R@M

Neutral fan in peace here!
This whole mess (which I am sorry you are all suffering btw) seems to be getting very mixed up with all the information and misinformation flying around.
I seem to have read the Gibson letter differently than most here thought (possibly less emotionally?) in that to me all it was saying is that this is a complex issue and not just a simple WW/MFC are to blame, lets get together to discuss it - and from his point of view likely agree a settlement I guess.
 
Genuinely don't understand where the deadline has come from either, seems to be entirely arbitrary to me, but again as external I don't know the complexities of it. Seems to be a lot of incompetent people from EFL to administrators involved though

Absolutely - I have no reason to be a Quantuma fan boy but there statement is so much more professional so much more balanced than the EFL 'blame everyone else' approach. YOU ARE THE EFFING REGULATOR, sort it.

People calling Quantuma and saying they're incompetent - no chance, this is probably one of the hardest things they've had to deal with and IMO, they've handled things well so far.
They seem to be the only ones who come across as professional.

Well I have worked in business for many years and in all modesty I understand boring things like accounts better than most, I suspect.

I was unaware of Derby's accounting policy because I followed Derby's football, not their finances. Until January 2020 when the first publicity about the EFL charge came out. I thought then that it was very unlikely that EFL would overturn an indpendent professional's valuation of PPS, and so it proved. I though then that the allegation about amortisation, as it was described in the press as depreciating to non zero values at end of contract coudl not possibly be true. And it wasn't, that wasn't what Derby were doing, and that part of the charge was dropped.    

So really even after the publicity in January 2020 there was no reason for me to believe we were doing anything wrong. In August 2020 the IDC gave it's opinion which was basically the same as mine. EFL appealed but not aware on what grounds becasue the IDC decision which I read in full,  seemed pretty overhwlemingly to destroy the EFC case, including their expert who didn't even know what his duty as expert was meant to be.
Only in May 2021 did I start to supect ther wa sreally a problem when the LAP surprsingly oeverturned the ID judgment. But unti lMM's RD interview in September 2021 it wasnt confirmed that w ehad broken teh FFP , and even then only on the EFL's preferred amortsiation method which i snot a mandatory requirement.
So the idea we should all have known MM was breaking the rules, if I (for example) didn't know until September 2021, i think is just ridiculous and offensive to all Rams fans. Couhig should be charged with bringing the game into disrepute.
 

Or competent 

Or competent 

Or competent 

Or competent 

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."

Meanwhile, there are rumours that Forest are about to sell their £13M flop, Joao Carvalho. I bet you can't guess which club is tipped to sign him?
Even more impressively, the Post manages to avoid reporting the fact that the same man owns both clubs.
And it's us that deserve liquidation for trying to find dodges to get round FFP, apparently.
Will the EFL be all over this?
 

A few fans on hunger strike outside the EFL main office in Preston for a week would work. 

Looks like the combination of emails to MPs, Twitter messages etc. are already doing a job. Lots of MPs saying they want urgent meetings with Sports Minister and EFL..great stuff..keeping the pressure up is vital and spreading the message wider is also essential to make things happen. Also a few celebs Tweeting about Derby and seems like at least a part of the mainstream media is picking up the message.
Great stuff by everyone . All Derby fans are after the same outcome...end the vendetta..we have our punishment..let us get on with the football. The Petitions will look great with the thousands of signatures, again the wider the message spreads the more people will sign.
Do we have any agreed hashtags we could use to keep the messages linked and relevant?
 

I saw Stephanie Eranio had also signed 

I tweeted him yesterday….and a few of the others?

I tweeted him yesterday….and a few of the others?

I tweeted him yesterday….and a few of the others?

I tweeted him yesterday….and a few of the others?

It should have been for weeks!

Put our claim in now, we want £200mil from QPR. While we are at it, how about £50mil from every other club that has breached ffp and cost us the couple of points which would have given us automatic promotion. Start the free for all. 

That's it then. Global media exposure closely follows.