenty. But that’s just me.

I’m not close to it but my understanding is that Derby argued (and the panel accepted) that this wasn’t a deliberate attempt to cheat but rather they thought they’d identified a genuine loophole and sought to exploit it.

And I’m sorry but I think that’s a cop out. You say that there should be greater punishments and that Derby should be sentenced to multiple relegations and yet aren’t prepared to say why. You’re not prepared to say where the line is that they have crossed.


Well, administration and liquidation aren’t the same thing as you know. So my argument is that being in administration buys breathing space and protection from creditors. Sending that club tumbling down the pyramid all but guarantees that administration becomes liquidation.

And I’m not sure why you’re talking about empathy or sympathy for the clubs you mention. I remember there being lots and lots of both at the time. They should have been supported. Not sure what relevance that has here. None in truth.



Putting to one side how incredibly difficult what you describe would be (read almost impossible), they are indeed in this position ie 21 point deduction and administration because of the actions of their owner. But you want more than that. My question remains: why?




I am equally sure Gibson knows what he is doing and that’s why I think it is so abhorrent. And if this court case causes their liquidation then I’m sorry but it would be because of Gibson. Derby were punished in accordance with the rules. Like you, Gibson wants more. He wants blood. That’s on him. But it leaves the question that you still haven’t answered: what is it about this case that pushes it across the line and thereby justifies the harsher punishment you are advocating?

I have answered several times over actually, you have just ignored it. Sporting integrity is everything, I really don’t think you can put a price on that and the knock on effect that has to the league itself, the trust of fellow clubs to uphold fair play within the rules agreed. It seems to me from what is in the public domain that the actions seriously put the sporting integrity of the league, its members trust at risk and if it had paid off they would have been away scot free in the Premier League. What message does that send to others?

Derby put themselves into administration like I said the 12 points they in part blamed covid for that remember, not their breach of rules. 9 points for what they did seems trivial. Others can do the same and expect a 9 point deduction. A team that pushes for the wealth of the Premier League breaking rules to give them a sporting advantage over fellow members could if found out, likely take a 9 point hit and remain in the league and if they were successful escape punishment via promotion and all the wealth that comes their way. 9 points is no deterrent for me. Anyway, I’m done and trust Mr Gibson to do the right and just thing for himself and Boro.

 

[Adi_Dem]

I have answered several times over actually, you have just ignored it. Sporting integrity is everything, I really don’t think you can put a price on that and the knock on effect that has to the league itself, the trust of fellow clubs to uphold fair play within the rules agreed. It seems to me from what is in the public domain that the actions seriously put the sporting integrity of the league, its members trust at risk and if it had paid off they would have been away scot free in the Premier League. What message does that send to others?

You may think you have but you haven't. Sporting integrity and a level playing field are the reasons to have rules and penalties for breaking them. We both agree on that. Derby have been punished in accordance with the rules. Your view, I think, is that the penalty of a significant points deduction is not enough at a certain point i.e. a 'crime' becomes so serious that it justifies a huge punishment in the form of demotion to the bottom of the pyramid. In other words, you accept that there are different levels of offence in terms of severity. I agree with that too. There are.

So with all of that said, my question is what the particular features of Derby's case are that for you tip it over that line such that they don't just deserve the 'standard' punishment but something so severe that it would likely kill the club.

 

[BoroMart]

And why are EFL punishments immediately able to be appealed to a three man panel, one from the guilty club, someone independent and another, seems mental.

because that's the process that was agreed with the clubs. There should always be a right to appeal.

 

[BoroMart]

However, you say that the punishment was too harsh, based on a technicality (which administrative crimes aren't btw?)

No I'm saying the punishment hadn't been prescribed in the rules, that's not a technicality, it's a fact,. We were not informed that this was a likely punishment, in spite of contacting the premier league for clarification, and the situation was played out in the public with other clubs putting pressure on the premier league to punish us. It was an arbitrary decision because there was no punishment described in the rules. We've seen 74ish matches called off because of squads decimated by virus in the last 8 weeks, but no punishment.

This is very different to what has happened to Derby who have been punished as prescribed in the rules, 9 points for FFP failures and 12 for administration. They haven't even been given any punishment for cooking the books and leading the rest of the league on a merry dance, their Machiavellian and temporarily successful attempts to cheat went unpunished.

 

[Adi_Dem]

No I'm saying the punishment hadn't been prescribed in the rules, that's not a technicality, it's a fact,. We were not informed that this was a likely punishment, in spite of contacting the premier league for clarification, and the situation was played out in the public with other clubs putting pressure on the premier league to punish us. It was an arbitrary decision because there was no punishment described in the rules. We've seen 74ish matches called off because of squads decimated by virus in the last 8 weeks, but no punishment.

This is very different to what has happened to Derby who have been punished as prescribed in the rules, 9 points for FFP failures and 12 for administration. They haven't even been given any punishment for cooking the books and leading the rest of the league on a merry dance, their Machiavellian and temporarily successful attempts to cheat went unpunished.

You mentioned the word technicality, not me. You said we were found in breach on a technicality. We weren’t. We broke the rules. The rules not prescribing a punishment is not the same as the league acting ultra vires in deducting points.

And what you seem to be arguing now is that Derby’s punishment whilst being fully in accordance with the rules isn’t sufficient a penalty.

Again proving the point I was making. That there seems to be an inconsistent and subjective judgement being made here to justify a court case that at worst will result in Derby’s liquidation and at best will yield some small financial settlement all leveraged by our chairman out of a vendetta.

 

[TeaCider]

No I'm saying the punishment hadn't been prescribed in the rules, that's not a technicality, it's a fact,. We were not informed that this was a likely punishment, in spite of contacting the premier league for clarification, and the situation was played out in the public with other clubs putting pressure on the premier league to punish us. It was an arbitrary decision because there was no punishment described in the rules. We've seen 74ish matches called off because of squads decimated by virus in the last 8 weeks, but no punishment.

This is very different to what has happened to Derby who have been punished as prescribed in the rules, 9 points for FFP failures and 12 for administration. They haven't even been given any punishment for cooking the books and leading the rest of the league on a merry dance, their Machiavellian and temporarily successful attempts to cheat went unpunished.

It's two different organisations, but Bolton failed to fulfil repeated fixtures in 2018/19 and 2019/20, long before Covid was even a thing.

They received suspended points deductions that never took effect.

It probably helped in the first instance that Bolton were already relegated, and it's the EFL rather than the PL, but it's an example that the punishments aren't set in stone.
They called off the first game because the players went on strike over unpaid wages, which is a far more serious issue than having a squad too ill to play, but they were able to avoid tangible punishment for it.

 

[coluka]

You may think you have but you haven't. Sporting integrity and a level playing field are the reasons to have rules and penalties for breaking them. We both agree on that. Derby have been punished in accordance with the rules. Your view, I think, is that the penalty of a significant points deduction is not enough at a certain point i.e. a 'crime' becomes so serious that it justifies a huge punishment in the form of demotion to the bottom of the pyramid. In other words, you accept that there are different levels of offence in terms of severity. I agree with that too. There are.

So with all of that said, my question is what the particular features of Derby's case are that for you tip it over that line such that they don't just deserve the 'standard' punishment but something so severe that it would likely kill the club.

The Championship is arguably one of the biggest leagues in world football. It has a worth, a value. Its clubs are dealing in huge amounts of money, have millions of supporters worldwide, bring wealth to nearby businesses, significant sums for tv rights. Trust, fair play and sporting integrity has to be central to its core value, without that it is all pointless. I put a high price on upholding those values. When any clubs actions arrogantly and selfishly, seek to act unfairly at the expense of not just all the other Championship teams but the EFL system as a whole, this casts a big shadow over the integrity of the league and could do so potentially on its membership, then i feel a high price should be paid in order to ensure everyone stays honest.

The aim of gaining a significant and unfair advantage outside of the rules, in seeking promotion and the associated riches, at the expense of everyone else should carry a high price for those that see it as an option in my opinion. I personally put a high price on upholding those values mentioned, in fact more than the EFL rules seemingly do. A 9 point deduction is not a massive disincentive imho, given the potential reward and advantage over others that could ultimately be gained. My feelings (and thats all they are) whilst draconian are a significantly high disincentive to make it highly unlikely others would take the risk in future. Sadly, I feel in many walks of modern life, the penalty of an offence is not sufficient, not just football.

Now that really is me done on my thoughts, goodnight.