vonwright

So for all this EFL talk of the Middlesbrough and Wycombe claims not being the problem... turns out the Middlesbrough and Wycombe claims are the problem.

Absolutely. The whole tone of that EFL statement was 'see you in court'.
(With just a tiny hint of '...But let's drag the stadium and Morris and MSD into this, since that'll confuse casual onlookers from other clubs, and in any case that's who Gibbo really wants to feel pain')

Again, don’t feel a campaign is needed. They won’t be sat in an office twiddling thumbs wondering where to go from here when it’s blatantly obvious. Tonight’s EFL statement leaves them with nowhere else to turn.
They may already have the ball rolling with high court papers landing on Gibson’s doorstep in the morning.
I think I saw BAWT or RamsTrust request today their weekly SCG meeting with Quantuma, would imagine we will hear something shortly. I would however rather now every hour of each day was tied up with sorting this out, not holed up in meetings with the EFL, fans and MP’s. Clock is ticking.

I don’t believe there is a need for a campaign.
- The administrators will not want to settle for a penny with either Boro or Wycombe.
- Gibson and Couhig will not drop their claims.
- The EFL have clearly stated their position now.
- Not a chance getting the admin, Mel, MSD, Gibson, Couhig and the EFL into the room would persuade any of the above to change.
The only option now, is to take the football creditor status to the high court, or the claim itself through arbitration.
Positive Quantuma will be aware of this now and cannot delay in getting the ball rolling.

I love the rams, been a fan since 1968, but where is the money going to come from to pay them off. Cant see anybody willing to take us over with that hanging in the air, hope i am wrong.

Tbh I think there's a lot of overreaction in this thread. 
I don't think it's a surprise that the efl would deem the claims by mfc and WWFC as being football creditors. 
Theres also no reason to think that the efl would (or even could?) change their insolvency policy. Particularly in a way that would be of detriment to their other members. 
I suppose the real question is (and it would be interesting to know if there are other examples of this in non-sport setting) are regulations in a private league that restrict a way a member can conduct otherwise legal methods of exiting administration where the penalty of that is to be thrown out of competing in the industry. The league operates as a monopoly... There isn't a way Derby can really compete outside the FA/EFL framework. My gut feeling is that they probably can impose additional restrictions.

Absolutely agree. They aren’t saying they should be paid, just that if the claims are upheld by whatever method, then they would be classed as football creditors. 
 
I agree by they that if should be football creditors, IF, and it’s a massive IF, the claims were valid. 
 
one point I found interesting is that the statement says that the process commenced in January 2021, before the club went into administration. I think that’s a pertinent point. 

I'm not sure they are saying this exactly. I don't think they see themselves as saying Derby does or doesn't owe the clubs any money. They are just saying that if it is ruled that we owe them money, then that will be a footballing debt. And that therefore we can't just write down the claims, because these special 'football debt' rules kick in. 
In other words the EFL would be happy to kick a hearing about whether we owe money, and how much, down the line until after a sale - provided we paid it in full. They want us to undertake to do that, or to come up with some 'settlement' now.
But the administrators know full well they cant sell the club on that basis. And they think they shouldn't have to as a potential football debt is not the same as an actual football debt - particularly when it is based on such thin grounds. 
I think at this point we just need a hearing to decide whether we owe money or not. To decide the merits of these claims.
If the worst happens and it is ruled we do owe some money at least people will see who is really liquidating this club. 
 

I'm not sure they are saying this exactly. I don't think they see themselves as saying Derby does or doesn't owe the clubs any money. They are just saying that if it is ruled that we owe them money, then that will be a footballing debt. And that therefore we can't just write down the claims, because these special 'football debt' rules kick in. 
In other words the EFL would be happy to kick a hearing about whether we owe money, and how much, down the line until after a sale - provided we paid it in full. They want us to undertake to do that, or to come up with some 'settlement' now.
But the administrators know full well they cant sell the club on that basis. And they think they shouldn't have to as a potential football debt is not the same as an actual football debt - particularly when it is based on such thin grounds. 
I think at this point we just need a hearing to decide whether we owe money or not. To decide the merits of these claims.
If the worst happens and it is ruled we do owe some money at least people will see who is really liquidating this club. 
 

I'm not sure they are saying this exactly. I don't think they see themselves as saying Derby does or doesn't owe the clubs any money. They are just saying that if it is ruled that we owe them money, then that will be a footballing debt. And that therefore we can't just write down the claims, because these special 'football debt' rules kick in. 
In other words the EFL would be happy to kick a hearing about whether we owe money, and how much, down the line until after a sale - provided we paid it in full. They want us to undertake to do that, or to come up with some 'settlement' now.
But the administrators know full well they cant sell the club on that basis. And they think they shouldn't have to as a potential football debt is not the same as an actual football debt - particularly when it is based on such thin grounds. 
I think at this point we just need a hearing to decide whether we owe money or not. To decide the merits of these claims.
If the worst happens and it is ruled we do owe some money at least people will see who is really liquidating this club. 
 

I'm not sure they are saying this exactly. I don't think they see themselves as saying Derby does or doesn't owe the clubs any money. They are just saying that if it is ruled that we owe them money, then that will be a footballing debt. And that therefore we can't just write down the claims, because these special 'football debt' rules kick in. 
In other words the EFL would be happy to kick a hearing about whether we owe money, and how much, down the line until after a sale - provided we paid it in full. They want us to undertake to do that, or to come up with some 'settlement' now.
But the administrators know full well they cant sell the club on that basis. And they think they shouldn't have to as a potential football debt is not the same as an actual football debt - particularly when it is based on such thin grounds. 
I think at this point we just need a hearing to decide whether we owe money or not. To decide the merits of these claims.
If the worst happens and it is ruled we do owe some money at least people will see who is really liquidating this club. 
 

I'm not sure they are saying this exactly. I don't think they see themselves as saying Derby does or doesn't owe the clubs any money. They are just saying that if it is ruled that we owe them money, then that will be a footballing debt. And that therefore we can't just write down the claims, because these special 'football debt' rules kick in. 
In other words the EFL would be happy to kick a hearing about whether we owe money, and how much, down the line until after a sale - provided we paid it in full. They want us to undertake to do that, or to come up with some 'settlement' now.
But the administrators know full well they cant sell the club on that basis. And they think they shouldn't have to as a potential football debt is not the same as an actual football debt - particularly when it is based on such thin grounds. 
I think at this point we just need a hearing to decide whether we owe money or not. To decide the merits of these claims.
If the worst happens and it is ruled we do owe some money at least people will see who is really liquidating this club. 
 

I'm not sure they are saying this exactly. I don't think they see themselves as saying Derby does or doesn't owe the clubs any money. They are just saying that if it is ruled that we owe them money, then that will be a footballing debt. And that therefore we can't just write down the claims, because these special 'football debt' rules kick in. 
In other words the EFL would be happy to kick a hearing about whether we owe money, and how much, down the line until after a sale - provided we paid it in full. They want us to undertake to do that, or to come up with some 'settlement' now.
But the administrators know full well they cant sell the club on that basis. And they think they shouldn't have to as a potential football debt is not the same as an actual football debt - particularly when it is based on such thin grounds. 
I think at this point we just need a hearing to decide whether we owe money or not. To decide the merits of these claims.
If the worst happens and it is ruled we do owe some money at least people will see who is really liquidating this club. 
 

I'm not sure they are saying this exactly. I don't think they see themselves as saying Derby does or doesn't owe the clubs any money. They are just saying that if it is ruled that we owe them money, then that will be a footballing debt. And that therefore we can't just write down the claims, because these special 'football debt' rules kick in. 
In other words the EFL would be happy to kick a hearing about whether we owe money, and how much, down the line until after a sale - provided we paid it in full. They want us to undertake to do that, or to come up with some 'settlement' now.
But the administrators know full well they cant sell the club on that basis. And they think they shouldn't have to as a potential football debt is not the same as an actual football debt - particularly when it is based on such thin grounds. 
I think at this point we just need a hearing to decide whether we owe money or not. To decide the merits of these claims.
If the worst happens and it is ruled we do owe some money at least people will see who is really liquidating this club. 
 

I guess they are saying that _if_ they are a debt _then_ they are a football-related debt, and therefore we would owe the money in full. So they won't let the administrators do what they would if this was any other type of business: simply reject the claims on their own authority. Legally we could do that, but we'd be kicked out of the league. 
The EFL are saying that we either settle the claim now or find a buyer willing to accept a ruling on whether we owe money, and how much, after a sale. 
It all seems a bit unfair. The reason administration law allows the administrators to compromise away speculative claims like this is because that's the only way real creditors get paid, and stricken businesses get sold. 
Feels like the only way forward is a ruling on the substantive issue, ie whether we owe these clubs anything and if so how much. Failing that I guess some sort of ruling on whether the EFL rules - requiring not just that _actual_ football debts are paid, but that 'potential' ones protected from normal administration processes - are excessively restrictive. But given that we are talking about membership of a club with its own rules, I'm not sure how we'd do that. 
 

So for all this EFL talk of the Middlesbrough and Wycombe claims not being the problem... turns out the Middlesbrough and Wycombe claims are the problem.

So for all this EFL talk of the Middlesbrough and Wycombe claims not being the problem... turns out the Middlesbrough and Wycombe claims are the problem.

So for all this EFL talk of the Middlesbrough and Wycombe claims not being the problem... turns out the Middlesbrough and Wycombe claims are the problem.

So for all this EFL talk of the Middlesbrough and Wycombe claims not being the problem... turns out the Middlesbrough and Wycombe claims are the problem.

So for all this EFL talk of the Middlesbrough and Wycombe claims not being the problem... turns out the Middlesbrough and Wycombe claims are the problem.

So for all this EFL talk of the Middlesbrough and Wycombe claims not being the problem... turns out the Middlesbrough and Wycombe claims are the problem.

So for all this EFL talk of the Middlesbrough and Wycombe claims not being the problem... turns out the Middlesbrough and Wycombe claims are the problem.

So for all this EFL talk of the Middlesbrough and Wycombe claims not being the problem... turns out the Middlesbrough and Wycombe claims are the problem.

So for all this EFL talk of the Middlesbrough and Wycombe claims not being the problem... turns out the Middlesbrough and Wycombe claims are the problem.

So for all this EFL talk of the Middlesbrough and Wycombe claims not being the problem... turns out the Middlesbrough and Wycombe claims are the problem.