Oldben
-
Posts
1,523 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Oldben
-
-
29 minutes ago, RoyMac5 said:
I guess we have to hope that HMRC wade in our our interpretation too? I find it stunning that the law of the land can be so easily ignored by what is basically a big boys club.
Hmrc will not be riding to the rescue on this.
The efl have not categorically stated that boro and Wycombe are to be treated as football creditors.
They have stated that they want Derby to either take their case to court or to arbitration.
In my opinion, the only way forward is a legal challenge.
Arbitration is cheaper, and might solve the issue.
In any case the Administrators must stop running away from the issue.
As things stand if Boro and Wycombe win their case, Derby will face liquidation.
Then Derby can reform as a new club.
-
2 minutes ago, Ghost of Clough said:
I believe...
1. prosecuting side choose person
2. defending side choose one person
3. The two chosen barristers choose someone between them
I'm concerned that according to the rules, when a general decision can't be reached, a majority vote carries the day.
There's no opportunity for appeal.
There's no jury.
-
56 minutes ago, Gritstone Tup said:
Exactly! Pointless and dangerous exercise going to arbitration, which seemed to be pushed along by local mps. We can stay in administration for 18 months, no rush looking for a new buyer but we needed to find £5milion from this transfer window which we’ve refused to do.
If there's a win for m/w it means liquidation, then reestablishing a new club.
I think that club would be in League Two?!
Rangers, a Scottish football club, had financial issues in the late 2000s.
The Rangers Football Club plc went into administration in February 2012.
HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) refused to allow Rangers to exit administration via a Company Voluntary Arrangement (CVA) (CVA).
Rangers Football Club plc went bankrupt on October 31, 2012.
Due to the CVA refusal, the administrators had to sell Rangers to a new company run by Charles Green.
The Scottish Premier League's other clubs refused to let the new company take over the old company's membership.
Green then joined the Scottish Football League.
Rangers (now trading as The Rangers Football Club Ltd) joined the Scottish Football Association (SFA) in time for the 2012–13 season.
Rangers were promoted to the Scottish Premier League in 2016 and won their first title since insolvency in 2021.
-
Looking forward to protecting at boro.
Maybe a plane with a banner.
-
A panel of 3 judges will meet, they will determine if there's an argument for determining if m/w can be legally be classed as football creditors.
If there's a case, they will decide what amount is a fair amount.
Gibson claimed he never asked for 45 million, that's possible as he would know that he can't just ask for an amount as the amount will be set by the arbitration panel and only then if the panel determines him to be a football creditor.
Wycombes case is even weaker, but in any case they've claimed they are owed a certain amount, and they are not, unless the arbitration panel deterimes that they are football creditors.
Wycombes owner being an American lawyer, operates in the murky world of the ambulance chasers ie they sue for just about anything in the usa.
Their decision will can only be challenged on the reasons I mentioned above.
Even though hmrc previously tried to challenge such decisions, since football creditors have creditor rights above hmrc.
As for Derby, as mentioned we will be dependent on trial by 3 judges without a jury. Derby will be giving evidence and will listen to experts.
As i mentioned above there is potential for unfairness in who is called as an expert, said experts come from the efls own expert listing.
-
Arbitration has several flaws.
An arbitral award may be contested in domestic courts only in the following cases:
A major irregularity affecting the tribunal, procedures, or decision has caused or will cause some injustice; and the appeal is on a matter of law resulting from the award (although this basis for appeal may be omitted in the arbitration agreement.)
Each person must assess the benefits and downsides of arbitration. As a result, the following points are ambiguous.
Regardless of the outcome of arbitration on Derby, the decision is binding, that means Derby's administrators could absolve themselves from any decision by the arbitration panel, simply by saying that they did not agree with the verdict but had no choice but to go through arbitration to resolve the claims (regardless of whether those claims are fair).
Many decisions by the efl arbitration process have been considered unfair.
The efl arbitration panel will consist of 3 QC's but no jury, and although experts are called to give evidence, there is no guarantee that football insolvency specialists will be called. The review will be against the efls own rules, which some might argued require might not be entirely fit for purpose.
HMRC do not like the football arbitration panels as these rule football creditors as more important than they are, they have challenged this, but failed in the process.
Its possible Middlesbrough and Wycombe could receive significant payment awards via the process, and that doesnt mean that other creditors would reduce their demands, ergo Derby would cease to exist.
See the list below.
Arbitration Pros
Arbitration helps.
Arbitration is cheaper than court. This isn't always the case.
Other dispute settlement methods take longer since arbitrators have less work and time.
Either the parties or a system pick arbitrators. A neutral arbiter may be chosen by both parties (or arbitrators).
Even if an arbitrator errs, the award stands. This may assist settle a dispute.
There may be a lot of paperwork, hearings, and depositions during litigation. Arbitration may save time and money by avoiding court.
They are not public, nor are their transcripts. This might be useful for collecting.
Arbitration Cons
Arbitration does not always save money. Arbitration may be more costly than litigation in certain situations. It's up to you whether they're One only. This increases the expenses of the arbitration.
Some say a little dispute may be resolved in small claims court. Arbitration may be more known to businesses.
Arbitration isn't always faster, cheaper, or better. A lot of people, arbitrators, and legal conflicts might cause this.
A contract's small language may require customers to arbitrate conflicts. Other states may need more funds and time off.
Not even clearly erroneous arbitrator judgments may be reversed. The court has little power to overturn an unfair result.
Most customers and people respect a peer jury. No judge. One arbitrator may be both judge and jury.
-
https://www.hcrlaw.com/blog/powers-of-deduction-insolvency-in-football/
I hope that Boro and Wycombe are not classed as Creditors under this.
-
6 minutes ago, Sparkle said:
It’s all about EGO and money he knows his club spent a lot more money than Derby did in that season and he knows that they weren’t good enough to finish higher than 7th - he is more famous for trying to extort money out of business and organisations than anything else.
For gibson it's about this ...
For Wycombe it's about believing that lost 20 million when relegated, their ignoring the fact they probably should not have been in the Championship in the first place, they only were in the Championship because league one ended earlier than it should have done.
Wycombe were not good enough in the Championship and so were rightly relegated.
Now they want some money from Derby, which they don't deserve. There case is based on when Derby submitted details back to efl and Derby did so within the allowed time table - case dismissed!
- Indy and Kathcairns
-
2
-
As we head into arbitration with the efl.
-
-
The administrators lack brain's if they think selling plange is a good move
-
41 minutes ago, Chris_Martin said:
the EFL only allowed us to sign 4 players though.
It wasn't just about the 4 players, it was/is about the amount of money we can spend on the salary.
The other teams are not restricted in the same way
Now our teams so weak we are uncompetitive.
We've lost one game and drawn another, to stay up, we needed all 6 points.
-
18 hours ago, Chris_Martin said:
Wouldn't free agents be more willing to take a lower wage though, considering they're not playing or being paid anything?
that's what we did in the summer.
Unless Rooney can somehow sort some loan signings that wouldn't require any wage contribution.
In the summer, We missed out on a number of free agents that I wanted us to sign but we were not competitive on salaries due to restrictions.
-
Free agents are not a decent option, given that Derby are limited in the wages they are allowed to be offered.
-
1 hour ago, The Scarlet Pimpernel said:
Arbitration is legally binding without appeal. Mediation is an agreed position but not legally binding. We are going down the arbitration rote.
In this case its formality, expect boro/Wycombe to reduce their claims very little.
Arbitration doesn't mean forced to accept.
It opens the avenue to go to court.
Administrators have looked at the matter with their legal team and I believe with external legal advice, they found no case to answer but now boro/Wycombe will not back down.
That means this proceeds to court.
Boro haven't sought legal action against the other teams involved in the playoffs for that season, since they haven't breached ffp.
I think the court will rule that boro/Wycombe have zero right to be classed as creditors, so case dismissed.
They are minnows in the administration process.
Boro hears that Derby are 50 million in debt so made a claim for the same amount.
They did it for publicity, they must know that they don't have a realistic case.
Boro think that Derby are in so much debt, they can't afford to mount a legal defence and so pursue the claim.
Boro had almost 40 million debts last season so call for sum large enough to cover that debt.
It's a clever move from boro.
Wycombe claim that they lost 20 million by not staying in the championship, but their entire case appears to be based on when Derby submitted their documents to the efl, and Derby didn't break any rules with the time limit on document submission
-
49 minutes ago, WhiteHorseRam said:
I think the Boro Wycombe claims are completely spurious.
Martin Samuels' article nailed it - Boro were simply not good enough leading up to the end of that season.
They dropped 64 other points but expect us to give them £40 million for one point.
I think they are arrogant in imagining that they would have definitely beaten Bielsa's Leeds and Smith's Villa.
They are behaving as if we have done them out of their Granny's bungalow.
Wycombe's claim is even dodgier. they only got promoted due to the Covid aggregate thing. They dropped 95 pts out of a possible 138. 43 pts from 46 games .....
If you decide the table does lie - football is ruined.
You are right though - the door will be shut once we have been screwed.
Absolutely agree here.
I don't trust efl arbitration, I do trust a court of law.
I think in a court of law these claims are ruled out, however it needs a great lawyer to make that happen.
Arbitration is the first step though, with no agreement its in to court fast.
I agree that there's zero chance boro would have beaten Villa, thar season Boros hopes were killed by a number of teams.
Boro can't blame Derby after spending a lot more money than Derby did that season.
Agreed on wycombe.
I'm disappointed that Derby didn't go to court soon on this, was it delayed to make more money for the administrators.
Yes there's a cost in going to court and a possible loss but it would seem to resolve a lot of the club's potential future
- r_wilcockson and WhiteHorseRam
-
1
-
1
-
10 minutes ago, Oldben said:
The actors used here, were not that great but were at least happy with the pay from the Bucks free press (such a well known news service) and equally the home of Wycombe, high Wycombe, Buckinghamshire.
Actually we should probably do our own spoof outside wycombe and boro, what we think of boro and Wycombe owners, from outside their grounds.
-
2 minutes ago, David said:
I won't attempt to speak on behalf of Derby fans, only myself and politely request to be excluded from this apology.
Boro and Wycombe are owed nothing, no apology and not a penny.
The actors used here, were not that great but were at least happy with the pay from the Bucks free press (such a well known news service) and equally the home of Wycombe, high Wycombe, Buckinghamshire.
-
Court of Appeal affirms no responsibility to unsecured third party creditors on execution of senior unsecured debt
RE: PK Airfinance Sarl v Alpstream AG
The security holder must decide whether and when to sell, even if the timing is unfavourable to the security provider.
The Court of Appeal ruled that extending PK's responsibility as security holder to unsecured junior creditors or any potential eventual receivers of the sale funds under the payments waterfall would be an unjustified departure from recognised precedent. The Court of Appeal held that Alpstream was not a creditor of the operator of the first seven aircraft and had no interest in the aircraft or the sale money. Alpstream, as a junior creditor, was also contractually subordinated to PK and not entitled to any security interest in respect of its junior loan. In these circumstances, the Court held that PK owed Alpstream no responsibility in equity or otherwise.
-
With debt that was restructured by a court, there are a lot of things that creditors worry about in a debt restructuring that are talked about in this paper. The first is when creditors who don't agree with the restructuring are forced to do so. This opens the door to abuse of the dissenting minority, and in particular, wealth transfers between creditors. When a restructuring is being worked out, a moratorium is put in place. This could be used by managers to keep businesses alive that aren't viable, or managers of a viable business could "shake off" liabilities that the business can afford to pay. It also raises concerns for existing creditors about how well they will be protected by new provisions meant to encourage the financing of financially troubled businesses, especially those that prefer new lenders to existing creditors, such as banks. There are limits on creditors' rights that the court can and should keep an eye on. It should also make sure there is a good balance between saving the company and protecting the interests of small creditors.
The English court's present role is vital in preventing creditor tyranny. The court must ensure that procedural criteria for restructuring are completed, including protections for creditors. But the position is more than that. For example, when a creditor seeks to enforce its rights in spite of the stay, the court may be asked to weigh the interests of an individual creditor with the interests of all creditors. To maintain effective creditor protection, creditors should not be worse off after a reorganisation than they would be if no restructuring occurred. For example, if a creditor's security is overridden but they are provided monthly cash payments instead, is this need satisfied? Even if the Insolvency Service's 2016 suggestions are enacted, the English courts must do more to address these problems.
-
Mirror reports Administrators as willing to accept 500k for Lawrence.
Our last chance of staying in the championship.
-
Wycombe who did so well in 2020/21, deserved to remain in the Championship.
They only qualified when league one was stopped half way through in 2019/20 and points calculation was given to provide them with a place in the Championship.
The league one teams that missed out to Wycombe, must have had a reason to feel aggrieved at the efl.
Any way here's Wycombe being thrashed by Blackburn because they just weren't good enough for a place in the Championship.
-
https://www.derbytelegraph.co.uk/news/mel-morris-role-business-ambassador-6557839.amp
Definately not passing any fit and proper persons test for being a business ambassador
-
clubs circling our players include Celtic for Lawrence, and Newcastle or Leeds for Knight.
If there was any hope of surviving relegation this season, it rested in keeping whats left of the team together.
Without Lawrence and Knight, we are relegated.
Obviously, we know its impossible to get decent replacements for those players.
Then again 3 million for Lawrence, and 5 million for knight keeps the stadium lights on.
.
The Football Creditor rule is explicit, simple, and solves all of Derby's issues
in Derby County Forum
Posted
Football creditors rule trumps hrmc rights to be preferential creditors.
Hmrc have previously legally challenged the football creditors rule and have failed.