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

coluka said:
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.
Click to expand...
I do understand the point coluka but I was genuinely interested in why you consider this particular case to be sufficiently serious. I don't know much about the Derby breaches and so it was just genuine curiosity.
 
Adi_Dem said:
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.
Click to expand...
we broke the rules, but there were no rules for punishment, that's my point glad you got there
 
Adi_Dem said:
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.
Click to expand...
Nope, I'm 'arguing' that they were not punished at all for the lying, cheating and nefarious behaviour, the falsification of records. 9 points for breaking the FFP rules (i.e. failing to comply with FFP), and 12 points for entering admin.

They haven't been punished for everything they did wrong.
 
Adi_Dem said:
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.
Click to expand...
You've already stated categorically that we will not win, so that worst case will never come to pass. But, he has every right to try and gain compensation for losses caused by their proven wrong doing, regardless if it will win or what you or Derby fans think of it.

I'm comfortable with his activity, and should we win great, should we lose then any postponement in the sale of Derby is just more on the shoulders of Mel Morris. If he hadn't cheated then there was no need for any of this, no need to push for compensation, no fines, no administration. The biggest reason for their troubles is not Gibson it's his failure to pay HMRC a huge amount of money.
 
Last edited:
BoroMart said:
we broke the rules, but there were no rules for punishment, that's my point glad you got there
Click to expand...

There was nowhere to get. You implied that the punishment was not in accordance with the rules because there was no prescribed punishment. That’s plainly wrong. The punishment was by definition at the discretion of the panel in the absence of it being prescribed. It was within their power to deduct points. So I’m afraid that once again you’re wrong, despite the snarky and unnecessary response 🤷‍♂️

BoroMart said:
Nope, I'm 'arguing' that they were not punished at all for the lying, cheating and nefarious behaviour, the falsification of records. 9 points for breaking the FFP rules (i.e. failing to comply with FFP), and 12 points for entering admin.

They haven't been punished for everything they did wrong.
Click to expand...

And I’m asking what that is. It’s a genuine question. I’ve said a few times on here that I simply don’t know what Derby are alleged to have done that has gone unpunished. I just wish someone would tell me! The argument isn’t about Derby per se, it’s about whether there are sufficient powers of punishment available and where the line is to implement more serious penalties. I’m just genuinely trying to find out what that is. I’ve googled and can’t really find anything. So please tell me!

BoroMart said:
You've already stated categorically that we will not win, so that worst case will never come to pass. But, he has every right to try and gain compensation for wrong doing, regardless what you or Derby fans think of it.
Click to expand...

Again that’s not accurate. What I said is that based on the publicly available information our case will fail the causation tests. My view therefore is that unless there’s something that I am unaware of that would materially change something (and I repeat I’m open to that being the case) then it is likely to fail.

I haven’t denied he has a right. Anyone has the right to pursue any legal wrong they want to. Even if it ultimately is doomed to failure. Equally I have the right to (a) give my professional view on the merits of the case and (b) express my disappointment at the decision to exercise that right because I think it paints us in a bad light. That’s all I’m doing and it’s just an opinion, (a) being a professional one based on my experience and expertise and (b) simply an opinion.
 
Adi_Dem said:
There was nowhere to get. You implied that the punishment was not in accordance with the rules because there was no prescribed punishment. That’s plainly wrong. The punishment was by definition at the discretion of the panel in the absence of it being prescribed.
Click to expand...
semantics, there was no prescribed punishment, so they made one up
 
BoroMart said:
semantics, there was no prescribed punishment, so they made one up
Click to expand...

Its absolutely not semantics. A whole heap of case law on that very issue exists. It’s not just semantics. They had the power to implement the punishment they did. You implied that what they did was outside of their powers. It wasn’t.
 
Adi_Dem said:
And I’m asking what that is. It’s a genuine question. I’ve said a few times on here that I simply don’t know what Derby are alleged to have done that has gone unpunished. I just wish someone would tell me!
Click to expand...
there's plenty out there on the interweb, on how they broke the rules. If you want to go into that, the point is they did, knowing it to be falsifying the FFP information. Gibson even alluded to this at the time, and some of the details were posted on here (Straight form Gibsons mouth) then hastily deleted.

They haven't been punished for everything they did, just what was written in the rule books, the EFL would have been in its' rights to just demote them 2 divisions. What we did with the Blackburn match was done in good faith, Derby's behaviour was the opposite of that.

Regardless of any of this, Gibson has the right to seek compensation, as does the Wycombe manager. Why should the feelings of Derby fans come ahead of ensuring his own club doesn't get stuffed? Why should Wycombe just take it on the chin that they were unfairly relegated?
 
Adi_Dem said:
Its absolutely not semantics. A whole heap of case law on that very issue exists. It’s not just semantics. They had the power to implement the punishment they did. You implied that what they did was outside of their powers. It wasn’t.
Click to expand...
so by that rationale the EFL had the ability to punish Derby for further indiscretions without specifically listed punishments and didn't. So the EFL have gone easy on Derby, why should Gibson or Wycombes chairman do the same?
 
BoroMart said:
there's plenty out there on the interweb, on how they broke the rules. If you want to go into that, the point is they did, knowing it to be falsifying the FFP information. Gibson even alluded to this at the time, and some of the details were posted on here (Straight form Gibsons mouth) then hastily deleted.

They haven't been punished for everything they did, just what was written in the rule books, the EFL would have been in its' rights to just demote them 2 divisions. What we did with the Blackburn match was done in good faith, Derby's behaviour was the opposite of that.

Regardless of any of this, Gibson has the right to seek compensation, as does the Wycombe manager. Why should the feelings of Derby fans come ahead of ensuring his own club doesn't get stuffed? Why should Wycombe just take it on the chin that they were unfairly relegated?
Click to expand...

So they’ve only been punished for the things they did that broke the rules? You want them punishing for something else - but what is that? That’s my question. I can’t find any of the stuff you’re alluding to here. Or the EFL’s right to demote them two divisions.

I’m not suggesting that the feelings of anyone should come ahead of anything. I’m offering an opinion on the merits of the case from a legal perspective and an opinion on whether I agree with the club pursuing the case. Nothing more, nothing less.

BoroMart said:
so by that rationale the EFL had the ability to punish Derby for further indiscretions without specifically listed punishments and didn't. So the EFL have gone easy on Derby, why should Gibson or Wycombes chairman do the same?
Click to expand...

You’ve completely lost me here. My recollection (would need to check) is that the EFL regs provide for points deduction as one penalty option and that it is for the EFL in the first instance and then the independent appeal panel to determine whether there should be a points deduction and if so how many. I’ve not a clue what rationale you are trying to prove between the 1996 case and this one.
 
Adi_Dem said:
So they’ve only been punished for the things they did that broke the rules? You want them punishing for something else - but what is that? That’s my question
Click to expand...
They presented information that did not comply with standards so as to appear aligned to FFP rules.
 
Adi_Dem said:
I’m not suggesting that the feelings of anyone should come ahead of anything. I’m offering an opinion on the merits of the case from a legal perspective and an opinion on whether I agree with the club pursuing the case. Nothing more, nothing less.
Click to expand...
That fine, doesn't mean he can't try, or shouldn't try as someone that has lost out through the rule breaking of another party.
 
BoroMart said:
They presented information that did not comply with standards so as to appear aligned to FFP rules.
Click to expand...

Deliberately to deceive? On Twitter I read something that I can’t now find that said the panel accepted there was no attempt to deliberately mislead.


BoroMart said:
That fine, doesn't mean he can't try, or shouldn't try as someone that has lost out through the rule breaking of another party.
Click to expand...

I’m not sure why you’re flogging this one. Of course it doesn’t mean he can’t try. He can and he is! You think he should be pursuing this and I disagree for all the reasons I’ve set out above. We are each entitled to hold that opinion and we aren’t going to agree.
 
Adi_Dem said:
You’ve completely lost me here. My recollection (would need to check) is that the EFL regs provide for points deduction as one penalty option and that it is for the EFL in the first instance and then the independent appeal panel to determine whether there should be a points deduction and if so how many. I’ve not a clue what rationale you are trying to prove between the 1996 case and this one.
Click to expand...
It's pretty easy, you said that the 96 case we were punished despite there being no written punishment for our failure to comply with the rules. So there is no written rule today for the punishment for providing irregular/false/BS FFP information. So goose and gander, Derby could and arguably should have been punished for breaking the rules about providing FFP information that was aimed at cheating the system. You can add a fourth one, in that they didn't provide FFP for those three years until about 4 months ago, which is well beyond the dates they were supposed to provide them, several years beyond, again unpunished.
 
BoroMart said:
that works both ways
Click to expand...
Not really. I keep answering you and you keep repeating the same thing. I’m not sure what else you want me to say in response.


BoroMart said:
It's pretty easy, you said that the 96 case we were punished despite there being no written punishment for our failure to comply with the rules. So there is no written rule today for the punishment for providing irregular/false/BS FFP information. So goose and gander, Derby could and arguably should have been punished for breaking the rules about providing FFP information that was aimed at cheating the system. You can add a fourth one, in that they didn't provide FFP for those three years until about 4 months ago, which is well beyond the dates they were supposed to provide them, several years beyond, again unpunished.
Click to expand...

No I didn’t say that we were punished despite there being no written punishment. I said that counter to your implication that the punishment was outside of their authority, it wasn’t. It was well within their authority and they were entitled to levy it.

There are clear punishments for FFP breaches. They are listed and available to the panel. The number of points is discretionary (other than for administration). They decided to go with the 9 plus mandatory 12 points. Of course they could have gone higher or lower. That’s the nature of a discretionary punishment.
 
Adi_Dem said:
Not really. I keep answering you and you keep repeating the same thing. I’m not sure what else you want me to say in response.
Click to expand...
funny because you keep repeating the same thing, but with added micro-aggressions 🤷‍♂️

At the end of the day, you and I have a difference of opinion on seeking compensation, you think it will never win, I say the details aren't available to make that decision 100%. I would never put my professional credibility on the line without all the details but that's your choice....so at this point I'll leave it there, and you can carry on arguing with yourself.

Adi_Dem said:
No I didn’t say that we were punished despite there being no written punishment. I said that counter to your implication that the punishment was outside of their authority, it wasn’t. It was well within their authority and they were entitled to levy it.
Click to expand...
ditto for the EFL with failure to provide compliant FFP in the written timeframe, and providing FFP that was not knowingly not compliant
 
BoroMart said:
funny because you keep repeating the same thing, but with added micro-aggressions 🤷‍♂️


ditto for the EFL with failure to provide compliant FFP in the written timeframe, and providing FFP that was not knowingly not compliant
Click to expand...

Nope, no aggression, micro or otherwise. You’re the only one of us being snarky here. I’m just responding to your points.

So you’re saying that there were deliberate breaches that were not examined by the panel and therefore not punished?
 
BoroMart said:
because that's the process that was agreed with the clubs. There should always be a right to appeal.
Click to expand...
I don't query the right to appeal, more the fact that the panel doesn't seem particularly impartial and that it takes months and months to be decided. Why not present the evidence for the rest of the clubs in the league to vote on, a sort of jury of your peers if you would.

I'm sure they'd all be impartial 🙃.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top