BTRFTG

They can, but they won't. If it is the case they can't, that's because there is no detail.

70 - Derby & Boro need no further help it might appear....

It would be impossible not to... and......

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.

I'm sure it'll look great on his mantlepiece.

That's what I said. I hope he goes right to the top, though I've seen little in him to date that suggests he will. Folks seem to think that because I don't wish to jump on the hysterical bandwagon that makes me the odd one out. Perhaps, though I'd see it the other way. Recall, it wasn't that long ago there were those of us reminding Reid wasn't a striker. Funny how once we'd banked the cash they returned to the 'of course we knew he wasnt' camp. Though not a goalscorer undoubted a decent player. Perhaps Semenyo will prove likewise. We'll find out.

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.

Thanks, so it's a PR exercise then. Who else did they consider and what is their criteria? Actually, don't bother, it's not worth debating.

If you think an award is worth something I suggest it does?

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?

The Award - who nominates, who decides?

Apologies, duff data but not by much. The kid's done well of late and hopefully will improve but he's much to improve upon. In all competitions for us that's 10 goals in 84 appearances. For those who claim he's been played out wide his assists, historically, haven't been much better. He's had plenty of chances and one might have expected a better return. But it's not about the past, it's about the future and I hope he starts converting everything that comes his way. I don't however, think lauding him from the rafters for what he's delivered to date does him any favours. That sure didn't when we had those star-striking England youths Shaun Penny & Marvin Brown. Look what became of them?

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?

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.

I don't. Explain, who nominates, who decides?

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.

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....

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?

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.

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 bugbear, Major, is the insistence of some pundits (usually Scottish,) who refer to "...a shot on goals.... he should have been marking the near post of the goals et al." Two uprights joined by a crossbar is a 'goal', is it not?

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.

Post Ashton & Johnson I expect us to have the likes of Semenyo, raw & unproven. That's why we are where we are. Now had we not wasted so much resource I'd have expected a rotation of proven goalscorers. As is, with what we have to hand, they've done as best as might be expected this year.

Or I could decide not to fall for clickbait hype.

Spot on, though you could have highlighted the fact we don't have a player who regularly has the ability to loft the ball higher than the near post defender. Our dead ball delivery is woeful.