Maharan

1 minute ago, Sparkle said:

Apparently you can sue the EFL just ask Middlesbrough and the EFL 

An injunction and a case to sue for damages are different things. Asit happens though, I think I-ram helpfully answered the question earlier, and it might be possible. 

Wasn’t the stadium valuation based on the plans Morris had drawn up to put a roof on it, and market it as a concert venue? Could the fact this never materialised have any bearing? ?‍♂️ 

31 minutes ago, i-Ram said:

I am not professing to be more informed Maharan, but yes if Insolvency Law does support the actions proposed by Q, and they can cross cram under statute, and can disregard/eliminate arbitration claims, then yes I think they can injunct and/or obtain High Court adjudication that should let them proceed, and force the EFL to accept that their rules are not fit for current legal purpose.

l was involved in a similar situation a few years back. I was a member of a Gentleman’s Club, and l inadvertently had reason, all very innocuous, to bump into a waitress and we fell to the ground. Fortunately she broke my fall, but something went in my back, and I couldn’t get off her for about 5 or 10 minutes. Anyway there was this great legal kerfuffle where it would seem that despite me not doing anything that broke membership rules, indeed l could argue that my inadvertent actions were within the spirit of Club rules, it was decided that in the real world, under statute, she would have some claim (for wear and tear, or something, I forget) but fortunately in the end she agreed a few pounds would make the matter go away. 

Goodness me. I hope your back is healing. Lucky break eh!

3 minutes ago, duncanjwitham said:

In theory, there's nothing stopping a court stepping in and ordering the EFL to perform (or abstain from) specific actions regarding our administration.  What I can't figure out is how that interacts with the arbitration mechanism in the EFL rules.  Are we forced to use that mechanism instead of getting an injunction (as it's a dispute between the club and the league), or can we just have at it.

Cheers for that. Based on that, Personally, I think if we go down an injunction route, then the club will regret it. 

3 minutes ago, Unlucky Alf said:

It had better be relevant

Injuntion

An equitable remedy in which a court orders a party to perform, or refrain from performing, a particular act. A prohibitory injunction is an order forbidding a party from performing an act; a mandatory injunction is an order to perform an act.

Yeah, I genuinely don’t know. I’d assumed it would need to be related to some breach of the law rather than a breach of EFL rules of membership, but I just don’t know any more 

1 hour ago, i-Ram said:

That isn’t really true though Pete. The preferred bidder is insisting that we emerge out of admin without there being any hangover of claims with Boro and Wycombe, and therefore Q are pursuing the class cram restructuring option as way of exit. The EFL are not apparently against a CVA exit.

My understanding, well my belief, is that we have the 2020 statute on our side here. Therefore where I believe we are, is that the EFL may change its stance (and its rules) after taking in the groundswell of public and legal opinion, or Q or perhaps MSD will pursue injunctive type action through the High Court to enable a legal pathway to be established.

I remain confident that the arbitrary 1 February cut-off date will pass without issue; and I hope Q in the meantime continue to rub the EFL and Boro’s noses in the mud by not selling Knight or Bird or Lawrence before that date.

So you think there is some possibility of an an injunctive action? Genuine question, as I’d assumed that the fact it’s the EFL rules of membership, not the law that was causing the problem. 
I’d honestly welcome the thoughts of those more informed than me. 

On 19/01/2022 at 07:35, PistoldPete said:

Ripping off the taxpayer is what Gibson likes to do. It was pointed out by one of the MPs in the Government debate yesterday that Gibson and Couhig were trying to jump to the head of the queue … ahead of Hmrc . And maybe this Government wouldn’t be happy about that.

I don’t think we want to go down that route given the size of the HMRC bill asit stands. That’s Derby’s doing.

Forest 2 Derby 1 Lawrence.

predicting multiple red cards too

1 minute ago, duncanjwitham said:

They can also kick the club out of the league if they don't pay 100% of football creditors.  So any buyer needs to know for sure that that isn't going to happen either or they won't commit to buying.

Exactly, but these are EFL rules, so I’m not sure if the talk of injunctions (which is the point I first responded to) is relevant. 

3 minutes ago, Gaspode said:

If they're being used to prevent the Administrators from carrying out their legal duty (in terms of exiting Administration), I'm sure there is something that can be done. Whatever rules the EFL invent, they are still bound by the law of the land....

Is it a real legal barrier though, or is it the fact potential buyers won’t commit until it’s resolved? I assume the EFL can’t block the club coming out of administration, but it’s the risk of further costs as a result of the compliance with league rules which is giving pause for thought. 
 

to be honest, reading the link earlier about Ashley wanting to pay as little as possible of the HMRC debt does worry me as much as these claims from Wycombe and Middlesbrough 

17 minutes ago, Indy said:

For the immediate issue, is this credible concern of a criminal case enough to get an injunction to force:

- clarification of “football creditors”

- approval of preferred bidder and route out of administration through CVA

- consideration of proof of funds to complete season being about running costs (not fantasy future liabilities)

- resultant removal of latest hard transfer embargo (assuming restrictions around loan fees, wages etc still in place to end of season as agreed)

Who would action an injunction? Quantuma? Is this something a parliamentary intervention would also achieve?

All of this would allow us to move forward and still leave the option of Boro and Wycombe to pursue claims afterwards if they wanted  

 

Can you even get an injunction? These are rules of membership of the EFL, not legal barriers 

Just now, Inverurie Ram said:

Are the Administrators spending too much time with MP's just talking about the problem?

Meeting after meeting to highlight the same problem that we have all known about for months. 

Would they not be better spending such quality time in working on and delivering the required solution?

Or will they choose to have more meetings to discuss previous meetings and schedule new meetings to work out how they word information and what information they can share about the same problem we have all shared for 4 months and continue to do so in their regurgitated messages.

 

 "I'm going round the bend again......and I left it up to you.............."

 

Kudos for the Paris Angels link. Killer track 

6 minutes ago, Eatonram said:

I think we need to put the ball in the Boro/wycombe court to force them to turn down or accept an offer. Along the lines of we accept no liability whatsoever, however, to break this impasse and meet the Government's aim of finding a pragmatic solution we offer to make a donation to Charities of their choosing of £100k to each club if they agree to drop their claims. This is a one off time limited offer to draw a line under the issue.

It would simply make everyone look in their direction and ask Well? They need to be forced, publicly to make a decision on some sort of offer....if they turn it down we say we tried but, as we expected, they simply want money from us.

Absolutely agree.I do think there may be a case of Gibson just wanting someone to say his claim has some validity, or admission from the administration that there is a case to answer. Not sure it’s about the money anymore. 
 

if that’s the case, I don’t care how wrong it feels, just agree. You don’t have to mean it. Cross your fingers behind your back or something. Just swallow a bitter pill and get the risk of liquidation off the table. 

3 minutes ago, kevinhectoring said:

Guess I’d assumed the plan involved 25% to unsecureds and peanuts to the ‘compressed’ claims by B and M 

You may be right.I’d just assumed that if they were planning on restructuring, then that was because the bids weren’t enough to satisfy a CVA exit, (before the 2 claims are added on top). 

3 minutes ago, kevinhectoring said:

Well football creditors need 100%, unsecureds need 25%. If that is the only difference then perhaps the football creditor definition only affects the size of the problem . Thoughts anyone?

I thought that if they went down the restructuring route through the courts, unsecured creditors would likely get less than 25%, and quantuma seems to be saying that’s the only route available. If they could secure 25%, then surely a CVA would be better 

2 minutes ago, Mckram said:

I don’t think that Boro’s claim is quite that. They’re literally claiming we were higher than them because we spent more money, got better players and broke the rules. So to the same effect Reading could be charged the same. 

That’s the problem, nobody seems to know what the claims contain, so making any kind of judgment on them is pure guess work. That’s what worries me more than anything. 

Just now, deano180 said:

What makes me sick is the EFL then get away scott free, scumbags

They run the members club we want to remain part of though. The simple argument they have is ‘you don’t have to be part of our structure if you don’t want’.

An independent regulator for football is inevitable now, but it’s come to late to impact on this case. 

6 minutes ago, DarkFruitsRam7 said:

That's far more likely than any of the bidders risking being liable for tens of millions of pounds.

I just hope the EFL buckle, but if not then I hope that one of the bidders is willing to put in a few extra million to come to a deal with Gibson and Couhig. It would make me sick, but anything is better than liquidiation.

Exactly. Paying them a few quid might not feel right, but if it removes the threat of liquidation, then it’s time to pack away the egos and just bloody well get on with it.

33 minutes ago, Caerphilly Ram said:

Option 5. One of the alleged interested parties to think “stuff it, this club is clearly worth rescuing”, ride to the rescue and take the chance of seeing MFC/WWFC in court…. However unlikely that may be 

Option 6: get all parties around the table and find out exactly what it’s going to take to resolve.

10 hours ago, WestKentRam said:

I must admit I don't understand exactly what is going on here, having read Boro's statement they put out on their website today https://www.mfc.co.uk/news/club-statement-Derby-county, and would be grateful if someone who does have a legal grasp of the situation can answer something about it for me.

Boro state: 'MFC then sent Derby County a Letter Before Action in the autumn of 2020 and started arbitration proceedings against Derby County in January 2021. Derby County used various procedural tactics to seek to delay the proceedings and as a result the claim has yet to be finally determined.'

Did not Boro apply for an arbitration claim via the EFL and were denied this on 26/10/20 or is this something else? https://www.efl.com/contentassets/c9fc5dceaa7f4b62b81dca0b9e2f7c9d/2020.10.26---decision-on-mfc-redaction.pdf

Is the current dispute over a new claim that would be decided by arbitration via the EFL processes, or is it a separate case to be decided by the courts?

Another thing that troubles me is the exact timing of Gibson's action. Did he institute this claim that the impasse appears to be over once Derby were in administration or before this? If the former then this is extremely worrying, as he would then surely know that it would effectively block a takeover of the club in administration as any potential new owner would be very unlikely to buy the club with this hanging over them.

 

The other way to look at this is to question the timing of the club going into administration. Was the club put into administration in some part because MM knew the boro claim was pending? 
i don’t know the answer, but Gibson has been open about his intention to take action since before the club was put into administration. 

8 minutes ago, TomTom92 said:

May as well except that he’s gone now. 
  
I don’t wish him any ill feeling like I did with Lampard as at least Rooney has shown us some level of loyalty throughout this dreadful time. 
  
This said it’s blooming annoying how unlucky we’ve been with managers. We either get bad ones that don’t want to leave or good ones that get stolen within a season. Why do they never stick around? (In Rooney’s case I can understand not sticking around).

I imagine either Rosenior, Wassall or McClaren will take over. If we aren’t liquidated by then.

To be fair, that’s the same with most clubs outside of the top division. 

4 minutes ago, Unlucky Alf said:

If I was to come round to your house and complain your car has scratched my car while in a car park but there is no evidence it was you, But i'm demanding £1000 damages for the repair.

Would you pay me?

No, but I’d certainly try and discuss it with you to find out why you thought I owed you, and in the event you kept insisting, I’d probably discuss with the authorities too. 
 

2 minutes ago, kevinhectoring said:

I think HMRC will have checked that MM will not take any of his historic investment out on a sale - otherwise why would they compromise ? But I think they will be less concerned  if he puts some some sort of bridge financing in place to keep us afloat.  
I think we’re all hoping it’s not Jason Knight who provides that funding 

An right, appreciate the response from someone more clued up on these things than myself

10 minutes ago, PistoldPete said:

It's all Quantuma's fault. They have misled  us all and they are trying to cover their own failings.. that's according to Parry of course. Do we believe him? 

Actually, to a certain extent I do.I don’t think it’s 100% their fault, but if they’ve chosen to ignore the claims, then they have missed a trick. Yes the claims may be nonsense to anyone who can see, but surely they should have made some efforts to address or discuss with the EFL / boro / Wycombe. 
 

if they haven’t, and have just ignored them, then I do think some of the blame sits with them

8 hours ago, kevinhectoring said:

happy to explain and you should feel free to call me a naive fool

 MM was in the position where he was haemorrhaging cash into the bottomless pit of our beloved club, as he funded us through covid and as the efl allowed Gibson and his cronies to spin out resolution of FFP. (MM must share some blame for this of course.) So he was at the end of his tether as his nemesis, Gibbo, literally forced him to sign a cheque every month for £2m (or whatever) with no end in sight.  He had a sale in prospect in June/July and it fell away, most likely because of the FFP issues (and it was a hugely difficult time to sell a club). He was being driven mad because Gibbo had him over a barrel, so he came to think: this has to stop. He told this to MSD and then Q were consulted    Q advised MM and MSD that administration was the best route to reach a timely deal with EFL (because relations between MM and EFL were so poor) and would ultimately be the best for the club because it would enable a sale.   So MM's decision to put us in admin was not made because he simply decided to walk away into the sunset and leave us to the jackals; it was made mostly to 1 stem the cash burn and 2 get the club sold. I know this decision has major consequences for unsecured creditors and the taxman - they have to take a haircut - but it was an understandable one - even for a fan -  given how much he had invested. 

I was catatonic when we went into admin, I couldn't believe he had done it. But having listened to him and Q talking about it, I now sort of get it. And it may yet prove to have been a good decision, especially if Uncle Mike takes the reins and if Wayne keeps showering us with gifts on the pitch. We will see.

So that's the background. MM will now be biding his time. He will understand that his legacy is in tatters but that, if the next phase goes well, some of that will be clawed back, especially if he is seen to assist. Consistent with this, Q tell us he and they are 'aligned' 

So if the admins say to him: MSD are max-ed out, you are the only person who can keep this ship afloat, I think there is a decent chance that he will put his hands into his deep pockets one last time   

Well if he did this, and I was a creditor, one with significant say of matters, such  as HMRC, then I’d be mighty annoyed if the administration team were talking about a restructuring plan (peanuts in the pound for creditors) while at the same time the former owner was again pouring money into the club. Surely there are rules against that kind of thing?