FlyBritishMidland

This claim followed was at the same time the EFL appealed the original decision around our accounting treatment of player amortisation.  This claim was about the value of PP which they claimed was over-estimated by £40M and allowed us to stay in FFP limits and sign players.  The LAP said that as this focused on the value of PP, which did not form part of the EFL’s appeal, they had no basis for the arbitration.  It also states that the EFL appeal was around player amortisation and that Middlesbrough’s evidence said little about the player amortisation.
To me, this is evidence that Middlesbrough are making it up as they go along.  The original claim was for £40M and the latest one for £45M??!!
Also, the EFL appeal judgement that showed our player amortisation policy was wrong was in May 2021, eight months ago.  We submitted the accounts in August - I think it was extended to the end of August - which is five months ago.  I fail to see how the Middlesbrough claim could have been submitted over 12 months ago as that has been dealt with.
I wonder if it’s worth putting this in an email to Trevor Birch, as he’s posted the statement, and my MP who was at the meeting?

As with all things some of us are taking the statement as a positive, some a negative, and some Sat on the fence.
For me I think it’s a great reflection on the change in narrative over the last few days. The spotlight is edging closer towards our plight and the role of the EFL around that, the increased noise on social media, in the media, from our fans and fans of other clubs, as well as MPs weighing in has forced the EFL to give their most wordy statement yet on the matter. It doesn’t tell us any solutions, it doesn’t consign us to the history books, it does show they’re rattled and need to defend their stance which is exactly what we want. Stating they have no vendetta and that they’re being fair and neutral (yeah right) should mean they now have to be, they’ve publicly outed themselves and will be rightly called out further for more contradictory behaviour. Keep the faith gang ? 

Point 7 was interesting. 
"The EFL has not and does not override statutory solvency law....." 
 
Sounds like there may have been a shot across the bows. 
 
There's some questionable factual dental. Something about Middlesbroughs action against Derby having been ongoing for over 12 months. 
What they don't clarify is that there were 2 claims. The one outstanding is not over 12 months old. So, EFL... remind us what happened with the previous claim by Middlesbrough and why that approach can't be applied here. 

No.  Our primary means of raising enough funds was to name a PB, and allow them to chivvy up.  EFL are saying we can't do that until the parasites have been dealt with to an all round agreeable outcome.  All we have is an email off curly sue saying he's considering removing our panties, and would we mind bending down so he can reach them. 
Nothing official.  No legal papers.  No summons.  No hearing dates.  How the hell do we sort that out.  It's little more than thin air, as it stands!

Selling the entire first team "might" just about raise the required funds... but then we wouldn't be able to fulfil our fixtures!

Margaret Beckett:

I'd agree with that.
However, what I'm baffled by is the apparent ultimatum by EFL to DCFC to get this sorted by 1st Feb, or face the consequences.
For this to go to arbitration/LAP, wouldn't that require action by the parasites, not us? Them making it official, so to speak?
Shouldn't the EFL be giving any deadlines and ultimatums to the parasites?  "Make it official by x date, or your claim won't be acknowledged, your case won't be heard, and for wasting everybody's time, we'll also shave every pubic hair from your head"!
How come DCFC are the ones facing the deadline, when we can't make that next move forward?
?‍♂️
 

Agreed , I think the SPorts Minister is exactly right but I think it is more aimed at EFL and Boro and Wycombe. The practical thing for Boro and Wycombe to do now is to drop their claims. because they will end up with nothing if we are liquidated, and will end up with a trashed reputation as a result.  There is nothing that admin team can do in practice that would make things  anything any better.  The only thing they could do is sell players before 1 February to satisfy EFL's ultimatum. But that would put off the bidders and actually make creditors worse off, which is contrary to their legal duty, and may well precipitate liquidation.   

 

They have been in charge for 4 months. 

They have resolved the issue of our FFP charges from the EFL. They have secured bids from three credible buyers. They have devised a  plan for exiting administration, which was rejected by EFL last week. They have taken advice re the Boro and Wycombe claims which is that they are without merit. I don't think they can settle those claims anyway if EFL believe them to be football creditors because that would give unlawful preference ahead of actually preferred creditors.     

So what exactly do you think the admin team should have done that they actually haven't? What is this inaction? 

I think it does. Telling all parties to stop pontificating, posturing and to sort it out. Its warning shot across the bows.

Can I just add that lots of people seem to be making major assumptions that the MPs, business leaders, etc aren't Derby fans, have no idea about what's really going on, are clueless about what the EFL are up to.
I have no idea about all of them but I know for a fact that some, including the Leader of Derby City Council and MD of Marketing Derby are season ticket holders and well into their football. As are many of the businesses tweeting their support.
As I said, they will be balancing their personal feelings with the best approach to get a resolution which will be to be measured, non-reactive and calm. The EFL and Quantuma will respond far better to this approach than an all guns blazing rant!
It might have no effect, it might resolve the issue, but we shouldn't be expecting a detailed interrogation and resolution from one meeting!

Also, without falling foul of forum rules on discussing politics, Andrew Bridgen is absolutely not my favourite MP. He's not my MP, but I'm aware of him all the same.
However I don't think we should be too harsh on his tweets. He's only just dipped his toe into this situation and he's just sharing what he has picked up from today. It's only natural he has only just discovered what we've known for a while because we live and breathe this stuff as the sort of saddos that post on a DCFC forum (no offence all, I count myself a part of that)
If he didn't tweet anything at all, he'd be criticised for not providing us an update. Let's see if on the back of his initial fact finding he delves a bit deeper and helps us get somewhere.

Let’s give the MPs some benefit of the doubt. They’ve had a meeting with the EFL. They’re having a meeting with Quantuma to get their side before determining whether they need to take any additional action and what form that action takes. I echo what other people have said about Marketing Derby, John Forkin doesn’t mess about in any action he takes and will be extremely passionate for the cause. 
As for questioning Quantuma in this, clearly with this situation as is people will look to blame. We don’t know the ins and outs and we can all throw stones. Sure they need to be challenged on some things and hopefully we will get more definitive answers from them in the coming days, but as for why didn’t they engage on claims or pursue this legal ruling earlier - But their main focus could easily have been bringing bidders to the table for these EFL discussions and it’s genuinely taken all their efforts to ensure we still have interested parties at this stage. 

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. 

If the legal advice was that the spurious claims must not be included in the insolvency calculations (because to include them would reduce the funds available for legitimate creditors) then what do you expect them to do? Break insolvency law to satisfy a couple of chancers?
 
They didn’t include boro or wycombe on the list of creditors in November, so it was clear that this was the stance - so why did EFL wait until the day we were going to name the preferred bidder (last week) before saying this is a sticking point? Because the uncertainty itself sticks enough of a spanner in the works to weaken our team and try and engineer a relegation or worse. 

No.
They have a preferred bidder but they won't be allowed to name them until the claims are dealt with. They were ready to name the PB to the EFL on Friday.
"Derby County's administrators Quantuma said efforts to secure a buyer were being hampered by outstanding legal cases involving Middlesbrough and Wycombe Wanderers.
Both clubs are unhappy at the impact of Derby County's financial dealings on their own league placings in recent seasons.
Quantama said the two preferred bidders were not willing to put their money into the club until there was clarity over whether compensation would need to be paid."
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-derbyshire-60027177

Just time out to thank the Mods at this time. Cant imagine how difficult it must be to keep on top of the volume of posts also at a time when feelings are running high. Think we'd all be lost without this forum so thank you

@Owen87ITK is it possible to use your contacts to get something out there?  It’s the East Midlands Derby this weekend and it seems an ideal time to try and get something on football focus or similar.

@Owen87ITK is it possible to use your contacts to get something out there?  It’s the East Midlands Derby this weekend and it seems an ideal time to try and get something on football focus or similar.

@Owen87ITK is it possible to use your contacts to get something out there?  It’s the East Midlands Derby this weekend and it seems an ideal time to try and get something on football focus or similar.

@Owen87ITK is it possible to use your contacts to get something out there?  It’s the East Midlands Derby this weekend and it seems an ideal time to try and get something on football focus or similar.

I don't think they have just discovered it. I think they went into the meeting with it. The EFL threw it out and the administrators thought the EFL were not complying with law, hence the statement on Friday. 
Since then, I'm guessing they have found out that the EFL rules haven't changed since the law was, and this is why the meeting went so badly on Friday. Challenge the rule, with fan power meaning it has to be done quickly, and it all falls into place. 

I have some experience with charities. There's a thing called "donor fatigue".
The current petition includes lots of signatures from supporters of other clubs. We should focus on that one petition.
Asking fans from those other clubs to sign a second petition will not meet with the same enthusiasm. That will result in a petition with fewer signatures than the first and result in the opposite impact than the one the proponents are hoping.
Seriously... Focus all efforts on this first petition. It's quantity that matters here.
The parliamentary mechanism requires 100,000 signatures to get something discussed - at some time in the future - in parliament. It won't get 100,000 and, even if it did, it wouldn't happen in time.
A far bigger impact will be achieved by the first petition obtaining as many signatures as possible. Everyone should work to achieve that - and to get it covered in the national media.

McClaren literally turned Newcastle down.

Not sure I do agree with that Ian Redfern guy’s opinion on this. Makes his points well and clearly has some experience in insolvencies. But ignores the fact the Boro and Wycombe claims have been put on us while in administration which isn’t supported by law, and doesn’t dispute as such that such claims have been promoted to football creditors therefore whatever that figure is needs to be settled in full which makes any prospective purchase unworkable if they are the figures stated and through further negotiations with said parties cannot be reduced.
He also assumes the EFL are allowing the possibility for these cases to be dealt with following due process or in court in the future, my understanding from everything that has been reported (and none of us really know the true facts) is they want settlement and agreement on the claims before approving any administration exit. So Mel indemnifying the preferred bidders against future liability may be irrelevant anyway.
There have been a few people, including this guy and an ex-poster on here who IMO has been a sad loss to this forum who have been very vocal for a while on other social media platforms namely Twitter that we shouldn’t attach any blame to the EFL, Middlesbrough or Wycombe, or blame and all fixes lie at the door of and in the hands of Mel Morris. This article simply continues to push that Agenda.
Mel Morris is absolutely no 1 person to blame in this yes and he could make this a whole lot easier in many ways. However without these ridiculous illegal claims on the table from Wycombe and Boro, we would likely be exiting administration.