Dai Capp

Ed Dawes is so dense light bends around him.
That tweet is absolutely insane under the circumstances!

Apologies for my angry post before.
I find it hard, no impossible, to believe Dawes used the word 'bid' accidentally when people normally 'request' an interview.

Just read from Andrew Brigden that the MP's who met with EFL on Monday are meeting with Quantuma today

What a poor choice of words

I think Parry is saying that Boro did sue them and they made it go away by promising to go after Derby. Parry may regret saying that if this plays out in court...

Further to this, I think the EFL are meeting Quantuma.
As much as I don't like it, in order for the club to survive, I think we need to swallow our pride and come to an agreement with Gibson and Couhig. It would be nice for the EFL to grow a pair and take action, but I'm not holding my breath.
God, I'm depressed.

Just read from Andrew Brigden that the MP's who met with EFL on Monday are meeting with Quantuma today

I have many concerns about DCFC right now but one is this recurring theme of Q not communicating. We've had it from Kirchner, EFL, Boro, Wycombe, Radio Derby and other press.
I would have thought a fundamental part of the process would be open comms - it's all well and good having a plan for cross class cram down but just in case that didn't float, you'd surely be engaging with the claimants to have a backstop, regardless of whether you think they have a valid claim. 
I can't help but think between EFL and Q our future isn't in great hands and the Boro and Wycombe claims are being used by both as an excuse to cover their joint ineptitude.
 

Missing some things in the volume. Please can we have this thread perhaps pinned where we just post what is happening today or what we need/can do today WITHOUT any discussion of said events or posts? 

Following on from my query above, the EFL have responded as follows:
"Thank you for your email, we acknowledge your comments and recognise this is a concerning time for all those connected to the Club.
On Monday 17 January the EFL released a statement in the form of a Q&A from Chief Executive Trevor Birch, in order to comment on a number of recent reports, social media comment and fan communication in relation to ongoing matters at Derby County. The Q&A can be read here but a number of relevant comments from it have been provided below in order to address some of the points you raise.
The EFL is taking proactive steps to work with the Administrators to find sensible solutions that will see the Club secure a long-term future and meet the requirements as set out in EFL Regulations and the League’s Insolvency Policy.
The aims of the Insolvency Policy are to try and ensure a continuation of a football Club, the settlement of all football debts and the satisfaction of creditors. Part of the League’s rationale for requiring the settlement of creditors is to preserve competition integrity. In this respect the current situation remains challenging as Middlesbrough and Wycombe Wanderers consider their claims should be protected under the terms of the Insolvency Policy but the Administrators disagree. Further, as those claims are not yet determined, the Administrators and bidders have no clarity on the size of any (if any) liability.
The EFL is not a party to those proceedings and nor does it have a role in determining the outcome of them, however it is keen to try and resolve the current impasse. The EFL invited each of the Administrators, Middlesbrough FC, and Wycombe Wanderers to make submissions last week, and we are now in the process of reviewing those submissions with a view to identifying a route to resolve the conflict which exists between the respective positions of, on the one hand, Derby County, and on the other Middlesbrough and Wycombe Wanderers.
In respect of the make-up of the EFL Board, as addressed in Q8 of the Q&A, any EFL Board members conflicted on any matter do not take part in any discussion and are asked to leave the meeting. At present there are two Board Directors conflicted in respect of the matter with Derby County and as such do not participate or engage in any of the decisions.
As outlined in the Q&A, this is a complicated set of circumstances that requires consideration of the EFL’s broader role as the body that oversees 72 member Clubs and not just those Clubs that may be affected at any one time. To try and simplify what is a complex legal position is not simple or straightforward but we are committed to finding an appropriate solution and providing clarity on the issue as soon as possible.
Thank you for contacting the EFL"
 
I have gone back to them with the following:
"Thank you for the promptness of your reply.

There is one point from my original enquiry that remains unanswered.  You have said that any Board member with a perceived conflict of interest would not attend meetings where the affairs of Derby County were discussed.   However, I also asked whether there was any involvement at Executive level (and had I thought about it, I would have added Advisory level too). By Executive and Advisory, I mean was there any discussion between the EFL and Middlesbrough FC and/or Wycombe Wanderers FC, either directly with the clubs, or indirectly through their representatives, in the preparation of the papers before they were circulated to attending Board members?  Similarly, was there any contact or discussion between the EFL and Middlesborough and Wycombe Wanderers after the meetings had been held? 

If the answers to these questions was that there was no contact, can you confirm then that the issue of the statements by the EFL on Monday 17 December and Middlesborough FC on 18 December were entirely coincidental despite their similarity of not only content but also of style?  Can you also confirm that the criticisms that the statements contain of Quantuma have been arrived at independently and that their similarity, and indeed their similarity to points made by the Wycombe chairman on Radio Derby on 18 January all also coincidental?   And finally, the emergence of these communications are not in anyway driven by the criticisms made of the EFL by MPs, in particular during the emergency debate in Parliament on 18 January?

Thank you."

I think Parry is saying that Boro did sue them and they made it go away by promising to go after Derby. Parry may regret saying that if this plays out in court...

I think Parry is saying that Boro did sue them and they made it go away by promising to go after Derby. Parry may regret saying that if this plays out in court...

The other advantage for EFL keeping it as a matter of EFL arbitration is that the proceedings and outcomes are private and confidential - particularly helpful when you're under the microscope yourself. If it goes to court it will be a very public undressing for all concerned I suspect and as the regulator that would be particularly embarrassing.

Perfect!

The other advantage for EFL keeping it as a matter of EFL arbitration is that the proceedings and outcomes are private and confidential - particularly helpful when you're under the microscope yourself. If it goes to court it will be a very public undressing for all concerned I suspect and as the regulator that would be particularly embarrassing.

The other advantage for EFL keeping it as a matter of EFL arbitration is that the proceedings and outcomes are private and confidential - particularly helpful when you're under the microscope yourself. If it goes to court it will be a very public undressing for all concerned I suspect and as the regulator that would be particularly embarrassing.

Thought I'd ask on here for clarification. 
My understanding (but may be wrong) is that the potential buyers would move forward and purchase the club if the Boro (and Wycombe) claims were something that might end up in court at a later date. What our potential buyers won't accept is the EFL installing these clubs as "football  creditors" as part of an EFL arbitration process that could see us forced to take on significant additional debt to be paid in full. However, neither Boro nor Wycombe want to go to court and instead want the EFL too allocate them money for these spurious claims instead, which would be added to our existing debt and be paid in full as the clubs would then become football creditors. Is this the situation?
On the other side, both the Radio Tees guy Ed Dawes spoke with on Radio Derby tonight and the Boro fans on Twitter are saying, "if our claim is so spurious, why don't you say you'll see us in court and then we'll see what happens?"
Does anyone know the true position and, hoping so, can they point to some information that sets this out?
 

Thanks. So if that's the case, is it true that the EFL are insisting it remains an EFL arbitration matter with the two  clubs then given football creditor status, because if they don't agree to that they think Boro might sue them? And that this is the logjam in terms of appointing a preferred bidder and coming out of administration?
[edit: and is there anything in writing anywhere that confirms this?]

You got it ?

I have many concerns about DCFC right now but one is this recurring theme of Q not communicating. We've had it from Kirchner, EFL, Boro, Wycombe, Radio Derby and other press.
I would have thought a fundamental part of the process would be open comms - it's all well and good having a plan for cross class cram down but just in case that didn't float, you'd surely be engaging with the claimants to have a backstop, regardless of whether you think they have a valid claim. 
I can't help but think between EFL and Q our future isn't in great hands and the Boro and Wycombe claims are being used by both as an excuse to cover their joint ineptitude.
 

Tango Man is backing us!
 

Perfect!

What have Quantuma done? They didn’t just release a statement on Friday night, they released a hand grenade which has exploded spectacularly, fans have latched onto it creates momentum and within 2 working days parliament are involved. They’ve not spoken because they haven’t needed to.
EFL have nearly spontaneously combusted with their statement last night. Basically implied their insolvency rules are open to interpretation and subject to change, in other words they make it up as they go along ???
Boro come out today citing systematic cheating as the basis for their claim on a set of arguments already settled and ruled upon by disciplinary commissions (ie stadium sale) and also the same arguments as the case they brought to the LAP which was ruled against, no systematic cheating was found in ANY of the judgements in the original IDC, subsequent LAP, and final IDC ruling, all they have is subjective opinion.
Wycombe, while RD gave Couhig the platform to prove he’s a sharp lawyer, they also let him reveal his reasons for the action, which proves they absolutely have no case at all because the IDC did not rule on the Derby sanction, the fine of £100k and the restatement of accounts until after the season had ended, therefore there is no way the points could have been applied earlier, the whole process we also know was delayed by Boro’s failed action, the LAP judgement told us this.
They have all questioned the actions of Quantuma, of course they are going to!! They want to deflect from the weakness of their arguments and all those parties are concerned about how they’re being portrayed. Are Quantuma bothered, maybe/maybe not but it’s not about saving public face it’s about getting a deal done no matter how dirty it gets. They’ve not spoken to Boro and Wycombe because they don’t believe the claims and have a legal way around them potentially, so they weren’t priority, doing a deal with HMRC was absolute priority, while Pauline Latham said we wasn’t entirely happy about her meeting with the administrators, I’m sure I read another post say she believes it has implied Quantuma have a deal with HMRC. In fact we go back to Quantuma’s statement last Friday and that also implies they have a deal in place with everyone (or at least a route forward) except Boro and Wycombe. The events of the last few days have refocused everyone and led all parties to say they’re willing to come to the table to try and sort this out - maybe that is what they wanted and exactly what was needed.
The MPs are now challenging ALL parties to get this deal done and that is the right approach and Quantuma will be under pressure to deliver on their requirements.
 

Oh go on then

I think Parry is saying that Boro did sue them and they made it go away by promising to go after Derby. Parry may regret saying that if this plays out in court...