surely you can be sued for saying an organisation cheated when there is zero evidence that it did? It also sounds like he is calling out other things that we were cleared of but still calling them cheating !!
surely you can be sued for saying an organisation cheated when there is zero evidence that it did? It also sounds like he is calling out other things that we were cleared of but still calling them cheating !!
surely you can be sued for saying an organisation cheated when there is zero evidence that it did? It also sounds like he is calling out other things that we were cleared of but still calling them cheating !!
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.
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."
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?
You only have to look at how other teams fans view him..before and after the Bournemouth game their fans were saying they hope their club goes in for him in January..they think he is a fantastic player..