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

Laughing said:
I would have thought a case like this is unusual enough to be difficult to predict where it would head in terms of possible compensation.

Gibson is clearly annoyed and I would assume, had taken legal advice from folks who know more than us. It may be he doesn't expect to win but feels strongly enough to highlight the problems the efl created by acting so late. Damn the costs.
Click to expand...

By definition I see that as frivolous. I don't disagree as to the motivation and the only difficulty in predicting outcome is not having seen the pleadings. Based on standards of proof and causation I just can't see how it succeeds legally.

edinboro said:
We did pull out of a court case. The FA didnt allow non sporting authority remedies. It would have gone to CAS now.
Click to expand...

That isn't my recollection. Can you provide a link?
 
Adi_Dem said:
By definition I see that as frivolous. I don't disagree as to the motivation and the only difficulty in predicting outcome is not having seen the pleadings. Based on standards of proof and causation I just can't see how it succeeds legally.



That isn't my recollection. Can you provide a link?
Click to expand...
It may well be frivolous. I can see, even if Gibson doesn't think he can win, why he might pursue it.

I don't even know the bar for the case being upheld. I assume proponderance of evidence, rather than reasonable doubt.

From a purely layman's perspective I would think Wycombe would have a great case, but perhaps against the efl rather than Derby.
 
Adi_Dem said:
By definition I see that as frivolous. I don't disagree as to the motivation and the only difficulty in predicting outcome is not having seen the pleadings. Based on standards of proof and causation I just can't see how it succeeds legally.



That isn't my recollection. Can you provide a link?
Click to expand...
I've looked on Google but there's only a few articles about the FA hearing. But at the time we definitely said we were appealing and the FA said if we did, the only appeal was via the courts, then they'd ban us from Europe. Gibson chose to give us a chance of playing in Europe.
 
Laughing said:
It may well be frivolous. I can see, even if Gibson doesn't think he can win, why he might pursue it.

I don't even know the bar for the case being upheld. I assume proponderance of evidence, rather than reasonable doubt.

From a purely layman's perspective I would think Wycombe would have a great case, but perhaps against the efl rather than Derby.
Click to expand...

It's a civil case and so basically (I'm hugely paraphrasing) to get home we need to prove:

(i) a breach (which is the easy part I would suggest);
(ii) that there was loss/damage caused by the breach.

We need to prove those things on the balance of probabilities i.e. more probable than not.

So we need to be able to show that Derby's breach led to loss and damage for MFC (such damage not being too remote i.e. but for the breach MFC wouldn't have suffered loss/damage). I think we fail on that on the basis that it is far too remote and the chain of causation is broken when we start to argue that had Derby not broken the rules we would have got in the play offs and potentially won promotion.

edinboro said:
I've looked on Google but there's only a few articles about the FA hearing. But at the time we definitely said we were appealing and the FA said if we did, the only appeal was via the courts, then they'd ban us from Europe. Gibson chose to give us a chance of playing in Europe.
Click to expand...

It doesn't make much sense though. The FA don't control European competition and we had been relegated so the chances of European football were virtually nil.
 
Adi_Dem said:
It's a civil case and so basically (I'm hugely paraphrasing) to get home we need to prove:

(i) a breach (which is the easy part I would suggest);
(ii) that there was loss/damage caused by the breach.

We need to prove those things on the balance of probabilities i.e. more probable than not.

So we need to be able to show that Derby's breach led to loss and damage for MFC (such damage not being too remote i.e. but for the breach MFC wouldn't have suffered loss/damage). I think we fail on that on the basis that it is far too remote and the chain of causation is broken when we start to argue that had Derby not broken the rules we would have got in the play offs and potentially won promotion.



It doesn't make much sense though. The FA don't control European competition and we had been relegated so the chances of European football were virtually nil.
Click to expand...
If we won the Cup we would have qualified. But the FA decide which names to put forward.
 
We settled out of court with Liverpool over Ziege. We were due to go to the High Court after winning an appeal but the Premier League stepped in and brokered a deal between the two clubs and Ziege.

The terms of the agreement have never been made public.
 
Adi_Dem said:
It's a civil case and so basically (I'm hugely paraphrasing) to get home we need to prove:

(i) a breach (which is the easy part I would suggest);
(ii) that there was loss/damage caused by the breach.

We need to prove those things on the balance of probabilities i.e. more probable than not.

So we need to be able to show that Derby's breach led to loss and damage for MFC (such damage not being too remote i.e. but for the breach MFC wouldn't have suffered loss/damage). I think we fail on that on the basis that it is far too remote and the chain of causation is broken when we start to argue that had Derby not broken the rules we would have got in the play offs and potentially won promotion.



It doesn't make much sense though. The FA don't control European competition and we had been relegated so the chances of European football were virtually nil.
Click to expand...
If it it does go to court and we win, couldn't the judge award minimal damages and not what we are asking for? I know of civil cases in America where a claimant has won (balance of probability) but only awarded $1 in damages.
 
Adi_Dem said:
So why didn't we just wait until after the cup and then pursue the action?
Click to expand...
Lordy I don't know. Because they had until the summer to decide who they were putting forward.

Maybe Rob could ask Steve Gibson if I'm imagining it. But I'm 100% sure I read this at the time.
 
Adi_Dem said:
It's a civil case and so basically (I'm hugely paraphrasing) to get home we need to prove:

(i) a breach (which is the easy part I would suggest);
(ii) that there was loss/damage caused by the breach.

We need to prove those things on the balance of probabilities i.e. more probable than not.

So we need to be able to show that Derby's breach led to loss and damage for MFC (such damage not being too remote i.e. but for the breach MFC wouldn't have suffered loss/damage). I think we fail on that on the basis that it is far too remote and the chain of causation is broken when we start to argue that had Derby not broken the rules we would have got in the play offs and potentially won promotion.



It doesn't make much sense though. The FA don't control European competition and we had been relegated so the chances of European football were virtually nil.
Click to expand...
Given the description Adi, it will be difficult to prove. Is it more probable than not, we would have finished in a playoff place had Derby not cheated.... Probably, but not by much. Would we have been promoted in the playoffs.... Probably not, even had we been favourite.

I guess there is then the revenue from playoff games, but I guess that depends on the wording of the filing
 
Found the answer @edinboro and you are quite right. We did lose our case with the FA/Premier League but couldn't pursue a judicial review of that decision because of the presence of an Ouster clause. I found reference to that in Gibson's letter to the PL. An Ouster clause effectively removes the rights of the parties to pursue a matter through the courts, removing as it does the court's power to judicially review a decision or use of power.
 
hewielewie said:
If it it does go to court and we win, couldn't the judge award minimal damages and not what we are asking for? I know of civil cases in America where a claimant has won (balance of probability) but only awarded $1 in damages.
Click to expand...

It's not the same system here so we could in theory prove breach but not loss/damage and end up with nothing.

Laughing said:
Given the description Adi, it will be difficult to prove. Is it more probable than not, we would have finished in a playoff place had Derby not cheated.... Probably, but not by much. Would we have been promoted in the playoffs.... Probably not, even had we been favourite.

I guess there is then the revenue from playoff games, but I guess that depends on the wording of the filing
Click to expand...

I think it is too remote ultimately which is why I think, like you, that it is more for show than anything else.
 
For what it's worth on the Derby case front I imagine what Rob intimated at earlier that we don't know about is playing a part. We are all guessing at what evidence exists. Let's see how it pans out. I expect a settlement at some point.
 
BoroFur said:
We settled out of court with Liverpool over Ziege. We were due to go to the High Court after winning an appeal but the Premier League stepped in and brokered a deal between the two clubs and Ziege.

The terms of the agreement have never been made public.
Click to expand...
And that wasn't an appeal against the FA. So there was no way they could punish us. But it would have been really embarrassing for them if 2 clubs were going at it in court.

The workings of football being laid bare under oath wouldn't be a good look.
 
Adi_Dem said:
Even by your analysis I fail to see how it passes basic causation tests.
Click to expand...
OK, you've posted this claim multiple times, there is no precedent to prove that it does or doesn't so rather than throw the term out there, why not back it up a little more. I know law is your area of expertise but there are no experts in this particular case because it has no precedence to draw from
 
edinboro said:
And that wasn't an appeal against the FA. So there was no way they could punish us. But it would have been really embarrassing for them if 2 clubs were going at it in court.

The workings of football being laid bare under oath wouldn't be a good look.
Click to expand...
My recollections are a bit hazy edinboro but I've got it in my mind that we intended to call Gerard Houllier to give evidence under oath on the witness stand. Houllier wasn't in the best of health at the time and I think that's what may have been the catalyst to reaching an out of court settlement.
 
Laughing said:
I would have thought a case like this is unusual enough to be difficult to predict where it would head in terms of possible compensation.

Gibson is clearly annoyed and I would assume, had taken legal advice from folks who know more than us. It may be he doesn't expect to win but feels strongly enough to highlight the problems the efl created by acting so late. Damn the costs.
Click to expand...
As I have twice posted earlier.
 
Adi_Dem said:
It's not the same system here so we could in theory prove breach but not loss/damage and end up with nothing.



I think it is too remote ultimately which is why I think, like you, that it is more for show than anything else.
Click to expand...
That was sort of what I was saying but not in a very articulate way. :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top