Jump to content
oneBoro Forum

'Other Boro stuff'


Recommended Posts

7 minutes ago, Will said:

Well, Derby clearly felt that signing these players would improve their results, otherwise they wouldn't have done it 🤷‍♂️

Derby's beliefs aren't equal to evidence though, are they? Otherwise they'd probably not have any points deducted at this point.

There are so many factors that go into deciding individual matches of football that I'm not sure there's any sound footing for legal action in proving results would have gone differently had they not signed certain players. It's pretty much entirely hypothetical.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 22.3k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  •  

    1179

  •  

    1111

  •  

    998

  •  

    814

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

A great Athletic article on our youth recruitment in London (copied from the other site): Saturday afternoon in the north London postcode of N22: on White Hart Lane a steady stream of fans make t

Superb article from The Athletic published today... Gives you a real sense that something special is being built. We've been crying out for this for so long.   Michael Walker 2h ago  2 

The Times interview today with Chuba. I’ve missed all the pics out as I don’t know how to get the whole article across and it’s behind a firewall, but you get a good feeling of what he thinks.  

Posted Images

24 minutes ago, wilsoncgp said:

There are so many factors that go into deciding individual matches of football that I'm not sure there's any sound footing for legal action in proving results would have gone differently had they not signed certain players. It's pretty much entirely hypothetical.

You'd have a hard job successfully arguing in court that you'd have achieved the same results with a weaker squad. We know Derby hugely outbid us - and other clubs - to sign high-profile players during this period. That inevitably had an effect on their final league standing, otherwise they'd have finished 6th even with a bunch of kids, journeymen and loan signings. And as this season is demonstrating, that's exceptionally unlikely to happen.

I shouldn't have used the word 'fact' in my previous post, but it's undeniable that stronger squads and better players help teams achieve better results. That will be the basis for Gibson's claim. I also agree with you that it's distasteful and inappropriate to even be having this conversation given Derby's current plight - I just don't agree that it's entirely hypothetical.

Signing better players than your competitors improves your team, performances, results and ultimately league standing (while potentially weakening theirs by ensuring those players can't join them instead). If it didn't have all those benefits, there'd be no point clubs signing anyone, let alone paying double what a rival team were offering to bring a particular player in. And Derby only signed the players they did - that season and others - by breaking FFP rules. Cheating, in other words.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, Old Codger said:

Pity we couldn't be awarded the ownership of the ground in settlement of the case and then we would find out the true value when we sell it back 🙂

Bravo 👏 @Old Codger one of your better quips on here 😂😂😂

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just want to point out that Gibson was getting this same criticism when he started this whole thing and he was proved right. I'll let him and his legal team get on with it if he thinks there's more work to be done on it, because as bad as some of the footballing decisions have been, he's been spot on about all of this so far. Don't forget how badly we were screwed with the 3 points and how much we missed out on because of that. 

  • Like 5
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, RiseAgainst said:

You'd have a hard job successfully arguing in court that you'd have achieved the same results with a weaker squad. We know Derby hugely outbid us - and other clubs - to sign high-profile players during this period. That inevitably had an effect on their final league standing, otherwise they'd have finished 6th even with a bunch of kids, journeymen and loan signings. And as this season is demonstrating, that's exceptionally unlikely to happen.

I shouldn't have used the word 'fact' in my previous post, but it's undeniable that stronger squads and better players help teams achieve better results. That will be the basis for Gibson's claim. I also agree with you that it's distasteful and inappropriate to even be having this conversation given Derby's current plight - I just don't agree that it's entirely hypothetical.

Signing better players than your competitors improves your team, performances, results and ultimately league standing (while potentially weakening theirs by ensuring those players can't join them instead). If it didn't have all those benefits, there'd be no point clubs signing anyone, let alone paying double what a rival team were offering to bring a particular player in. And Derby only signed the players they did - that season and others - by breaking FFP rules. Cheating, in other words.

Actually forgot that one thing that really *** Gibson off with Derby specifically was them swooping in last minute on Martin Waghorn and doubling or tripling the wages we were offering. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, Neverbefore said:

Just want to point out that Gibson was getting this same criticism when he started this whole thing and he was proved right. I'll let him and his legal team get on with it if he thinks there's more work to be done on it, because as bad as some of the footballing decisions have been, he's been spot on about all of this so far. Don't forget how badly we were screwed with the 3 points and how much we missed out on because of that. 

Strictly speaking he was proven wrong.  His complaint was about the sale of the stadium, which is why he complained about Sheff Wed and Villa as well.  Those sales were all passed as fine, Sheff Wed got done for trying to include it in a different set of accounts, but the valuations were all given the green light.   Derby have been done for something else, and then obviously for going into administration as well.

Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, Brunners said:

Actually forgot that one thing that really *** Gibson off with Derby specifically was them swooping in last minute on Martin Waghorn and doubling or tripling the wages we were offering. 

Yeah, they saved us millions of Pounds.  I can imagine Gibson would be *** off with that as he seems to love wasting his money.

  • Haha 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Changing Times said:

Yeah, they saved us millions of Pounds.  I can imagine Gibson would be *** off with that as he seems to love wasting his money.

Don't be too upset for him, I'm sure that money was wasted on a different player instead! 🤠

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Brunners said:

I don't really understand how we'd expect to get paid anyway because Derby don't have any money which is the problem in the first place! Wouldn't we just become another one of their creditors, probably a low priority one?

They could pay in other ways, if I was Gibson I'd start off by asking for 1 night a week where he gets to spend the night with Mel Morris' wife. 

Its not just about money now its about humiliation. 

  • Wow 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, RiseAgainst said:

To be honest, that's a weak argument, given the nominal extra sums achieved by finishing 11th compared to 12th, etc. It's only hypothetical that we could have been promoted that season if Derby hadn't cheated, but it's a fact that their cheating stopped us having the chance. Yes, we had a crap run of form at the end of that season, but we also got promoted to the PL on the back of four draws. We had enough points on the board to have had a shot at the play-offs if Derby hadn't cooked the books and signed players they couldn't afford, unfairly bolstering both their squad and their results.

Personally, I think it'd be fairer if Wycombe were after £45 million and we were after £6 million, but Gibson hasn't been sat rolling D20s to decide on this sum. He's been advised £45 mil is a fair starting point before any horse trading inevitably lowers a final settlement figure (if one is offered and accepted). On what basis that particular figure was calculated, only he and the lawyers know. 

I think it’s important to recognise that Gibson and the club have a very clear understanding of how that £45 million is built up. We’re are all purely speculating.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...