NottsRam

IS this the one where they get the waccy baccy out, just to chill out? 

I've rustled up a kit for next season, last ever game, phoenix club etc..

This is an incredible article, one that has taken some actual research to look into, my favourite piece is this.....
Interestingly, if League One was curtailed now and PPG enforced, Wycombe, who are top, would be overtaken by second-placed Wigan and fourth-placed Rotherham and demoted to the play-offs. Fascinating to hear their thoughts if that happened.
 

The EFL statement basically reads to me that they are sat firmly on the fence in regards to the parasites claims. However it is obvious that their todger is firmly dangling on the parasites side of the fence. We need to find and release a rottweiler in said garden to bite the fooker off. 

This is all just a bit of finger pointing and posturing before they get their heads banged together by an independent mediator and a solution found. Seen it so many times before. 
EFL typically in self preservation mode, Gibson having a bit of a rant and Admin putting the ball in EFL court.
Time to end the party, get the grown ups involved and save DCFC

I wasn’t upset at reading all that and not surprised either - how can the EFL board sit there and not resign immediately - threatened by a member in Middlesbrough to be sued for apparently not doing their job so what do the EFL do - please don’t sue us you should sue Derby a fellow member club who they are supposed to be looking after and the EFL won’t stand in your way and they will help it happen even if it means liquidation for Derby but don’t sue us the EFL - absolute disgrace!
The EFL can make this stop right now and those politicians should be going right for jugular as Derby county have been set up to be humiliated and probably liquidated by deliberate actions of the governing body and the Middlesbrough parasite. 
 
There simply must be legal action against these individuals for their conduct.

Sadly Parry and Birch seem to have this in spades

I've just steeled myself and listened to a bit of his interview (genuinely couldn't face it last night).  He seems hopelessly muddled about the timeline of things, and I still can't tell exactly which set of accounts he's actually talking about. 
He starts off as if he's talking about the restated accounts for 2015-2018, when he talks about the results of the appeal and being forced to restate "financials".  We know we complied with the deadlines we were given on these, albeit with one small extension that changes nothing.
But he seems to be talking about the 2018/19 accounts at various points too (the first of the 2 sets we didn't publish at all) - when he references the Morris interview about overspend etc.  He seems to be suggesting that we deliberately didn't publish that set of accounts because we know we would overspend in them.  But we don't know that - Morris's interview only referenced an overspend if we followed the EFL's preferred model, we have no idea what the figure was under our model.  The appeal result was announced in July 2021, which is after the date we would have published the 18/19 accounts - which would have been April 2020 (over a year before the appeal result).  At that point, we hadn't even had the first hearing yet.
So, if I'm understanding his garbled rantings, his argument seems to be that as soon as the LAP decision came down in July 2021, and before the DC2 sanction hearing, we should have immediately submitted the outstanding 2018/19 and 19/20 accounts with the EFL's preferred model.  Even though we had no legal compulsion to submit them (beyond the usual requirement to submit accounts), and were still in dispute with the EFL over the exact form of them.  Even if you argue we should have submitted them promptly (which I don't disagree with, really), the obvious point is either alongside the 2015-18 accounts, or immediately following their acceptance. Not months before when we're still (perfectly legally) arguing our position.
For his own sake, I hope it's just a case of him not really understanding the issues and his legal guys have a better grasp, but he's utterly clueless on pretty much everything - the timelines, our case, the EFL's disciplinary process, admin rules, everything.

Pathetic that Boro release a statement during the debate saying how reasonable they are and their joke MP waves it about talking compromise and to be included. What a joke. Should have been scolded for a dubious claim. Maggie should have nutted him

A reply to Savage's tweet......I kid you not.....
 

https://talksport.com/radio/listen-again/1642485600/1642498200/

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."

https://talksport.com/radio/listen-again/1642485600/1642498200/

https://talksport.com/radio/listen-again/1642485600/1642498200/

Should be able to listen again soon on the Talksport website, not available yet.

I enjoyed the first two series but thought season 3 was poor by comparison, although i have the last one yet to watch.

Sat here in bits again. My dad is really really ill and his bad days seem to coincide with bad news Derby days. He is Derby through and through and I'm not sure he understands or is aware of the off the field stuff now but I know later watching those goals on Quest with him how he will light up as little else makes him do now. That is why we have to save our club. It is not about amortisation, stadium sales, law suits, points deductions, etc. it is about watching those goals with my dementia-ridden dad and seeing his happiness for a few minutes later knowing we're off the bottom. The wonder of dementia is he will have forgotten tomorrow so we can do it all again several times. So duck the EFL, Morris, Gibson and the nobody chancer from Wycombe. We are better people than all of you and how dare you threaten the existence of our Derby family. 

Gibson needs to approve it I guess. Or not. 

I think Ashley would be a good fit for Derby - I take no notice of what Newcastle fans think, as they are absolutely deluded to think that Newcastle Utd is a huge Football Club - yrs it’s a huge club in the North East, but on a National level, that’s just ludicrous. Ashley took a financial sink hole of a club and made it financially very stable and sold it for a huge profit . Newcastle Utd will never compete with the big boys, no matter how much money the Arabs throw at it - top world class players will never want to play for clubs like Newcastle, as it’s geographically negative - players will only want to ho to London, Manchester and Liverpool clubs. 
Ashley would be fantastic for Derby County Football Club. He would never put us on financial jeopardy and that’s why he is a top businessman, unlike the carpet baggers we become used to in recent years.  

Customers are the most important asset a business has. 

As good as your speech is, it is you that is wrong.
They are not answerable to me in anyway shape or form.
You may think they are answerable to you, but they are not.
Nothing pedantic about it, administrators are appointed to serve the best interests of the creditors, not the customers. 

So maximising the return… selling the club. 
 
If the admin engage with Fan's, more fans turn up to games and make Derby look more saleable. 
 
If they don’t, no relationship is built, lack of interest/encouragement, lower attendances. Valuation impacted. 
 
Like I say, getting the best deal for the creditors includes keeping a healthy line of comms with the biggest stakeholders.
 
I will repeat, I disagree with the demand letter for answers on all parts of our club, but fans asking is there any update, is a fair question and the administrators should be doing anything they can to keep fans on board. 
 

So it is better for the creditors if the club is sold rather than having a fire sale. The fans are part of the going forward so to maximise what the creditors get makes the fans quite important

The first role of administrators is to attempt business rescue, only if this fails do they move to liquidation process at which point they must secure maximum returns for creditors.  We are very much at the business rescue stage and hence customers (in this case fans) are pivotal to any success.  Engaging with the supporters groups is seen as a very important role to Quantuma (so i have been told).

I disagree in as much as,  the best outcome for creditors is through business rescue, in our case business rescue means sale of the business to a purchaser who meets the requirements and will give the creditors the best outcome.