I have truly mixed feelings over derby...

MBBoro said:
Statement basically confirms that we have very little legal basis but will hold the sword of Damocles over them til they either go bust or give us some money.
Click to expand...
No it doesn't. In fact it states specifically that they feel they have a very strong case and after 2 1/2+ years of Morris and now administrators refusing to engage and deal with the case through the proper channels, and with third parties worried about the legitimacy of the case, it would appear your assumption is the exact opposite of what is stated in the press release.

I wonder why a new member would have such a Derby centric view of this?
 
Otto42 said:
Won't pretend to understand the legal basis of the claim and it's merits.

To me this noise and fuss is being created by the administrators to get the best deal for their prospective buyer, which is what they are employed to do. What sticks in my craw is that also ensures Morris doesn't suffer for his financial gymnastics and probably gains. He keeps his £81m asset, which he will no doubt seek to sell back to the new owner. Hopefully this is all bluster and can be resolved, bringing this into the public domain doesn't reflect well on the Derby administrator imho.

Based on Adi's legal analysis makes me wonder who is providing Steve Gibson with legal advice, or is this just speculative and vindictive, which wouldn't reflect well on Steve Gibson
Click to expand...
Administrator doing what is best for the survival of Derby with most chance of a successful sale and biggest fees.
Gibson doing what is best for MFC, raising the nonsense that is EFL FFP and not simply accepting that persistent cheating wins the day.
EFL will be forced to reconsider FFP framework, process and penalties.
Derby fans get a new owner with a couple of seasons of re-grouping.
 
BoroMart said:
No it doesn't. In fact it states specifically that they feel they have a very strong case and after 2 1/2+ years of Morris and now administrators refusing to engage and deal with the case through the proper channels, and with third parties worried about the legitimacy of the case, it would appear your assumption is the exact opposite of what is stated in the press release.

I wonder why a new member would have such a Derby centric view of this?
Click to expand...
I don't I have a humanistic point of view of this, if you want to know why boro fans like me feel this way click on this link to see the MP for Bury talk about the impact on a community. This. Can. Not. Be. Allowed. To. Happen. And most importantly my beloved club should not be made to have blood on its hands.
 
MBBoro said:
And most importantly my beloved club should not be made to have blood on its hands.
Click to expand...
We don't - MFC is not at fault, the previous ownership of Derby County is

MFC is attempting to uphold the rules of the league, so stop trying to look at this from an emotional point of view, emotions have no place in business
 
MBBoro said:
I don't I have a humanistic point of view of this, if you want to know why boro fans like me feel this way click on this link to see the MP for Bury talk about the impact on a community. This. Can. Not. Be. Allowed. To. Happen. And most importantly my beloved club should not be made to have blood on its hands.
Click to expand...
It's a totally different case to Bury, and should be looked at in it's own merits. Do Wycombe not count, they got relegated, people will have lost their job, fans will have been devastated.....but you think Derby fans are more important? If they stuck to the rules none of this would have ever happened, they didn't, their has to be accountability and reparations. Derby didn't exist in a bubble, every action they take has a ripple on the rest of the football community. they should have considered that.

If Derby end up having to sell every player to survive then so be it, in fact they should already be gone, to pay the HMRC bill. Shocking they still have senior pros with resale value on their books, not many mind, but some
 
MBBoro said:
Bury MP

The rules of the league have been upheld, the appropriate punishments served. If we feel they aren't sufficient then thats an EFL matter.
Click to expand...

He's tugging at the heartstrings, but what additional punishments are the EFL currently proposing?

The only threat right now is them being expelled from the league if they are financially unviable, which is following established rules.

The administrators are the ones holding up the process and preventing a takeover, if anyone is threatening the club right now it's them.
They're turning down bids for players whilst refusing to change their position on anything.

If they get taken over, it's solved.
The lawsuits were in place before this situation, they weren't done on a spur of the moment trying to take advantage of Derby being in administration, they've been kicked down the road for months to over a year by Mel Morris.
 
TeaCider said:
The lawsuits were in place before this situation, they weren't done on a spur of the moment trying to take advantage of Derby being in administration, they've been kicked down the road for months to over a year by Mel Morris.
Click to expand...
I suspect the thought of losing this case and losing face and money might have played a part in Mel Morris's timing with admin. By walking away now he is avoiding any personal accountability, avoiding standing in court and admitting his behaviour, and seeing Steve Gibson's smirk
 
Adi_Dem said:
That is not what you and others have posted. It is also not the question I am asking. This is what you said:

"If you compare the punishment they have had to say Bolton or Bury it's absolutely nothing. Bury out of business, Bolton relegation, relegation again and all their players sold off, played a team of kids in League Two. Yet we have Derby who have done much worse think they should hold onto their players and they have been punished enough? Can't figure that out myself, I mean they haven't even received any punishment for the blatant cheating of accounts, they got 12 points for admin and 9 points for FFP breaches, but didn't they fail ffp three times? and didn't they late filing of ffp"

I am not asking about Gibson's motivation (I have already given my view as to why he is pursuing this). My question, and I have asked several times now, is what it is that they have not been punished for. As far as I can tell everything you mention is covered in the Agreed Decision.



It is a weak case legally speaking based on what is in the public domain. Almost doomed to failure. That is what makes me think it is about applying maximum leverage to a club on its knees. It feels and looks wrong to me.
Click to expand...
I think it's difficult to gauge the strength of the case, given there is such limited information in the public domain, but there is obviously legal advice which suggests the claim is has merits and I would expect its from an experienced and highly regarded QC, given the collateral involved.

I support it 100%.
 
Jonny Ingbar said:
I think it's difficult to gauge the strength of the case, given there is such limited information in the public domain, but there is obviously legal advice which suggests the claim is has merits and I would expect its from an experienced and highly regarded QC, given the collateral involved.

I support it 100%.
Click to expand...
MFC use the best in the business for legal and accounting purposes - Gibson isn't daft, he will have had excellent legal advice..... I believe we use Price Waterhouse Cooper for accounting
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top