Wsm-ram

This whole situation is, if not wholly of the EFL's making, is certainly compounded by it to the point of it being inexorable.
They have stymied our trading with constant embargoes, throttled us financially by preventing benefit from the covid loan.
They have encouraged the parasites to save their own hides:
don't sue us, sue them;
dual fixture lists;
leaks to the press.
 
Yet they have no vendetta against us, oh do cluck off EFL, you're fooling no one.

This from Carl Jackson to a fan who contacted him directly this morning.
I think the administrators need space to sort this out. Demands from the fans for them to come out and talk all the while are surely not helping. Think they are meeting the fans groups tomorrow. 

Tango Man is backing us!
 

Then the EFL would have to bring their 'flexible' Solvency rules up to date and allow us to 'class-cram' (is the phrase?) Boro and Wycombe claims to zero. There has been an MPs comment in the House about how HMRC would get nothing if we are liquidated. There was another comment about how the EFL regs weren't up to date. Doesn't take much to put them together when Q have already tried this once.

I think our local MPs really stepped up to the plate this afternoon on our behalf.
All those on here calling them out on their comments after the meeting with the EFL yesterday should apologise. They were just fact gathering, and their backroom staff had them very well briefed inside twenty-four hours.
There was no politics, just local pride. I  applaud them all. 

And the Minister agreed with her.

I managed to catch the whole thing. It felt like an incredibly powerful moment, and very moving at times to hear everyone talk so passionately about our football club's future.
All the right points were hit, unanimously sympathetic to our situation and critical of our opponents.
 
A huge thanks must go out to Pauline Latham for getting us on the agenda, and to all the supporting local MPs for helping drive the issue.

More national media coverage, albeit at 11pm this eve 

Beckett, Perkins and Daley were brilliant. Very proud of our local MPs, but also those from farther afield that supported them.
 
One thing that is abundantly clear, the EFL as sole arbiters, are finished.

Burys mp ?????? Stating how useless the EFL are 

Bury MP ramming the point home. Well said my friend. Firmly said EFL found wanting in case of Bury and looking like the same is happening…

They obviously don’t like the publicity 
And I believe there to be liable in that statement and I wish we had an owner who would take them to task 
there is information in there which clearly they wouldn’t have been in possession of unless they obtained it from the EFL either legally or illegally 

How can Boro self-appoint themselves as "football creditors" when - as they say their "claim" has not yet been ruled upon.
They need @David to explain what a creditor means.

He was excellent in driving home the key point.
This is fantastic. I hope the EFL, Boro and Wycombe are watching. 

Margaret Beckett: "He said in his opening remarks that nobody wants to see the club go under. Well, some of us are beginning to wonder."

I want to hear something strong from the Minister on this soon. He isn't there, but he has to come out strong on it. Great to hear the contribution from Julian Knight MP, too, saying that the EFL should show decency after relying on a bailout themselves.

Margaret Beckett said fewest words but had the biggest impact! 

Always knew we were massive.
We've got Covid and Immigration warming the crowd up for us.

Currently talking with various members and fan groups privately to compile key points that can be pinned on the forum to be shared with the media and MP's.  

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."

It's definitely true because I saw it. I think I may have even took a screenshot. I thought it was cheeky on their part, but didn't think it was overly insidious. The fact they have deleted it does tell its own story though.