Maharan

Just now, vonwright said:

It needs to be handed over in a bound folder, printed on one page, Arial 12pt, single line spacing, signed for by a board member, or nothing can happen.

They are the rules and the EFL must follow the rules for the good of the game.

To be fair, you would expect there to be some kind of formal communication with the various parties beyond some loosely worded open letter. Let’s be honest 

Derby 0 2 Hull 

21 minutes ago, Gritstone Ram said:

If it is possible for Middle Borough and Wycombe to take on Morris then if they turn down the opportunity then the EFL should be looking at their claims and asking why they don’t want to go to court.

But if Mel is so willing to blur the lines around the whole situation, then HMRC could reasonably ask why he’s not willing to wade in and pay the outstanding tax debt. 
honestly, I think it’s all hot air from Morris. Surely you can’t pick and choose which of your outstanding liabilities you want to satisfy when you’ve put the club into administration? 

So Mel thinks, as do many, that he’s the saviour in this? He’s the reason that this whole mess has happened. He left the club for dead,he doesn’t deserve the adoration he’s getting tonight. 

1 hour ago, CBRammette said:

And what about all the small local creditors such as our David and St John Amb? Its disgraceful that the chairman of a club representing a town where many are not affluent (being polite) should be taking this stance at the detriment of such creditors. @david is there any sort of grouping of small creditors who can highlight the human stories and loss behind the effect of these claims? or are you having to rely on Team Derby/MPs and Q?

We need to be careful with points like this. Let’s not forget who actually owes the creditors..

9 minutes ago, alexxxxx said:

Before we were even found guilty of anything I think. So by that measure any claim for any reason by a football club must be resolved regardless of merit. 

Before a judgment was made yes,but that’s why I think the date is interesting. They say proceedings commenced before administration. 
 

im not saying I agree, or profess to be an expert!

14 minutes ago, Tyler Durden said:

Who would rule though that we do owe Boro and Wycombe money?

That's the bit I can't grasp. And why haven't we got to that point yet if we are so confident that their claims are spurious. 

That is the £51 million question isn’t it…

10 minutes ago, vonwright said:

I'm not sure they are saying this exactly. I don't think they see themselves as saying Derby does or doesn't owe the clubs any money. They are just saying that if it is ruled that we owe them money, then that will be a footballing debt. And that therefore we can't just write down the claims, because these special 'football debt' rules kick in. 

In other words the EFL would be happy to kick a hearing about whether we owe money, and how much, down the line until after a sale - provided we paid it in full. They want us to undertake to do that, or to come up with some 'settlement' now.

But the administrators know full well they cant sell the club on that basis. And they think they shouldn't have to as a potential football debt is not the same as an actual football debt - particularly when it is based on such thin grounds. 

I think at this point we just need a hearing to decide whether we owe money or not. To decide the merits of these claims.

If the worst happens and it is ruled we do owe some money at least people will see who is really liquidating this club. 

 

Absolutely agree. They aren’t saying they should be paid, just that if the claims are upheld by whatever method, then they would be classed as football creditors. 
 

I agree by they that if should be football creditors, IF, and it’s a massive IF, the claims were valid. 
 

one point I found interesting is that the statement says that the process commenced in January 2021, before the club went into administration. I think that’s a pertinent point. 

Uddersfield 2 - 1 Derby FRGS Lawrence

9 minutes ago, Indy said:

If they win, would we not take it to an insolvency court to rule on their status? No-one disagrees with the EFL’s claim that they are football bodies which, if they were creditors, would make them football creditors. Isn’t the question of if these grievances would amount to creditor status, which isn’t the EFL’s decision?

I don’t think football creditors is a provision in law though, it’s a condition of membership of the EFL (or payment of football creditors?) 

in legal terms they’re considered the same as other unsecured creditors, but if we want to continue to play in the league, then we have to satisfy the league rules. 
 

that was my understanding, but I’m happy to be corrected if I’ve got it wrong 

Just now, RoyMac5 said:

Why what have they to lose but face, leaving their claims in?

It’s a lot of credibility to lose if the case is as nonsensical as people think it is. If I were in their position I wouldn’t want to annoy the rest of the league without some kind of merit. 

11 minutes ago, RadioactiveWaste said:

There's something about it that keeps niggling me. Like Boro and Wycombe think they have some kind of smoking gun evidence to bust out in the hearing.

We'll see.

 

Yeah, I have the same feeling. It just doesn’t add up otherwise. 

So we’re asking creditors to write off 75% of the debt owed by the club, but on the other hand we’re talking about making new signings?!  Good grief 

1 minute ago, Cool As Custard said:

Then we'll have to respectfully disagree

EFL rules around minimum are not aligned to the law of the land & out of date legally(fact)

Therefore if they choose to enforce a 15 point penalty it wouldn't stand up in a court of law

They wouldn't have the balls to enforce it

The -15 point penalty is an EFL rule, and doesn’t need to align with the law. It’s a condition of membership for the league, which Derby have signed up to. It’s not based on law. The fact that the rules don’t align in certain areas doesn’t mean that all aspects of the EFL rules don’t apply 

1 minute ago, RadioactiveWaste said:

I don't know, it my guess/fear that this is what the administrators think is the only way to get the club sold, it's doomsday-lite rather than doomsday. I could be wrong. If it's just to get rid of the claims then pay everyone else what's been (we think) more or less agreed then it's probably not as bad as I fear.

But the EFL additional penalties are a major stumbling block to exiting in a none EFL approved way and the EFL want the claims recognised as football creditors or settled.

I agree. And if people think the EFL won’t have the balls to apply a 15 point penalty if the minimum thresholds aren’t reached, then I would respectfully disagree. 

10 minutes ago, RoyMac5 said:

Can't blame HMRC, losing money to a couple of chancers wouldn't be great.

Not when they’ve already like to have lost millions courtesy of Derby’s own chancer

edit; better choice of words

2 minutes ago, IslandExile said:

We all have our opinions on who is to blame for getting us into this mess and for stopping us getting out of it.

What I was trying to say is that I hope today, someone who is actively involved in the meetings taking place, comes out and publicly declares what the issues are, actually says it "on the record", not leaks it to their favourite journo, or post cryptic messages on social media, but actually comes out and says "this is why we are at an impasse and until X, Y or Z back down, this club will stay in limbo".

 

I get the frustration, but that will never happen whilst negotiations are ongoing. It's annoying as hell, but nobody in the admin team or the prospective bidders is going to reveal their back stop position until they absolutely have to. I'm of the opinion that there's several different issues holding things up, but I have no evidence to support that. 

48 minutes ago, Curtains said:

Part of article from Athletic 

Obviously can’t post it all 

“The Athletic understand that Quantuma has saved enough money through player sales, including the recent departures of Dylan Williams and Graeme Shinnie for fees, and cost-cutting methods to sustain the club until February. Tom Lawrence, Derby’s soon-to-be out of contract club captain and top goalscorer this season, is attracting Premier League and Championship interest after a solid campaign. However, Quantuma has refused bids of up to £450,000 for 20-year-old attacker Louie Sibley, who has appeared only once for the first team since late November, suggesting there is no immediate rush to sell players.”

“Quantuma’s confidence that Derby will exit administration intact derives from noting a provision in the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act 2020 that appears to enable them to write off a significant chunk of their debts, including £29 million to HMRC. Quantuma’s plan to offer the taxman the same 25 per cent of what is owed to the unsecured creditors makes Derby a much more attractive option for buyers and explains why the Binnie family has bid only £28 million. However, the law has changed since the last football administration, and the EFL is yet to update its rule book, so the method is not yet approved. The latest update is that the EFL has offered to send the matter to arbitration.”

I wonder if HMRC have actually agreed to that, or it's just Quantuma's plan to write that debt off? 

Mel Morris - The root cause of all these troubles. 

33 minutes ago, RoyMac5 said:

Dunno. Ask Curtis what he thinks?

Different scenario and points in their respective careers. I don’t want him to go, but I’d understand if he did. 

17 minutes ago, i-Ram said:

Does he get his driving licence back before June? That must be a bigger risk for him.

Oh yeah.. that too! 

1 hour ago, Kernow said:

I don't know if I'm being ridiculous but I can't actually see TL going unless he had no other alternative, e.g for the benefit of the club.

His contract is up at the end of the season so if he wants to go, he will have his pick in a few months where the clubs don't have to pay any transfer fee at all for him. That means he could see the money they've saved coming his way either in slightly higher ways, or a sign on bonus. At the same time, he's captain of the club for a few more months in a relegation battle where everybody is digging in and battling to survive together. He seems to really enjoy playing for Derby, and some of that I assume is out of gratitude for how he's treated here given what's happened in the past. Things could have really gone a different way for TL here after the drink-drive incident, I'd be surprised if he doesn't feel indebted to the club and the fans in some way at least.

He has the chance to be part of something special here whilst also earning very decent money. If not he can go off and move to a side at the opposite end of the table for nothing. I'm not sure he'd be ready for a side any higher than that, so the likes of Bournemouth may want him now, but if they get promoted will he get much of a look in next year? I'm not too sure.

I get what you’re saying, but would you turn down a guaranteed multi year contract if someone comes in for him, or run the risk of serious injury in the next few games and have no wages coming in after this summer 

Under current circumstances, I'd be amazed at a fee exceeding a million, and I don't think that's even remotely likely. Is he worth more than that to Derby? Absolutely, but any fee received would never reflect his worth to the current team.

7 minutes ago, Dean (hick) Saunders said:

Guess this means no need to fire sale any more players?

Depends on whether they see a resolution at the end of the month extension I guess. There may be a need to sell to fund the club for the following months, and the only opportunity to do that is in the next few days. 

Midday, 2nd February. 
appleby and co. Announced as PB, only for it to go pear shaped when HMRC throw a spanner in the works by demanding more than the 17.3% the administration team were hoping. 
picture of Margaret Beckett dragging one of the admin team out of pride park by his ear. 
 

further discussion leading to a deal just prior to the final deadline for expulsion from the league is reached. 

1 minute ago, TomBustler1884 said:

Whether @Bald Eagle's Barmy Army is on the wind up or is itk, i have heard things today from someone i trust that what he is suggesting may just be true.

So hopefully they're both talking out of their behinds!

All I'm going to say is have you seen Nixon tweet and @Bald Eagle's Barmy Army post at the same time? Bet they've never been seen together either...