duncanjwitham

The EFL (and the 2 cretin chairmen) are still saying that HMRC and the stadium deal are the biggest obstacles.  The admins are saying the major obstacle is the 'Boro/Wycombe issue. The fact that one of the bidders is apparently confirming what the admins are saying must give it some credibility.

The EFL (and the 2 cretin chairmen) are still saying that HMRC and the stadium deal are the biggest obstacles.  The admins are saying the major obstacle is the 'Boro/Wycombe issue. The fact that one of the bidders is apparently confirming what the admins are saying must give it some credibility.

The EFL (and the 2 cretin chairmen) are still saying that HMRC and the stadium deal are the biggest obstacles.  The admins are saying the major obstacle is the 'Boro/Wycombe issue. The fact that one of the bidders is apparently confirming what the admins are saying must give it some credibility.

?

?

?

The rest of your post pretty much matches my understanding, but it's still not 100% clear exactly what's being arbitrated right now - whether it's the full claims, or a narrower question like are 'Boro/Wycome football creditors, or querying the interaction with the EFL rules and the insolvency moratorium or something.

P.s. I know this is @David’s thread, and he wealds more power than Kim Jong-un but I don’t see there much merit having this thread running now separate from the main Administration thread. It is more confusing I think to be having two threads going covering the same kind of stuff.

Bit more time on my hands today and I have copied in @RoyMac5and @Tamworthram and @Davidtoo. What I suggest here might not be correct as I am no insolvency expert, and I am not party to any of the negotiations. So this is simply my understanding. Probably no better or worse than the thoughts of @duncanjwithamor @Ghost of Cloughwho seem well read on the matters.
Boro and Wycombe are not creditors. Presently they have only submitted unproven claims to be considered by way of arbitration under EFL Rules. To become creditors, let alone football creditors, an arbitration process has to proceed, all facts have to be considered, and a decision is made. That decision we would all like to think will come back that the claims have no merit, but it is possible that an award could be made in favour of the two parasites. At that point they could argue that they are creditors, and I think at that point they could justifiably argue that they are therefore football creditors under EFL Rules.
Legal proceedings cannot commence against the Club as it is in administration, so Q (or a court) have to give consent to allow legal proceedings to go ahead. Q have argued that no proceedings can commence - whether it be via the EFL arbitration route or via the legal route of civil proceedings - arguing that statute is with them. In an administration process under the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act 2020  Q’s position was that no arbitration could be commenced, as an automatic moratorium within the 2020 Act prevents the arbitration from proceeding unless leave has been granted by the court. EFL countered and said statute is all well and good from an administrative perspective, but if the Club wants to continue playing in the EFL then they have to abide by the rules of the league membership. Effectively I think saying, you can save the Club but go play your football in another league!
Q were proposing to come out of Administration with a Class Cram restructuring option rather than CVA (according to Ian Redfearn of BAWT), disregarding totall the claims of Boro and Wycombe, and the new owner would set-up a NewCo to own the Club post-administration. This would have meant that Boro and Wycombe could not have once again claimed against the NewCo once the sale was concluded, and the claims died with the OldCo. That clearly isn’t going to happen now. Note we would have started next season at -15 points if the EFL had agreed to that course of action.
We are left in a position where Q reluctantly have agreed to go down the Arbitration route. That the claims of Boro and Wycombe will be considered. I imagine that might go the EFL LAP route, with Q keeping their legal powder dry until such time as they think they might want to invoke it under civil proceedings. If you like, keeping matters polite with the EFL for as long as they need to. Hopefully the LAP will find no merit in the claims of the Parasites, but if they say there is some award due then ‘arguably’ they become creditors for the award amount, although not necessarily under statute.   Depending on the size of the award Q would then need to consider next actions, taking into account whether a PB will pay the extra monies due, and whether existing and legislate creditors will be happy with the position, particularly if their take is to be further diluted. HMRC in particular might have strong views. If there is one plus side, it is likely if the Club does still exist after the Boro/Wycombe award is accounted for and dealt with, we are more likely to come out under a CVA with all creditors getting the minimum % for the EFL to not invoke the -15 point penalty. That would however mean Boro/Wycombe being paid 100% of their award as I think then Q to move forward would have to acknowledge them as football creditors.
I could try and guess the end game here, but I don’t think there is any further point speculating on the situation until we know the findings of the arbitration. 

If we've only got enough cash to see us through to the end of the season, we're not going to be allowed to bring anyone in. Otherwise their wages are going to tip us back under that threshold.  We needed a surplus of cash to be allowed to spend some.  A preferred bidder putting £5m in would have done that. Going by @Ghost of Clough's figures, there's only been ~£2.4m of cash coming in + savings.

Sick of this keeping me awake at night. 

That second paragraph I linked to was the EFL saying that the results of the sanction hearing (and them not appealing it) meant that the default set of fixtures (with us in the championship) was the one they were going to use.  It draws a line under that whole issue.

Slight diversion, but I was re-reading the EFL's statement following our sanction hearing, and the following sections jumped out at me in relation to the Wycombe chairman's statement the other day:

and:

Surely the first one destroys his argument that submitting our accounts would trigger an automatic deduction. It's very clear that submission will trigger a "consideration" and "re-assess" (-ment), not an automatic deduction.  And the second one removes any doubt that the EFL would move us between leagues at that point.  They are on record as stating the fixture lists would have us in the championship, irrespective of what happened with the accounts.  There's no question of any delays affecting anything, since this statement was literally issued at the same time as the requirement to restate.

I think the only claim that has any chance at all of succeeding is compensation for 'Boro from the amortization breach, and that's a very slim chance.  Any other claims from 'Boro can be cast out as we haven't been proved to have broken any rules, and only the EFL can bring disciplinary cases, so they can't argue that we have.  And the Wycombe claims are a nonsense for a whole load of reasons we've all gone through already.
But for that one claim, it's already established that we've broken the rules (officially anyway, despite what some of us on here might think), so they won't need to re-prove that, and you can certainly see the skeleton of an argument that it cost 'Boro, given how close the 2 teams were in the league.  But there's so much precedence in existing EFL judgments that you can't correlate overspending to actual on-field performance, I don't see how they actually win it.

That second paragraph I linked to was the EFL saying that the results of the sanction hearing (and them not appealing it) meant that the default set of fixtures (with us in the championship) was the one they were going to use.  It draws a line under that whole issue.

That second paragraph I linked to was the EFL saying that the results of the sanction hearing (and them not appealing it) meant that the default set of fixtures (with us in the championship) was the one they were going to use.  It draws a line under that whole issue.

Slight diversion, but I was re-reading the EFL's statement following our sanction hearing, and the following sections jumped out at me in relation to the Wycombe chairman's statement the other day:

and:

Surely the first one destroys his argument that submitting our accounts would trigger an automatic deduction. It's very clear that submission will trigger a "consideration" and "re-assess" (-ment), not an automatic deduction.  And the second one removes any doubt that the EFL would move us between leagues at that point.  They are on record as stating the fixture lists would have us in the championship, irrespective of what happened with the accounts.  There's no question of any delays affecting anything, since this statement was literally issued at the same time as the requirement to restate.

That second paragraph I linked to was the EFL saying that the results of the sanction hearing (and them not appealing it) meant that the default set of fixtures (with us in the championship) was the one they were going to use.  It draws a line under that whole issue.

Slight diversion, but I was re-reading the EFL's statement following our sanction hearing, and the following sections jumped out at me in relation to the Wycombe chairman's statement the other day:

and:

Surely the first one destroys his argument that submitting our accounts would trigger an automatic deduction. It's very clear that submission will trigger a "consideration" and "re-assess" (-ment), not an automatic deduction.  And the second one removes any doubt that the EFL would move us between leagues at that point.  They are on record as stating the fixture lists would have us in the championship, irrespective of what happened with the accounts.  There's no question of any delays affecting anything, since this statement was literally issued at the same time as the requirement to restate.

Slight diversion, but I was re-reading the EFL's statement following our sanction hearing, and the following sections jumped out at me in relation to the Wycombe chairman's statement the other day:

and:

Surely the first one destroys his argument that submitting our accounts would trigger an automatic deduction. It's very clear that submission will trigger a "consideration" and "re-assess" (-ment), not an automatic deduction.  And the second one removes any doubt that the EFL would move us between leagues at that point.  They are on record as stating the fixture lists would have us in the championship, irrespective of what happened with the accounts.  There's no question of any delays affecting anything, since this statement was literally issued at the same time as the requirement to restate.

Slight diversion, but I was re-reading the EFL's statement following our sanction hearing, and the following sections jumped out at me in relation to the Wycombe chairman's statement the other day:

and:

Surely the first one destroys his argument that submitting our accounts would trigger an automatic deduction. It's very clear that submission will trigger a "consideration" and "re-assess" (-ment), not an automatic deduction.  And the second one removes any doubt that the EFL would move us between leagues at that point.  They are on record as stating the fixture lists would have us in the championship, irrespective of what happened with the accounts.  There's no question of any delays affecting anything, since this statement was literally issued at the same time as the requirement to restate.

Slight diversion, but I was re-reading the EFL's statement following our sanction hearing, and the following sections jumped out at me in relation to the Wycombe chairman's statement the other day:

and:

Surely the first one destroys his argument that submitting our accounts would trigger an automatic deduction. It's very clear that submission will trigger a "consideration" and "re-assess" (-ment), not an automatic deduction.  And the second one removes any doubt that the EFL would move us between leagues at that point.  They are on record as stating the fixture lists would have us in the championship, irrespective of what happened with the accounts.  There's no question of any delays affecting anything, since this statement was literally issued at the same time as the requirement to restate.

Slight diversion, but I was re-reading the EFL's statement following our sanction hearing, and the following sections jumped out at me in relation to the Wycombe chairman's statement the other day:

and:

Surely the first one destroys his argument that submitting our accounts would trigger an automatic deduction. It's very clear that submission will trigger a "consideration" and "re-assess" (-ment), not an automatic deduction.  And the second one removes any doubt that the EFL would move us between leagues at that point.  They are on record as stating the fixture lists would have us in the championship, irrespective of what happened with the accounts.  There's no question of any delays affecting anything, since this statement was literally issued at the same time as the requirement to restate.

Slight diversion, but I was re-reading the EFL's statement following our sanction hearing, and the following sections jumped out at me in relation to the Wycombe chairman's statement the other day:

and:

Surely the first one destroys his argument that submitting our accounts would trigger an automatic deduction. It's very clear that submission will trigger a "consideration" and "re-assess" (-ment), not an automatic deduction.  And the second one removes any doubt that the EFL would move us between leagues at that point.  They are on record as stating the fixture lists would have us in the championship, irrespective of what happened with the accounts.  There's no question of any delays affecting anything, since this statement was literally issued at the same time as the requirement to restate.