Anonymous people with no proof of real funds looking for publicity, could be a starter if they could attract tens of thousands of followers with £, but they won't. Crypto is just the latest way for chancers to separate fools from their money. So a decent fit with football.
Sounds like some crypto thing (I have no idea about terminology when it comes to that bollocks) now wants to buy them?
Compared to the bag of snakes that is crypto and NFTs, liquidation seems the preferable option.
I saw a billboard for an NFT ape in London the other day. Dystopian.
That John Terry always seemed like a reliable character. If he's flogging them they must be alright..... actually in this space fan tokens are the latest scummy move, almost always worthless after purchase and with no real rights to anything meaningful.
Seeing as we are criticising Derby County fans for a lack of critical thinking, here are two questions for you:
1) Do you think Wycombe - with £3m in the bank - is more deserving of a pay-out from Derby than all the small local businesses that supplied the club in good faith and now face destitution because their bills haven't been paid?
2) Here's a hypothetical scenario to ponder. What if Steve Hayes, when he had complete control of the club, had ensured Wycombe had spent beyond its means and engaged in creative accountancy that bent or broke the EFL's rules, then walked away. Other clubs claim they've been screwed over by Wycombe and want compensation. Would you prefer they a) claimed against a football club with few assets and mired in negative equity, threatening its very existence? Or b) went after the man who created the problems in the first place and is still worth multiple tens of millions?
@LordMandeville said:
Why all this animosity towards WWFC from Derby fans? We have not made a claim against DCFC. Mel Morris says so.
It's all deflection. Like populist politicians and rightwing newspapers pointing the finger at immigrants or whoever so people don't look at who is really ripping them off. Oldest trick in the book because it so frequently works.
@aloysius said:
1) Do you think Wycombe - with £3m in the bank - is more deserving of a pay-out from Derby than all the small local businesses that supplied the club in good faith and now face destitution because their bills haven't been paid?
Nobody is saying that. Hilarious straw man.
2) Here's a hypothetical scenario to ponder. What if Steve Hayes, when he had complete control of the club, had ensured Wycombe had spent beyond its means and engaged in creative accountancy that bent or broke the EFL's rules, then walked away. Other clubs claim they've been screwed over by Wycombe and want compensation. Would you prefer they a) claimed against a football club with few assets and mired in negative equity, threatening its very existence? Or b) went after the man who created the problems in the first place and is still worth multiple tens of millions?
If you remember @aloysius we dealt with the financial carnage Steve Hayes left us in by fire-selling our best players and closing our academy. We cut out cloths so tight that we nearly lost our place in the football league.
The men and women who ran the Trust gave countless hours of professional experience free to the club to make this happen. Regular supporters like myself and others spent most of his time here worried about the levels of debt. History gives you a real answer to your hypothetical question.
@aloysius said:
Seeing as we are criticising Derby County fans for a lack of critical thinking, here are two questions for you:
1) Do you think Wycombe - with £3m in the bank - is more deserving of a pay-out from Derby than all the small local businesses that supplied the club in good faith and now face destitution because their bills haven't been paid?
2) Here's a hypothetical scenario to ponder. What if Steve Hayes, when he had complete control of the club, had ensured Wycombe had spent beyond its means and engaged in creative accountancy that bent or broke the EFL's rules, then walked away. Other clubs claim they've been screwed over by Wycombe and want compensation. Would you prefer they a) claimed against a football club with few assets and mired in negative equity, threatening its very existence? Or b) went after the man who created the problems in the first place and is still worth multiple tens of millions?
1) Derby are free to do that by laws of the land, though they would almost certainly be expelled from the Football League if they did. The debts they have run up, their lack of assets and the flagrant and repeated nature of their rule breaking means that they have close to zilch moral capital in the bank to start talking about the right thing to do.
2) If Hayes had even begun to engage in the shenanigans Morris did, he would been opposed every step of the way by a vocal minority of supporters, as he was when he ran the club at £1m pa losses, and most notably when he tried to part the club from owning its own ground and move us to a ground where we'd pay him rent for decades. Derby fans by contrast have either been passively acquiescent or actively cheered on Morris's "get to the PL or die trying" mission.
Going back to your hypothetical scenario, if WWFC fans had let it all happen as DCFC fans have, then we too would have had to face the music sooner rather than later.
@aloysius said:
Seeing as we are criticising Derby County fans for a lack of critical thinking, here are two questions for you:
1) Do you think Wycombe - with £3m in the bank - is more deserving of a pay-out from Derby than all the small local businesses that supplied the club in good faith and now face destitution because their bills haven't been paid?
1) This is not a very incisive, interesting or even relevant question. The straight answer is very simple. No! Which is why Derby (i.e. Mel Morris) should try harder to find a way to pay off all of their debts, it's not a reason why Wycombe should withdraw their claim.
Here's a (more relevant) question for you! If you want to make a list of who 'deserves' what from the Derby fiasco then you have to factor in the hundreds of millions (not to mention Pride Park) that Mel Morris is going to walk away with because of the way he has shielded himself from the debts he ran up for the club. Does MM 'deserve' to be shielded from all this debt after conning the whole of Derby, the tax man, local businesses, Boro, Wycombe? You seem to think HMRC, Boro, Wycombe and local creditors should all accept pennies in the pound so Mel Morris can walk away with no liquidation of Derby on his conscience. That's precisely Mel Morris' game. He's run up huge debts and he's banking on the idea that people like you will buy his sob story that Derby 'can't be liquidated' and so everyone has to dance to his tune. He wants all the upside and no downside. You seem to have zero capacity for critical thinking about that fundamental point at the heart of this whole story. Try to block out the blinding glare of the sun from his shiny bald head and take a look at Mel Morris. He is the problem here!
2) Here's a hypothetical scenario to ponder. What if Steve Hayes, when he had complete control of the club, had ensured Wycombe had spent beyond its means and engaged in creative accountancy that bent or broke the EFL's rules, then walked away. Other clubs claim they've been screwed over by Wycombe and want compensation. Would you prefer they a) claimed against a football club with few assets and mired in negative equity, threatening its very existence? Or b) went after the man who created the problems in the first place and is still worth multiple tens of millions?
2) Who cares what a hypothetical fan of a bankrupt club would prefer? The hypothetical fan would prefer that all the P&S rules didn't apply to their team and they could waltz up to the PL (ironically this is exactly how the system works if you get promoted, which is the only part of the problem here that is even bigger than Morris because it guarantees we'll see another MM roll the dice with another founder member in future).
I have to assume you're trolling here man. Give it a rest. You're parroting a lazy Daily Mail article written by Martin Samuel that completely misunderstands the reality. Please try and do what the Derby fans are so far failing to do - read beyond the Daily Mail's hot take.
On Q1 This is due to the football creditors law giving members of the competition an extra level of protection so that if clubs stiff eachother there are additional penalties. It's regrettable it's needed as all loans should be paid back but in reality it just means if we come to an agreement that doesn't respect this they get another points deduction. This only matters if you are clinging onto slim hopes of staying up and avoiding paying your dues, it has no effect on them surviving.
On Q2 You'd always prefer people you borrowed off didn't want their money back and people you'd wronged didn't ask for any recourse but you can't at that point start making demands about how they ask for their recourse, particularly if you are trying to shift them to methods you know to be less viable.
I know you won't understand @aloysius, but in answer to question 1) - why can't I say both?
No one or business should wilfully and deliberately be able to run up debt and then walk away without paying their creditors.
All we've asked for is to be added to that list of creditors.
@aloysius let me put it another way what Morris has done here. He's put a card behind a bar in Derby and ordered pints of Waghorn for the whole pub (not what anyone would have ordered but it's beer), he's even got them to dig out the vintage single malt bottles of Rooney and Lampard for everyone to have a shot. Everyone is loving it. But now it's late, it's time to pay and he's revealed that actually he doesn't want to and he never planned to. The bar suddenly realise the card he put behind the bar wasn't actually in his name so they can't charge it. It's as if he did this every night for 4 years in every pub in Derby and popped in for a night out in the White Horse in High Wycombe while he was at it. He's been on an unbelievable, multi-million pound wind up on Derby County's company card and Couhig is understandably livid about the White Horse incident.
Thank you for those, particularly @arnos_grove, @StrongestTeam, @ReadingMarginalista and @Twizz, who actively engaged with my questions rather than snidely dismissing them. It's hardly a straw man argument when no Derby creditor can get paid until Wycombe's claim is settled or dismissed. If footballing debts were at the back of the queue I might have more sympathy for Rob Couhig's case rather than considering it to be selfish blackmail, as I do.
I do accept that Wycombe fans did fight back against the club much more effectively in the Hayes era than Derby fans did under Morris but fundamentally, fans are supporters without real power, access to information or means of imposing their view on financial matters. I don't blame fans for celebrating successes and enjoying big name signings and think it's unfair others are holding them responsible now for Derby's woes.
As for the suggestion that I take my cue from columns in the Daily Mail; I'm afraid I didn't read the piece you're referring to, @Jimmy_Jazz. I've no idea whether it was erudite or nonsense, but I doubt it would have swayed my viewpoint one way or the other.
To address the specific question you asked me, I don't think Mel Morris deserves to be shielded. Judging by his latest intervention in the debate, nor does he. He's inviting Rob Couhig and Steve Gibson to sue him - if Rob wishes to do that using his own personal funds and not putting any of the club's assets up as collateral I would support him fully in that action.
Fundamentally my view is this: I burn no candle for Derby County - if they go bust I won't shed a tear; if they get demoted two divisions or more for their financial shenanigans I shall celebrate. If Rob Couhig and Steve Gibson were to use their financial and legal clout to force the EFL into changing its structures and penalties for cheating and financial irregularities so that no club could get away with doing the same ever again I would support them all the way. But I don't agree with the idea of suing a club for redress, nor do I like the idea of taking advantage of badly written rules to jump the queue over far more deserving causes for financial compensation.
@aloysius said:
Thank you for those, particularly @arnos_grove, @StrongestTeam, @ReadingMarginalista and @Twizz, who actively engaged with my questions rather than snidely dismissing them. It's hardly a straw man argument when no Derby creditor can get paid until Wycombe's claim is settled or dismissed. If footballing debts were at the back of the queue I might have more sympathy for Rob Couhig's case rather than considering it to be selfish blackmail, as I do.
Any withdrawal of our claim would be pointless unless Middlesbrough also withdrew. Would you happy if we withdrew and then the Administrator negotiated a settlement of say £20m with Middlesbrough on their claim? If so why?
@aloysius said:
Thank you for those, particularly @arnos_grove, @StrongestTeam, @ReadingMarginalista and @Twizz, who actively engaged with my questions rather than snidely dismissing them. It's hardly a straw man argument when no Derby creditor can get paid until Wycombe's claim is settled or dismissed. If footballing debts were at the back of the queue I might have more sympathy for Rob Couhig's case rather than considering it to be selfish blackmail, as I do.
Any withdrawal of our claim would be pointless unless Middlesbrough also withdrew. Would you happy if we withdrew and then the Administrator negotiated a settlement of say £20m with Middlesbrough on their claim? If so why?
The extension to this is should all claims be waived, all primary creditors accept heavily reduced payments in the name of friendship and the love of the football family, then a takeover goes through and Derby start buying players again have we all been done. If 2 years later Morris then sells the ground to the new owners for £30-60m again have we been diddled??
@aloysius said:
Thank you for those, particularly @arnos_grove, @StrongestTeam, @ReadingMarginalista and @Twizz, who actively engaged with my questions rather than snidely dismissing them. It's hardly a straw man argument when no Derby creditor can get paid until Wycombe's claim is settled or dismissed. If footballing debts were at the back of the queue I might have more sympathy for Rob Couhig's case rather than considering it to be selfish blackmail, as I do.
Any withdrawal of our claim would be pointless unless Middlesbrough also withdrew. Would you happy if we withdrew and then the Administrator negotiated a settlement of say £20m with Middlesbrough on their claim? If so why?
No I think Steve Gibson is just as guilty of naked and selfish opportunism as Rob Couhig. Both have now made their point. Both should withdraw, claim moral victory, and turn their guns on the EFL.
@aloysius said:
To address the specific question you asked me, I don't think Mel Morris deserves to be shielded. Judging by his latest intervention in the debate, nor does he. He's inviting Rob Couhig and Steve Gibson to sue him - if Rob wishes to do that using his own personal funds and not putting any of the club's assets up as collateral I would support him fully in that action.
MM is not inviting RC to sue him because he is confident with the claim (if he was then he could indemnify Derby's future owners against the claim and an extra sum to cover the consequent points deduction if it were successful). He's suggesting that an alternative process is used (High Court) which is not where the claimants ever designed their case to take place. The case is supposed to make sense under the EFL's articles of association. Therefore it should be adjudicated in the first instance by the adjudication processes of the EFL which are also set out in the EFL articles. Your reading of Morris' intentions as benign is just wrong if you look at the whole of the issue. I'm sorry there's no easy way to say that without sounding snide. If he genuinely wanted to take personal responsibility for the claims he could have. He hasn't. Please don't pretend he has. Why do you find him so credible when you know so much about what he's done to Derby?
Fundamentally my view is this: I burn no candle for Derby County - if they go bust I won't shed a tear; if they get demoted two divisions or more for their financial shenanigans I shall celebrate. If Rob Couhig and Steve Gibson were to use their financial and legal clout to force the EFL into changing its structures and penalties for cheating and financial irregularities so that no club could get away with doing the same ever again I would support them all the way. But I don't agree with the idea of suing a club for redress, nor do I like the idea of taking advantage of badly written rules to jump the queue over far more deserving causes for financial compensation.
Glad to hear this, we have more common ground than I thought. But in your post you also describe Couhig's actions as 'blackmail' and that's laying it on way too thick.
Glad to hear this, we have more common ground than I thought. But in your post you also describe Couhig's actions as 'blackmail' and that's laying it on way too thick.
@aloysius does make some good points, but they are so deeply buried in personal (and inexplicable) animus against RC it's hard to find them
I was expecting @DevC to be posting more on this contentious issue asking hypothetical questions about alternative scenarios and so on but I suppose to.pick a side in a battle between three possibly wronged 'wealth creators' is a tricky one to navigate. ? @aloysius accusing Rob of 'selfish blackmailwill' have to do.
@Wendoverman said:
I was expecting @DevC to be posting more on this contentious issue asking hypothetical questions about alternative scenarios and so on but I suppose to.pick a side in a battle between three possibly wronged 'wealth creators' is a tricky one to navigate. ? @aloysius accusing Rob of 'selfish blackmailwill' have to do.
Have we seen these 2 posters post at the same time out of interest?
@Wendoverman said:
I was expecting @DevC to be posting more on this contentious issue asking hypothetical questions about alternative scenarios and so on but I suppose to.pick a side in a battle between three possibly wronged 'wealth creators' is a tricky one to navigate. ? @aloysius accusing Rob of 'selfish blackmailwill' have to do.
Dev's keeping his powder dry until the discussion gets on to the potential of redevelopment of Pride Park!
@Wendoverman said:
I was expecting @DevC to be posting more on this contentious issue asking hypothetical questions about alternative scenarios and so on but I suppose to.pick a side in a battle between three possibly wronged 'wealth creators' is a tricky one to navigate. ? @aloysius accusing Rob of 'selfish blackmailwill' have to do.
Dev's keeping his powder dry until the discussion gets on to the potential of redevelopment of Pride Park!
I am not a lawyer but did study corporate law some time ago which I guess doesn't make my view any more relevant than anyone elses but here goes...
My take of the events of the last few years is that a number of clubs and the EFL have suffered a "wrong" (i.e. a tort in legalees) at the hands of and by the actions of The Derby County Football Club Ltd. All who have suffered a wrong are entitled to seek legal redress for this wrong. MFC & WWFC in particular have events that they can use that clearly crystalise and articulate the wrong and the loss/damage suffered and on the advice of their lawyers have (rightly) submitted claims. It is irrelevant that DCFC are or are not in administration for the purposes of assessing the merit of the claims, level of damage/loss or any subsequent award that may be made by way of compensation.
Further Morris's open letter is a stunt to detract from his culpability in driving DCFC to the edge of oblivion and his shielding of monies from the administration process (Stadium, training ground etc. which owned by companies Morris owns that are not in administration). Morris as an officer of DCFC Ltd and whilst he was the controlling officer he is not actually a party to any tort committed by DCFC Ltd as corporate law broadly protects him unless his actions breach criminal law (a really tough one to prove to be honest though I do personally think he may well be acting fraudulently).
Morris is a very wealthy individual who could resolve the sale of DCFC immediately by transferring "footballing assets" back to DCFC Ltd thus giving that entity real value for a purchaser, he could also undertake to settle non footballing debts in full if he so wished (C £6m) if he really felt guilty about what transpired under his watch. He could equally offer to indemnify any purchaser against the claims of MFC & WWFC especially if he really believes they have no merit, but he wont; why?
I don't blame Derby fans for not being aware of the financial shenanigans in 2017/18 or possibly 2018/19 but after that it started to be clear something was amiss given failure to file accounts etc. and MFC starting their action against the club; to remain silent now is just wilful ignorance and strips away much of the sympathy one would otherwise have for them.
@aloysius said:
It's hardly a straw man argument when no Derby creditor can get paid until Wycombe's claim is settled or dismissed.
Christ man, do some reading and research before posting your nonsense, and I don't mean reading the Derby forum. This isn't true. It's some bollocks you read somewhere that you keep repeating in yet another attempt to have a pop at Rob Couhig and it's getting very silly indeed. Even the latest statement from the EFL says this isn't true.
If your opinions were even half based on actual facts, maybe people would engage with your ridiculous hypothetical questions more.
@aloysius said <
It's hardly a straw man argument when no Derby creditor can get paid until Wycombe's claim is settled or dismissed. <
Actually that just isn't true and is just an example of how WWFC is wrongly made out to be the bad guy.
There is nothing stopping a buyer coming in and clearing all the other creditors and then taking the claims of MFC & WWFC to arbitration/court to resolve the claims. MM could even indemnify the buyer against our claims, since he is so sure they are spurious. If he also agreed to sell back the stadium for £1 that deal could be signed tomorrow I'd wager.
I accept no buyer has come forward with that proposal, nor has MM made such an offer. But that not what you claim.
Equally there has been nothing stopping the Administrator engaging with MFC & WWFC to resolve the claims and hence allow any buyer to have some clarity of the liability they are taking on.
Please stop believing the myth that's it's MFC & WWFC who have to move there position to resolve the DCFC situation. It just isn't true.
Comments
@ReturnToSenda said:
Compared to the bag of snakes that is crypto and NFTs, liquidation seems the preferable option.
Anonymous people with no proof of real funds looking for publicity, could be a starter if they could attract tens of thousands of followers with £, but they won't. Crypto is just the latest way for chancers to separate fools from their money. So a decent fit with football.
Or not
I saw a billboard for an NFT ape in London the other day. Dystopian.
Why all this animosity towards WWFC from Derby fans? We have not made a claim against DCFC. Mel Morris says so.
That John Terry always seemed like a reliable character. If he's flogging them they must be alright..... actually in this space fan tokens are the latest scummy move, almost always worthless after purchase and with no real rights to anything meaningful.
Hahahahahahahaha
Seeing as we are criticising Derby County fans for a lack of critical thinking, here are two questions for you:
1) Do you think Wycombe - with £3m in the bank - is more deserving of a pay-out from Derby than all the small local businesses that supplied the club in good faith and now face destitution because their bills haven't been paid?
2) Here's a hypothetical scenario to ponder. What if Steve Hayes, when he had complete control of the club, had ensured Wycombe had spent beyond its means and engaged in creative accountancy that bent or broke the EFL's rules, then walked away. Other clubs claim they've been screwed over by Wycombe and want compensation. Would you prefer they a) claimed against a football club with few assets and mired in negative equity, threatening its very existence? Or b) went after the man who created the problems in the first place and is still worth multiple tens of millions?
It's all deflection. Like populist politicians and rightwing newspapers pointing the finger at immigrants or whoever so people don't look at who is really ripping them off. Oldest trick in the book because it so frequently works.
Nobody is saying that. Hilarious straw man.
Oh god, it gets worse.
Is a hilarious straw man a scarecrow who does stand-up?
If you remember @aloysius we dealt with the financial carnage Steve Hayes left us in by fire-selling our best players and closing our academy. We cut out cloths so tight that we nearly lost our place in the football league.
The men and women who ran the Trust gave countless hours of professional experience free to the club to make this happen. Regular supporters like myself and others spent most of his time here worried about the levels of debt. History gives you a real answer to your hypothetical question.
1) Derby are free to do that by laws of the land, though they would almost certainly be expelled from the Football League if they did. The debts they have run up, their lack of assets and the flagrant and repeated nature of their rule breaking means that they have close to zilch moral capital in the bank to start talking about the right thing to do.
2) If Hayes had even begun to engage in the shenanigans Morris did, he would been opposed every step of the way by a vocal minority of supporters, as he was when he ran the club at £1m pa losses, and most notably when he tried to part the club from owning its own ground and move us to a ground where we'd pay him rent for decades. Derby fans by contrast have either been passively acquiescent or actively cheered on Morris's "get to the PL or die trying" mission.
Going back to your hypothetical scenario, if WWFC fans had let it all happen as DCFC fans have, then we too would have had to face the music sooner rather than later.
1) This is not a very incisive, interesting or even relevant question. The straight answer is very simple. No! Which is why Derby (i.e. Mel Morris) should try harder to find a way to pay off all of their debts, it's not a reason why Wycombe should withdraw their claim.
Here's a (more relevant) question for you! If you want to make a list of who 'deserves' what from the Derby fiasco then you have to factor in the hundreds of millions (not to mention Pride Park) that Mel Morris is going to walk away with because of the way he has shielded himself from the debts he ran up for the club. Does MM 'deserve' to be shielded from all this debt after conning the whole of Derby, the tax man, local businesses, Boro, Wycombe? You seem to think HMRC, Boro, Wycombe and local creditors should all accept pennies in the pound so Mel Morris can walk away with no liquidation of Derby on his conscience. That's precisely Mel Morris' game. He's run up huge debts and he's banking on the idea that people like you will buy his sob story that Derby 'can't be liquidated' and so everyone has to dance to his tune. He wants all the upside and no downside. You seem to have zero capacity for critical thinking about that fundamental point at the heart of this whole story. Try to block out the blinding glare of the sun from his shiny bald head and take a look at Mel Morris. He is the problem here!
2) Who cares what a hypothetical fan of a bankrupt club would prefer? The hypothetical fan would prefer that all the P&S rules didn't apply to their team and they could waltz up to the PL (ironically this is exactly how the system works if you get promoted, which is the only part of the problem here that is even bigger than Morris because it guarantees we'll see another MM roll the dice with another founder member in future).
I have to assume you're trolling here man. Give it a rest. You're parroting a lazy Daily Mail article written by Martin Samuel that completely misunderstands the reality. Please try and do what the Derby fans are so far failing to do - read beyond the Daily Mail's hot take.
Yeah, we get you don't like RC. But...
On Q1 This is due to the football creditors law giving members of the competition an extra level of protection so that if clubs stiff eachother there are additional penalties. It's regrettable it's needed as all loans should be paid back but in reality it just means if we come to an agreement that doesn't respect this they get another points deduction. This only matters if you are clinging onto slim hopes of staying up and avoiding paying your dues, it has no effect on them surviving.
On Q2 You'd always prefer people you borrowed off didn't want their money back and people you'd wronged didn't ask for any recourse but you can't at that point start making demands about how they ask for their recourse, particularly if you are trying to shift them to methods you know to be less viable.
I know you won't understand @aloysius, but in answer to question 1) - why can't I say both?
No one or business should wilfully and deliberately be able to run up debt and then walk away without paying their creditors.
All we've asked for is to be added to that list of creditors.
@aloysius let me put it another way what Morris has done here. He's put a card behind a bar in Derby and ordered pints of Waghorn for the whole pub (not what anyone would have ordered but it's beer), he's even got them to dig out the vintage single malt bottles of Rooney and Lampard for everyone to have a shot. Everyone is loving it. But now it's late, it's time to pay and he's revealed that actually he doesn't want to and he never planned to. The bar suddenly realise the card he put behind the bar wasn't actually in his name so they can't charge it. It's as if he did this every night for 4 years in every pub in Derby and popped in for a night out in the White Horse in High Wycombe while he was at it. He's been on an unbelievable, multi-million pound wind up on Derby County's company card and Couhig is understandably livid about the White Horse incident.
Thank you for those, particularly @arnos_grove, @StrongestTeam, @ReadingMarginalista and @Twizz, who actively engaged with my questions rather than snidely dismissing them. It's hardly a straw man argument when no Derby creditor can get paid until Wycombe's claim is settled or dismissed. If footballing debts were at the back of the queue I might have more sympathy for Rob Couhig's case rather than considering it to be selfish blackmail, as I do.
I do accept that Wycombe fans did fight back against the club much more effectively in the Hayes era than Derby fans did under Morris but fundamentally, fans are supporters without real power, access to information or means of imposing their view on financial matters. I don't blame fans for celebrating successes and enjoying big name signings and think it's unfair others are holding them responsible now for Derby's woes.
As for the suggestion that I take my cue from columns in the Daily Mail; I'm afraid I didn't read the piece you're referring to, @Jimmy_Jazz. I've no idea whether it was erudite or nonsense, but I doubt it would have swayed my viewpoint one way or the other.
To address the specific question you asked me, I don't think Mel Morris deserves to be shielded. Judging by his latest intervention in the debate, nor does he. He's inviting Rob Couhig and Steve Gibson to sue him - if Rob wishes to do that using his own personal funds and not putting any of the club's assets up as collateral I would support him fully in that action.
Fundamentally my view is this: I burn no candle for Derby County - if they go bust I won't shed a tear; if they get demoted two divisions or more for their financial shenanigans I shall celebrate. If Rob Couhig and Steve Gibson were to use their financial and legal clout to force the EFL into changing its structures and penalties for cheating and financial irregularities so that no club could get away with doing the same ever again I would support them all the way. But I don't agree with the idea of suing a club for redress, nor do I like the idea of taking advantage of badly written rules to jump the queue over far more deserving causes for financial compensation.
Any withdrawal of our claim would be pointless unless Middlesbrough also withdrew. Would you happy if we withdrew and then the Administrator negotiated a settlement of say £20m with Middlesbrough on their claim? If so why?
The extension to this is should all claims be waived, all primary creditors accept heavily reduced payments in the name of friendship and the love of the football family, then a takeover goes through and Derby start buying players again have we all been done. If 2 years later Morris then sells the ground to the new owners for £30-60m again have we been diddled??
No I think Steve Gibson is just as guilty of naked and selfish opportunism as Rob Couhig. Both have now made their point. Both should withdraw, claim moral victory, and turn their guns on the EFL.
MM is not inviting RC to sue him because he is confident with the claim (if he was then he could indemnify Derby's future owners against the claim and an extra sum to cover the consequent points deduction if it were successful). He's suggesting that an alternative process is used (High Court) which is not where the claimants ever designed their case to take place. The case is supposed to make sense under the EFL's articles of association. Therefore it should be adjudicated in the first instance by the adjudication processes of the EFL which are also set out in the EFL articles. Your reading of Morris' intentions as benign is just wrong if you look at the whole of the issue. I'm sorry there's no easy way to say that without sounding snide. If he genuinely wanted to take personal responsibility for the claims he could have. He hasn't. Please don't pretend he has. Why do you find him so credible when you know so much about what he's done to Derby?
Glad to hear this, we have more common ground than I thought. But in your post you also describe Couhig's actions as 'blackmail' and that's laying it on way too thick.
@aloysius does make some good points, but they are so deeply buried in personal (and inexplicable) animus against RC it's hard to find them
I was expecting @DevC to be posting more on this contentious issue asking hypothetical questions about alternative scenarios and so on but I suppose to.pick a side in a battle between three possibly wronged 'wealth creators' is a tricky one to navigate. ? @aloysius accusing Rob of 'selfish blackmailwill' have to do.
Have we seen these 2 posters post at the same time out of interest?
Dev's keeping his powder dry until the discussion gets on to the potential of redevelopment of Pride Park!
Or musing on whether it's Gareth's time to leave.
I am not a lawyer but did study corporate law some time ago which I guess doesn't make my view any more relevant than anyone elses but here goes...
My take of the events of the last few years is that a number of clubs and the EFL have suffered a "wrong" (i.e. a tort in legalees) at the hands of and by the actions of The Derby County Football Club Ltd. All who have suffered a wrong are entitled to seek legal redress for this wrong. MFC & WWFC in particular have events that they can use that clearly crystalise and articulate the wrong and the loss/damage suffered and on the advice of their lawyers have (rightly) submitted claims. It is irrelevant that DCFC are or are not in administration for the purposes of assessing the merit of the claims, level of damage/loss or any subsequent award that may be made by way of compensation.
Further Morris's open letter is a stunt to detract from his culpability in driving DCFC to the edge of oblivion and his shielding of monies from the administration process (Stadium, training ground etc. which owned by companies Morris owns that are not in administration). Morris as an officer of DCFC Ltd and whilst he was the controlling officer he is not actually a party to any tort committed by DCFC Ltd as corporate law broadly protects him unless his actions breach criminal law (a really tough one to prove to be honest though I do personally think he may well be acting fraudulently).
Morris is a very wealthy individual who could resolve the sale of DCFC immediately by transferring "footballing assets" back to DCFC Ltd thus giving that entity real value for a purchaser, he could also undertake to settle non footballing debts in full if he so wished (C £6m) if he really felt guilty about what transpired under his watch. He could equally offer to indemnify any purchaser against the claims of MFC & WWFC especially if he really believes they have no merit, but he wont; why?
I don't blame Derby fans for not being aware of the financial shenanigans in 2017/18 or possibly 2018/19 but after that it started to be clear something was amiss given failure to file accounts etc. and MFC starting their action against the club; to remain silent now is just wilful ignorance and strips away much of the sympathy one would otherwise have for them.
Christ man, do some reading and research before posting your nonsense, and I don't mean reading the Derby forum. This isn't true. It's some bollocks you read somewhere that you keep repeating in yet another attempt to have a pop at Rob Couhig and it's getting very silly indeed. Even the latest statement from the EFL says this isn't true.
If your opinions were even half based on actual facts, maybe people would engage with your ridiculous hypothetical questions more.
Actually that just isn't true and is just an example of how WWFC is wrongly made out to be the bad guy.
There is nothing stopping a buyer coming in and clearing all the other creditors and then taking the claims of MFC & WWFC to arbitration/court to resolve the claims. MM could even indemnify the buyer against our claims, since he is so sure they are spurious. If he also agreed to sell back the stadium for £1 that deal could be signed tomorrow I'd wager.
I accept no buyer has come forward with that proposal, nor has MM made such an offer. But that not what you claim.
Equally there has been nothing stopping the Administrator engaging with MFC & WWFC to resolve the claims and hence allow any buyer to have some clarity of the liability they are taking on.
Please stop believing the myth that's it's MFC & WWFC who have to move there position to resolve the DCFC situation. It just isn't true.