San Fran Van Rams

I'm not an insolvency or administration legal expert, but i'd thought no legal proceedings can be brought or continued against a company in administration unless the admins agree or the court allows it. So if MFCs claim has not been upheld in court prior to admin and if the courts have not said it can continue, how can MFC or WW continue to press for it? Or is DCFC not in true administration in the eyes of the law?
https://www.lexisnexis.com/uk/lexispsl/restructuringandinsolvency/document/393781/55KG-P041-F18C-C0S4-00000-00/Claims_against_insolvent_companies_and_individuals_overview

I'm not an insolvency or administration legal expert, but i'd thought no legal proceedings can be brought or continued against a company in administration unless the admins agree or the court allows it. So if MFCs claim has not been upheld in court prior to admin and if the courts have not said it can continue, how can MFC or WW continue to press for it? Or is DCFC not in true administration in the eyes of the law?
https://www.lexisnexis.com/uk/lexispsl/restructuringandinsolvency/document/393781/55KG-P041-F18C-C0S4-00000-00/Claims_against_insolvent_companies_and_individuals_overview

Not sure that’s quite right. The October 2020 claim was ‘Boro trying to either latch into the EFL’s appeal, or start their own appeal. They were denied both times on the grounds they had no jurisdiction or standing.  The 14 days thing only applies to appeals. They are free to file a general notice of arbitration against any club, at any time, for any reason.  Which is what they’ve apparently done in January 2021.
The way I see it, any argument over the stadium should be shot down straightaway. The rules are clear that only the league can initiate disciplinary cases. By trying to rerun the charge that we have already been completely cleared of, they are trying to start a disciplinary case, and have no jurisdiction. That also applies to any brand new claims they make.  They need to raise their case with the EFL and get them to prosecute it.
For the amortisation issue, they maybe have some grounds, but there is ample precedent in existing EFL disciplinary cases that you can’t correlate overspending with specific sporting outcomes, to suggest they have no case.  I’m sure there’s also a reference (in DC2, I think) that states that points deductions are deterrents, they are not meant to be corrective actions to level things up again. So there’s no argument there. You can also argue that if DC2 had felt that ‘Boro had been sufficiently harmed, then they had the power to award them compensation, but actively chose not to.

Made the same point in another post.  In October 2020 MFC claim was rebuffed.  Para 4 of that decisions states that they told the EFL of their intention to claim against us if we were found guilty of a breach.  That didn’t happen until May 2021.  Their claim in January 2021 is invalid as at that time we hadn’t been found guilty of anything.  Unless they resubmitted within 14 days of the decision in May, there is no claim.  And, that judgement in October 2020 said MFC had no power under the Regs to bring an arbitration.
MFC basically submitted their claim in 12 months ago on the assumption we would be found guilty.  If we all follow that approach before the season starts we should submit a claim against all 23 other clubs just in case they breach FFP and finish above us!!

When was the LAP?  From their club statement, MFC started arbitration proceedings before Derby were sanctioned and required to resubmit accounts. The DC made its final decision in July 2021... https://www.dcfc.co.uk/news/2021/07/efl-statement-Derby-county-sanction-written-reasons, a full 6 months after the arbitration began. 
MFC became aware that Derby County was cheating under the P&S Rules during 2018/19. MFC first intimated a claim against Derby County in May 2019 immediately following the end of the 2018/19 season. The claim was held in abeyance whilst the EFL Disciplinary Proceedings against Derby County were followed through to a conclusion. MFC then sent Derby County a Letter Before Action in the autumn of 2020 and started arbitration proceedings against Derby County in January 2021.

When was the LAP?  From their club statement, MFC started arbitration proceedings before Derby were sanctioned and required to resubmit accounts. The DC made its final decision in July 2021... https://www.dcfc.co.uk/news/2021/07/efl-statement-Derby-county-sanction-written-reasons, a full 6 months after the arbitration began. 
MFC became aware that Derby County was cheating under the P&S Rules during 2018/19. MFC first intimated a claim against Derby County in May 2019 immediately following the end of the 2018/19 season. The claim was held in abeyance whilst the EFL Disciplinary Proceedings against Derby County were followed through to a conclusion. MFC then sent Derby County a Letter Before Action in the autumn of 2020 and started arbitration proceedings against Derby County in January 2021.

92           Decisions
92.1        The Disciplinary Commission may at any time make a decision, and may make more than one decision at different times on different aspects of the matters to be determined.
92.2        A decision may:
92.2.1    order a party to do or refrain from doing anything;
92.2.2    order a specific performance;
92.2.3    make a declaration on any matter to be determined;
92.2.4    issue a reprimand or warning as to the future conduct of a party;
92.2.5    order the payment of compensation to The League, any Club, any other club, Player or other person;
 
Yes but the decision to require Derby to pay compensation to MFC should have been made by the DC at the time of the trial and not brought retrospectively by MFC. 

I’ve lost count of the number of times I’ve read this document in the last few days.  I think paragraphs 12 - 26 are quite interesting as they discuss the jurisdiction for MFC to go to arbitration, the EFL Regs (in particular sections 8 and 9) and discuss whether MFC can bring the arbitration.
This case was brought based on over valuing PP.  Importantly, they do not discuss the cause reason.  They discuss whether the Regs allow them to bring the claim in principle.  This is always the first point to establish in contract law - establish the principle, then establish the quantum.  Para 26 states “we therefore conclude there is no power for MFC to bring the MFC arbitration”.
Regardless that MFC launched a claim under different guise, the principle has been established.

When was the LAP?  From their club statement, MFC started arbitration proceedings before Derby were sanctioned and required to resubmit accounts. The DC made its final decision in July 2021... https://www.dcfc.co.uk/news/2021/07/efl-statement-Derby-county-sanction-written-reasons, a full 6 months after the arbitration began. 
MFC became aware that Derby County was cheating under the P&S Rules during 2018/19. MFC first intimated a claim against Derby County in May 2019 immediately following the end of the 2018/19 season. The claim was held in abeyance whilst the EFL Disciplinary Proceedings against Derby County were followed through to a conclusion. MFC then sent Derby County a Letter Before Action in the autumn of 2020 and started arbitration proceedings against Derby County in January 2021.

Exactly .. and in any case it is the EFL who act on the EFL’s rules. The only thing Boro can do is complain to the EFL and say “you have to act according to this regulation.” To which the EFL must respond, either by rejecting the complaint or issuing a sanction to Derby. It’s an action that should take place between Boro and the governing body .. NOT between clubs .. that isn’t in the regulation. 

92           Decisions
92.1        The Disciplinary Commission may at any time make a decision, and may make more than one decision at different times on different aspects of the matters to be determined.
92.2        A decision may:
92.2.1    order a party to do or refrain from doing anything;
92.2.2    order a specific performance;
92.2.3    make a declaration on any matter to be determined;
92.2.4    issue a reprimand or warning as to the future conduct of a party;
92.2.5    order the payment of compensation to The League, any Club, any other club, Player or other person;
 
Yes but the decision to require Derby to pay compensation to MFC should have been made by the DC at the time of the trial and not brought retrospectively by MFC. 

92           Decisions
92.1        The Disciplinary Commission may at any time make a decision, and may make more than one decision at different times on different aspects of the matters to be determined.
92.2        A decision may:
92.2.1    order a party to do or refrain from doing anything;
92.2.2    order a specific performance;
92.2.3    make a declaration on any matter to be determined;
92.2.4    issue a reprimand or warning as to the future conduct of a party;
92.2.5    order the payment of compensation to The League, any Club, any other club, Player or other person;
 
Yes but the decision to require Derby to pay compensation to MFC should have been made by the DC at the time of the trial and not brought retrospectively by MFC. 

92           Decisions
92.1        The Disciplinary Commission may at any time make a decision, and may make more than one decision at different times on different aspects of the matters to be determined.
92.2        A decision may:
92.2.1    order a party to do or refrain from doing anything;
92.2.2    order a specific performance;
92.2.3    make a declaration on any matter to be determined;
92.2.4    issue a reprimand or warning as to the future conduct of a party;
92.2.5    order the payment of compensation to The League, any Club, any other club, Player or other person;
 
Yes but the decision to require Derby to pay compensation to MFC should have been made by the DC at the time of the trial and not brought retrospectively by MFC. 

92           Decisions
92.1        The Disciplinary Commission may at any time make a decision, and may make more than one decision at different times on different aspects of the matters to be determined.
92.2        A decision may:
92.2.1    order a party to do or refrain from doing anything;
92.2.2    order a specific performance;
92.2.3    make a declaration on any matter to be determined;
92.2.4    issue a reprimand or warning as to the future conduct of a party;
92.2.5    order the payment of compensation to The League, any Club, any other club, Player or other person;
 
Yes but the decision to require Derby to pay compensation to MFC should have been made by the DC at the time of the trial and not brought retrospectively by MFC. 

We have constantly been advised by the EFL that any member of the EFL Board who has a personal interest in the Derby/Middlesborough/Wycombe saga is not allowed to sit in a meeting where discussions/decisions are held/made.
 
Surely if the EFL Board, as a whole, have made an agreement with Middlesborough FC to take action against Derby, to avoid the EFL being sued by Middlesborough - then all of the Board (who made that agreement with Middlesborough) has a “conflict of interest” and should not decide whether Middlesborough’s current claim is a “Football Debt”.
 
This decision should be taken by an independent body.

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."

Can't we create one of those Change.org petitions where when the matter being supported gets so many votes then it has to be discussed at a certain level?

Whilst I appreciate it will be likely treated with contempt - I have sent the following email to Mr Parry and Mr Birch - it will get us no further forward I’m sure - but at least I’ve got it off my chest!!!  And now I can get behind the team this afternoon.
See you at 3pm COYR!!! ?
 
“Like many other Derby County fans - I gravely concerned by the current situation threatening my football club and I hope you are able to provide some clarity.  In a statement issued by our Administrators they state: 
“The difficulty and currently, in our view, the last remaining significant obstacle is to deal with certain claims that are very much disputed but which we are being advised by the EFL cannot be currently compromised notwithstanding statute says otherwise.” 
It is this paragraph which concerns me most. In essence it appears that the EFL Board is overriding statutory law in order to punish Derby County beyond what is fair and reasonable. I’d therefore like to ask the following:
1. Is the statement made by the administrator’s of Derby County FC factually correct? 
2. If so, can you confirm which body within the EFL has reached this conclusion?
3. Can you provide confirmation that this body has full independence in so far as any member of the Board or its nominated sub-committee which maybe presiding over this matter is not conflicted by way of ownership / interest / contract / membership of or to any of the parties bringing claims against Derby County?
4. Can you share the specific articles of law or other legally binding agreement that are being relied upon to override what might be considered statute. 
5. Please provide evidence of how the EFL is acting impartially and has applied lessons learned from the sad demise of Bury FC in the handling of this particular matter. 
6. Please provide evidence of how the EFL is working to protect the interest of the thousands of innocent football fans affected by this ongoing punishment of Derby County Football Club. 
On this point, it should be made clear that Derby County is more than a name, more than a pawn in an egotistical, power play - it’s an important part of many peoples lives - it does a huge amount to support the community it serves. The majority of these fans are victims and are angered and frustrated at the prior owners handling of matters. 
So my final ask, is please do not let the actions of the privileged few be an incentive to punish thousands of innocent victims. The mental anguish you are causing the thousands of people now needs to stop. You have a duty of care which extends beyond your fiduciary duty to the member clubs.
Many thanks for taking the time to read this note.”

No, it's all about not being able to fight back! That is the position Derby are currently in.

Can't quite gather from the article whether they're backing the claims or not. Outrageous if they are, although not overly surprising given their history. Morons.

Can't quite gather from the article whether they're backing the claims or not. Outrageous if they are, although not overly surprising given their history. Morons.

We're getting into politics here. I completely disagree that zero hour contracts and use of foreign workers are unethical. That's a huge leap to say it drove Brexit too. 
Ashley has money, has experience and the contacts to rescue and leave Derby in a better position than many others will ever have. He's not the human rights violator you seem to be portraying.

We're getting into politics here. I completely disagree that zero hour contracts and use of foreign workers are unethical. That's a huge leap to say it drove Brexit too. 
Ashley has money, has experience and the contacts to rescue and leave Derby in a better position than many others will ever have. He's not the human rights violator you seem to be portraying.

We're getting into politics here. I completely disagree that zero hour contracts and use of foreign workers are unethical. That's a huge leap to say it drove Brexit too. 
Ashley has money, has experience and the contacts to rescue and leave Derby in a better position than many others will ever have. He's not the human rights violator you seem to be portraying.

We're getting into politics here. I completely disagree that zero hour contracts and use of foreign workers are unethical. That's a huge leap to say it drove Brexit too. 
Ashley has money, has experience and the contacts to rescue and leave Derby in a better position than many others will ever have. He's not the human rights violator you seem to be portraying.