@Commoner said:
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…
Presuming
Assuming
Any other unsubstantiated theories you want the Trust to clear up for you?
Neither Couhig or the club are suing anyone so where would any cost come from? It’s a letter with an invoice. A lodge of a potential charge for query
@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?
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?
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
It's quite simple really, if they didn't cook the books they wouldn't have had some of the players who gained them points.
And their appeal was entirely frivolous, they withheld information that had because they knew they would be found guilty and have points deducted, their chairman said as much himself.
The EFL are useless, but Derby were entirely calculated with their deceit
I 100% agree with my Online Gasroom Brother From Another Mother / Sister From Another Mister with all above ?
I think we have been uniquely harmed by Derby, as a club whose only ever Championship run was behind closed doors, and ended by a single point in favour of a cheating club (who also had a horrendous refereeing decision in our match go their way plus a pretty bad one for the dive at the end). Though we hope to get back there, there is no guarantee we ever will, and there are already fans who never got to see us in the second tier and never will.
@Wendoverman said:
'...and possibly never will' surely ? ?
A bit morbid from me, but I was referring to the fact that supporters are periodically passing away, so any who have done so or do so before we next get there will never get to have seen us.
Personally I don’t have a problem with this. I don’t think anyone has a clue on what basis the EFL has acted and Mel Morris saying they delayed submitting the figures last season to avoid the points deduction hardly helped matters.
Derby fans do seem quite touchy about the word cheating though. When you gain advantage by not obeying the rules I always thought that constitutes cheating.
I think it’s a smart business move. Derby’s actions gave them a distinct advantage and were outside the rules. The EFL and its arbitrators delayed a punishment that would have kept Wycombe up. So we have lost out financially because of both of those actions.
Derby is being sold and is in administration. The administrators are unlikely to pay us any money to settle before a sale. But it becomes much harder to sell an asset with potential litigation looming and unknown liabilities in the offing. Therefore a new owner of Derby might want to settle with Wycombe as part of a transaction rather than see this case go to court, because Wycombe might just win their case.
The analogy to me is when British Airways was being floated. Freddie Laker had gone out of business in 1982 and sued BA and others. BA paid him a $35m settlement in 1985 because they simply could not float the business while the Laker law suit was outstanding.
@glasshalffull said:
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.
Are you using your inside information to reveal that the club chairman is employing himself / his law firm to conduct this inherently spurious claim on behalf of the club, Alan? I wonder whether any of the payments the club received from the EFL for our Championship season are being used to fund the action (wouldn't that be ironic...)
Speaking of which, I'm looking forward to seeing the club's annual accounts when they're published in a few weeks, though something tells me they won't quite be as transparent as one might like.
@glasshalffull said:
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.
Are you using your inside information to reveal that the club chairman is employing himself / his law firm to conduct this inherently spurious claim on behalf of the club, Alan? I wonder whether any of the payments the club received from the EFL for our Championship season are being used to fund the action (wouldn't that be ironic...)
Speaking of which, I'm looking forward to seeing the club's annual accounts when they're published in a few weeks, though something tells me they won't quite be as transparent as one might like.
Can anyone remember the but where their owner admitted delaying publishing their figures knowing the impact would hasten the points deduction. I’m sure he said that at a fan forum
As long as it doesn't impede our squad/GA & Dobbos plans, why shouldn't he? This narrative about taking the moral high ground, is in part what I find so very wrong with society in general today. It's the language of consequences & I find there are far too few of those atm. Even if it only harms any takeover bid, so what? The current situation as I see it is that Derby will have very few, if any, (administration aside), consequences to their blatant cheating and if everyone stands by and lets it happen then it will only encourage more events like it. I have taken a few to legal action, not with very much expectancy, but have been surprised on the odd occasion and monies have been extracted.
Like many others I don't see much hope for a positive outcome for WWFC, but a relatively cost free thorn in their derriere is fine by me!
@glasshalffull said:
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.
Are you using your inside information to reveal that the club chairman is employing himself / his law firm to conduct this inherently spurious claim on behalf of the club, Alan? I wonder whether any of the payments the club received from the EFL for our Championship season are being used to fund the action (wouldn't that be ironic...)
Speaking of which, I'm looking forward to seeing the club's annual accounts when they're published in a few weeks, though something tells me they won't quite be as transparent as one might like.
I did not say or imply anything of the kind as I have no inside information about this entirely justifiable claim.
The chairman said he had communicated with Derby regarding the claim, he did not add any further detail.
@glasshalffull bear in mind @aloysius rarely gives up a chance to have a dig at Rob C about opening or not opening or in this case possibly not filling in the stubs properly in his chequebook.
@Wendoverman said:
'...and possibly never will' surely ? ?
A bit morbid from me, but I was referring to the fact that supporters are periodically passing away, so any who have done so or do so before we next get there will never get to have seen us.
@glasshalffull said:
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.
Are you using your inside information to reveal that the club chairman is employing himself / his law firm to conduct this inherently spurious claim on behalf of the club, Alan? I wonder whether any of the payments the club received from the EFL for our Championship season are being used to fund the action (wouldn't that be ironic...)
Speaking of which, I'm looking forward to seeing the club's annual accounts when they're published in a few weeks, though something tells me they won't quite be as transparent as one might like.
I did not say or imply anything of the kind as I have no inside information about this entirely justifiable claim.
The chairman said he had communicated with Derby regarding the claim, he did not add any further detail.
I'm surprised you dignified such utter shite with a response.
Any other unsubstantiated theories you want the Trust to clear up for you?
Neither Couhig or the club are suing anyone so where would any cost come from? It’s a letter with an invoice. A lodge of a potential charge for query
It literally says in the first line of that article the following:
"Wycombe Wanderers' owner Rob Couhig has confirmed their lawyers have hit Derby County's administrators with a bill following their relegation from the Championship."
As far as I was aware, every time you instruct a lawyer to do something you pay them by the hour? As Rob is a lawyer it is not clear if we are paying the going rate, a reduced rate or it's free.
I would like to know whether Rob is charging Feliciana or Wycombe Wanderers for consultation services as a lawyer or whether he is offering advice free of charge. If he is not working as a lawyer on behalf of the club, then are the club having to pay for these services?
I would expect the Trust to know this information. I'm genuinely interested and have no axe to grind.
Is that better for you Mr Middle? I feel like I've hit a nerve?
@Wendoverman said: @glasshalffull bear in mind @aloysius rarely gives up a chance to have a dig at Rob C about opening or not opening or in this case possibly not filling in the stubs properly in his chequebook.
Any other unsubstantiated theories you want the Trust to clear up for you?
Neither Couhig or the club are suing anyone so where would any cost come from? It’s a letter with an invoice. A lodge of a potential charge for query
It literally says in the first line of that article the following:
"Wycombe Wanderers' owner Rob Couhig has confirmed their lawyers have hit Derby County's administrators with a bill following their relegation from the Championship."
As far as I was aware, every time you instruct a lawyer to do something you pay them by the hour? As Rob is a lawyer it is not clear if we are paying the going rate, a reduced rate or it's free.
I would like to know whether Rob is charging Feliciana or Wycombe Wanderers for consultation services as a lawyer or whether he is offering advice free of charge. If he is not working as a lawyer on behalf of the club, then are the club having to pay for these services?
I would expect the Trust to know this information. I'm genuinely interested and have no axe to grind.
Is that better for you Mr Middle? I feel like I've hit a nerve?
You are quoting an article, I think, that was written from Rob's interview with Phil Catchpole on Ringing the Blues. This writing doesn't totally follow the words spoken so I stick with what I heard from the owner rather than what a journo translates it as.
I simply don't think your quote happened so I find it an over the top reaction to demand the Trust answer your hypotheticals. I'd prefer they stick to facts.
To have any chance of the administrator taking our letter seriously, it would have to be legally watertight.
Couhig is a US lawyer. Their law is different to the law in England and Wales. It is the law in England and Wales that is relevant so only a person well versed in that law could have written the claim. I have no doubt that will have cost a relatively small sum of money - perhaps a few thousand.
Before we build this up into another conflict of interest, asset stripping conspiracy, there is very little prospect of Couhig personally profiting from this escapade apart from as a shareholder of the football club if the escapade proves successful.
Whether you think spending the money on lawyers to write the claim is good business or good morals are perfectly valid questions. Trying to fabricate an asset stripping/conflict of interest narrative is ridiculous.
@Commoner said:
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.
I agree. The culture of law suits is not always about the money - although that is an important consideration. It's about providing a discipline for others thinking of behaving in that way. Derby have deliberately flouted the rules, as far as I can see it and have contrived to do so in a way which has resulted in our relegation.
Whether it is a bill or a writ, it's surely the latter, since WWFC haven't provided a service for consideration.
Derby supporters are getting all giddy about their ‘new owner’. He’s coming to the match on Saturday so they’re off again banging on about signings etc.
He’s already employed the old scoundrels trick of being rude about Forest, which always gets them salivating.
Anyone who thinks we’re less dignified than DCFC obviously hasn’t spent any time near the place in the last decade.
Whether it is a bill or a writ, it's surely the latter, since WWFC haven't provided a service for consideration.
Almost certainly neither. It will be a "proof of debt" whereby a creditor of a company in administration tells the administrator that he believes he is owed money along with the legal basis of why. If the administrator decides the claim is valid, the creditor gets a vote in how the administration should progress and a share of any financial proceeds from the administration.
If the administrator rejects the proof of debt, the creditor can then go to court to appeal against that decision.
And (although I'm no legal expert here so feel free to tell me I'm wrong) we have to lodge this now with the administrator as once Derby are sold out of administration we'd have no claim at all against the then owners since it would be a new business.
Personally I can't see it resulting in any monies but I can see the logic in doing it now. I also wouldn't totally reject the possibility that we might put a claim into the EFL if RC feels
that Mel Morris's comments constitute an admission that the due process wasn't followed.
As others have said this isn't just a question of the money it's about holding those who have wilfully broken the rules and lied and cheated their way to an unfair advantage to account.
If all it does is make the EFL tighten their own rules so that a future football club owner can't repeat the same course of action to avoid the consequences of "cooking the books" then I'm all in favour.
@Twizz said:
And (although I'm no legal expert here so feel free to tell me I'm wrong) we have to lodge this now with the administrator as once Derby are sold out of administration we'd have no claim at all against the then owners since it would be a new business.
Personally I can't see it resulting in any monies but I can see the logic in doing it now. I also wouldn't totally reject the possibility that we might put a claim into the EFL if RC feels
that Mel Morris's comments constitute an admission that the due process wasn't followed.
As others have said this isn't just a question of the money it's about holding those who have wilfully broken the rules and lied and cheated their way to an unfair advantage to account.
If all it does is make the EFL tighten their own rules so that a future football club owner can't repeat the same course of action to avoid the consequences of "cooking the books" then I'm all in favour.
I think I am too. If we want the moral high ground we could, if we received anything, donate it to grass roots football or a similar worthy cause.
Comments
Presuming
Assuming
Any other unsubstantiated theories you want the Trust to clear up for you?
Neither Couhig or the club are suing anyone so where would any cost come from? It’s a letter with an invoice. A lodge of a potential charge for query
I 100% agree with my Online Gasroom Brother From Another Mother / Sister From Another Mister with all above ?
I think we have been uniquely harmed by Derby, as a club whose only ever Championship run was behind closed doors, and ended by a single point in favour of a cheating club (who also had a horrendous refereeing decision in our match go their way plus a pretty bad one for the dive at the end). Though we hope to get back there, there is no guarantee we ever will, and there are already fans who never got to see us in the second tier and never will.
'...and possibly never will' surely ? ?
A bit morbid from me, but I was referring to the fact that supporters are periodically passing away, so any who have done so or do so before we next get there will never get to have seen us.
I think he means some of our fans have passed away in the meantime @Wendoverman
Personally I don’t have a problem with this. I don’t think anyone has a clue on what basis the EFL has acted and Mel Morris saying they delayed submitting the figures last season to avoid the points deduction hardly helped matters.
Derby fans do seem quite touchy about the word cheating though. When you gain advantage by not obeying the rules I always thought that constitutes cheating.
I think it’s a smart business move. Derby’s actions gave them a distinct advantage and were outside the rules. The EFL and its arbitrators delayed a punishment that would have kept Wycombe up. So we have lost out financially because of both of those actions.
Derby is being sold and is in administration. The administrators are unlikely to pay us any money to settle before a sale. But it becomes much harder to sell an asset with potential litigation looming and unknown liabilities in the offing. Therefore a new owner of Derby might want to settle with Wycombe as part of a transaction rather than see this case go to court, because Wycombe might just win their case.
The analogy to me is when British Airways was being floated. Freddie Laker had gone out of business in 1982 and sued BA and others. BA paid him a $35m settlement in 1985 because they simply could not float the business while the Laker law suit was outstanding.
I think Rob’s approach is absolutely appropriate.
Are you using your inside information to reveal that the club chairman is employing himself / his law firm to conduct this inherently spurious claim on behalf of the club, Alan? I wonder whether any of the payments the club received from the EFL for our Championship season are being used to fund the action (wouldn't that be ironic...)
Speaking of which, I'm looking forward to seeing the club's annual accounts when they're published in a few weeks, though something tells me they won't quite be as transparent as one might like.
The funding for the invoice was covered by the profits on my last Balti pie @aloysius
Can anyone remember the but where their owner admitted delaying publishing their figures knowing the impact would hasten the points deduction. I’m sure he said that at a fan forum
F.A.O. The AndyGraham
I think it was the hour long interview with BBC Radio Derby.
Morris talks about the late submission of 2017/2018 accounts which he is quoted would 'have cost a 4 point reduction or something like that.'
As long as it doesn't impede our squad/GA & Dobbos plans, why shouldn't he? This narrative about taking the moral high ground, is in part what I find so very wrong with society in general today. It's the language of consequences & I find there are far too few of those atm. Even if it only harms any takeover bid, so what? The current situation as I see it is that Derby will have very few, if any, (administration aside), consequences to their blatant cheating and if everyone stands by and lets it happen then it will only encourage more events like it. I have taken a few to legal action, not with very much expectancy, but have been surprised on the odd occasion and monies have been extracted.
Like many others I don't see much hope for a positive outcome for WWFC, but a relatively cost free thorn in their derriere is fine by me!
I did not say or imply anything of the kind as I have no inside information about this entirely justifiable claim.
The chairman said he had communicated with Derby regarding the claim, he did not add any further detail.
@glasshalffull bear in mind @aloysius rarely gives up a chance to have a dig at Rob C about opening or not opening or in this case possibly not filling in the stubs properly in his chequebook.
I getcha.
I'm surprised you dignified such utter shite with a response.
It literally says in the first line of that article the following:
"Wycombe Wanderers' owner Rob Couhig has confirmed their lawyers have hit Derby County's administrators with a bill following their relegation from the Championship."
As far as I was aware, every time you instruct a lawyer to do something you pay them by the hour? As Rob is a lawyer it is not clear if we are paying the going rate, a reduced rate or it's free.
I would like to know whether Rob is charging Feliciana or Wycombe Wanderers for consultation services as a lawyer or whether he is offering advice free of charge. If he is not working as a lawyer on behalf of the club, then are the club having to pay for these services?
I would expect the Trust to know this information. I'm genuinely interested and have no axe to grind.
Is that better for you Mr Middle? I feel like I've hit a nerve?
Checkbook please @Wendoverman!
What did the Trust board say about the legal action at this week's meeting?
You are quoting an article, I think, that was written from Rob's interview with Phil Catchpole on Ringing the Blues. This writing doesn't totally follow the words spoken so I stick with what I heard from the owner rather than what a journo translates it as.
I simply don't think your quote happened so I find it an over the top reaction to demand the Trust answer your hypotheticals. I'd prefer they stick to facts.
To have any chance of the administrator taking our letter seriously, it would have to be legally watertight.
Couhig is a US lawyer. Their law is different to the law in England and Wales. It is the law in England and Wales that is relevant so only a person well versed in that law could have written the claim. I have no doubt that will have cost a relatively small sum of money - perhaps a few thousand.
Before we build this up into another conflict of interest, asset stripping conspiracy, there is very little prospect of Couhig personally profiting from this escapade apart from as a shareholder of the football club if the escapade proves successful.
Whether you think spending the money on lawyers to write the claim is good business or good morals are perfectly valid questions. Trying to fabricate an asset stripping/conflict of interest narrative is ridiculous.
I agree. The culture of law suits is not always about the money - although that is an important consideration. It's about providing a discipline for others thinking of behaving in that way. Derby have deliberately flouted the rules, as far as I can see it and have contrived to do so in a way which has resulted in our relegation.
Whether it is a bill or a writ, it's surely the latter, since WWFC haven't provided a service for consideration.
Derby supporters are getting all giddy about their ‘new owner’. He’s coming to the match on Saturday so they’re off again banging on about signings etc.
He’s already employed the old scoundrels trick of being rude about Forest, which always gets them salivating.
Anyone who thinks we’re less dignified than DCFC obviously hasn’t spent any time near the place in the last decade.
Almost certainly neither. It will be a "proof of debt" whereby a creditor of a company in administration tells the administrator that he believes he is owed money along with the legal basis of why. If the administrator decides the claim is valid, the creditor gets a vote in how the administration should progress and a share of any financial proceeds from the administration.
If the administrator rejects the proof of debt, the creditor can then go to court to appeal against that decision.
48 hours to go until kick-off everyone.
And (although I'm no legal expert here so feel free to tell me I'm wrong) we have to lodge this now with the administrator as once Derby are sold out of administration we'd have no claim at all against the then owners since it would be a new business.
Personally I can't see it resulting in any monies but I can see the logic in doing it now. I also wouldn't totally reject the possibility that we might put a claim into the EFL if RC feels
that Mel Morris's comments constitute an admission that the due process wasn't followed.
As others have said this isn't just a question of the money it's about holding those who have wilfully broken the rules and lied and cheated their way to an unfair advantage to account.
If all it does is make the EFL tighten their own rules so that a future football club owner can't repeat the same course of action to avoid the consequences of "cooking the books" then I'm all in favour.
I think I am too. If we want the moral high ground we could, if we received anything, donate it to grass roots football or a similar worthy cause.
I see @DevC is getting his usual downvotes despite being one of the few people in this thread with any actual understanding of what's being done.