JPRamFan

They still haven't got it through their thick skulls. No PB is going to sit through a legal mediation with Boro and Wycombe because that could mean they're liable for those costs. 

The article on the BBC on Monday about taking out an injunction on these claims seems feasible now. No way will these claims be compromised any other way. 

Bugger ? that makes it sound like we need either/or:
A bloody good sports lawyer, and quick... to prove they're not football debts The EFL to change their stance MFC/WWFC to change their stance External forces (government) to override decisions None of which seem very likely at this stage, sadly.

What have Quantuma done? They didn’t just release a statement on Friday night, they released a hand grenade which has exploded spectacularly, fans have latched onto it creates momentum and within 2 working days parliament are involved. They’ve not spoken because they haven’t needed to.
EFL have nearly spontaneously combusted with their statement last night. Basically implied their insolvency rules are open to interpretation and subject to change, in other words they make it up as they go along ???
Boro come out today citing systematic cheating as the basis for their claim on a set of arguments already settled and ruled upon by disciplinary commissions (ie stadium sale) and also the same arguments as the case they brought to the LAP which was ruled against, no systematic cheating was found in ANY of the judgements in the original IDC, subsequent LAP, and final IDC ruling, all they have is subjective opinion.
Wycombe, while RD gave Couhig the platform to prove he’s a sharp lawyer, they also let him reveal his reasons for the action, which proves they absolutely have no case at all because the IDC did not rule on the Derby sanction, the fine of £100k and the restatement of accounts until after the season had ended, therefore there is no way the points could have been applied earlier, the whole process we also know was delayed by Boro’s failed action, the LAP judgement told us this.
They have all questioned the actions of Quantuma, of course they are going to!! They want to deflect from the weakness of their arguments and all those parties are concerned about how they’re being portrayed. Are Quantuma bothered, maybe/maybe not but it’s not about saving public face it’s about getting a deal done no matter how dirty it gets. They’ve not spoken to Boro and Wycombe because they don’t believe the claims and have a legal way around them potentially, so they weren’t priority, doing a deal with HMRC was absolute priority, while Pauline Latham said we wasn’t entirely happy about her meeting with the administrators, I’m sure I read another post say she believes it has implied Quantuma have a deal with HMRC. In fact we go back to Quantuma’s statement last Friday and that also implies they have a deal in place with everyone (or at least a route forward) except Boro and Wycombe. The events of the last few days have refocused everyone and led all parties to say they’re willing to come to the table to try and sort this out - maybe that is what they wanted and exactly what was needed.
The MPs are now challenging ALL parties to get this deal done and that is the right approach and Quantuma will be under pressure to deliver on their requirements.
 

Someone can use this as a starting point if they want...
Timeline of events, beginning with the introduction of financial regulation in the Championship.
1.       2012 - FFP Rules (monitored over 1 season) implemented
2.       24/05/14 - Derby lose to FFP cheats QPR in the Playoff Final
3.       November 2014 – P&S rules (monitored over 3 seasons) voted in to replace FFP rules for the 16/17 season onwards.
4.       Summer 2015 – Derby change amortisation policy for the 15/16 season (after discussing the change with the auditors)
5.       07/04/17 – 15/16 accounts are submitted to Companies House
6.       06/04/18 – 16/17 accounts are submitted to Companies House
7.       Spring 2018 –2016-18 P&S information submitted to EFL (within limits)
8.       12/04/18 – Revised 2016-18 P&S information submitted to EFL due to differences between FFP and P&S calculations (£5m over the limit)
9.       04/05/18 – DCFC placed under embargo
10.   May 2018 – Stadium valued at £81.1m (profits basis) and £74.4m (DRC basis) by JLL
11.   June 2018 – Discussions with EFL to agree on stadium sale and how much to be included in the accounts)
12.   28/06/18 – Stadium sold for £81m. Revised 2016-18 P&S information submitted to EFL (within limits)
13.   03/07/18 – Embargo lifted
14.   04/07/18 – EFL confirmation that DCFC met their P&S requirements for the 3 year period to 2018.
15.   15/02/19 – EFL Executive confirmation that £81.1m was fair value for the stadium.
16.   06/03/19 – placed under embargo for late submission of P&S statements
17.   29/03/19 – 2019 P&S statements submitted to EFL (within limits) and embargo lifted. New embargo placed on club due to being close to the limit.
18.   05/04/19 – 17/18 accounts are submitted to Companies House
19.   April 2019 - MFC queried, “in forceful terms”, the legitimacy of such a sale and leaseback arrangement
20.   15/04/19 – EFL query why amortization fluctuates so much between seasons.
21.   13/05/19 – Meeting between DCFC and EFL to discuss amortization, EFL stated “it is an acceptable accounting policy” with the EFL stating large future impairments are a risk for the club to take on
22.   24/05/19 – MFC submitted a claim against Derby, stating we cheated P&S by selling the stadium for too much and it wasn’t arms length.
23.   09/07/19 – MFC claim PPS should have been sold at a fair value of £22.8m
24.   11/07/19 – Embargo lifted
25.   30/07/19 – MFC officially threatened the EFL and DCFC with proceedings unless the EFL initiated disciplinary action against DCFC
26.   06/09/19 – MFC servered notice of arbitration to get profits from stadium sales excluded from P&S calculations (including those in the past)
27.   02/12/19 – EFL hired expert valued stadium at £42-50m. Expert had not visited the stadium but deemed the facilities to be “bog standard” and drew comparisons to Morecombe’s 6476 stadium with 3 terraced stands.
28.   16/01/20 – Derby charged with selling the stadium above it’s true value and for using improper amortization policy, resulting in exceeding P&S limits in the 3 years to 2018
29.   Early 2020 – Derby placed under embargo
30.   25/08/20 – DC cleared of overvaluing the stadium, found guilty for 1 of 5 particulars relating to the amortisation policy (not worded it adequately in the accounts), but insisted the policy was compliant with FRS102. DC panel consisted of accountants
31.   07/09/20 – EFL appealed against the DC decision
32.   07/09/20 – Boro started an arbitration against Derby and the EFL, in particular regarding the stadium valuation which allowed us to sign Waghorn
33.   22/10/20 – Boro’s application rejected
34.   30/11/20 – De novo hearing held and dismissed (EFL wanting draft 18/19 accounts submitted after DC decision to be considered)
35.   15/12/20 – EFL application for new evidence to be considered (18/19 draft accounts), dismissed 22/01/21
36.   July 2021 – LAP decision resulting in a restatement of 15/16 accounts onwards with a compliant amortization policy and a £100k fine. LAP did not consist of any accountants.
37.   22/09/21 – Derby enter administration
38.   16/11/21 – Administrators agree 9-point deduction due to EFL’s claim of a P&S overspend, a result of the EFL rejecting our new amortisation policy
 
Other noteworthy events:
EFL stated as wanting the points deduction against Derby to be applied in 20/21 to cause maximum punishment (relegation) when the season had already concluded.
Embargoes: 04/05/18-03/07/18, 06/03/19-11/07/19, early 2020-present

Unfortunately I'm not sure this is the smoking gun some of you think it is. Under that rule, *if* we were to lose an arbitration, there's no doubt in my mind that the money would be classed as a football creditor. The rule is just a list of which entities count as football creditors, it makes no real attempt to classify different types of debts or anything, it simply says that all money owed to other clubs is a football creditor debt, full stop.  The fact that the amount owing is as yet unresolved (and may well be zero) doesn't change the fact we would owe it.
The way to attack their claims are their rights to bring them in the first place, covering the illegality of taking action against clubs in admin, the fact 'Boro's claim has already been looked at and basically kicked out, the fact they're trying to re-run EFL disciplinary cases because they didn't agree with the outcomes, and probably plenty of other things too.
And if it does come to an actual hearing, we have precedent on our side anyway:

and

Both taken from the DC2 hearing against us, but are quoting the judgments against Birmingham and Sheff Weds respectively.  You cannot take evidence of overspending and convert it into any quantifiable measure of actual performance gain.
https://www.efl.com/contentassets/873a8914e09740d3b3a8848131ea10b8/210630---efl-v-Derby-county---decision-on-sanction-final.pdf

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. 

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."

Vendetta - there are countless examples
1. Brought a case against the club for PP sale and amortisation policy after signing both off. Had incompetent experts witnesses. Were forced into doing this by the muppet Gibson.
2. LAP finds us gulity of over estimating player values without an accounting expert on the panel. 
3. Having us over the barrel when we went into admin, and having to accept a 9 point deduction. Reading only got 6. 
4. Transfer Embargo and not being able to play some academy players, when Reading can go out and get Drinkwater and Carroll.
5. Now this crap, having to sell players to survive until the end of the season, because of stupid claims.
In conclusion a vendetta yes.

Vendetta - there are countless examples
1. Brought a case against the club for PP sale and amortisation policy after signing both off. Had incompetent experts witnesses. Were forced into doing this by the muppet Gibson.
2. LAP finds us gulity of over estimating player values without an accounting expert on the panel. 
3. Having us over the barrel when we went into admin, and having to accept a 9 point deduction. Reading only got 6. 
4. Transfer Embargo and not being able to play some academy players, when Reading can go out and get Drinkwater and Carroll.
5. Now this crap, having to sell players to survive until the end of the season, because of stupid claims.
In conclusion a vendetta yes.

Vendetta - there are countless examples
1. Brought a case against the club for PP sale and amortisation policy after signing both off. Had incompetent experts witnesses. Were forced into doing this by the muppet Gibson.
2. LAP finds us gulity of over estimating player values without an accounting expert on the panel. 
3. Having us over the barrel when we went into admin, and having to accept a 9 point deduction. Reading only got 6. 
4. Transfer Embargo and not being able to play some academy players, when Reading can go out and get Drinkwater and Carroll.
5. Now this crap, having to sell players to survive until the end of the season, because of stupid claims.
In conclusion a vendetta yes.

Vendetta - there are countless examples
1. Brought a case against the club for PP sale and amortisation policy after signing both off. Had incompetent experts witnesses. Were forced into doing this by the muppet Gibson.
2. LAP finds us gulity of over estimating player values without an accounting expert on the panel. 
3. Having us over the barrel when we went into admin, and having to accept a 9 point deduction. Reading only got 6. 
4. Transfer Embargo and not being able to play some academy players, when Reading can go out and get Drinkwater and Carroll.
5. Now this crap, having to sell players to survive until the end of the season, because of stupid claims.
In conclusion a vendetta yes.

Vendetta - there are countless examples
1. Brought a case against the club for PP sale and amortisation policy after signing both off. Had incompetent experts witnesses. Were forced into doing this by the muppet Gibson.
2. LAP finds us gulity of over estimating player values without an accounting expert on the panel. 
3. Having us over the barrel when we went into admin, and having to accept a 9 point deduction. Reading only got 6. 
4. Transfer Embargo and not being able to play some academy players, when Reading can go out and get Drinkwater and Carroll.
5. Now this crap, having to sell players to survive until the end of the season, because of stupid claims.
In conclusion a vendetta yes.

Vendetta - there are countless examples
1. Brought a case against the club for PP sale and amortisation policy after signing both off. Had incompetent experts witnesses. Were forced into doing this by the muppet Gibson.
2. LAP finds us gulity of over estimating player values without an accounting expert on the panel. 
3. Having us over the barrel when we went into admin, and having to accept a 9 point deduction. Reading only got 6. 
4. Transfer Embargo and not being able to play some academy players, when Reading can go out and get Drinkwater and Carroll.
5. Now this crap, having to sell players to survive until the end of the season, because of stupid claims.
In conclusion a vendetta yes.

Vendetta - there are countless examples
1. Brought a case against the club for PP sale and amortisation policy after signing both off. Had incompetent experts witnesses. Were forced into doing this by the muppet Gibson.
2. LAP finds us gulity of over estimating player values without an accounting expert on the panel. 
3. Having us over the barrel when we went into admin, and having to accept a 9 point deduction. Reading only got 6. 
4. Transfer Embargo and not being able to play some academy players, when Reading can go out and get Drinkwater and Carroll.
5. Now this crap, having to sell players to survive until the end of the season, because of stupid claims.
In conclusion a vendetta yes.

You only have to look at the messages of support from fans of other clubs. It's clear that the dislike and lack of respect for the EFL is universal.
Their lack of support for Wigan, Bolton and others was shocking. Bury, it was a disgrace.
I think it's clear that the EFL is not fit for purpose. Amateur old men with self interests.
Football, as a whole, is no longer the people's game. The Premier League is all that matters to the media in this country. But it was the European Super League that really showed that the money people do not care about the supporters - just the revenue with which they line their pockets.
I do not know where Tracey Crouch is with the investigation and report into football governance.
However, I am sure that the loss of such a big club as Derby County, champions of England 50 years ago and founders of the Football League, will create an earthquake in the game. It will shake things up.
The EFL will simply not survive.

Their rules allow them to wage a vendetta against a club but then deny they're waging a vendetta by pointing out that they're just following their rules.
Classic.

Vendetta - there are countless examples
1. Brought a case against the club for PP sale and amortisation policy after signing both off. Had incompetent experts witnesses. Were forced into doing this by the muppet Gibson.
2. LAP finds us gulity of over estimating player values without an accounting expert on the panel. 
3. Having us over the barrel when we went into admin, and having to accept a 9 point deduction. Reading only got 6. 
4. Transfer Embargo and not being able to play some academy players, when Reading can go out and get Drinkwater and Carroll.
5. Now this crap, having to sell players to survive until the end of the season, because of stupid claims.
In conclusion a vendetta yes.

Vendetta - there are countless examples
1. Brought a case against the club for PP sale and amortisation policy after signing both off. Had incompetent experts witnesses. Were forced into doing this by the muppet Gibson.
2. LAP finds us gulity of over estimating player values without an accounting expert on the panel. 
3. Having us over the barrel when we went into admin, and having to accept a 9 point deduction. Reading only got 6. 
4. Transfer Embargo and not being able to play some academy players, when Reading can go out and get Drinkwater and Carroll.
5. Now this crap, having to sell players to survive until the end of the season, because of stupid claims.
In conclusion a vendetta yes.

Vendetta - there are countless examples
1. Brought a case against the club for PP sale and amortisation policy after signing both off. Had incompetent experts witnesses. Were forced into doing this by the muppet Gibson.
2. LAP finds us gulity of over estimating player values without an accounting expert on the panel. 
3. Having us over the barrel when we went into admin, and having to accept a 9 point deduction. Reading only got 6. 
4. Transfer Embargo and not being able to play some academy players, when Reading can go out and get Drinkwater and Carroll.
5. Now this crap, having to sell players to survive until the end of the season, because of stupid claims.
In conclusion a vendetta yes.

Vendetta - there are countless examples
1. Brought a case against the club for PP sale and amortisation policy after signing both off. Had incompetent experts witnesses. Were forced into doing this by the muppet Gibson.
2. LAP finds us gulity of over estimating player values without an accounting expert on the panel. 
3. Having us over the barrel when we went into admin, and having to accept a 9 point deduction. Reading only got 6. 
4. Transfer Embargo and not being able to play some academy players, when Reading can go out and get Drinkwater and Carroll.
5. Now this crap, having to sell players to survive until the end of the season, because of stupid claims.
In conclusion a vendetta yes.

Have you thrown up mate?

What do you think? After all that the ref let go, the first card was for Tom removing his shirt after the second goal. Serious foul play, apparently!

I'm sure he is a nice man, but I'd happily tie him Gibson, Charlie Austin and the weird looking fella at Wycombe together and strap them to Elon Musks next rocket.