Hanny

27 minutes ago, kevinhectoring said:

Happy to explain. It’s worth concentrating on this because not only does it reveal why the statement was misleading. It also reveals how Q and their advisers have messed this up. 
 

What Q said, very carefully and deliberately, was the following : 

an obstacle is to deal with certain claims that are very much disputed but which we are being advised by the EFL cannot be currently compromised notwithstanding statute says otherwise. 
 

Now here’s the problem.  Q are indicating the EFL have wrongly said that the claims can’t be compromised. They evidence this by referring to a ‘statute’, which ‘says otherwise’

It is a devious and misleading way to cover their expensive and incompetent arses and to seek to blame the EFL for our predicament. 
 

Because the truth is - 

1 yes there is a statute that allows football claims to be compromised. Of course there is 
 

2 but the EFl is not denying this. Instead the EFL is saying something quite different. They are saying: ‘you can compromise the football claims to kingdom come, in accordance with statute, we don’t care. But the EFl rules require those claims to be paid IN FULL.  And you have foolishly and carelessly assumed that under our rules the claims only need to be paid in accordance with the compromise. Well that is wrong 
 

It’s exactly what you would expect the EFL’s position to be and it’s a reasonable one 

So the Q statement was misleading in a way that was intended to deflect blame from them to the EFl. And you think the EFL is not entitled to defend itself ???!!! 

Heavy sigh. Has this account been compromised? It seems to currently only comment with half-truths pretending to be 100%true. 
 

I don’t want to get into a pissing match. But, mate, everyone of your statements are made with some level of knowing, yet it’s using incorrect information. The biggest grievance I have with your comments: 

You keep stating the EFL are simply asking for the claims to be paid in full. Well, they can’t demand that. Boro are NOT creditor’s, and therefore do not fall under that statute I’ve seen you post. 
 

Furthermore, it is outside of the EFLs purview to appoint creditors without legal cause. This point is crucial, as Boro and wycombe have zero legal cause to claim monies from Derby.
 

It’s as if you were sat at the closing table ready to sign for the new keys to your house, and some bloke comes in the room and says, wait, you owe me 100 thousand pounds. The room all ask the guy if he has any proof…he says well no, but give me the money. That interaction  is exactly what Boro are doing here. And that type of interaction is not going to stop you from closing on your house. 
 

Therefore, EFL are outside of their remit. Which is what the Administrators pointed out in their last statement. 
 

I really hope you are just performing some expert level trolling here. But please dial it back a bit for the mental health of some of our supporters here:) 

Observations I’m making: 

With the public information available(official statements from all parties), and attempting to apply some simple logic (ie look for common reasonable links as opposed to conspiracy theories. I’ve come to these conclusions/predictions:

1. highly unlikely the chairman of the EFL is responding to random emails (let alone on a Saturday night). 

2. in any negotiation, when one party starts to offer up other terms…you’ve identified the party with the weaker position. With this in mind; the EFL are the only ones who keep changing there answers. Including the most recent save-face offer of allowing any new owners to deal with the boro/wycombe claims after exiting administration.

3. The EFL don’t have a vendetta against Derby. But I do think the EFL have some old men who have had their egos hurt, and are attempting to show strength by puffing up there chest. Pretty much all fur coat and no trousers.

4. Continuing from point 3. Those chest puffing ego men, are realizing they are painting themselves into a corner and are now being called out by the Administrators (and I suspect the creditors themselves). 
 

5. The administrators (and approved bidders) will attempt to get the EFL to dismiss the Boro/wycombe claims, because the EFL certainly seem to be in the weaker position currently. But, regardless, the club will be sold in the next week or so(my big prediction) 


Again. These are my personal opinions based on the available data, wrapped in a little business logic. I’m as in the dark as all of us here. The hour looks dark, and time is ticking. But the way I am seeing it. A deal is close. I’ve made other more detailed comments in posts past, if you want to see some of my reasoning for the above thoughts.  
 

coyr! 

13 minutes ago, The Scarlet Pimpernel said:

Yes but can you trust the EFL's internal panel the LAP? 

Well, I don’t particularly trust the EFL here. But I think they understand they can’t just force something like this. Especially if they are outside their remit. Hence, the new ‘save face’ option.
 

And as I have eluded to before- creditors are ringing them up saying: hey, so our money has been offered up by three approved bids (approved by the admins) and you the EFL are gumming up the process witch is stopping  us from getting paid. (This is obvious speculation on my part, but it seems a logical ask by the creditors of the EFL) 

The EFL might try and force clubs and owners to do something, but they can’t force creditors to stay put and not act. At least, I hope that’s where some pressure is coming from. 

My opinion on the new details: 

EFL are trying to save face while continuing to show strength. 
 

To note: I am still working under the impression, the EFL do not have jurisdiction to impose a demand to settle any random claims that aren’t official creditors. So, they continue to push a demand they can’t legally enforce. However: 

The recent list of ‘how to resolve these claims’ gives one new option that I think is the save-face option to get a sale done: ‘take on liability and resolve after exiting admin.’

Of course these claims shouldn’t even be a barrier, and the EFL should not be demanding anything in this regard. However, this option will give any bidder a relatively safe path to buying the club. 
 

Why safe? Because as rightly pointed out numerous times, Boro/Wycombe/etc have zero evidence to prove the claims of monies owed by Derby. And I would be surprised if a court would even hear the case  

So, while a headache for any new owner, it’s more of a task item needing checked off vs a real threat. 
 

Hopefully I’m reading that correctly, and this new ‘out’ will help sort a PB in short order. 

1 hour ago, kevinhectoring said:

The admins can accept any of the bids. The EFl has no problem with that. The problem is, insolvency law makes exit from admin uncertain, so bidders probably won’t accept PB status and certainly won’t pony up large non refundable deposits to fund us to the end of the season 

Mate. You must be trolling with these comments (you’ve made a few, but I just grabbed this one). 
 

The information available to us points to the EFL being the one holding things up. 
 

You keep saying they haven’t added anything, or they are just following the rules. That they aren’t stopping the admins from accepting a bid. 
 

But those are precisely the things that have happened- as proven by the Admins  statement today (and honestly been backed up by the actions/words of Rooney and such).
 

The statement by the Admins. Rooneys comments about things almost finalized, and moving to re-sign and find new players.  Even ole Alan Nixon said the EFLs position appears to be extreme.
 

I don’t understand how you could think the EFL are just hands tied innocent (as your posts seem to suggest) in this situation.

6 minutes ago, kevinhectoring said:

This is not to do with ‘ratifying the sale’. I think the problem is we can’t prove to the EFl that we can fund ourselves to the end of the season. And that’s because the admins have not found a clean route out of administration (in light of Gibson’s claim) 

As I understand it:

the path forward WAS having a bid come through that satisfied the administrators (which is on behalf of the creditors, and ultimately satisfy club asset purchase as well).

That path was found and met by the 3 offers the Admin claim to have. Now EFL are saying, no, we want you to settle these other claims first. To which the administrators are saying- you have no jurisdiction to make that demand.

So the EFL must explain (to all, including the creditors) why they are demanding something more then is needed to ratify the club sale. 

To note: it is my understanding the EFL have no remit to stop a sale because of an outstanding claim by another club. 

I understand the anger, the supposition, and the what-ifs. This is a forum…forums are built on what-ifs. But I am seeing some grasp onto so called ‘details’ as truths. Which seems to be causing unnecessary disputes. 
 

In any negotiation, facts and figures change daily (if not hourly). So we can only really work with the latest data that’s been offered. 
 

The biggest piece being:

The administrators are (in the best way they can while staying with in the guidelines of an accredited legal entity) claiming they have bids for the club that satisfy the needs of the creditors and Club. and want the EFL to clarify why that isn’t good enough for the EFL. 
 

In my eyes- Todays statement from the administrators was a pretty massive shot across the bow. As I eluded in my previous post a couple pages back. After todays statement by the admin. The onus rests completely with the EFL to explain to everybody(including some pretty itchy creditors) why they are not ratifying the club sale. 
 

If I’m understanding the current situation:

1. We have 3 offers that have satisfied the administrators, 1 of which is seemingly the best (preferred bid). Meaning these offers cover the debts, and sale of club assets. 
 

2. Because of my first point, all that’s left in the process is for the EFL to sign off on the bids as meeting all necessary steps( which they seem to do from what I infer from the admins statement).

3. EFL say, we can’t sign off on those bids because we want you to settle these other claims first( which from what I’ve seen and has been suggested by the admins is outside of the EFLs remit.)
 

4. The admins respond by saying- hold up, you don’t have jurisdiction to NOT sign off on these bids for the club. Which is why the administrators are requesting immediate clarification on why the EFL think they can enforce such a demand. 

5. I would imagine the creditors are raising an eyebrow. If the EFL are indeed standing in the way of the creditors becoming whole with official bids, then the EFL should expect quite a bit of heat from the creditors to confirm why they won’t allow the sale to be ratified. 
 

Are those the basic plot points we have currently? 

I’m trying to sort out the figures I see floating around here and elsewhere. 

If I understand correctly:

1. the debts to creditors are Non-negotiable. Seems logical to me in this case. there are tangible dollars owed. So any bid must provide payment for those up front.(creditors are made while first). 

2. The purchase price for the club and it’s assets are 100% negotiable. This is where I believe the stand off is happening. It will be up to the administrators to take the best deal and not chase away money. As pa used to say: it’s better to be looking at it, than looking for it. 
 

3. The threats of lawsuit are not really about Derby. And I’m not too concerned with them. It’s long been a power play of rich folk/companies to claim suit in a situation, with the only purpose of attempting to get precedent set. They are using the Derby situation to try and better their own bargaining position for something later on. 

Summary of what I think is happening:

1. any bidder must sign and agree to payoff the creditors, by showing proof of funds to that end. 
2. Only thing left is standard negotiation table standoffs to land on an agreed price point for club and assets. 
 

Hopefully  someone yields a bit to get this over the line. 
 

coyr

Did I read that statement correctly- it states 83/84M in liabilities (not debt). While debt is a subset of liabilities, they generally do not imply the same thing.

example: a loan is a debt. To be paid by a certain term/amount. 

example: an asset not yet paid off falls under liability.

Your car/house are liabilities…but still have value. The loan to buy those things are a debt. 

In other words, it’s possible they are lumping every potential pound owed (future wages, bank loans, maintenance costs, etc.) and placing that total sum at 84M. 

if that’s the case, this number doesn’t seem as dire, as it likely has a large chunk of simple operating costs lumped in.  

Of course, I could be quite wrong ?‍♂️?

Seems to me, when you can only sign four. You better make sure those four will add some type of value. Only way to sort that is by giving them game time. Giving game time in a meaningless friendly (as far as the regular season is concerned). Seems perfect. 
 

Yes, Sibbo’s better. Everybody is getting plenty of minutes this championship season. 
 

I’d rather find out early on who of the only four we can sign will help us along the way too. 
 

coyr!