Derby County

[Davefevs]

25 minutes ago, VT05763 said:

and the points !!

We had:

• 12 from 8
• 16 from 11
• 19 from 15

We’ve slowed down the PPG from those early season games where we were much more pragmatic.

FWIW, the “12 from 8” was after QPR (away win / robbery), we were 9 from 7, and I was content.  Semenyo was just coming back, we had good availability, Williams was an unused sub that day.  We switched to a back 3.  We then lost key players in the intervening period…and that cost us.  The run of 5 defeats in 6 (Barnsley win at home sandwiched in between) pre Blackburn hit us hard.

Including Blackburn we’ve gone W4 D3 L6 in the league (15 pts from 13). 1.1538 ppg GF20 / GA27

Pre-Blackburn W5 D4 L8 (19 pts from 17).  1.1176 ppg GF19 / GA27

So I’d say the points are pretty even (a fraction below pre-Blackburn….you can have your 0.0362 ).  We had our manager missing pre-Blackburn too.

I think we are better to watch if you’re primarily interested in more exciting football.  I’m probably in the minority where I quite like a dull, cagey 0-0, 1-1.  That’s just me though!

[ExiledAjax]

Nice bloke.

"We knew if Chelsea won then they had won the league that day," said 36-year-old Rooney. "Until my last game for Derby, I always wore the old plastic studs with the metal tip. For that game I changed them to big, long metal ones - the maximum length you could have because I wanted to try and hurt someone, try and injure someone. I knew they were going to win that game. You could feel they were a better team at the time so I changed my studs. The studs were legal but thinking if there's a challenge there I knew I'd want to go in for it properly, basically. I did actually. John Terry left the stadium on crutches. I left a hole in his foot and then I signed my shirt to him after the game... and a few weeks later I sent it to him and asked for my stud back. If you look back when they were celebrating, JT's got his crutches from that tackle."

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/60312167

Edited February 9, 2022 by ExiledAjax

[Waconda]

1 hour ago, Davefevs said:

We had:

• 12 from 8
• 16 from 11
• 19 from 15

We’ve slowed down the PPG from those early season games where we were much more pragmatic.

FWIW, the “12 from 8” was after QPR (away win / robbery), we were 9 from 7, and I was content.  Semenyo was just coming back, we had good availability, Williams was an unused sub that day.  We switched to a back 3.  We then lost key players in the intervening period…and that cost us.  The run of 5 defeats in 6 (Barnsley win at home sandwiched in between) pre Blackburn hit us hard.

Including Blackburn we’ve gone W4 D3 L6 in the league (15 pts from 13). 1.1538 ppg GF20 / GA27

Pre-Blackburn W5 D4 L8 (19 pts from 17).  1.1176 ppg GF19 / GA27

So I’d say the points are pretty even (a fraction below pre-Blackburn….you can have your 0.0362 ).  We had our manager missing pre-Blackburn too.

I think we are better to watch if you’re primarily interested in more exciting football.  I’m probably in the minority where I quite like a dull, cagey 0-0, 1-1.  That’s just me though!

Yep more points per game and more exciting football since the change of formation versus Blackburn.

Enough to keep us up in this "free hit" season.

A few simple set piece defensive drills away from being a mid table side.

[East Londoner]

On 08/02/2022 at 20:55, Lanterne Rouge said:

Currently three up at home to Hull just after HT

Seems to have been missed by most on here, Liam Walsh was making his debut for Hull on loan 

Doesn’t seem to have worked out for him at Swansea either. Maybe there’s a pattern developing 

[Davefevs]

1 hour ago, East Londoner said:

Seems to have been missed by most on here, Liam Walsh was making his debut for Hull on loan 

Doesn’t seem to have worked out for him at Swansea either. Maybe there’s a pattern developing 

Nah, just he’s no longer our player, and there is little / no affinity with him anymore.

[Mr Popodopolous]

Couple of things- seems there is unsurprisingly concern about Middlesbrough v Derby Saturday!

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/football/2022/02/10/exclusive-middlesbrough-ramp-security-around-steve-gibson-derby/

Behind a paywall of course but it can be viewed in some ways. I did read elsewhere a few weeks ago concern that Derby fans were buying tickets or trying to buy tickers in the West Stand (the posh one, all grounds have them where directors etc sit). Presumably to get at or harangue Gibson!  Bit in the article about only those with a prior booking history with Middlesbrough able to buy in that area.

Andrew Bridgen is sounding off yet again...

The funny thing about his involvement is that his constituency isn't even Derbyshire- North West Leicestershire.

Edited February 10, 2022 by Mr Popodopolous

[chinapig]

21 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Couple of things- seems there is unsurprisingly concern about Middlesbrough v Derby Saturday!

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/football/2022/02/10/exclusive-middlesbrough-ramp-security-around-steve-gibson-derby/

Behind a paywall of course but it can be viewed in some ways. I did read elsewhere a few weeks ago concern that Derby fans were buying tickets or trying to buy tickers in the West Stand (the posh one, all grounds have them where directors etc sit). Presumably to get at or harangue Gibson!  Bit in the article about only those with a prior booking history with Middlesbrough able to buy in that area.

Andrew Bridgen is sounding off yet again...

The funny thing about his involvement is that his constituency isn't even Derbyshire- North West Leicestershire.

This from a man whose party says fraud isn't really a crime so as to massage the official figures and is therefore prepared to write off billions in fraudulent Covid claims. Not much concern for taxpayers losing out then.

Given this logic can we take it Derby cheating doesn't really count either?

And when can we expect Mel Morris to be nominated for a safe Tory seat?

[Mr Popodopolous]

5 minutes ago, chinapig said:

This from a man whose party says fraud isn't really a crime so as to massage the official figures and is therefore prepared to write off billions in fraudulent Covid claims. Not much concern for taxpayers losing out then.

Given this logic can we take it Derby cheating doesn't really count either?

And when can we expect Mel Morris to be nominated for a safe Tory seat?

Yeah no surprise- actually quite interested in how outsized a voice 5 or 6 noisy MPs appear to have- surely for one there will be MPs in seats with compliant clubs who are thoroughly hacked off at Derby and their antics who should be making some noise.

EFL issues aside, I didn't hear Bridgen mention the £28m debt to HMRC in that! Or Mel's culpability in their downfall.

[Derby_Ram]

1 hour ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Couple of things- seems there is unsurprisingly concern about Middlesbrough v Derby Saturday!

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/football/2022/02/10/exclusive-middlesbrough-ramp-security-around-steve-gibson-derby/

Behind a paywall of course but it can be viewed in some ways. I did read elsewhere a few weeks ago concern that Derby fans were buying tickets or trying to buy tickers in the West Stand (the posh one, all grounds have them where directors etc sit). 

There's been trouble - away from the grounds - a few times we've played each other recently. Even before the last couple of years. The atmosphere will be toxic and even though I'm travelling up I feel more dread and apprehension as opposed to watching a game a football. A sad state of affairs and I feel for any families attending supporting either club.

1 hour ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

EFL issues aside, I didn't hear Bridgen mention the £28m debt to HMRC in that! Or Mel's culpability in their downfall.

Didn't see the full segment so no idea if Mel was mentioned by him anywhere but the HMRC debt did pop up in another clip - swiftly followed by his view that Boro/Wycombe are still the stumbling block (don't worry - I'm fully onboard that Mel should settle his bills... )

 

[Mr Popodopolous]

46 minutes ago, Derby_Ram said:

There's been trouble - away from the grounds - a few times we've played each other recently. Even before the last couple of years. The atmosphere will be toxic and even though I'm travelling up I feel more dread and apprehension as opposed to watching a game a football. A sad state of affairs and I feel for any families attending supporting either club.

Didn't see the full segment so no idea if Mel was mentioned by him anywhere but the HMRC debt did pop up in another clip - swiftly followed by his view that Boro/Wycombe are still the stumbling block (don't worry - I'm fully onboard that Mel should settle his bills... )

 

That's disappointing, especially for families and those who just want to go to enjoy it as you say. Surprising too as until the last few years, never really had Middlesbrough v Derby down as a grudge match, or a local rivalry where things can get out of hand- there are plenty of matches that fit, but not Middlesbrough v Derby prior to 2019.  Hope everyone goes to and gets away from it safely, sure there will be a beefed up police and stewarding presence.

Thanks for that- I did watch once you posted it. Bridgen isn't the most credible character in a number of ways I think- in that clip he uses the terms debtors when as we all know, debtors are people who owe money, creditors are those who are owed money. He didn't seem to specify the % that he thought should be paid either. "Accepting as potential debtors, on an unquantified basis".

In short, if Middlesbrough and Wycombe were debtors of Derby, Derby would be laughing!

I would suggest that if some reports since early summer are accurate that Wycombe's claim is quantified, at least financially- seen £6m mentioned which is probably around the gap between central awards and TV distribution between the two divisions. Middlesbrough's is way ott numerically though, £40-45m?? Pfft! Whether they would be upheld is a different matter but Wycombe's perhaps has some basis in quantifiability, if Middlesbrough claimed for the semi final playoff and TV revenue, that too might be easier to quantify.

Will actually rephrase my bit on Mel Morris and the MPs- they don't appear to criticise him much. Picked out Bridgen but could pick Solloway, Pauline I forget her name...there are a few and yet there is radio silence as far as I can see.

Edited February 10, 2022 by Mr Popodopolous

[PHILINFRANCE]

Like many on here, I suspect, I don't consider Mel Morris to be the most trustworthy character.

Nevertheless, he claims to have received expert legal advice that 'confirms' the claims touted by Middlesbrough and Wycombe (against Derby County) have no chance of succeeding and, to 'prove' his good faith and support for Derby, he has offered magnanimously to invite the claims to be presented directly against him personally, thus absolving Derby and/or their prospective new owners of any potential liability and allowing the proposed takeover to proceed unhindered.

For various reasons, it would seem such actions are not possible (MM has, of course, never been advised that this might be the case ) so why does this honourable gentleman not simply place an appropriate sum in an escro type account (I am thinking of approximately £60M - £45M for Middlesbrough, £5M for Wycombe and the £10M balance to cover fees, interest etc) thus enabling the takeover to proceed and save his beloved Derby County from liquidation?

After all, where is the risk?     

[Mr Popodopolous]

One more highly interesting if not startling claim.

The MSD secured loan is apparently, a falsely secured shareholder loan- according to this guy anyway! Which if reclassified as equity lops £20m off the debt. 

0:52-1:15

He also overlooks that it is external debt that is nothing or little to do with inter company loans- ie Gellaw Newco 203 to the club and so on.

Edited February 10, 2022 by Mr Popodopolous

[REDOXO]

1 hour ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

One more highly interesting if not startling claim.

The MSD secured loan is apparently, a falsely secured shareholder loan- according to this guy anyway! Which if reclassified as equity lops £20m off the debt. 

0:52-1:15

He also overlooks that it is external debt that is nothing or little to do with inter company loans- ie Gellaw Newco 203 to the club and so on.

Interesting stuff. The loans and the role of the debt using the stadium as guarantee and then it becoming owned by Morris’ company has always been an anathema to me. Who in hell is really responsible for the debt. 
 

Morris is such a skuzz! He is holding a gun to everyone’s head to save himself from further loss, whipping up the supporters against claim/s, one of which had been outstanding for a long time, and Quantuma have followed the same path. 
 

While I know it suits the agenda of a lot of Derby supporters to blame the EFL MFC and WWFC for the fact the ex owner is beneath contempt, but surely most out side of the sane lad that posts here must know. 
 

If Derby go under there is one place to look.
 

I sincerely hope there is no trouble at the stadium particularly in home areas. Pretty much all sympathy would be lost!

[PHILINFRANCE]

6 minutes ago, REDOXO said:

Morris is such a skuzz! He is holding a gun to everyone’s head to save himself from further loss, whipping up the supporters against claim/s, one of which had been outstanding for a long time, and Quantuma have followed the same path. 
 

While I know it suits the agenda of a lot of Derby supporters to blame the EFL MFC and WWFC for the fact the ex owner is beneath contempt, but surely most out side of the sane lad that posts here must know. 

Whilst admiration is obviously the wrong word, I used to have a sort of grudging understanding of what MM was trying to do, i.e. bet the house on Derby getting promoted using somewhat 'dubious' means, a la Bournemouth, QPR, even Leicester.

I lost what little respect I might have had for him, however, when he failed to settle what, for a multimillionaire, must surely have been a relatively small outstanding debt owed to the volonteer led St John Ambulance, leaving Derby's supporters to pick up the bill.

As you say, 'beneath contempt'.

[Paulton Red]

I can’t claim to understand much of the financial analysis that goes on on this thread, but I had a question

if anyone (for example MM) pays legal fees or damages that Derby might incur, would that not affect FFP in the same way giving the club £20m to pay or sign players  would?

[BTRFTG]

12 hours ago, PHILINFRANCE said:

Like many on here, I suspect, I don't consider Mel Morris to be the most trustworthy character.

Nevertheless, he claims to have received expert legal advice that 'confirms' the claims touted by Middlesbrough and Wycombe (against Derby County) have no chance of succeeding and, to 'prove' his good faith and support for Derby, he has offered magnanimously to invite the claims to be presented directly against him personally, thus absolving Derby and/or their prospective new owners of any potential liability and allowing the proposed takeover to proceed unhindered.

For various reasons, it would seem such actions are not possible (MM has, of course, never been advised that this might be the case ) so why does this honourable gentleman not simply place an appropriate sum in an escro type account (I am thinking of approximately £60M - £45M for Middlesbrough, £5M for Wycombe and the £10M balance to cover fees, interest etc) thus enabling the takeover to proceed and save his beloved Derby County from liquidation?

After all, where is the risk?     

Because his legal advisors would have highlighted there's no claim against him personally, it's against the club.

Now I suppose he could, in theory, offer for Derby to add a contingency impairment to their books, he could purchase that 'debt' from them for hard cash and look to recover the debt should the court case go Derby's way (buying Derby insurance cover might be another option.)

All that of course means whatever monies he fronts Derby are unlikely ever again to be seen by him, monies being consumed elsewhere in the process. Easier all round for him to now give the club a cash injection or to have paid the monies upfront in the first place.

[BTRFTG]

13 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

The MSD secured loan is apparently, a falsely secured shareholder loan- according to this guy anyway! Which if reclassified as equity lops £20m off the debt. 

I think where he's coming from is the charge against Pride Park (as distinct from the more recent charge against the lease on the training ground,) is secured against the whole schedule of companies of which Morris was the beneficial owner. So in theory the club might be excused the charge as it would then fall to one of Morris' other enterprises to satisfy. MSD could force Morris' hand either to cough up else sell the ground. Now we know Morris has already offered to help Derby in any way he can so why not use any of the companies. listed in the schedule to satisfy?

Come on Melvyn, what's stopping you?

[Derby_Ram]

16 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Will actually rephrase my bit on Mel Morris and the MPs- they don't appear to criticise him much. Picked out Bridgen but could pick Solloway, Pauline I forget her name...there are a few and yet there is radio silence as far as I can see.

With the exception of a couple of off-the-cuff interviews on local radio and news you're right about the MPs. It's not just the Tories either, Margaret Beckett has been the same. In an ideological world I'd like to think that's because they're all fully onboard with the fan led review and see Derby as the perfect vehicle to drive that message but with the exception of the Bury MP's eloquent speech I think I'd be living in cloud cuckoo land if I believed it to be true.

My opinion and it is only that, is the MPs don't criticise Morris for two reasons. Firstly they genuinely do want the club to survive and they wouldn't have the cut-through getting the emergency question in Parliament and it remaining on the news agenda if they'd have made it about Morris as opposed to the EFL and other clubs claims.

The second reason is they know it won't work. He doesn't have a personal issue with any of them. Re-read his statement last week and I challenge you to not picture Mad Mel sat at his desk frothing at the mouth as he brain dumped absolutely every point of contention he has with the EFL and Gibson who are both under his skin - whether or not it had any merit, or whether or not it was related to the current situation. It's been building up and up and his ego and personal grudge is what provoked him to respond. He doesn't have a personal issue with the MPs or others and calling him out will fall on death ears. Just look at Derby fans paying St John's Ambulance as evidence of that. Something so basic, so easy to fix, but he had vanished.

As a fan it puts you in a quandary. You want your club to survive, know it could be resolved by Morris doing the honourable thing, but recognise the best chance to survive is focus the attention elsewhere - as much because there is interaction with the other stakeholders and they don't want to be portrayed as being a reason another club dies. We're in a world of social media and briefings online. Rick Parry spent a Saturday evening a couple of weekends ago responding individually to Derby fans emails in addition to the EFL at the time appearing very rattled with their oddly timed statements and contents. Morris doesn't have that online presence. By default more and more gets directed at those who do respond - MPs, Parry, the EFL in general, Quantuma and Gibson. If Morris was visible he'd get a lot more heat and its why in the ground the stance is more anti Morris/Pearce than appears online. It'll leave a very bitter taste in the mouth if it's how we do come out of it the other side but I believe its our best chance. Not Morris. Sadly.

Along with most I'm highly dubious that Morris' offer to personally take on the claims is possible. This is where I do want Gibson to come out and say just that (although preferably now after tomorrow's game rather than today) and pile the pressure back on Morris. It shouldn't take a week for anyone to say it can't be done if it really can't. My preference would be for him to indemnify the club against any legal action as an alternative to what he's suggested but my thought process - again just that - is it may not fly elsewhere. If I'm sat at the HMRC and I see Morris offer an indemnity my first thought is "hang on, you want us to take a haircut on what we're owed when in a few months time you 'could' be paying Boro/Wycombe £40m+?". If Derby - via Morris - can pay that amount then you could also pay us the full amount now and we're not going to play ball. Frankly I couldn't blame them.

Apologies for the long message, but if you're on this thread.....!

[BTRFTG]

1 hour ago, Derby_Ram said:

With the exception of a couple of off-the-cuff interviews on local radio and news you're right about the MPs. It's not just the Tories either, Margaret Beckett has been the same. In an ideological world I'd like to think that's because they're all fully onboard with the fan led review and see Derby as the perfect vehicle to drive that message but with the exception of the Bury MP's eloquent speech I think I'd be living in cloud cuckoo land if I believed it to be true.

My opinion and it is only that, is the MPs don't criticise Morris for two reasons. Firstly they genuinely do want the club to survive and they wouldn't have the cut-through getting the emergency question in Parliament and it remaining on the news agenda if they'd have made it about Morris as opposed to the EFL and other clubs claims.

The second reason is they know it won't work. He doesn't have a personal issue with any of them. Re-read his statement last week and I challenge you to not picture Mad Mel sat at his desk frothing at the mouth as he brain dumped absolutely every point of contention he has with the EFL and Gibson who are both under his skin - whether or not it had any merit, or whether or not it was related to the current situation. It's been building up and up and his ego and personal grudge is what provoked him to respond. He doesn't have a personal issue with the MPs or others and calling him out will fall on death ears. Just look at Derby fans paying St John's Ambulance as evidence of that. Something so basic, so easy to fix, but he had vanished.

As a fan it puts you in a quandary. You want your club to survive, know it could be resolved by Morris doing the honourable thing, but recognise the best chance to survive is focus the attention elsewhere - as much because there is interaction with the other stakeholders and they don't want to be portrayed as being a reason another club dies. We're in a world of social media and briefings online. Rick Parry spent a Saturday evening a couple of weekends ago responding individually to Derby fans emails in addition to the EFL at the time appearing very rattled with their oddly timed statements and contents. Morris doesn't have that online presence. By default more and more gets directed at those who do respond - MPs, Parry, the EFL in general, Quantuma and Gibson. If Morris was visible he'd get a lot more heat and its why in the ground the stance is more anti Morris/Pearce than appears online. It'll leave a very bitter taste in the mouth if it's how we do come out of it the other side but I believe its our best chance. Not Morris. Sadly.

Along with most I'm highly dubious that Morris' offer to personally take on the claims is possible. This is where I do want Gibson to come out and say just that (although preferably now after tomorrow's game rather than today) and pile the pressure back on Morris. It shouldn't take a week for anyone to say it can't be done if it really can't. My preference would be for him to indemnify the club against any legal action as an alternative to what he's suggested but my thought process - again just that - is it may not fly elsewhere. If I'm sat at the HMRC and I see Morris offer an indemnity my first thought is "hang on, you want us to take a haircut on what we're owed when in a few months time you 'could' be paying Boro/Wycombe £40m+?". If Derby - via Morris - can pay that amount then you could also pay us the full amount now and we're not going to play ball. Frankly I couldn't blame them.

Apologies for the long message, but if you're on this thread.....!

As I wrote, the first thing Melvyn could do this afternoon to assist Derby should he so wish (which I very much doubt,) would be to satisfy the charge in respect of the MSD loan against Pride Park which he's able to do through his other entities listed in Schedule 1. That we understand is upward of £20m and though that nominally makes little difference to Derby's value on the market it does reduce any potential risk to purchasers as their funds, with which they appear willing to part, would be used to reduce preferential debt giving Derby an improved chance of survival.

But Melvyn's known that for months and personal damage limitation, which he's focussed on since pulling the plug, does not accord with offers he knows have nil legal basis. I might as well offer Gibson to sue me and upon receipt refuse to accept citing the established and proven fact it has nothing to do with me. Those things he is able to do he appears unwilling to discharge.

[Super]

Agreement made apparently.

[Derby_Ram]

Or just get Gibson and Morris to talk to one another. Now the pressure goes to Quantuma....

 

[chinapig]

1 hour ago, Derby_Ram said:

With the exception of a couple of off-the-cuff interviews on local radio and news you're right about the MPs. It's not just the Tories either, Margaret Beckett has been the same. In an ideological world I'd like to think that's because they're all fully onboard with the fan led review and see Derby as the perfect vehicle to drive that message but with the exception of the Bury MP's eloquent speech I think I'd be living in cloud cuckoo land if I believed it to be true.

My opinion and it is only that, is the MPs don't criticise Morris for two reasons. Firstly they genuinely do want the club to survive and they wouldn't have the cut-through getting the emergency question in Parliament and it remaining on the news agenda if they'd have made it about Morris as opposed to the EFL and other clubs claims.

The second reason is they know it won't work. He doesn't have a personal issue with any of them. Re-read his statement last week and I challenge you to not picture Mad Mel sat at his desk frothing at the mouth as he brain dumped absolutely every point of contention he has with the EFL and Gibson who are both under his skin - whether or not it had any merit, or whether or not it was related to the current situation. It's been building up and up and his ego and personal grudge is what provoked him to respond. He doesn't have a personal issue with the MPs or others and calling him out will fall on death ears. Just look at Derby fans paying St John's Ambulance as evidence of that. Something so basic, so easy to fix, but he had vanished.

As a fan it puts you in a quandary. You want your club to survive, know it could be resolved by Morris doing the honourable thing, but recognise the best chance to survive is focus the attention elsewhere - as much because there is interaction with the other stakeholders and they don't want to be portrayed as being a reason another club dies. We're in a world of social media and briefings online. Rick Parry spent a Saturday evening a couple of weekends ago responding individually to Derby fans emails in addition to the EFL at the time appearing very rattled with their oddly timed statements and contents. Morris doesn't have that online presence. By default more and more gets directed at those who do respond - MPs, Parry, the EFL in general, Quantuma and Gibson. If Morris was visible he'd get a lot more heat and its why in the ground the stance is more anti Morris/Pearce than appears online. It'll leave a very bitter taste in the mouth if it's how we do come out of it the other side but I believe its our best chance. Not Morris. Sadly.

Along with most I'm highly dubious that Morris' offer to personally take on the claims is possible. This is where I do want Gibson to come out and say just that (although preferably now after tomorrow's game rather than today) and pile the pressure back on Morris. It shouldn't take a week for anyone to say it can't be done if it really can't. My preference would be for him to indemnify the club against any legal action as an alternative to what he's suggested but my thought process - again just that - is it may not fly elsewhere. If I'm sat at the HMRC and I see Morris offer an indemnity my first thought is "hang on, you want us to take a haircut on what we're owed when in a few months time you 'could' be paying Boro/Wycombe £40m+?". If Derby - via Morris - can pay that amount then you could also pay us the full amount now and we're not going to play ball. Frankly I couldn't blame them.

Apologies for the long message, but if you're on this thread.....!

Excellent points and pleasingly free of special pleading.

Does Gibson really need to tell Morris that he can't take on the claims though when it's obvious to anybody who gives it a minute's thought? If Morris doesn't get that already it goes to confirm my hypothesis that wealth doesn't necessarily correlate with intelligence.

[chinapig]

4 minutes ago, Derby_Ram said:

Or just get Gibson and Morris to talk to one another. Now the pressure goes to Quantuma....

 

Thanks, intriguing and good news. Assuming Gibson hasn't dropped his claim does this mean Morris has agreed to pay a given sum to Gibson or Boro as a private individual I wonder?

As per your previous post I wonder what HMRC's view will be.

 

[Davefevs]

2 minutes ago, chinapig said:

Thanks, intriguing and good news. Assuming Gibson hasn't dropped his claim does this mean Morris has agreed to pay a given sum to Gibson or Boro as a private individual I wonder?

As per your previous post I wonder what HMRC's view will be.

 

I would imagine Mel will pay Boro.  It’s Boro that need the money not Gibson.  I guess the two outcomes are:

- he’s agreed to pay Boro a mutually agreeable sum

- he’s agreed to underwrite the result of the claim 

[PHILINFRANCE]

4 hours ago, BTRFTG said:

Because his legal advisors would have highlighted there's no claim against him personally, it's against the club.

Of Course, and hence the reason I added a  to my comment 'it would seem such actions are not possible (MM has, of course, never been advised that this might be the case )'

It would be like Company A threatening to sue Company B and Mr X stepping in asking to be sued instead, only for it to be discovered that Mr X is, in fact, insolvent/bankrupt.

It is and always was a complete non-starter. 

[Bristol Rob]

 

[chinapig]

5 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

I would imagine Mel will pay Boro.  It’s Boro that need the money not Gibson.  I guess the two outcomes are:

- he’s agreed to pay Boro a mutually agreeable sum

- he’s agreed to underwrite the result of the claim 

No doubt you are right. I would guess the first is more likely as the second would mean the claim is technically unresolved still and would take time and attract legal costs.

Why Morris couldn't have done this months ago is another matter.

[Davefevs]

1 minute ago, chinapig said:

No doubt you are right. I would guess the first is more likely as the second would mean the claim is technically unresolved still and would take time and attract legal costs.

Why Morris couldn't have done this months ago is another matter.

Because he’s a ****!

[chinapig]

Just now, Davefevs said:

Because he’s a ****!

Yes, but apart from that. Actually, no, you've got it.

[BTRFTG]

More questions than answers.

How does the accord, whatever form it takes, make it easier for the sale of Derby to proceed? A few specifics would be good given Melvyn's shown himself to be wholly untrustworthy.

Who are defined as interested parties within the agreement and thus may be privy to the detail of the accord? All creditors perchance, should the outcome impact them?

By what mechanism has Melvyn entered into a binding legal agreement on behalf of Derby County FC so far as I'm aware he isn't in a position so to do? Gibson & Melvyn may have reached a personal agreement but not sure what action they might take against each other?

Perhaps leave it here

 

Edited February 11, 2022 by BTRFTG

[Bristol Rob]

Probably agreed that both sides of the argument would be in for a million in legal fees, both sides presented why they believe they will win, both sides said, tell ya what, let's save 2 mil on the legals and settle for 3.5mil.

No one loses face, we both save cash, Boro are better off and Derby don't have this hanging over them.

[Davefevs]

6 minutes ago, BTRFTG said:

More questions than answers.

How does the accord, whatever form it takes, make it easier for the sale of Derby to proceed? A few specifics would be good given Melvyn's shown himself to be wholly untrustworthy.

Who are defined as interested parties within the agreement and thus may be privy to the detail of the accord? All creditors perchance, should the outcome impact them?

By what mechanism has Melvyn entered into a binding legal agreement on behalf of Derby County FC so far as I'm aware he isn't in a position so to do? Gibson & Melvyn may have reached a personal agreement but not sure what action they might take against each other?

Perhaps leave it here

 

Quantuma are tasked with getting the legal stuff sorted re this.

[PHILINFRANCE]

2 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

Quantuma are tasked with getting the legal stuff sorted re this.

I bet they are mortified, as this will undoubtedly increase their fee.

[BTRFTG]

1 minute ago, Davefevs said:

Quantuma are tasked with getting the legal stuff sorted re this.

Yes, but of the little we do know the statement confirms the accord was a result of a private conversation between the two, in which case what's Melvyn doing negotiating a settlement for an entity with which he has no authority, or is it implied Quantuma authorised him to act on their behalf?

Of course we don't know what the accord says, so all is speculation.

[PHILINFRANCE]

10 minutes ago, BTRFTG said:

More questions than answers.

How does the accord, whatever form it takes, make it easier for the sale of Derby to proceed? A few specifics would be good given Melvyn's shown himself to be wholly untrustworthy.

Who are defined as interested parties within the agreement and thus may be privy to the detail of the accord? All creditors perchance, should the outcome impact them?

By what mechanism has Melvyn entered into a binding legal agreement on behalf of Derby County FC so far as I'm aware he isn't in a position so to do? Gibson & Melvyn may have reached a personal agreement but not sure what action they might take against each other?

Perhaps leave it here

 

 

My reading of it is that MM has reached an agreement with SG, or rather, in reality, with Middlesbrough, who will receive payment of X and simply withdraw their claim.

It remains to be seen whether a similar agreement will be agreed with Wycombe, whose claim, to my mind, has more merit.

[BTRFTG]

8 minutes ago, Bristol Rob said:

Probably agreed that both sides of the argument would be in for a million in legal fees, both sides presented why they believe they will win, both sides said, tell ya what, let's save 2 mil on the legals and settle for 3.5mil.

No one loses face, we both save cash, Boro are better off and Derby don't have this hanging over them.

Doesn't explain why Morris was even in the negotiation as he doesn't represent Derby County FC, or is the suggestion he's now accepting liability for debts through his beneficial stakes in the linked enterprise?

[chinapig]

Just now, PHILINFRANCE said:

My reading of it is that MM has reached an agreement with SG, or rather, in reality, with Middlesbrough, who will receive payment of X and simply withdraw their claim.

It remains to be seen whether a similar agreement will be agreed with Wycombe, whose claim, to my mind, has more merit.

Haven't the Administrators insisted that Wycombe have not actually made a claim? And who could possibly doubt them?

[Davefevs]

Just now, BTRFTG said:

Doesn't explain why Morris was even in the negotiation as he doesn't represent Derby County FC, or is the suggestion he's now accepting liability for debts through his beneficial stakes in the linked enterprise?

On a slight tangent…is Mel setting a dangerous precedent for himself?

[BTRFTG]

3 minutes ago, PHILINFRANCE said:

My reading of it is that MM has reached an agreement with SG, or rather, in reality, with Middlesbrough, who will receive payment of X and simply withdraw their claim.

It remains to be seen whether a similar agreement will be agreed with Wycombe, whose claim, to my mind, has more merit.

If true, that somebody who has no authority within an entity has agreed a personal arrangement for another party to drop prospective action against that entity, then in reality there can't have been much hope of said action ever having been successful.

We'd love to see the wording of that arrangement....

[BTRFTG]

4 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

On a slight tangent…is Mel setting a dangerous precedent for himself?

Well, without the detail we don't know but I'm struggling to see how Melvyn has personally removed a potential liability against a club over which he has no authority (unless he's accepted in principle that the various entities were a linked enterprise.) If true, things could get very interesting.

[Yellow&Blue&Red]

If you threaten to sue me for... whatever. And a friend offers to pay you to go away and sign documents promising not to never sue me for that, then you may choose to sign those documents. The lack of a legal relationship between me and my friend is irrelevant.

[lenred]

4 minutes ago, Yellow&Blue&Red said:

If you threaten to sue me for... whatever. And a friend offers to pay you to go away and sign documents promising not to never sue me for that, then you may choose to sign those documents. The lack of a legal relationship between me and my friend is irrelevant.

But surely it sets further precedents for other interested Parties? 

[REDOXO]

So eyes turn to Couhig. His claim is for about 6m reputedly. 
 

That should not be insurmountable! At that point how saleable are Derby County. We will see!

[Davefevs]

Pressure now on Quantuma.

From a footballing point of view, pressure on Rooney now too.  They’ve got themselves back in it, but sometimes that’s just the start, and there is probably some expectation they will get out of it.  Expectation they’ve not had all season.  They’ve been able to play with freedom / siege mentality.  That dynamic might’ve changed.

Its a bit like Blackburn, chased 2nd place for weeks and weeks, get there, then fail to win their last 3.

Would be funny if Mel causing this problem on the thinking of points deduction means relegation, and then Derby stay up!!  I do want them to go down…but if they garner enough points, then fair enough.

Football is unpredictable!

[BTRFTG]

24 minutes ago, Yellow&Blue&Red said:

If you threaten to sue me for... whatever. And a friend offers to pay you to go away and sign documents promising not to never sue me for that, then you may choose to sign those documents. The lack of a legal relationship between me and my friend is irrelevant.

Not quite. The agreement would be between you and I though consideration would be made by your friend. Should your friend fail to substantiate the contract through consideration then that would be relevant to you. It also assumes you've agreed for your friend to act on your behalf. Could be you don't think the settled sum is valid or fair, or the consideration you receive might incur difficulties for you down the line and therefore your friend should not have acted as they did. That's why such arrangements are odd, to say the least.

[PHILINFRANCE]

3 minutes ago, BTRFTG said:

If true, that somebody who has no authority within an entity has agreed a personal arrangement for another party to drop prospective action against that entity, then in reality there can't have been much hope of said action ever having been successful.

We'd love to see the wording of that arrangement....

Most likely, in my opinion, is that MM, who whilst no longer having any formal 'legal' authority to handle Derby's affairs, is in regular contact with both Derby and Quantuma and, most likely, has/had the means to make informal, direct contact with SG. and simply suggested, 'Look, Steve, How much do you (Middlesbrough) want to drop your claim?'.

Steve and MM have agreed on X, and Middlesbrough have/will withdraw their claim.

It just remains for Quantuma to draw up the appropriate legally binding agreement between Middlesbrough and Quantuma, MM being a simple intermediary and, of course, not party to said agreement.

    

[BTRFTG]

3 minutes ago, PHILINFRANCE said:

Most likely, in my opinion, is that MM, who whilst no longer having any formal 'legal' authority to handle Derby's affairs, is in regular contact with both Derby and Quantuma and, most likely, has/had the means to make informal, direct contact with SG. and simply suggested, 'Look, Steve, How much do you (Middlesbrough) want to drop your claim?'.

Steve and MM have agreed on X, and Middlesbrough have/will withdraw their claim.

It just remains for Quantuma to draw up the appropriate legally binding agreement between Middlesbrough and Quantuma, MM being a simple intermediary and, of course, not party to said agreement.

    

In practice that's probably what's happened but to push the point who else needs to agree/assure what are private arrangements between two member clubs? At minimum one assumes the EFL would have a governance role to ensure an agreement wouldn't compromise their rules or other members interests? It also questions why the detail couldn't be shared with the consideration being kept confidential?

[semblar]

11 minutes ago, BTRFTG said:

In practice that's probably what's happened but to push the point who else needs to agree/assure what are private arrangements between two member clubs? At minimum one assumes the EFL would have a governance role to ensure an agreement wouldn't compromise their rules or other members interests? It also questions why the detail couldn't be shared with the consideration being kept confidential?

I suppose that is my problem - it potentially opens so many loopholes where what is effectively a brown paper envelope can be passed from a private individual to a club and the "official" transaction between two clubs looks far better in terms of FFP than it would have if everything went through the books. I hope that those more knowledgeable than me on such matters can explain why not?

[ExiledAjax]

Seems broadly fine and eminently sensible to me. MM enters into an agreement with Boro. He pays money - or promises to pay, whatever - and Boro agree to withdraw the claim. The word 'accord' means nothing legally, so I imagine you dig out a settlement agreement precedent document and start with that. Derby County FC don't really need to be involved. Settlement agreements generally avoid saying that anyone admits any fault for anything, they basically say "it's cheaper and quicker to settle now than drag this through the courts, so let's just swap some money and promises and all go about our lives".

So far as the EFL are concerned, the matter is resolved when Boro withdraw their claim against Derby County. Do they really care how that comes about? Honestly I don't think so.

As an aside, I guess this might take some heat off of the fixture this weekend.

[lenred]

39 minutes ago, semblar said:

I suppose that is my problem - it potentially opens so many loopholes where what is effectively a brown paper envelope can be passed from a private individual to a club and the "official" transaction between two clubs looks far better in terms of FFP than it would have if everything went through the books. I hope that those more knowledgeable than me on such matters can explain why not?

You’ve far more eloquently put what my quandary is with it! 

[Mr Popodopolous]

2 hours ago, BTRFTG said:

Doesn't explain why Morris was even in the negotiation as he doesn't represent Derby County FC, or is the suggestion he's now accepting liability for debts through his beneficial stakes in the linked enterprise?

 

1 hour ago, lenred said:

But surely it sets further precedents for other interested Parties? 

This is interesting, because if I'm HMRC, existing Football Creditors but of course these don't need to be settled instantly as transfers paid in instalments, or of course existing Unsecured Creditors- he's at least open to settling with Gibson, I would guess a few million maybe but the rest of the actual existing debt, "Can't/won't pay".

Regarding MSD, there are differing stories or claims of a Personal Guarantee.

Also have to wonder where the Wycombe claim now stands- assuming no settlement has been reached, if they actually believe they have a case they should keep on.

Edited February 11, 2022 by Mr Popodopolous

[Mr Popodopolous]

In respect of settlement of an exceptional debt there might be a precedent in EFL terms although the background differs, as do the details.

When Randy Lerner sold to Tony Xia in 2016, there was a clause that said in the event of promotion within 3 seasons, Tony Xia (or the club) pay Randy Lerner £30m. Was there a discount on initial takeover? Maybe.

As we all know, Xia ran out of cash by summer 2018 or couldn't get cash out of China and Aston Villa were purchased by a pair of billionaires. They got promoted in May 2019 and the new owners settled the debt. It went through the club accounts, but was settled by the new owners and appears that it didn't count towards P&S/FFP.

Irrespective of this, the EFL needed a stricter Business Plan on takeover to properly factor in not only 2018/19 but the next stages of the P&S cycle, although that's a different debate...I think they had the power under Regulations with Future Financial Information in mind etc. 

In respect of P&S/FFP I'm unsure that claims against clubs would count towards the £39m (also adjust for division) loss limit in any event, costs of exceptional litigation? Same way that QPR's fine doesn't count towards the £39m limit.

Edited February 11, 2022 by Mr Popodopolous

[BTRFTG]

45 minutes ago, ExiledAjax said:

Seems broadly fine and eminently sensible to me. MM enters into an agreement with Boro. He pays money - or promises to pay, whatever - and Boro agree to withdraw the claim. The word 'accord' means nothing legally, so I imagine you dig out a settlement agreement precedent document and start with that. Derby County FC don't really need to be involved. Settlement agreements generally avoid saying that anyone admits any fault for anything, they basically say "it's cheaper and quicker to settle now than drag this through the courts, so let's just swap some money and promises and all go about our lives".

So far as the EFL are concerned, the matter is resolved when Boro withdraw their claim against Derby County. Do they really care how that comes about? Honestly I don't think so.

As an aside, I guess this might take some heat off of the fixture this weekend.

So how does that work with FFP? If it's all as easy as you make it sound isn't that a surefire loophole for how to improve ones income? X settles with Y for whatever spurious and non-verified claim Z makes in whatever quantum they chose and that's ok, is it?

Say SL sets up a shirt company with whom City contract for kit. The kit company produces nothing and City sue citing all sorts of losses. SL personally settles to see City drop the case. Surely that wouldn't be allowed to ameliorate losses?

[ExiledAjax]

Just now, BTRFTG said:

So how does that work with FFP? If it's all as easy as you make it sound isn't that a surefire loophole for how to improve ones income? X settles with Y for whatever spurious and non-verified claim Z makes in whatever quantum they chose and that's ok, is it?

Say SL sets up a shirt company with whom City contract for kit. The kit company produces nothing and City sue citing all sorts of losses. SL personally settles to see City drop the case. Surely that wouldn't be allowed to ameliorate losses?

Have Boro said that they will include any payment from MM in their 'income' column for P&S purposes? 

Do the current P&S rules allow for such extraordinary income to be included for P&S?

[BTRFTG]

3 minutes ago, ExiledAjax said:

Have Boro said that they will include any payment from MM in their 'income' column for P&S purposes? 

Do the current P&S rules allow for such extraordinary income to be included for P&S?

Clearly, we don't know but whichever column the 'compensation' falls under the net impact is it will, over time, improve that club's financial position against their competitors.

[Mr Popodopolous]

3 minutes ago, ExiledAjax said:

Have Boro said that they will include any payment from MM in their 'income' column for P&S purposes? 

Do the current P&S rules allow for such extraordinary income to be included for P&S?

Perhaps it would appear in accounts as "Confidential Settlement Payment" -  whether it would count towards P&S would likely only be known by the EFL and Middlesbrough.

Sheffield Wednesday had one of £6-6.5m in 2019, appeared to have been compensation for Steve Bruce and his staff. 

Then the other way, should the Aston Villa owners paying Lerner £30m as part of a clause made at time of takeover have been included in or excluded from P&S.

Also of note was a £14.4m "Other Operating Income" which was compensation for HS2- should there not have been some corresponding disposal of land/buildings to reflect this?

[CyderInACan]

11 minutes ago, ExiledAjax said:

Have Boro said that they will include any payment from MM in their 'income' column for P&S purposes? 

Do the current P&S rules allow for such extraordinary income to be included for P&S?

If their claim was for “loss of income” (or potential thereof) then surely they’ll be able to include any settlement of that claim as “income”?

Like Cardiff. If they don’t have to pay the Sala fee that goes back in the pot. If Boro get paid for money they never had the chance to earn, same applies? 

Edited February 11, 2022 by CyderInACan

[ExiledAjax]

2 minutes ago, BTRFTG said:

Clearly, we don't know but whichever column the 'compensation' falls under the net impact is it will, over time, improve that club's financial position against their competitors.

True, but I guess Boro's argument is that they should/could have had some financial gain a few season's ago. Equally had they pursued the claim to conclusion they would have won a compensation amount and so would again have this same financial gain. If it's financial gain that you're worried about then we need a rule that EFL clubs cannot sue each other for money, only principle or some other nominal item.

Worrying about how Boro account for their settlement amount is a step beyond the actual matter of getting them to drop the claim. It's also crucially distinct from your shirt company example as the matter at hand clearly involves a true third party, and presumably everything can be proven to have been decided at an arm's length. That wouldn't be the case in the SL/Shirt company example where all parties are related, and have the same UBO, and it would be much clearer that the whole thing was a sham way to inject income.

1 minute ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Perhaps it would appear in accounts as "Confidential Settlement Payment" -  whether it would count towards P&S would likely only be known by the EFL and Middlesbrough.

Sheffield Wednesday had one of £6-6.5m in 2019, appeared to have been compensation for Steve Bruce and his staff. 

Then the other way, should the Aston Villa owners paying Lerner £30m as part of a clause made at time of takeover have been included in or excluded from P&S.

Also of note was a £14.4m "Other Operating Income" which was compensation for HS2- should there not have been some corresponding disposal of land/buildings to reflect this?

I have no idea really. My gut is that P&S income should be limited to 'everyday' income generated through football and a narrowly defined list of commercial activities. But I'm no expert on P&S and I would also think that the EFL need to have an element of discretion to cover exceptional things such as HS2 comp.

[ExiledAjax]

7 minutes ago, CyderInACan said:

If their claim was for “loss of income” (or potential thereof) then surely they’ll be able to include any settlement of that claim as “income”?

Perhaps. I would argue that it isn't the same though. The money going from MM to Boro is to induce Boro to drop their claim against DCFC. If it is described as comp for previous loss of earnings then MM is implying his own guilt/culpability for that loss of earning. He won't do that, or at least shouldn't. Therefore I'd expect (although we will never know for sure) that the legal documentation surrounding the payment from MM to Boro will not frame the money as being for loss of earnings, but will relate it purely to the dropping of the claim.

So to my mind if Boro then try and stick it into the P&S income column they are using the money for the wrong purpose.

I'm so far into the ocean of conjecture, speculation, and personal opinion that I could be wildly wrong, and the opposite arguments are completely valid, but this is kind of how I would frame it were I MM's lawyer.

[Mr Popodopolous]

14 minutes ago, CyderInACan said:

Like Cardiff. If they don’t have to pay the Sala fee that goes back in the pot. If Boro get paid for money they never had the chance to earn, same applies? 

Cardiff and Sala is a bit different as I understand it but see what you're getting it. Will post a bit about it on the FFP thread tomorrow.

[CyderInACan]

3 minutes ago, ExiledAjax said:

If it is described as comp for previous loss of earnings then MM is implying his own guilt/culpability for that loss of earning. He won't do that, or at least shouldn't.

The settlement agreement will likely be without prejudice and with the payment being made with no acceptance of the veracity or otherwise of the claim(s) made. 

[semblar]

3 minutes ago, ExiledAjax said:

Perhaps. I would argue that it isn't the same though. The money going from MM to Boro is to induce Boro to drop their claim against DCFC. If it is described as comp for previous loss of earnings then MM is implying his own guilt/culpability for that loss of earning. He won't do that, or at least shouldn't. Therefore I'd expect (although we will never know for sure) that the legal documentation surrounding the payment from MM to Boro will not frame the money as being for loss of earnings, but will relate it purely to the dropping of the claim.

So to my mind if Boro then try and stick it into the P&S income column they are using the money for the wrong purpose.

I'm so far into the ocean of conjecture, speculation, and personal opinion that I could be wildly wrong, and the opposite arguments are completely valid, but this is kind of how I would frame it were I MM's lawyer.

But I'm actually less worried about the 'Boro side of things.

 

Say they have settled on (for example) £1m to be paid by MM to 'Boro. All paid, all settled, the claim goes away. But what if Derby survive (perfectly possible) and their accounts for this year have a £12.9m loss? If Derby had agreed the £1m and paid it, their loss would have been £13.9m and therefore breached their reset P&S limits

[CyderInACan]

5 minutes ago, ExiledAjax said:

I'm so far into the ocean of conjecture, speculation, and personal opinion

Love this phrase. 

[Mr Popodopolous]

3 minutes ago, semblar said:

But I'm actually less worried about the 'Boro side of things.

 

Say they have settled on (for example) £1m to be paid by MM to 'Boro. All paid, all settled, the claim goes away. But what if Derby survive (perfectly possible) and their accounts for this year have a £12.9m loss? If Derby had agreed the £1m and paid it, their loss would have been £13.9m and therefore breached their reset P&S limits

Very good point, although I do believe the costs of exceptional litigation can be excluded from P&S- would these claims fall under this category had Derby themselves paid up?

[REDOXO]

I guess we can speculate at what the “accord” maybe. But in view of where we are I’m not sure I would trust Morris to actually pay money up front. 
 

Watch this space as I feel it’s all a bit convenient to lower the temperature for tomorrow!
 

 

[BTRFTG]

19 minutes ago, ExiledAjax said:

True, but I guess Boro's argument is that they should/could have had some financial gain a few season's ago. Equally had they pursued the claim to conclusion they would have won a compensation amount and so would again have this same financial gain. If it's financial gain that you're worried about then we need a rule that EFL clubs cannot sue each other for money, only principle or some other nominal item.

Worrying about how Boro account for their settlement amount is a step beyond the actual matter of getting them to drop the claim. It's also crucially distinct from your shirt company example as the matter at hand clearly involves a true third party, and presumably everything can be proven to have been decided at an arm's length. That wouldn't be the case in the SL/Shirt company example where all parties are related, and have the same UBO, and it would be much clearer that the whole thing was a sham way to inject income.

In this case Boro's argument remains untested conjecture, yet still generates monies for them.

Appreciate my SL example was lazy but it's only one small step to extrapolate to 'independent' yet 'friendly' third parties. Could become a cottage industry in contriving novel means of gaining compensation.

[ExiledAjax]

1 minute ago, CyderInACan said:

The settlement agreement will likely be without prejudice and with the payment being made with no acceptance of the veracity or otherwise of the claim(s) made. 

True, true. A good point. But in my opinion not one that allows Boro to book the settlement money as "lost income now gratefully received". It's still a payment made purely to get them to piss off.

1 minute ago, semblar said:

But I'm actually less worried about the 'Boro side of things.

Say they have settled on (for example) £1m to be paid by MM to 'Boro. All paid, all settled, the claim goes away. But what if Derby survive (perfectly possible) and their accounts for this year have a £12.9m loss? If Derby had agreed the £1m and paid it, their loss would have been £13.9m and therefore breached their reset P&S limits

I do agree that it would be better if it was Derby settling the claim, that is certainly cleaner. But the whole point is they have no money to do so, and if they fight it they will be liquidated. The golden rule of litigation is to only sue people with money, and the silver rule is that if offered a deal that you can swallow you take it. 

This deal isn't perfect, and it may well cause problems down the line, but I can see how all parties are happy that the matter is settled and can be set aside.

[ExiledAjax]

Just now, BTRFTG said:

could become a cottage industry in contriving novel means of gaining compensation.

Shall we start drafting a set of precedent documents that we can flog to 72 EFL clubs? 

[CyderInACan]

4 minutes ago, ExiledAjax said:

True, true. A good point. But in my opinion not one that allows Boro to book the settlement money as "lost income now gratefully received". It's still a payment made purely to get them to piss off.

I get that. And it’s obvious that a commercial view has been taken.  But if the outcome of litigation specifically for “loss of income” (or any other term implying the same or similar) results in that litigation being settled for x amount then presumably they could demonstrate, on the balance of probabilities, that the monies received were in remedy of that litigation and thusly legitimate “income”. 

Anything can be argued til the cows come home obviously but it will be interesting to see how it is officially categorised. 

[Davefevs]

1 hour ago, semblar said:

But I'm actually less worried about the 'Boro side of things.

 

Say they have settled on (for example) £1m to be paid by MM to 'Boro. All paid, all settled, the claim goes away. But what if Derby survive (perfectly possible) and their accounts for this year have a £12.9m loss? If Derby had agreed the £1m and paid it, their loss would have been £13.9m and therefore breached their reset P&S limits

I was just about to post similarly.  I’m guessing that’s why Quantuma are involved.