duncanjwitham

Not the number of months we've been under embargo over the past 4 years (which is almost 30 months), but the number of months since our U18s won the 18/19 League title, after beating an Arsenal side featuring Bakary Saka 5-2 in the Final. The young Rams also finished 8 points ahead of a Manchester United side which contained Mason Greenwood.
 
From that squad, 11 have played for our first team making a combined 419 appearances.
Those still with us and are in and around the first team:
McDonald - 8 first team apps.
JBrown - 4 first team apps.
Cashin - 3 first team apps.
Buchanan - Still only 20 but has already played 60 times.
Bird - With him making 97 appearances for the Rams, he'll be hoping to make his 100th app for the club in Feb
Thompson - Missed just 12 minutes of football since coming into the side against Bournemouth, the first of his 11 appearances.
Knight - An almost ever present in the first team since the start of the following season. He has already made 100 apps and scored 11 in the process.
Sibley - Still only 20 but has 7 goals and 4 assists in his 65 first team apps.
Festy - Already a fan favourite after 23 appearances.
Stretton - Limited to just 15 appearances given his injury troubles.
Some are still with us but are yet to play for the first team:
Dixon - Named on bench twice.
Wilson - Named on bench twice.
Matthews - yet to feature in a matchday squad.
Notable players who have since departed the club:
Whittaker - 32 appearances for Derby before moving on to Swansea where he scored 5 in 22 apps. He's currently on loan at Lincoln City where he has scored 1 in 3.
Delap - Left the club in summer 2019 for Man City, he has played for their first team on 3 occasions scoring once.
And the handful of others who have left:
Charles - Joined Mansfield and played twice, who loaned him out to York City where he made 4 apps
Archie Brown - Move to Switzerland in the summer just gone to play for Lausanne-Sport. Has made 2 apps, and a further 2 out on loan.
French
Foster
Minkley
Nto
Splatt
Greco

Ok, I'm confused because you're now basically agreeing with @kevinhectoring...
I initially read it as the QCs had said the claims were unlikely and the QCs had also said they weren't football creditors.  A closer reading definitely makes me agree that it's the admins saying that. Which does kind of beg @kevinhectoring's question... If the admins had a firm legal opinion that they were not football creditors, why not just say that in the statement, rather than say they were standing by their own judgement?  It does suggest they don't have one.
(I'm not sticking the knife into anyone here, it may well be that they feel they don't need a legal opinion as it's clear from statute, or that the legal opinion on chance-of-success renders the second point moot, or something else. I don't know enough about the insolvency process to know.)

I'm not sure what is so confusing about this, the administrators have told RamsTrust that they have consulted with 3 QC's who have said that it would unlikely to ever succeed in a court of law.
And RamsTrust go on to say:
They also stand by the view that the claims should not stand as Football Creditors and are working with the EFL to confirm/clarify this.
"They" clearly being the administrators, as the QC's would not be in discussions with the EFL.
Kevin has read "deep" into this and came up with the administrators must have asked 2 questions, with one of the answers excluded, which would suggest the administrators are ignoring their QC's by pushing ahead with trying to get the EFL to clarify...oh and according to Kevin, Quantuma wrote the whole thing.
So no, we do not agree and I'm finding it hard to believe how this is all being twisted this morning. I'm off to put the kettle on and find the paracetamol.

It's easy. 
Start from the back page and keep reading until it mentions immigrants, benefits or Princess Diana 
 

That alternative fixture list nonsense just sums up the EFL's entire attitude to this for me.  Endless mad panic, lurching from one disaster to another, because their rules are clearly inadequate for the job, and they don't have the moral authority or the diplomacy to smooth over it.
I don't think they had any choice but to deal with 2 potential fixtures lists, because they'd managed to engineer the situation where the season was starting and they still hadn't managed to fully figure out which league teams were supposed to be in.  Now 2 teams have decided to just ride roughshod over the EFL's disciplinary process because they didn't like the outcome another team was given, and the EFL is just burying their head in the sand because they don't know what to do.

This point is highly significant. As I've been telling nobheads on Twitter for some time now, Quantuma owe a greater duty to established creditors than unproven claims that haven't been tested in Court or Arbitration. Those who blather on about "just settle those claims and a takeover can proceed" need to understand this. 

I think he's upset that information that isn't the information he would like is being leaked - like, gibson isn't the hero of the piece and not the details of the discussions with creditors?
He wasn't demanding commercial confidentiality when he wanted us investigated and he wasn't against leaking when journos knew the outcome of efl proceedings before the tribunal did....

Not sure why you’ve posted this on our accountancy/legal forum. 

Nobody trusts the EFL Arbitration process. There’s no right of appeal, it’s one shot and done. And we’ve already had a case where we were comprehensively cleared of all relevant charges, only for it to be completely reversed on appeal, for reasons that still aren’t 100% clear. It’s a crapshoot no matter how strong or weak the claims are.

It’s -15 for not paying other creditors 25%, expulsion for not paying football creditors 100% IIRC.

I’m worried we’re already past that point, and we’re on the risk of being kicked out anyway for not paying football creditors 100%.

Nobody trusts the EFL Arbitration process. There’s no right of appeal, it’s one shot and done. And we’ve already had a case where we were comprehensively cleared of all relevant charges, only for it to be completely reversed on appeal, for reasons that still aren’t 100% clear. It’s a crapshoot no matter how strong or weak the claims are.

EFL Rule 104.1.4: Except with the prior written consent of the Board no Club may, either directly or indirectly have any power whatsoever to influence the financial, commercial or business affairs or the management or administration of another football club
 

If you believe what Alan Nixon was saying this morning, and what I’ve long suspected anyway, the £20m for the stadium clears the MSD loan against it. We’re not just paying Mel the money for his own gain.

They're being more than a little disingenuous there. Sensing a bit of a pattern here...
It's an absolute statement of fact that 'Boro and the EFL reached a deal where 'Boro would stop their action against the EFL if the EFL pursued claims against Derby:

The question put before the IDC was basically whether the deal prejudiced the case against Derby, which they ruled it didn't:

Both from: https://www.efl.com/contentassets/c9fc5dceaa7f4b62b81dca0b9e2f7c9d/efl-v-Derby-county--decision.pdf

If the stadium fee was an issue, the PB could opt out of buying it and continue paying the £1.1m annual rent

If you believe what Alan Nixon was saying this morning, and what I’ve long suspected anyway, the £20m for the stadium clears the MSD loan against it. We’re not just paying Mel the money for his own gain.

If you believe what Alan Nixon was saying this morning, and what I’ve long suspected anyway, the £20m for the stadium clears the MSD loan against it. We’re not just paying Mel the money for his own gain.

If you believe what Alan Nixon was saying this morning, and what I’ve long suspected anyway, the £20m for the stadium clears the MSD loan against it. We’re not just paying Mel the money for his own gain.

If you believe what Alan Nixon was saying this morning, and what I’ve long suspected anyway, the £20m for the stadium clears the MSD loan against it. We’re not just paying Mel the money for his own gain.

Genuinely, what incentive is there for Quantuma to lie about having deals with HMRC, MSD etc? Because I'm not seeing it. The last thing they want is a big public spat, and then it all to fall through because they've publicly lied about stuff. Their reputation is trashed and for what?

They're being more than a little disingenuous there. Sensing a bit of a pattern here...
It's an absolute statement of fact that 'Boro and the EFL reached a deal where 'Boro would stop their action against the EFL if the EFL pursued claims against Derby:

The question put before the IDC was basically whether the deal prejudiced the case against Derby, which they ruled it didn't:

Both from: https://www.efl.com/contentassets/c9fc5dceaa7f4b62b81dca0b9e2f7c9d/efl-v-Derby-county--decision.pdf

I do wish you would all stop posting, my refresh button is knackered

I think it's dangerous to concede anything to Boro & Wycombe - they have to be talked down by Government and the EFL. If we accept that their claims are in any way valid, that opens the door to other clubs who haven't contemplated making claims and expecting settlements, unless the EFL change the rules to outlaw clubs taking action against each other for such matters. The can of worms that would be opened for further action against other clubs could destroy the pyramid system.
All disciplinary matters should in future be the responsibility of a new regulator paid for by the EPL, since they're the ones with 90% of the TV money.

Imagine how awful you must be when you are making Leeds look classy by comparison...