duncanjwitham

It's still not really clear what the arbitration hearing that's supposed to be happening this week is actually about.  The suggestion seems to be that it's purely a question about football creditors - i.e. are 'Boro/Wycombe football creditors even if their claims haven't been heard yet, or can they be compressed to nothing, or treated as unsecured creditors or whatever.  So in theory that could resolve everything if they rule that we can compress those claims to zero and move on, although it doesn't necessarily prevent 'Boro and Wycombe filing future claims, or other clubs filing claims against us.  What it wouldn't do is resolve the case if they find in 'Boro/Wycombe's favour (on the football creditor issue) - their cases would need to be heard to see if they actually have valid claims, and how much those claims are.
The other possibility is they are actually hearing the full cases this week, but I'm not sure anybody is suggesting that - in fact Nixon (I think?) was saying Wycombe haven't even filed a formal case yet, just a notice of intent.  That would certainly resolve those 2 cases one way or the other though.  And I think any kind of substantial award to those 2 clubs would result in us being effectively liquidated on the spot.

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.

It's still not really clear what the arbitration hearing that's supposed to be happening this week is actually about.  The suggestion seems to be that it's purely a question about football creditors - i.e. are 'Boro/Wycombe football creditors even if their claims haven't been heard yet, or can they be compressed to nothing, or treated as unsecured creditors or whatever.  So in theory that could resolve everything if they rule that we can compress those claims to zero and move on, although it doesn't necessarily prevent 'Boro and Wycombe filing future claims, or other clubs filing claims against us.  What it wouldn't do is resolve the case if they find in 'Boro/Wycombe's favour (on the football creditor issue) - their cases would need to be heard to see if they actually have valid claims, and how much those claims are.
The other possibility is they are actually hearing the full cases this week, but I'm not sure anybody is suggesting that - in fact Nixon (I think?) was saying Wycombe haven't even filed a formal case yet, just a notice of intent.  That would certainly resolve those 2 cases one way or the other though.  And I think any kind of substantial award to those 2 clubs would result in us being effectively liquidated on the spot.

Every time a thread gets upped with a players name in the title, I get a little flutter of panic ?

Great news. I genuinely think that if Bielik plays most of the rest of the games (and we don’t lose anyone else important tonight), then we stay up. He’s that much of a difference maker.

I absolutely love this tab @Needlesh ????

I think, given the qualifications needed to sit on a panel, it’s very unlikely they’re going to be biased. No one is going to risk a 10 year legal career to do a favour for the EFL or ‘Boro. I’m far more worried about their ability to understand highly technical accounting arguments etc, given there’s no requirement for specialists on there.

I really think you are losing the plot. You in particular highlight my comment: our Administrators have never, ever challenged the position that they need to account to football creditors at anything other than 100% if our Club is to retain the Golden Share.
Q has never disputed the football creditor status. They have been abundantly clear throughout that contractual debts that we might have had outstanding to the likes of Wigan, Arsenal and Lech Poznan need to be paid at 100% to retain our EFL status.
The meeting where “EFL put them right” was to say that you must include the claims of Boro and Wycombe in the Football Creditors column, even though their ludicrous claims have been made up on the back of a fag packet, and had supposedly never been supplied in any great detail to the EFL (according to Parry’s equally ludicrous assertions). They are not even a creditor under the provisions of insolvency statute.
As a by the way, my argument relating to Mel and the stadium, was to initially challenge your bombastic view that you had that MSD had control of the stadium under a fixed charge. You took a lot of convincing, although you wouldn’t know it tonight, that not only does Morris still own the stadium, but he remains in a position whereby he can call some shots as to what might be paid to him in order for the transfer of the stadium to a purchaser. He might be doing broadly the right thing at last, but if you think I am going to give him any significant acknowledgement after his total mismanagement of our club, which has left us in a perilous state, then you are mistaken. Morris will forever in my view be a football charlatan. 

Great news. I genuinely think that if Bielik plays most of the rest of the games (and we don’t lose anyone else important tonight), then we stay up. He’s that much of a difference maker.

Great news. I genuinely think that if Bielik plays most of the rest of the games (and we don’t lose anyone else important tonight), then we stay up. He’s that much of a difference maker.

Great news. I genuinely think that if Bielik plays most of the rest of the games (and we don’t lose anyone else important tonight), then we stay up. He’s that much of a difference maker.

Great news. I genuinely think that if Bielik plays most of the rest of the games (and we don’t lose anyone else important tonight), then we stay up. He’s that much of a difference maker.

Presumably because Jagielka was only supposed to be on the wage bill until mid Jan. Resigning him would be an additional cost. Plange going would be a net positive financially.

Presumably because Jagielka was only supposed to be on the wage bill until mid Jan. Resigning him would be an additional cost. Plange going would be a net positive financially.

Great news. I genuinely think that if Bielik plays most of the rest of the games (and we don’t lose anyone else important tonight), then we stay up. He’s that much of a difference maker.

Great news. I genuinely think that if Bielik plays most of the rest of the games (and we don’t lose anyone else important tonight), then we stay up. He’s that much of a difference maker.

Great news. I genuinely think that if Bielik plays most of the rest of the games (and we don’t lose anyone else important tonight), then we stay up. He’s that much of a difference maker.

Great news. I genuinely think that if Bielik plays most of the rest of the games (and we don’t lose anyone else important tonight), then we stay up. He’s that much of a difference maker.

Great news. I genuinely think that if Bielik plays most of the rest of the games (and we don’t lose anyone else important tonight), then we stay up. He’s that much of a difference maker.

Great news. I genuinely think that if Bielik plays most of the rest of the games (and we don’t lose anyone else important tonight), then we stay up. He’s that much of a difference maker.

I'm not even sure you can tell that (from that angle anyway) - the defenders leading knee and shoulder are both hidden behind Davies, so you haven't got anything to compare too. 

Fully expecting the EFL to turn around at 1 minute to the deadline and say "we meant you could loan him back when you've named your preferred bidder, we've told you all along you're under an embargo, silly admins not listening again".

Ben, I know you like to try help and inform, but posting random Internet snippets without having any proper understanding isn’t helpful to anyone. There are a lot of posters on here unnecessarily spooked. I call it the Curtains Syndrome.
What you have posted is a 2019 article which is unrelated to the specific log jam we are in. Indeed the insolvency legislation was changed in 2020. It has been mentioned on here many times that whilst the position of football creditors is clear, what isn’t clear is if Boro or Wycombe can claim any football creditor status, based on the unsubstantiated claims they are making. Unless there is any significant change of heart by the EFL or the two clubs involved, the matter will only be settled by judgment coming from an arbitration. We are awaiting details on dates and terms of reference on that, and therefore until further notice I would urge you torestrict your Googling because there really isn't any legal precedent on this matter.

If Couhig wants to host a press conference, I have a few suggestions as to where he could host it:

If Couhig wants to host a press conference, I have a few suggestions as to where he could host it: