I can’t see any way this issue could affect our bid to win promotion. Players play, lawyers sue and since our chairman is a highly qualified lawyer with his own company there is no conflict whatsoever.
@Blue_since_1990 said:
I can see your point @glasshalffull but I simply don’t want us being distracted from our main aim of getting back to the Championship or waste money.
I doubt Gaz or any of the squad will be sat in the legal meetings!
It’s just not a dignified response. I know being dignified doesn’t pay the bills but we’re unlikely to get anything like what we’ve claimed (if anything) and for a club that is currently so classy in almost everything else it does this just doesn’t fit comfortably with me.
It’s just not a dignified response. I know being dignified doesn’t pay the bills but we’re unlikely to get anything like what we’ve claimed (if anything) and for a club that is currently so classy in almost everything else it does this just doesn’t fit comfortably with me.
Are we?
It's ambulance chasing if the paramedic had robbed someone else's paramedic degree, mistreated you resulting in you losing 8 million quid in earnings, and then insulted you as they nicked your wallet in plain sight.
There's nothing classy about being a doormat. We've put in an enquiry from what I understand, we'll see what comes back. I'd rather we could go after the individuals responsible rather than the club, but it is what it is
We know what usually happens here, they theive for years then sell it to the next mug or a mate stiffing us and most of their creditors as much as possible before they carry on as they were.
There's no shortage of takers for Derby btw , the level of debt they are landed with only affects the price at this stage. They aren't some small club failing to meet their costs and having a whip around, they're a big club with a rich owner that overspent failing to reach the Prem and their next owner will probably do the same.
@Blue_since_1990 said:
I can see your point @glasshalffull but I simply don’t want us being distracted from our main aim of getting back to the Championship or waste money.
This has all been going on for months with no evidence of distraction and now a reporter asks the owner a reasonable question about it and for some it’s all they think the club are doing.
I like the fact that we are ploughing our own path on this. From what I have heard it’s no great legal battle but is certainly an annoyance to Derby that might bear some fruit at some point.
I dont have a problem with Rob getting all legal if he wants to (especially if it gets us a bung) but I would prefer we put it to bed myself as the optics are poor and we have a great chance to rise again from the ashes. Sometimes you have to just tend your own garden.
It’s just not a dignified response. I know being dignified doesn’t pay the bills but we’re unlikely to get anything like what we’ve claimed (if anything) and for a club that is currently so classy in almost everything else it does this just doesn’t fit comfortably with me.
We aren’t chasing the ambulance. We are chasing the person inside it that ripped us off before being hit by a bus.
If they recover from there injuries, we’d still been ripped off. Do we accept being ripped off?
@Wendoverman said:
I dont have a problem with Rob getting all legal if he wants to (especially if it gets us a bung) but I would prefer we put it to bed myself as the optics are poor and we have a great chance to rise again from the ashes. Sometimes you have to just tend your own garden.
Do Sheffield United still carry around the results of their West Ham challenge on their reputation?
Rob Couhig is on record as saying he wanted to invest in a football club and felt more comfortable making the investment under English law.
Given the machinations twixt the EFL and Derby County - to name but one - if investors don't feel there is sufficient protection, it will serve as an antidote to investment.
Dissuading foreign investors, in an industry where 80% of clubs lose money, would be a disaster. Mr. Couhig is merely defending his majority interest, and thus our 25% shareholding, to do otherwise would be negligent.
Maybe if more people raised their head above the parapet - training ground deal being one example, not releasing annual figures ahead of the AGM being another - football wouldn't be in the condition it finds itself in.
Mel Morris put the house on red year in year out, gambling unsuccessfully, if this is allowed to happen without punishment what type of people will invest in the future?
@eric_plant said:
I must say I don't understand it at all. Our grievance is surely that the punishment they have been given, ie the points deduction, ought to have been applied last season rather than this season.
That's got nothing to do with Derby though has it?
Yes, the point of order that this addresses is that Derby knowingly dragged out the appeals and handing over of evidence so as to try to avoid the points being deducted last season. The owner is on record admitting this. That literally has everything to do with Derby.
As for any spurious claims that their "cheating" allowed them to stay up instead of us, I just don't see the argument. Derby were an abysmal side last season. How much worse would they have been had they done their accounts differently?
See above. If they hadn't cheated the appeals system the way they cheat everything else, then the points would have been deducted last season and we'd have stayed up.
And when you follow it all through logically it doesn't make any sense anyway. Because if you conclude that what they did have them an onfield advantage, then you have to conclude that it did in all of their games last season and I can't see how you can rewrite history to such an extent to prove it cost us our place in the league
I don't even know where to begin with this "logic".
I'm not sure this action by the Couhigs is really about the £6M. It's about the EFL rules and procedures and the fact it has arguably affected a third of the pyramid over the last few seasons they've cooked the books.
I very much doubt we will "pay" lawyers a significant amount to go after this cash but just raising the possibility might just make other clubs and the EFL sit up and reflect that something really needs to change.
BY taking this action it may prompt more clubs to reflect and lobby for change or MPs to think more seriously about independent regulation. For me if Clubs do not complain, do not question why there are no proper sanctions when rules are broken, then it will just continue to happen year after year.
Think it’s right to raise the issue but we should make it clear that this is about the Efl as much as Derby we may get more support in our actions from other clubs. Rob maybe a lawyer but an American one and I’m not keen on the suing culture getting worse then it already is over here.
I very much doubt we will "pay" lawyers a significant amount to go after this cash but just raising the possibility might just make other clubs and the EFL sit up and reflect that something really needs to change.
It’s a little naive of people to think we don’t have lawyers paid up and on the books as a matter of course. There’s a lot of contracts floating about in football…..
If anything, we’d be giving them something to do for the money we pay them each month.
To clarify, I’m presuming with no evidence to support this theory, that Rob is actually doing a lot of the conveyancing / ideas etc and perhaps using other lawyers to ratify his thoughts/plans/letters.
Again assuming he’s doing this for free rather than billing Feliciana for his services…
I don’t doubt we’ve paid some money out for some advice but I’m not sure it’s anywhere near what we may have had to pay if Rob wasn’t a lawyer himself.
Would be interesting if the Trust could advise as a 25% shareholder…
Comments
The lawyers are not the players
I can’t see any way this issue could affect our bid to win promotion. Players play, lawyers sue and since our chairman is a highly qualified lawyer with his own company there is no conflict whatsoever.
I doubt Gaz or any of the squad will be sat in the legal meetings!
We’re basically ambulance chasing.
If you are fine with that, fine.
It’s just not a dignified response. I know being dignified doesn’t pay the bills but we’re unlikely to get anything like what we’ve claimed (if anything) and for a club that is currently so classy in almost everything else it does this just doesn’t fit comfortably with me.
It might be ambulance chasing if we finished rock-bottom - but we didn't. If trying to get justice makes us undignified, so be it.
Are we?
It's ambulance chasing if the paramedic had robbed someone else's paramedic degree, mistreated you resulting in you losing 8 million quid in earnings, and then insulted you as they nicked your wallet in plain sight.
There's nothing classy about being a doormat. We've put in an enquiry from what I understand, we'll see what comes back. I'd rather we could go after the individuals responsible rather than the club, but it is what it is
Imagine having a problem with us trying to protect ourselves after a clear injustice.
We know what usually happens here, they theive for years then sell it to the next mug or a mate stiffing us and most of their creditors as much as possible before they carry on as they were.
There's no shortage of takers for Derby btw , the level of debt they are landed with only affects the price at this stage. They aren't some small club failing to meet their costs and having a whip around, they're a big club with a rich owner that overspent failing to reach the Prem and their next owner will probably do the same.
This has all been going on for months with no evidence of distraction and now a reporter asks the owner a reasonable question about it and for some it’s all they think the club are doing.
I like the fact that we are ploughing our own path on this. From what I have heard it’s no great legal battle but is certainly an annoyance to Derby that might bear some fruit at some point.
I dont have a problem with Rob getting all legal if he wants to (especially if it gets us a bung) but I would prefer we put it to bed myself as the optics are poor and we have a great chance to rise again from the ashes. Sometimes you have to just tend your own garden.
We aren’t chasing the ambulance. We are chasing the person inside it that ripped us off before being hit by a bus.
If they recover from there injuries, we’d still been ripped off. Do we accept being ripped off?
Do Sheffield United still carry around the results of their West Ham challenge on their reputation?
Shaping up for a classic long running Gasroom pick your side debate ?
It’s a classic case of a lawyer ‘firing one across their bows’ in the hope that it might hit where it hurts. Nothing to worry about, let’s move on.
Rob Couhig is on record as saying he wanted to invest in a football club and felt more comfortable making the investment under English law.
Given the machinations twixt the EFL and Derby County - to name but one - if investors don't feel there is sufficient protection, it will serve as an antidote to investment.
Dissuading foreign investors, in an industry where 80% of clubs lose money, would be a disaster. Mr. Couhig is merely defending his majority interest, and thus our 25% shareholding, to do otherwise would be negligent.
Maybe if more people raised their head above the parapet - training ground deal being one example, not releasing annual figures ahead of the AGM being another - football wouldn't be in the condition it finds itself in.
Mel Morris put the house on red year in year out, gambling unsuccessfully, if this is allowed to happen without punishment what type of people will invest in the future?
@NiceCarrots And you think he'll get a settlement from County's administrators?
This thread is like a disinformation master class, loads of people arguing that Rob shouldn't have done something he hasn't done.
Can we still blame Trevor Stroud?
Yes, the point of order that this addresses is that Derby knowingly dragged out the appeals and handing over of evidence so as to try to avoid the points being deducted last season. The owner is on record admitting this. That literally has everything to do with Derby.
See above. If they hadn't cheated the appeals system the way they cheat everything else, then the points would have been deducted last season and we'd have stayed up.
I don't even know where to begin with this "logic".
Is thet the trevor that used to post on here!
I very much doubt it.
I'm not sure this action by the Couhigs is really about the £6M. It's about the EFL rules and procedures and the fact it has arguably affected a third of the pyramid over the last few seasons they've cooked the books.
I very much doubt we will "pay" lawyers a significant amount to go after this cash but just raising the possibility might just make other clubs and the EFL sit up and reflect that something really needs to change.
BY taking this action it may prompt more clubs to reflect and lobby for change or MPs to think more seriously about independent regulation. For me if Clubs do not complain, do not question why there are no proper sanctions when rules are broken, then it will just continue to happen year after year.
Yes indeed, I'm with you on that @Commoner.
Think it’s right to raise the issue but we should make it clear that this is about the Efl as much as Derby we may get more support in our actions from other clubs. Rob maybe a lawyer but an American one and I’m not keen on the suing culture getting worse then it already is over here.
We're not suing.
It’s a little naive of people to think we don’t have lawyers paid up and on the books as a matter of course. There’s a lot of contracts floating about in football…..
If anything, we’d be giving them something to do for the money we pay them each month.
I know, I’m talking the general culture of American law just think it could lead to more of this happening between clubs and football as a whole.
That wouldn't be a bad thing...
Yes I know that @Username, however we could be about to spend money we need to back up our promotion campaign in the January window.
To clarify, I’m presuming with no evidence to support this theory, that Rob is actually doing a lot of the conveyancing / ideas etc and perhaps using other lawyers to ratify his thoughts/plans/letters.
Again assuming he’s doing this for free rather than billing Feliciana for his services…
I don’t doubt we’ve paid some money out for some advice but I’m not sure it’s anywhere near what we may have had to pay if Rob wasn’t a lawyer himself.
Would be interesting if the Trust could advise as a 25% shareholder…