No that would be the competition to bake the cake for the Platinum Jubilee. Obvs.
I have now heard from EFL and copy their response below:
"Thank you for your email, we note your comments.
While matters remain ongoing we continue to work with the Club and Administrators.
While we note your query, we should refer to the recent extensive dialogue between the EFL and the Rams Trust. We have met and engaged the Trust on a number of occasions, and they have published a number of Q&As on Derby County on their website in October here and in November here. Should you not already have done so we would recommend you take a look at the October Q&A which covers the matter of Wycombe and Middlesbrough.
Essentially, as the Q&A states, it is an unfortunate reality that commercial disputes can and do arise, and football is no different. The EFL (in common with the FA and the Premier League) provides that any disputes between Member Clubs must be resolved by arbitration and the terms of the arbitration are as set out in our regulations. This does not mean the EFL is determining the outcome – all we provide is a framework. Arbitrations between Clubs are resolved by independent panels formed from specialist solicitors/barristers with experience in the relevant sector from a list maintained by Sports Resolutions.
Thank you for contacting the EFL
Regards
Jessica â
Supporter Services Department
EFL"
And here is a copy of my reply:
"Dear Jessica,
Thank you for your response and the links to Rams Trust.
In those links there are numerous references to the EFL's responsibility to protect the "integrity" of the Competition. The word "integrity" appears time and again. Please explain to me how that integrity is secured by any of the following:
1. An owner of another club (Wycombe) being allowed repeatedly to issue inflammatory statements against DCFC which, if made against an individual, would lead to actions for libel and which bring the game into disrepute.
2. An owner of another club (Middlesborough) (or if not the owner, some other official of that club) being allowed to continue to act on the EFL board while bringing a complaint against DCFC, thereby having a serious conflict of interest and again bringing the game into disrepute.
Please also explain:
1. why the EFL must "pragmatically apply the rules as they are written". Natural justice surely demands that discretion can be applied especially if strict enforcement puts a club at serious risk of liquidation. Does a judge in a criminal trial have to impose the maximum sentence allowed after a"'guilty" verdict? No.
2. why, if the rules demand arbitration to settle inter-member disputes, arbitration is not actually proceeding.
3. why, when the norm in ordinary insolvency cases is that no legal or similar proceedings can be brought by creditors, the EFL rules state that it is "for the administrators to conduct any defence of any claims against a club"?
You state that the EFL intends to secure the long-term future of DCFC. Various parties are in negotiations with the administrators to purchase the club but the administrators' assurances that a preferred bidder would be announced imminently are continually being undermined by Wycombe and Middlesborough's ludicrous claims. Surely there is nothing to stop the EFL from strongly advising both those clubs to drop their claims for the simple reason that if they thereby have the effect of putting DCFC into liquidation then no-one will receive any money at all. No-one is served by any of this."
Excellent work Chicago, very well put.
Thanks Vidal. I just wish I was confident that it will have any effect.
Chicago ... I need to send a couple of very strong letters to people ... can I employ you to draft them for me?
I'm loving your EFL campaign
comment by Peeder (U1684)
posted 28 minutes ago
Chicago ... I need to send a couple of very strong letters to people ... can I employ you to draft them for me?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Boris,
comment by Peeder (U1684)
posted 57 minutes ago
Chicago ... I need to send a couple of very strong letters to people ... can I employ you to draft them for me?
I'm loving your EFL campaign
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Peeder, if you think you can afford it..........
Super stuff Chicago
Where have being all these years with insight and passion like that?
And don’t say Chicago đ¤Ź
comment by Igòr;for life, not glory. (U22200)
posted 24 minutes ago
Super stuff Chicago
Where have being all these years with insight and passion like that?
And don’t say Chicago đ¤Ź
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Just noisily gnashing my teeth but in private, Igor. Ask Mrs C!!
comment by Chicagoram (U22653)
posted 10 hours, 13 minutes ago
And here is a copy of my reply:
"Dear Jessica,
Thank you for your response and the links to Rams Trust.
In those links there are numerous references to the EFL's responsibility to protect the "integrity" of the Competition. The word "integrity" appears time and again. Please explain to me how that integrity is secured by any of the following:
1. An owner of another club (Wycombe) being allowed repeatedly to issue inflammatory statements against DCFC which, if made against an individual, would lead to actions for libel and which bring the game into disrepute.
2. An owner of another club (Middlesborough) (or if not the owner, some other official of that club) being allowed to continue to act on the EFL board while bringing a complaint against DCFC, thereby having a serious conflict of interest and again bringing the game into disrepute.
Please also explain:
1. why the EFL must "pragmatically apply the rules as they are written". Natural justice surely demands that discretion can be applied especially if strict enforcement puts a club at serious risk of liquidation. Does a judge in a criminal trial have to impose the maximum sentence allowed after a"'guilty" verdict? No.
2. why, if the rules demand arbitration to settle inter-member disputes, arbitration is not actually proceeding.
3. why, when the norm in ordinary insolvency cases is that no legal or similar proceedings can be brought by creditors, the EFL rules state that it is "for the administrators to conduct any defence of any claims against a club"?
You state that the EFL intends to secure the long-term future of DCFC. Various parties are in negotiations with the administrators to purchase the club but the administrators' assurances that a preferred bidder would be announced imminently are continually being undermined by Wycombe and Middlesborough's ludicrous claims. Surely there is nothing to stop the EFL from strongly advising both those clubs to drop their claims for the simple reason that if they thereby have the effect of putting DCFC into liquidation then no-one will receive any money at all. No-one is served by any of this."
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Chicago
Very precisely put and I really appreciate stuff like this. Thanks.
Now:-
Dear Boris,
Why was I not invited to your party and did you know my father-in-law died two weeks after, in June and my wife was unable to see him because we were adhering to 'lockdown' rules.
Just saying like......
Black and White Together(BAWT) have had this from the Administrators:
Following the questions BAWT sent to Quantuma last week, the Administrator called to update us on the situation. Here is the latest information we have...
There are no material changes in the situation since our last meeting. While the Administrators were hopeful of quicker progress and hence the use of the word imminently, this didn't happen for various reasons. That said, the Administrators are hopeful of naming a preferred bidder possibly this week. There are still two interested parties.
Discussions have been held with all bidders for the transfer of the ground under separate terms to the purchase of the club. The owner of the Ground, Mel Morris, and the Administrators are completely aligned in this respect.
Provisions are in place for short-term funding until a preferred bidder is named. Part of the negotiations with the proposed preferred bidders is their ability to assist in funding until the deal is finalized.
Discussions are being held with regard to contract extensions and permissions being sought from the EFL to do this.
While sales cannot be 100% ruled out in this window, the administrator's preference is that any sales will be handled by the preferred bidder in line with their plans for the club/squad and as part of the funding requirement as referred above.
Despite various stories in newspapers and on Twitter, there is no further progress with the claims of Middlesbrough and Wycombe, but these will not prevent a preferred bidder from being named. After that Carl hopes further discussions can take place with all parties and hopes an agreement can still be arrived at.
https://www.dcfcbawt.org/post/black-white-together-s-meeting-with-the-administrators-10-01-2022
So Boro and Wycombe arn’t the hold up.
Fantastic stuff, Chicago
Thanks for speaking up for us all and saying all the stuff that most of us just can't get our heads round.
PS There was an interesting call on the Moan In last night (Alistair from Allestree?) which might be of interest if you didnt hear it.
Prob get it on catch up, aound 30 mins in, I guess
Ang, the bloke last night went off on one about Wycombe and Boro. If you read my post above you will see that the Boro and Wycombe claims are not holding up the takeover. The admins have said they can be dealt with by the new owner. The hysteria surrounding the claims from those two clubs has been totally unfounded and purely driven by rumour and speculation. The admins have now stated that they are aware of them but they are not relevant to the naming of a preferred bidder.
Thanks Rameses
Youre right, I hadnt read your comment before posting.
Rookie error !
comment by đ AnglianRam đ (U17428)
posted 2 minutes ago
Thanks Rameses
Youre right, I hadnt read your comment before posting.
Rookie error !
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You're mot a rookie
You're a MV60
Thanks for all the updates guys. Much more than you ever get from the DET. My own personal take on this WW & Boro situation is that the new owner(s) will simply tell them to feck off....
That would be my take Terry.
Pretty sure if you’re sued that “feck off” is not a recognised legal response. Unless it’s delivered by lawyers perhaps.
Realistically there’s a legal case coming which we might well win in which case costs will be paid by Gibson et al.
So, whilst it doesn’t prevent a preferred bidder being nominated it might still have an impact for the new prospective owner. For example, what happens if the new owners lose?
And being a preferred bidder does not mean your bid will be accepted by the creditors although you’d hope the admins would be pretty confident it would be.
I would have thought that aswell but the EFL appear to be "insisting" the issue is resolved before it approves the exit plan.
Just a thought, IF MA does indeed take over Derby, I don't think he loses many court cases. I may be wrong of course........
comment by Jorvik (U1369)
posted 41 minutes ago
Just a thought, IF MA does indeed take over Derby, I don't think he loses many court cases. I may be wrong of course........
----------------------------------------------------------------------
IIRC, he wasn't much phased by giving to give evidence at a HoP comittee?
Comments from Simon Jordan in todays DET (yes, I know he's a to55er) :
"Middlesbrough reportedly wanting £45m compensation from Derby County for the effect of their Financial Fair Play breaches on them is a "work of fiction", according to former Crystal Palace owner Simon Jordan.
"What I understand from Middlesbrough and around Middlesbrough is this £45 million figure is a work of fiction. No one has talked from Middlesbrough's side of things about £45m," he said on talkSPORT.
"I don't believe Derby will be allowed to implode but I do believe a discussion probably needs to happen between the administrator and Middlesbrough saying 'What is it you want and how can we do a deal?' rather than perhaps terminologies and legal jargon being thrown around by the administrators to threaten certain clubs with 'You ain't got no case'.
"There is a legitimate concern, it needs to be rectified."
"Steve Gibson, from my experiences of him, is a pretty fair guy," Jordan added. "If he's got an issue there's normally a legitimate reason behind it.
"There was always a back-of-my-mind mentality with Mel (Morris) and some of the things he did were a little bit cute to overcome some of the obligations.
"I don't believe Middlesbrough or Wycombe are holding Derby's feet to the fire. I think they think they've got a legitimate claim and they want the administrator to deal with it properly.
"What the administrator is doing is seeing Middlesbrough and Wycombe as an obstacle to be able to exit the administrator how he wants to do it."
I still think it's all a load of rubbish.....UTR
I personally don't think they have a leg to stand on in a reasonable court of law but I also don't have 30-60M to invest to find out either.
Sign in if you want to comment
Gibson and EFL
Page 2 of 4
posted on 10/1/22
No that would be the competition to bake the cake for the Platinum Jubilee. Obvs.
posted on 10/1/22
I have now heard from EFL and copy their response below:
"Thank you for your email, we note your comments.
While matters remain ongoing we continue to work with the Club and Administrators.
While we note your query, we should refer to the recent extensive dialogue between the EFL and the Rams Trust. We have met and engaged the Trust on a number of occasions, and they have published a number of Q&As on Derby County on their website in October here and in November here. Should you not already have done so we would recommend you take a look at the October Q&A which covers the matter of Wycombe and Middlesbrough.
Essentially, as the Q&A states, it is an unfortunate reality that commercial disputes can and do arise, and football is no different. The EFL (in common with the FA and the Premier League) provides that any disputes between Member Clubs must be resolved by arbitration and the terms of the arbitration are as set out in our regulations. This does not mean the EFL is determining the outcome – all we provide is a framework. Arbitrations between Clubs are resolved by independent panels formed from specialist solicitors/barristers with experience in the relevant sector from a list maintained by Sports Resolutions.
Thank you for contacting the EFL
Regards
Jessica â
Supporter Services Department
EFL"
posted on 10/1/22
And here is a copy of my reply:
"Dear Jessica,
Thank you for your response and the links to Rams Trust.
In those links there are numerous references to the EFL's responsibility to protect the "integrity" of the Competition. The word "integrity" appears time and again. Please explain to me how that integrity is secured by any of the following:
1. An owner of another club (Wycombe) being allowed repeatedly to issue inflammatory statements against DCFC which, if made against an individual, would lead to actions for libel and which bring the game into disrepute.
2. An owner of another club (Middlesborough) (or if not the owner, some other official of that club) being allowed to continue to act on the EFL board while bringing a complaint against DCFC, thereby having a serious conflict of interest and again bringing the game into disrepute.
Please also explain:
1. why the EFL must "pragmatically apply the rules as they are written". Natural justice surely demands that discretion can be applied especially if strict enforcement puts a club at serious risk of liquidation. Does a judge in a criminal trial have to impose the maximum sentence allowed after a"'guilty" verdict? No.
2. why, if the rules demand arbitration to settle inter-member disputes, arbitration is not actually proceeding.
3. why, when the norm in ordinary insolvency cases is that no legal or similar proceedings can be brought by creditors, the EFL rules state that it is "for the administrators to conduct any defence of any claims against a club"?
You state that the EFL intends to secure the long-term future of DCFC. Various parties are in negotiations with the administrators to purchase the club but the administrators' assurances that a preferred bidder would be announced imminently are continually being undermined by Wycombe and Middlesborough's ludicrous claims. Surely there is nothing to stop the EFL from strongly advising both those clubs to drop their claims for the simple reason that if they thereby have the effect of putting DCFC into liquidation then no-one will receive any money at all. No-one is served by any of this."
posted on 10/1/22
Excellent work Chicago, very well put.
posted on 10/1/22
Thanks Vidal. I just wish I was confident that it will have any effect.
posted on 10/1/22
Chicago ... I need to send a couple of very strong letters to people ... can I employ you to draft them for me?
I'm loving your EFL campaign
posted on 10/1/22
comment by Peeder (U1684)
posted 28 minutes ago
Chicago ... I need to send a couple of very strong letters to people ... can I employ you to draft them for me?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Boris,
posted on 10/1/22
comment by Peeder (U1684)
posted 57 minutes ago
Chicago ... I need to send a couple of very strong letters to people ... can I employ you to draft them for me?
I'm loving your EFL campaign
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Peeder, if you think you can afford it..........
posted on 11/1/22
Super stuff Chicago
Where have being all these years with insight and passion like that?
And don’t say Chicago đ¤Ź
posted on 11/1/22
comment by Igòr;for life, not glory. (U22200)
posted 24 minutes ago
Super stuff Chicago
Where have being all these years with insight and passion like that?
And don’t say Chicago đ¤Ź
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Just noisily gnashing my teeth but in private, Igor. Ask Mrs C!!
posted on 11/1/22
comment by Chicagoram (U22653)
posted 10 hours, 13 minutes ago
And here is a copy of my reply:
"Dear Jessica,
Thank you for your response and the links to Rams Trust.
In those links there are numerous references to the EFL's responsibility to protect the "integrity" of the Competition. The word "integrity" appears time and again. Please explain to me how that integrity is secured by any of the following:
1. An owner of another club (Wycombe) being allowed repeatedly to issue inflammatory statements against DCFC which, if made against an individual, would lead to actions for libel and which bring the game into disrepute.
2. An owner of another club (Middlesborough) (or if not the owner, some other official of that club) being allowed to continue to act on the EFL board while bringing a complaint against DCFC, thereby having a serious conflict of interest and again bringing the game into disrepute.
Please also explain:
1. why the EFL must "pragmatically apply the rules as they are written". Natural justice surely demands that discretion can be applied especially if strict enforcement puts a club at serious risk of liquidation. Does a judge in a criminal trial have to impose the maximum sentence allowed after a"'guilty" verdict? No.
2. why, if the rules demand arbitration to settle inter-member disputes, arbitration is not actually proceeding.
3. why, when the norm in ordinary insolvency cases is that no legal or similar proceedings can be brought by creditors, the EFL rules state that it is "for the administrators to conduct any defence of any claims against a club"?
You state that the EFL intends to secure the long-term future of DCFC. Various parties are in negotiations with the administrators to purchase the club but the administrators' assurances that a preferred bidder would be announced imminently are continually being undermined by Wycombe and Middlesborough's ludicrous claims. Surely there is nothing to stop the EFL from strongly advising both those clubs to drop their claims for the simple reason that if they thereby have the effect of putting DCFC into liquidation then no-one will receive any money at all. No-one is served by any of this."
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Chicago
Very precisely put and I really appreciate stuff like this. Thanks.
Now:-
Dear Boris,
Why was I not invited to your party and did you know my father-in-law died two weeks after, in June and my wife was unable to see him because we were adhering to 'lockdown' rules.
Just saying like......
posted on 11/1/22
Black and White Together(BAWT) have had this from the Administrators:
Following the questions BAWT sent to Quantuma last week, the Administrator called to update us on the situation. Here is the latest information we have...
There are no material changes in the situation since our last meeting. While the Administrators were hopeful of quicker progress and hence the use of the word imminently, this didn't happen for various reasons. That said, the Administrators are hopeful of naming a preferred bidder possibly this week. There are still two interested parties.
Discussions have been held with all bidders for the transfer of the ground under separate terms to the purchase of the club. The owner of the Ground, Mel Morris, and the Administrators are completely aligned in this respect.
Provisions are in place for short-term funding until a preferred bidder is named. Part of the negotiations with the proposed preferred bidders is their ability to assist in funding until the deal is finalized.
Discussions are being held with regard to contract extensions and permissions being sought from the EFL to do this.
While sales cannot be 100% ruled out in this window, the administrator's preference is that any sales will be handled by the preferred bidder in line with their plans for the club/squad and as part of the funding requirement as referred above.
Despite various stories in newspapers and on Twitter, there is no further progress with the claims of Middlesbrough and Wycombe, but these will not prevent a preferred bidder from being named. After that Carl hopes further discussions can take place with all parties and hopes an agreement can still be arrived at.
https://www.dcfcbawt.org/post/black-white-together-s-meeting-with-the-administrators-10-01-2022
So Boro and Wycombe arn’t the hold up.
posted on 11/1/22
Fantastic stuff, Chicago
Thanks for speaking up for us all and saying all the stuff that most of us just can't get our heads round.
PS There was an interesting call on the Moan In last night (Alistair from Allestree?) which might be of interest if you didnt hear it.
Prob get it on catch up, aound 30 mins in, I guess
posted on 11/1/22
Ang, the bloke last night went off on one about Wycombe and Boro. If you read my post above you will see that the Boro and Wycombe claims are not holding up the takeover. The admins have said they can be dealt with by the new owner. The hysteria surrounding the claims from those two clubs has been totally unfounded and purely driven by rumour and speculation. The admins have now stated that they are aware of them but they are not relevant to the naming of a preferred bidder.
posted on 11/1/22
Thanks Rameses
Youre right, I hadnt read your comment before posting.
Rookie error !
posted on 11/1/22
comment by đ AnglianRam đ (U17428)
posted 2 minutes ago
Thanks Rameses
Youre right, I hadnt read your comment before posting.
Rookie error !
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You're mot a rookie
You're a MV60
posted on 11/1/22
Thanks for all the updates guys. Much more than you ever get from the DET. My own personal take on this WW & Boro situation is that the new owner(s) will simply tell them to feck off....
posted on 11/1/22
That would be my take Terry.
posted on 11/1/22
Pretty sure if you’re sued that “feck off” is not a recognised legal response. Unless it’s delivered by lawyers perhaps.
Realistically there’s a legal case coming which we might well win in which case costs will be paid by Gibson et al.
So, whilst it doesn’t prevent a preferred bidder being nominated it might still have an impact for the new prospective owner. For example, what happens if the new owners lose?
And being a preferred bidder does not mean your bid will be accepted by the creditors although you’d hope the admins would be pretty confident it would be.
posted on 11/1/22
I would have thought that aswell but the EFL appear to be "insisting" the issue is resolved before it approves the exit plan.
posted on 11/1/22
Just a thought, IF MA does indeed take over Derby, I don't think he loses many court cases. I may be wrong of course........
posted on 11/1/22
comment by Jorvik (U1369)
posted 41 minutes ago
Just a thought, IF MA does indeed take over Derby, I don't think he loses many court cases. I may be wrong of course........
----------------------------------------------------------------------
IIRC, he wasn't much phased by giving to give evidence at a HoP comittee?
posted on 11/1/22
*having
posted on 11/1/22
Comments from Simon Jordan in todays DET (yes, I know he's a to55er) :
"Middlesbrough reportedly wanting £45m compensation from Derby County for the effect of their Financial Fair Play breaches on them is a "work of fiction", according to former Crystal Palace owner Simon Jordan.
"What I understand from Middlesbrough and around Middlesbrough is this £45 million figure is a work of fiction. No one has talked from Middlesbrough's side of things about £45m," he said on talkSPORT.
"I don't believe Derby will be allowed to implode but I do believe a discussion probably needs to happen between the administrator and Middlesbrough saying 'What is it you want and how can we do a deal?' rather than perhaps terminologies and legal jargon being thrown around by the administrators to threaten certain clubs with 'You ain't got no case'.
"There is a legitimate concern, it needs to be rectified."
"Steve Gibson, from my experiences of him, is a pretty fair guy," Jordan added. "If he's got an issue there's normally a legitimate reason behind it.
"There was always a back-of-my-mind mentality with Mel (Morris) and some of the things he did were a little bit cute to overcome some of the obligations.
"I don't believe Middlesbrough or Wycombe are holding Derby's feet to the fire. I think they think they've got a legitimate claim and they want the administrator to deal with it properly.
"What the administrator is doing is seeing Middlesbrough and Wycombe as an obstacle to be able to exit the administrator how he wants to do it."
I still think it's all a load of rubbish.....UTR
posted on 11/1/22
I personally don't think they have a leg to stand on in a reasonable court of law but I also don't have 30-60M to invest to find out either.
Page 2 of 4