Hanny

The admins told the fan groups yesterday that they’d got something in writing out of MM. I think that’s why the terms of the bid refer only to the 28m for the club. The stadium is not for them to bid on, it’s for them to exercise the option if they wish. 

It has been a good day. Let’s hope we have another one tomorrow ! 

George Thorne  - 10.3k replies
Abu Derby County - 10.1k replies
Lampard & The Chelsea Job - 8.7k replies
The Administration Thread - 7.3k replies
The important question which everyone is afraid to ask here is, will this topic challenge the top 2, could Gorgeous George be toppled?  

If I recall. Wasn’t one of the possibilities for a prospective buyer to accept there are active claims against the club, and deal with them later? Very risky for any buyer.
 
Wasn't some form of that in one of the EFLs latest statements? 
 
If so, this offer sounds like it’s taking that path. 

If I recall. Wasn’t one of the possibilities for a prospective buyer to accept there are active claims against the club, and deal with them later? Very risky for any buyer.
 
Wasn't some form of that in one of the EFLs latest statements? 
 
If so, this offer sounds like it’s taking that path. 

2) If we haven't an HMRC deal then we wouldn't have been about to announce a PB last Friday is my opinion.

Oxford Untd
-12 points for Administration
-9 points for P&S
-3 points suspended
We have 3, That's 3 bidders who would like to buy DCFC, All looked good until last week as a bidder was going to be announced, Goalposts have been dug up and thrown away, Elf will not sanction the preferred bidder until we make Boro and Wycombe creditors
Now this is where it gets a little complicated if your're not a DCFC fan, Boro were going to sue the EFL for not sorting DCFC out for our allegded "cheating" in 2018/19 when we finished 6th and Boro 7th, Boro lost 5 of their last 6 games and drew the other, We get to the final and lose to Aston Villa.
Boro then send a legal request/document to the EFL saying that we are going to sue the EFL if you do not take the fight to DCFC, The EFL then decide which is better, Them being sued or going after DCFC, They chose DCFC, there is no claim as far as our Admin is concerned that Boro/Wycombe are creditors, No money or services were supplied by them, Wycombe are sueing DCFC as they were relegated last season, If we had had the points deducted last season we would have been relegated, Unfortunately for Covid-19 and the Boro claims they held Wycombes claim up...not DCFCs fault, If Wycombe have a claim it's against the EFL and not DCFC.
Ther EFL could end this NOW by telling both clubs YOU ARE NOT CREDITORS so sod off, The we DCFC can name a bidder and get on with the sale.
There is more to this, But believe me, We've been punished, Boro/wycombe are chancing their arms for some cash, The EFL are perpetuating all this...there's written documentation to show as proof.

It states why in the statement. 
'Whilst we have tried to be as clear and open as possible, there are matters, for reasons of confidentiality and sensitivity, which cannot be shared and we hope supporters and the media will understand the reasons for this' 

Yeah, I get what you’re saying, but to me it reads like coming out of admin might have to be via a restructuring rather than a CVA. That might incur another points deduction 

My sense is they are trying to rush it now, with the realization Derby are going to come up with funds to last the season (per admins recent post). Once Derby secure funding for the season, EFL/Boro/Wycombe will lose strength in any negotiation going forward, since the specter of liquidation in a couple of weeks will vanish. Then since the eye of the public/political/footballing world has now been turned towards them. They will be in the position of having to explain their positions in detail, as opposed to platitudes and vague points that have been presented from them thus far. 
Hopefully I'm sensing right here ?‍♂️

My sense is they are trying to rush it now, with the realization Derby are going to come up with funds to last the season (per admins recent post). Once Derby secure funding for the season, EFL/Boro/Wycombe will lose strength in any negotiation going forward, since the specter of liquidation in a couple of weeks will vanish. Then since the eye of the public/political/footballing world has now been turned towards them. They will be in the position of having to explain their positions in detail, as opposed to platitudes and vague points that have been presented from them thus far. 
Hopefully I'm sensing right here ?‍♂️

Interesting take.
I suppose I read that statement as reference to the two claims. As EFL is (rightly) stating any one can bid/buy Derby right now. Of course that means accepting the two claims (which are not clear what they are). That would be bad business to buy without clarity. Which is Where I believe the stalemate stems from. It's like walking up to a house for sale, and having the sellers say: I'm not stopping you from buying our house...but you can't go inside and look at it, you cant inspect it/etc. Just finish the paperwork/pay us, and we will hand you the keys...nobody is buying that house. ?‍♂️

My sense is they are trying to rush it now, with the realization Derby are going to come up with funds to last the season (per admins recent post). Once Derby secure funding for the season, EFL/Boro/Wycombe will lose strength in any negotiation going forward, since the specter of liquidation in a couple of weeks will vanish. Then since the eye of the public/political/footballing world has now been turned towards them. They will be in the position of having to explain their positions in detail, as opposed to platitudes and vague points that have been presented from them thus far. 
Hopefully I'm sensing right here ?‍♂️

I mean, this situation is the fault of the EFL from everything available to the public. 
The spurious claims by Middlesbrough and Wycombe could be dealt with near instantly, which from what Quantuma have said, will lead to Derby being bought. The reason the EFL are doing nothing, is that they are covering themselves. 
They have failed English Football, the EFL are no longer fit for purpose. It's time for them to go, however this situation resolves. 

This is my thinking. Up to this point, EFL seem to have wanted the claims (especially them pushing the claim off of them towards Derby) quiet. But with the new public scrutiny, the EFL might find as a blessing.
 
If they throw out these claims as spurious, there will be enough public sentiment (and possibly letter of the law) to protect themselves from any further spurious claims by Boro and Wyc.  ?‍♂️

Just posted this onto the EFL statement post. Maybe these things have zero impact but retweet, jump on or let the Bar stewards know that they wouldn’t pass there own fit & proper person test.

You stick with your version of reality, I'll not be joining you in it.

This is my thinking. Up to this point, EFL seem to have wanted the claims (especially them pushing the claim off of them towards Derby) quiet. But with the new public scrutiny, the EFL might find as a blessing.
 
If they throw out these claims as spurious, there will be enough public sentiment (and possibly letter of the law) to protect themselves from any further spurious claims by Boro and Wyc.  ?‍♂️

The EFL and Boro will not like the fact their backroom deal is being thrown in to the spotlight. Need to keep pushing on that.

Surely if the EFL said they're not football creditors then even if Gibson came after them he wouldn't win?

DC councillor said on RD interview that Admin are confident they will get proof of funding to take us to the end of the season. At 2m 55s:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/p0bj30xh

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.
 

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."

I’m acting like the list of creditors is where outstanding debts would be listed. New running costs would be separate. 
 
“Making it abundantly clear” that you will do something is not the same as actually doing it. It’s just talk. Until a claim is actually officially made, the administrators can’t deal with it. What figures would they use to assess funding needs, potential liabilities, voting rights? Just use the fantasy numbers that Gibson tossed off to his local press? How does that affect other legitimate creditors?
And if we’re dismissing legal advice as irrelevant then can we not apply the same nonsensical response to EFL’s claim that they should consider them? Cuts both ways. If advice is to be ignored, then Boro need to start actual legal proceedings and put their money where their mouth is to clarify what they’re due - if anything. 

But that isn't allowed to be done  during admin is it ? They cant pursue their claims during admin it's against the insolvency rules.  Plus it  could take months. We need cash from the buyer now, even if it's only a deposit. 

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:)