Maharan

It certainly is not a red herring, I think you miss the point completely.
as things stand they are not football creditors. They are however creditors for the purposes of a CVA . So their claims can be compressed. 
 
if a tribunal subsequently makes an award it will have to allow for statutory deductions that would have applied to any claim . 
So the amounts due to be paid will be net of the statutory deduction. If Derby pay that net amount they will be paying 100% of the amounts due . .. so satisfying the football creditor requirement.

The legal fees of this venture must eventually pile up (apparently our early offer to settle them has been turned down) and if those claims have 0 chance of succeeding then why generate a lot of bad feeling and ill will? I have heard about the badge incident which again highlights what a pretty terrible human being the bloke is but that's a little besides the point. I believe it was radio Derby who said they'd tried to contact sports lawyers to discuss it and said they'd need a lot more detail to make a determination. I think I've made this point before that none of us are sports lawyers as far as I'm aware so our ability to assess the validity of these claims is somewhat limited but it does make me a little nervous that neither of them are backing down. 

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 

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 

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 

If they win, it'll be the very definition of a pyrrhic victory : DCFC will liquidate, they may get a few pence in the £ from the EFL fund, all other unsecured creditors will get nothing and Gibson and Couhig will be reviled by at least 50,000 people till the end of their days. 

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

We can only speculate and hope.
My gut tells me it's an email leaked to them. I think Couhig might possibly be going with the accounts not filed at companies House argument but I think he must have something else.
The Boro stuff from Mr Stephen, again, given the language they've been using I suspect they're in possession of some kind of email/document they think proves "systemically cheating" - although given iteas the pride park sale they went after their damming evidence might be a busted flush or deemed not relevant or something.
We have to wait and see.
Even stacked against that, supposing the claims have incontrovertible proof (I know, but it's a thought experiment) - the arbitration will weigh that against the current insolvency and financial position of DCFC and most likely not award anything with no hope of it ever being paid due to liquidation.
Arbitration awards £10m+ in damages, DCFC are liquidated, no one is happy, the arbitration has failed as a resolution.
 

I actually think circa £48M to own a club, press the reset button, own a stadium (and a training ground?), have Wayne Rooney as your manager, inherit a Class 1 academy is very good value. The 'potential' with the size of fan base and operating infrastructure is also very good in my opinion.
One of the red herrings in the room though.... we are still circa £1.5-£1.75m a month wage bill (I hope this includes the complete DCFC payroll), £5-7m for running the academy (I'm sure some costs are here are duplicated), running cost of a stadium and training ground and I imagine a further £5m in day to day expenses for none football purchases made. So all in, that is costs of £30 Million per annum.
Revenue wise - Circa £10m in TV payments, Circa £9m in gate receipts (Don't forget VAT folks!), maybe another £2-4m in commercial income, this still leaves an annual deficit of around £7 Million. 
All of this is before we even think about paying money for players (or selling players for money).
So any new owner who I think inherits a really good club, is also being asked to put £7m down each year to subsidise the losses. This is only really recoupled when the promise land is reached, and can you reach the promise land without spending on better players and then you reach the inevitable catch-22 that Morris fell into and shamefully, ran away from.
Obviously Quantama will be asking potential new owners to ensure they have the funds to run us for minimum 2 years I think they requested. So the asking price in reality just goes from £48m (£28m with no stadium) plus £14m to £62m. So it is now starting to become a little more expensive....
You really want an owner in my eyes with £200m plus. Not to throw money at it but to in essence provide me with confidence behind the risks of owning us.

Nothing is different they are both unacceptable actions. 

Unless individuals are found, banned, And prosecuted by police, the vile scum (a minority) will continue to get to games.
But let’s not forget, we’re the same club in the Lampard season who ripped up a seat at Rotherham away, threw it towards the pitch, hit one of our female fans requiring hospital attention and yet still, not a single Derby fan who would have seen or heard about who did that came forward to report them.
Can I ask without controversy - what’s different?

Is Toby Perkins an insolvency expert? Or Chris Coles? Where does the 60% figure come from? Last i heard it was 95%. I think this is the most relevant thing to me .. is my club going to be liquidated despite all the fans efforts today?
I thought you said the claims maybe compressed but if they are EFL will expel us from the League because they think that is not paying them 100% in line with their football creditor requirement..  

So I think the reason this hasn't happened is because the EFL position on this is either unclear or else inconsistent with Q's position. I am not aware of any apology from Q or any suggestion that they are wrong. Far from it.   
 
 
 
  

The 60% was on the RD podcast on Friday - on BBCSounds. 
Yes, I know what the effect of administration is.
It's an irrelevant point, the effect of the moratorium. The reason your point is misconceived is: the impact of the moratorium on litigation is procedural not substantive (and it's mainly aimed at enforcement remedies). Just because claims can't be pursued does not mean they disappear.    The moratorium merely suspends rights, it does not expunge them or allow them to be expunged. And if a litigant is going to be prejudiced by delay in the making of a claim, the court will most likely allow the claim to proceed but (perhaps) not allow any judgement debt to be enforced. 
So I have responded to your post, which went off on a tangent, are you going to ignore mine ?

Damn Forest.
Cannot rely on them for anything. Wouldn't surprise me if they were throwing the game deliberately.

What all football fans need to ask is that their chairman dosent act like an arrogant fool and think he can break every rule in the book and piss off all the other chairman who can then change the rules to hang him and destroy their club!!!!!!

I pretty much give up. Last chance...
It's nothing to do with EFL disciplinary processes.  The EFL rules state that clubs *cannot* bring legal proceedings against each other (civil or otherwise), they *have* to go through arbitration.  The way that arbitration process works is documented in the EFL rules.  There is no suggestion *anywhere* that 'Boro and Wycombe have bought civil claims against the club. Thy are simply not allowed to under EFL rules.  They have filed claims through the official EFL arbitration process.  This is repeatedly documented in the written reasons from the hearings against Derby, and the 'Boro attempt to appeal our case.

Read the statement (‘minutes’) that Q handed out at the last supporters group meeting. If you look carefully at their weasel like words you will see that Q has tried but failed to persuade a small army of QCs that the 2 are not football creditors. 
You don’t need to be a lawyer to know that M and W are football clubs and therefore - if they are awarded damages - they are football creditors. 

All the EFl has done on this issue is to point out to Q how the EFl rules work. We can blame the EFL  for plenty of things over the past couple of years but this is not one of them. Q has been sleepwalking towards this quicksand for 4 months 
Q tried to blame the EFL by saying the EFL rules go ‘against statute’. Fans have adopted that as gospel truth. But that claim sent the EFl into orbit and no one either on here or in the press has explained how they go against statute. Q certainly has not and now you will notice they have gone very very quiet on the point because they have finally understood it 

In fairness, those debts are owed to their owner.
Not suppliers, other football clubs, and the taxman.

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 

It probably bears repeating just to hit home what an absolute tosspot Morris is.

we need a ruling that if a club breaches FFP, the only sanction under the rules comes from the EFL . And so clubs can't sue each other 
The EFL needs this almost as much as we do. 
Without this ruling, anyone buying the club will think - well, there's Boro and Wycombe, and who else... ?   We know the Binnies have apparently agreed to proceed regardless of the claims  But what are their conditions?  As one poster has suggested, do they require a warranty from someone (MM?) that the claims won't result in a liability in excess of [   ] ? Or that there aren't any others ...
Inclined to agree the main issue is Gibson, but people keep banging on about HMRC.  Well if the plan now is to cram HMRC into a 25% compromise, HMRC will say, hang on we need to be put ahead of other unsecured creditors, so tell us this : you held cash on our behalf, where is it? Did the people spending the cash not understand that it was held on trust? And is there any reason we should not sue the club, and any person who authorised the expenditure, for breach of trust ? 

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 

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 

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 

I'm on page 509. That's how many posts we have had to delete- 9 pages worth!