The jocks took down the biggest club in their league's history - imagine if the EFL had the pods to do the same?
i agree totally - down to League 2. No ifs or buts.
Next Derby owners face extra £1m legal bill as Middlesbrough and Wycombe compensation claims head for ugly court battle
- Thread starter breakthewallsdown
- Start date
i agree totally - down to League 2. No ifs or buts.
coluka
Well-known member
Of course it wont succeed to the values claimed. Frivolous though, nah, not for me. I am with Gibson 100% (ironic that you and i are still opposites of the same coin Adi, i prefer my side as it is less toxic for once, I admire Gibbo for this, shame on you for not being on board the rollercoaster)
Adi_Dem
Well-known member
Of course it wont succeed to the values claimed. Frivolous though, nah, not for me. I am with Gibson 100% (ironic that you and i are still opposites of the same coin Adi, i prefer my side as it is less toxic for once, I admire Gibbo for this, shame on you for not being on board the rollercoaster)
I don’t see any legal merit in it. Fails several parts of the legal test for such claims in my view. Obviously that’s very difficult to be certain about without seeing the pleadings. For me though it won’t succeed for any amount I don’t think.
I don’t really follow the toxic coin thing.
coluka
Well-known member
The benefit imho, is to keep the EFL more on their toes for me, similarly the clubs within. The toxic comment was more to do with a comment you made about my criticism of Gibson when you were in full support of his approach previously. He currently has my 100% support on this, you clearly less so on this matter. I know we both want Boro to achieve though.
Adi_Dem
Well-known member
The benefit imho, is to keep the EFL more on their toes for me, similarly the clubs within. The toxic comment was more to do with a comment you made about my criticism of Gibson when you were in full support of his approach previously. He currently has my 100% support on this, you clearly less so on this matter. I know we both want Boro to achieve though.
Sorry I still don't know what you mean really. I've been pretty critical of Gibson for about 5 years now. This isn't about supporting him or not though. This seems to be a futile exercise built on a fundamentally flawed legal action. I am not sure how that keeps anyone on their toes. Rather I think it puts the club in a bad light and irritates other clubs and the league governing body.
newyddion
Well-known member
Derby’s actions cost us a playoff place. Why does that put US in a bad light?
It may irritate Derby fans who think that our actions could be harmful to their club.. but it was their owners actions that was harmful to our club, not only missing out on the chance of a £100m promotion but effectively wasting all funds spent getting into that position.
As for irritating the leagues governing body? WTF? Asking them to govern and ensure teams follow rules that they set/laid out is surely the whole point of them existing.
I would be more critical of Derby County and their actions before anyone else including the EFL. Boro/Gibson are not at fault here.
Adi_Dem
Well-known member
Prove to me that but for Derby’s breaches Middlesbrough would have definitely qualified for the play offs.
The governing body has imposed serious penalties on the offending club. What more would you have them do?
It puts us in a bad light because it’s frivolous and without merit.
breakthewallsdown
Well-known member
But it didn't. Us losing 6 in a row (4 at home) cost us a play off place.
We were shyte that season. Humiliated by Burton and Newport in the cups.
BoroMart
Well-known member
you can't, because you cannot replay those alternate conditions where they didn't cheat.......but it is proven that Derby attempted to gain advantage through breach of rules, and the argument would be that they gained a competitive advantage by doing so.
It is not absurd to seek compensation for that.
newyddion
Well-known member
We finished 1point behind Derby in 2018-19 in 7th place. We drew against them home and away all of their points gained were due to an unfair advantage they gained by breaking the FFP rules.
BoroMart
Well-known member
But if Derby hadn't have cheated the bar would have been lower to reach the play offs, so it's irrelevant that we lost 6 in a row, plenty of play off teams have done that kind of form. Barnsley for example didn't win in 7 games that very season
There is no such rule that states that any team that loses six in a row shall be precluded from the play offs, there is a rule that says any team that scores less points than the top two teams but more than the other 18 teams shall reach the play offs. Should one of those teams achieve said points by cheating then the entry criteria into those placings is artificially and unfairly raised. The 6 defeats thing is an absolute irrelevant red herring
newyddion
Well-known member
Finishing ONE POINT behind Derby County
Adi_Dem
Well-known member
Exactly the point and why it is absurd. The rules were clear and the penalties established pre-competition. It is far too remote to pursue such a claim and it fails the causation test.
Irrelevant from a legal perspective and given that you’d have to eliminate all of Derby’s results. That would then affect promotion, relegation and everything in between.
BoroMart
Well-known member
Wigan lost 6 on the trot in 13/14 and were not precluded from the play off places, Leicester in 12-13 failed to win in 9 games....a quarter of a season but weren't expelled from the play offs.
Well this has never been tested in court to be able to absolutely state this, so it's an opinion. I guess we might know the answer soon...although I think there will be an out of court settlement prior to any legal proceedings.
newyddion
Well-known member
How much extra were they allowed to spend on players? and what advantage did those players give them.
You only being in players to give you and advantage and rules are set to ensure you don’t have an unfair advantage over other teams.
Adi_Dem
Well-known member
Yes and the rules were broken, penalties implemented and points adjusted accordingly. None of that is relevant to the question of legal causation which this claim will fundamentally fail on. It is frivolous and puts us in a bad light.
I had a lengthy telephone conversation with Steve Gibson about this case. He called after I appealed to him on behalf of two Derby supporter groups that had contacted me. I was making the appeal asking him to consider how he had rescued us in 1986.
He phoned me straight away and spoke in detail about why he brought the case - he discovered Mel Morris and other Derby officials had quite deliberately set out on a strategy to cheat their way to the Premier League.
He told me how they did it and how eventually they were caught out on not depreciating values of players, year by year, so considerably over valuing. This meant they could spend far more under FFP.
He also told me how he arrived at £45m. It makes total sense - I can tell anyone that asks me privately but is based on an average value of the worth of promotion to the Premier but also divided by the bookies odds if we made the play offs and not Derby.
Steve Gibson also detailed why he needs to continue his legal action. He does not believe Derby are paying anything like a just price, or being valued anything like their true worth as a club. They are even being valued much less than Boro.
Obvously Mel Morris should be paying a price but he is walking away with his fortune in tact having set the club towards destruction.
There was a lot of other stuff that is disturbing and more recent than Morris that may be I cannot legally relay.
Derby and not Boro have made this personal. That is the way it looks.
Last edited:
Adi_Dem
Well-known member
I understand all of that Rob but ultimately it doesn't mean an awful lot legally. Putting to one side the penalty for entering administration, the rest of their points deduction stems from charges that relate to losses in the three years up to June 2018. As a consequence they were fined and points were deducted in accordance with the financial fair play rules as set out prior to the competition commencing.
With the caveat that I have only read reports online about our claim, MFC now needs to prove on the balance of probabilities (i.e. what was more probable than not) that breaches spanning a three year period by one club in the competition resulted in loss and damage in the form of MFC's failure to secure a play off spot and thereby win promotion to the Premier League. Surely, anyone can see the gaping flaws in such a claim?
(i) the financial breaches spanned three years to 2018 so which year is it that we say we were affected in? All of them? Just one?
(ii) using bookies odds is not a valid legal test of probability and so how do we prove that these breaches were, on the balance of probabilities, the reason we didn't get into the play offs in any given season and do we equally then need to apply those tests to every other team?
(iii) if we somehow prove that we would have got into the play offs in 6th how do we then prove we would have been promoted given that we would be the lowest placed team in the play off competition?
(iv) why just us? Why can't every team in the division claim for lost revenue from league placings, relegation, play off entry, automatic promotion and if they can, across which years? And how do we prove it? Remove Derby's results? I am not sure we want to open that pandora's box for the 15/16 season do we?
(v) what about the cup competitions and the teams Derby knocked out for three years? Do they have a legitimate claim too?
It is a nonsense claim to me that is destined to fail. Frivolous and smells like a vendetta. Not a good look IMO.
With the caveat that I have only read reports online about our claim, MFC now needs to prove on the balance of probabilities (i.e. what was more probable than not) that breaches spanning a three year period by one club in the competition resulted in loss and damage in the form of MFC's failure to secure a play off spot and thereby win promotion to the Premier League. Surely, anyone can see the gaping flaws in such a claim?
(i) the financial breaches spanned three years to 2018 so which year is it that we say we were affected in? All of them? Just one?
(ii) using bookies odds is not a valid legal test of probability and so how do we prove that these breaches were, on the balance of probabilities, the reason we didn't get into the play offs in any given season and do we equally then need to apply those tests to every other team?
(iii) if we somehow prove that we would have got into the play offs in 6th how do we then prove we would have been promoted given that we would be the lowest placed team in the play off competition?
(iv) why just us? Why can't every team in the division claim for lost revenue from league placings, relegation, play off entry, automatic promotion and if they can, across which years? And how do we prove it? Remove Derby's results? I am not sure we want to open that pandora's box for the 15/16 season do we?
(v) what about the cup competitions and the teams Derby knocked out for three years? Do they have a legitimate claim too?
It is a nonsense claim to me that is destined to fail. Frivolous and smells like a vendetta. Not a good look IMO.
clay
Well-known member
The year when we finished in 7th, one point behind DCFC. The fact that there may also be additional years we could seek compensation for doesn't somehow reduce our right to seek compensation for that year alone.
I think you've misunderstood. If we can convince a court that, on balance, DCFC's cheating was sufficient to give them an extra one point advantage and deny us a play-off place, then the court has to assign a value to that place. The expected value of a play-off place is the value of winning the play-offs divided by our odds of winning: if you think all four teams have equal chance, we'd expect a quarter of the proceeds from promotion; if we are rank outsiders with a 1 in 20 chance of going up, the expected value is one-twentieth of the proceeds of promotion.
They can if they want. We're not stopping them. Boro's claim isn't reduced just because other people could also choose to claim.