Sheff Ram

MARTIN SAMUEL: Derby are on the brink of extinction and had 21 points deducted - isn’t that enough now? Middlesbrough and Wycombe lawsuits are based on playing fantasy football.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-10424221/MARTIN-SAMUEL-Middlesbrough-Wycombes-lawsuits-Derby-based-fantasy-seasons.html

Rick Parry seems to have ‘no idea’ about a lot of this, doesn’t he? No idea how much Middlesbrough want? No idea what Wycombe’s whole claim is about? No idea who is a football creditor? No idea what everyone’s talking about? 

It’s a wonder he can get himself dressed in the morning, by the sound of it. 

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-10424221/amp/MARTIN-SAMUEL-Middlesbrough-Wycombes-lawsuits-Derby-based-fantasy-seasons.html

This topic will be updated with the latest information, news and tweets on the current situation for those unable to follow the forum during the day.
Please help by forwarding any of the above to myself by private message only as I receive email notifications.  
Thank you.

This has a high level of logic to it. I hope you are right.

The EFL will not make an example of us, because the backlash in doing so would be too great. If you allow a club the size of Derby to go under despite multiple buyers being happy to purchase us, then the EFL knows there would be severe consequences for them. 

There is potentially a get out of jail (and save a small amount of face) for both the EFL and the two ambulance Chasers - if the EFL announce that they have reviewed the rules in relation to the law changing and that they have also reviewed the claims from the 2 chancers, they can then legimately say that they've told the 2 that their claims shouldn't be treated as football debts and so they will need to go to court to make their claims.
That paves the way for the PB to be announced while making the EFL look as if they've taken decisive action and still gives the scumbags a chance to press their claims (even though in reality both will realise they have virtaually no chance of success in a law court as opposed to the EFL kangaroo court they hope to appear in.....). No-one is having to publicly back down and the Rams can be saved....

Can you maybe raise another point David. Gibson has said (in his rant to your Boro forum equivalent) he could have spent the £45 million on his family. Since when has his family been a football creditor?  

I'm serious. Gibson is funding Boro via soft loans. So really any losses Boro make are being absorbed by him, they are not losses to Boro.Its Gibson's personal loss, not Boro's he is trying to claim for.
Also he is saying Derby cheated. Well if so then it was Morris that cheated not Derby. If Morris really knew he wa sbreaking th erules, none of us did. So wouldnt Morris lose his protcetion of limited liability? So Gibson could go after Morris.
Basically it should be Gibson v Morris. Not Derby v Boro.
 
 
 

Three parties have made offers, any one of which would allow the club to exit administration with a substantial payment to creditors.
These offers need clarity, that the claim by Boro and the potential claim by Wycombe do not qualify as Football Creditors.
The football creditor rule is not defined in the EFL regulations, it is part of the Articles of Association of the Football League Limited, of which all clubs are minority shareholders (the golden share).
The football creditor rule is in Article 48, which clearly defines what constitutes a football creditor, copied below from Companies House.
The rule clearly states that it is to cover payments of "debts due". How possibly, can an unproven, unquantified claim such as Boro's be consider a debt due?
If the EFL is suggesting that any claim by a football club or employee, which is unproven, should be classified as a football creditor it would create mayhem. And, bona fide football creditors with debts due, and other preferential and unsecured creditors would lose out as a result.
The EFL can't have this both ways. If they choose to say Article 48 does not qualify Boro's claim as a football creditor the EFL are suggesting they might be sued by Boro.
However, if they choose to say that Article 48 should be interpreted (which is a wild stretch) in a way that Boro should be classed as a football creditor then it is almost certain that the EFL would be sued by the Administrators and the creditors including genuine football creditors, and HMRC for their easily quantified losses. 
The EFL also risk being sued under section 994 of the companies act for acting prejudicially against the interests of a minority shareholder of the football league ie. DCFC.
We need to apply pressure on the EFL to get off the fence, see that their actions alone are preventing the Administrators from getting a deal agreed. 
Article 48 says that Boro's claim cannot be a football creditor and the EFL must state that and stop this nonesense.
"48         FOOTBALL CREDITORS
48.1      Where a Member Club defaults in making any payment due to any of the following persons, 
the Member  Club ('Defaulting  Club')  shall be subject to such penalty  as the Board may decide 
and subject also to Article 48.2:
48.1.1        The League, The FA Premier League and the Football Association;
48.1.2        any of the Pension Schemes;
48.1.3        any Member Club and any Club of The FA Premier League;
48.1.4        any holding company  of The League and any subsidiary  company  of that holding 
company;
48.1.5        any sums due to any full-time employee or former full-time employee of the Member 
Club by  way  of arrears  of remuneration  up to the date on which that contract  of employment is 
terminated. This excludes for these purposes all and any claims for redundancy,   unfair   or  
wrongful   dismissal   or  other   claims   arising   out   of  the termination  of  the  contract  
or  in  respect  of  any  period  after  the  actual  date  of termination;
48.1.6        any  sums  due  to  the  Professional  Footballers  Association  in  repayment  of  
an interest  free loan together with such reasonable  administration and legal costs as have been 
approved by the Board;
48.1.7        The Football Foundation;
48.1.8        The Football Conference Limited trading as "the National League";
48.1.9        The Northern Premier League Limited;
48.1.1O      The Isthmian League Limited;
48.1.11      The Southern League Limited;
48.1.12      Any member club of the League or organisations listed in Articles 48.1.8 to 48.1.11 
inclusive;
48.1.13      Any County Football Association affiliated to The Football Association; and
48.1.14      Any Leagues  affiliated to The Football Association  and any clubs affiliated to any 
County Football Association recognised by The Football Association.
48.2      Subject to the provisions of Articles 48.3 and 48.4, the Board shall apply any sums 
standing to the  credit  of  the  Pool  Account  which  would  otherwise  be  payable  to  a  
Defaulting  Club,  in discharging  the  creditors  in Article  48.1.  As  between  the Football  
Creditors,  the  priority  for payment shall be in accordance with the order in which those 
Football Creditors are listed in Article 48.1.
48.3      If,  having  discharged  all Football  Creditors  in  any  preceding  class  of  Football 
 Creditor  (as
· required by Article 48.2) the sum then available is not suffident to discharge in full the 
Football Creditors listed in Articles 48.1.1, 48.1.2 or 48.1.4 the Board will decide the 
allocation.
48.4      If,  having  discharged  all Football  Creditors  in  any  preceding  class  of  Football 
 Creditor  (as required by Article 48.2) the sum then available is not sufficient to discharge in 
full the Football Creditors listed in Article 48.1.3, 48.1.5, 48.1.12, 48.1.13 or 48.1.14 the sum 
will be allocated pro rata amongst the creditors of the same class.
Note - Clubs are reminded that any assignment of future entitlements from the pool account are 
subject to Article 45 and this must be brought to the attention of the other party. Furthermore 
assignments must be in legal form and registered with the office. Assignments are given priority 
according to the date and time of registration."

The middleborough claim is based entirely on an estimate of the lost revenue by Gibson and his band of merry men. He seems to have missed the fact that against that revenue there would be considerable increase in cost relating to playing in and competing with other teams in the premier league. The latest table I can find is for 18/19. 11 teams lost money and this was pre covid. The teams comparable to boro Watford profit £10m Burnley £5m palace £3m. Brighton lost£19m sheff utd lost £21m Bournemouth lost £32m Norwich lost £39m. So if this claim is about money you have to take net benefit in to account and the net benefit is probably £0 or even a loss.

For the benefit of @Sheff Ram: this is not a joke. Admin on the Boro forum (and apparently a reliable source) said he had spoken to Gibson and he had laid out the rationale for the figure and it was based on bookies odds of promotion and forecast earnings. Absolute gibberish. 
 
It’s up to you to decide if that guy is making it up or Gibson really is that demented. But it’s the only explanation I’ve seen floated. 
 
Presumably the submissions from all parties that the EFL has requested will include official explanation of Boro’s full argument and figures. Doubt that will be made public though. 

There's two types of people in this world. Those with big hearts, kindness and a sense of humanity. Then there's cruel, self-serving people with no heart or empathy. Wishing a team of a fellow football fan, even if they are your bitterest rivals, to go into liquidation puts you fairly and squarely into the second category.  
As for Gibson, if his 'actions' do prove a sticking point to the takeover and we do go into liquidation, he will be reviled by Derby fans for the rest of his life. He's in that second category too. Would you want to be known as the man that pushed a club like ours of the cliff?

There's two types of people in this world. Those with big hearts, kindness and a sense of humanity. Then there's cruel, self-serving people with no heart or empathy. Wishing a team of a fellow football fan, even if they are your bitterest rivals, to go into liquidation puts you fairly and squarely into the second category.  
As for Gibson, if his 'actions' do prove a sticking point to the takeover and we do go into liquidation, he will be reviled by Derby fans for the rest of his life. He's in that second category too. Would you want to be known as the man that pushed a club like ours of the cliff?

I'd say it was definitely up there, for sure...
And as an 'individual' goal, probably top.

From today's momentous game...

From today's momentous game...