vonwright

I think our local MPs really stepped up to the plate this afternoon on our behalf.
All those on here calling them out on their comments after the meeting with the EFL yesterday should apologise. They were just fact gathering, and their backroom staff had them very well briefed inside twenty-four hours.
There was no politics, just local pride. I  applaud them all. 

To be fair, they've made their position clear: they want the claims dropped, or the EFL to allow them to apply normal administration law and basically dissolve the claims as part of the process. The last couple of days have seen the situation properly aired and a wider audience realise what's going on. That has led to some panicked and defensive statements put out from the EFL and Boro, and MPs giving them a pretty good going-over. Quantuma's position has improved through saying nothing.
That said, think we need to hear from them pretty soon on continuing talks with the EFL (not sure what we've got to discuss with Boro, but if necessary them too), restating the legal position and the case for the resolution they want, and hopefully something positive on interim funding. 

We really need to turn these 'Hopefully a solution can be found' statements into 'Boro should withdraw their claim' statements, or 'The EFL should let the administrators get on with it without the threat of legal action hanging over the new owners' statements.
I mean it's good people are getting involved but we need real pressure. Let's face it even Boro would agree that 'hopefully a solution can be found asap'.

We really need to turn these 'Hopefully a solution can be found' statements into 'Boro should withdraw their claim' statements, or 'The EFL should let the administrators get on with it without the threat of legal action hanging over the new owners' statements.
I mean it's good people are getting involved but we need real pressure. Let's face it even Boro would agree that 'hopefully a solution can be found asap'.

Isn't it lovely that the Boro MP points out that Boro are ready to be 'reasonable' in their blackmail attempts. 

Yep and the politicians, if they want to apply real pressure, need to make it clear what kind of pragmatism they expect - which basically means Boro dropping the claims or (more likely) everyone accepting that they fall due to administration rules, regardless of their "merits", because the priority is paying off actual creditors and saving the company. They need to make it clear to the EFL and Boro that they don't consider it "pragmatism" or "compromise" if Gibson says "Okay instead of demanding a gillizion for that time Mel made me sad, I'll accept half a gazillion."

Yep and the politicians, if they want to apply real pressure, need to make it clear what kind of pragmatism they expect - which basically means Boro dropping the claims or (more likely) everyone accepting that they fall due to administration rules, regardless of their "merits", because the priority is paying off actual creditors and saving the company. They need to make it clear to the EFL and Boro that they don't consider it "pragmatism" or "compromise" if Gibson says "Okay instead of demanding a gillizion for that time Mel made me sad, I'll accept half a gazillion."

To be fair, they've made their position clear: they want the claims dropped, or the EFL to allow them to apply normal administration law and basically dissolve the claims as part of the process. The last couple of days have seen the situation properly aired and a wider audience realise what's going on. That has led to some panicked and defensive statements put out from the EFL and Boro, and MPs giving them a pretty good going-over. Quantuma's position has improved through saying nothing.
That said, think we need to hear from them pretty soon on continuing talks with the EFL (not sure what we've got to discuss with Boro, but if necessary them too), restating the legal position and the case for the resolution they want, and hopefully something positive on interim funding. 

The tough issue here is that despite all the talk of "compromise" and "pragmatism" these are going to mean quite different things to the different parties.
Boro seem to think it means: "Pay us £10m (or whatever) for our claim and we will go away."
For us (to Boro) it means: "Withdraw your claim, it relies on unproven and unprovable 'losses' and alleged wrongdoing by owners who are no longer involved in the club, and for which that club has already been punished."
And for us (to the EFL) it means: "Let us treat this claim exactly as it would be treated if this was a non-footballing administration - ie, ignore it completely since it isn't an existing debt ("football" or otherwise), and administration rules state compensation claims can't be started or pursued against a company in administration."
For the EFL it seems to mean: "Whatever doesn't upset Steve Gibson or get us sued."
The whole thing is a mess but simple calls for compromise and pragmatism, even if aimed at the EFL and Boro, aren't specific enough. That said the political and media pressure is growing and while Gibson might not care about that, the EFL probably will. This was a useful debate, I think, and the government stand-in seemed to "get it" by the end, if not at the start. It all helps. 
(The Bury thing is a real warning: if the EFL think overruling Boro will get them sued, or otherwise hurt them, they are the type of organisation who will just sit on their hands and "not-my-fault-guv"-it up to and beyond the point we get liquidated. That worries me more than anything.) 
 
 

I managed to catch the whole thing. It felt like an incredibly powerful moment, and very moving at times to hear everyone talk so passionately about our football club's future.
All the right points were hit, unanimously sympathetic to our situation and critical of our opponents.
 
A huge thanks must go out to Pauline Latham for getting us on the agenda, and to all the supporting local MPs for helping drive the issue.

Yep and the politicians, if they want to apply real pressure, need to make it clear what kind of pragmatism they expect - which basically means Boro dropping the claims or (more likely) everyone accepting that they fall due to administration rules, regardless of their "merits", because the priority is paying off actual creditors and saving the company. They need to make it clear to the EFL and Boro that they don't consider it "pragmatism" or "compromise" if Gibson says "Okay instead of demanding a gillizion for that time Mel made me sad, I'll accept half a gazillion."

The tough issue here is that despite all the talk of "compromise" and "pragmatism" these are going to mean quite different things to the different parties.
Boro seem to think it means: "Pay us £10m (or whatever) for our claim and we will go away."
For us (to Boro) it means: "Withdraw your claim, it relies on unproven and unprovable 'losses' and alleged wrongdoing by owners who are no longer involved in the club, and for which that club has already been punished."
And for us (to the EFL) it means: "Let us treat this claim exactly as it would be treated if this was a non-footballing administration - ie, ignore it completely since it isn't an existing debt ("football" or otherwise), and administration rules state compensation claims can't be started or pursued against a company in administration."
For the EFL it seems to mean: "Whatever doesn't upset Steve Gibson or get us sued."
The whole thing is a mess but simple calls for compromise and pragmatism, even if aimed at the EFL and Boro, aren't specific enough. That said the political and media pressure is growing and while Gibson might not care about that, the EFL probably will. This was a useful debate, I think, and the government stand-in seemed to "get it" by the end, if not at the start. It all helps. 
(The Bury thing is a real warning: if the EFL think overruling Boro will get them sued, or otherwise hurt them, they are the type of organisation who will just sit on their hands and "not-my-fault-guv"-it up to and beyond the point we get liquidated. That worries me more than anything.) 
 
 

Man of the match.. 

Well said, Sir..
 

Yep and the politicians, if they want to apply real pressure, need to make it clear what kind of pragmatism they expect - which basically means Boro dropping the claims or (more likely) everyone accepting that they fall due to administration rules, regardless of their "merits", because the priority is paying off actual creditors and saving the company. They need to make it clear to the EFL and Boro that they don't consider it "pragmatism" or "compromise" if Gibson says "Okay instead of demanding a gillizion for that time Mel made me sad, I'll accept half a gazillion."

Precisely. We need to be direct! May need firm action rather than words.

The tough issue here is that despite all the talk of "compromise" and "pragmatism" these are going to mean quite different things to the different parties.
Boro seem to think it means: "Pay us £10m (or whatever) for our claim and we will go away."
For us (to Boro) it means: "Withdraw your claim, it relies on unproven and unprovable 'losses' and alleged wrongdoing by owners who are no longer involved in the club, and for which that club has already been punished."
And for us (to the EFL) it means: "Let us treat this claim exactly as it would be treated if this was a non-footballing administration - ie, ignore it completely since it isn't an existing debt ("football" or otherwise), and administration rules state compensation claims can't be started or pursued against a company in administration."
For the EFL it seems to mean: "Whatever doesn't upset Steve Gibson or get us sued."
The whole thing is a mess but simple calls for compromise and pragmatism, even if aimed at the EFL and Boro, aren't specific enough. That said the political and media pressure is growing and while Gibson might not care about that, the EFL probably will. This was a useful debate, I think, and the government stand-in seemed to "get it" by the end, if not at the start. It all helps. 
(The Bury thing is a real warning: if the EFL think overruling Boro will get them sued, or otherwise hurt them, they are the type of organisation who will just sit on their hands and "not-my-fault-guv"-it up to and beyond the point we get liquidated. That worries me more than anything.) 
 
 

So what is it then? (Not a direct question for you, @JMC)
This uncertainty of Steve Gibson being Schrodinger’s Cat and simultaneously wanting £45m or “not much” is entirely why administrators can’t agree a deal for potential costs. 

The tough issue here is that despite all the talk of "compromise" and "pragmatism" these are going to mean quite different things to the different parties.
Boro seem to think it means: "Pay us £10m (or whatever) for our claim and we will go away."
For us (to Boro) it means: "Withdraw your claim, it relies on unproven and unprovable 'losses' and alleged wrongdoing by owners who are no longer involved in the club, and for which that club has already been punished."
And for us (to the EFL) it means: "Let us treat this claim exactly as it would be treated if this was a non-footballing administration - ie, ignore it completely since it isn't an existing debt ("football" or otherwise), and administration rules state compensation claims can't be started or pursued against a company in administration."
For the EFL it seems to mean: "Whatever doesn't upset Steve Gibson or get us sued."
The whole thing is a mess but simple calls for compromise and pragmatism, even if aimed at the EFL and Boro, aren't specific enough. That said the political and media pressure is growing and while Gibson might not care about that, the EFL probably will. This was a useful debate, I think, and the government stand-in seemed to "get it" by the end, if not at the start. It all helps. 
(The Bury thing is a real warning: if the EFL think overruling Boro will get them sued, or otherwise hurt them, they are the type of organisation who will just sit on their hands and "not-my-fault-guv"-it up to and beyond the point we get liquidated. That worries me more than anything.) 
 
 

The tough issue here is that despite all the talk of "compromise" and "pragmatism" these are going to mean quite different things to the different parties.
Boro seem to think it means: "Pay us £10m (or whatever) for our claim and we will go away."
For us (to Boro) it means: "Withdraw your claim, it relies on unproven and unprovable 'losses' and alleged wrongdoing by owners who are no longer involved in the club, and for which that club has already been punished."
And for us (to the EFL) it means: "Let us treat this claim exactly as it would be treated if this was a non-footballing administration - ie, ignore it completely since it isn't an existing debt ("football" or otherwise), and administration rules state compensation claims can't be started or pursued against a company in administration."
For the EFL it seems to mean: "Whatever doesn't upset Steve Gibson or get us sued."
The whole thing is a mess but simple calls for compromise and pragmatism, even if aimed at the EFL and Boro, aren't specific enough. That said the political and media pressure is growing and while Gibson might not care about that, the EFL probably will. This was a useful debate, I think, and the government stand-in seemed to "get it" by the end, if not at the start. It all helps. 
(The Bury thing is a real warning: if the EFL think overruling Boro will get them sued, or otherwise hurt them, they are the type of organisation who will just sit on their hands and "not-my-fault-guv"-it up to and beyond the point we get liquidated. That worries me more than anything.) 
 
 

Limited player. Tremendous heart. Sounds like he will be a big miss around the changing room. Good luck Shiniesta.

If nothing else the EFL has brought all Derby fans together. We may have disagreed about Morris but the way they are acting now seems little short of gangsterism: riding roughshod over law, due process and basic fairness. Given the importance of football to communities across the country, they really should be regulated. 

Once again, so impressed by Rooney. First job in management and his team building, man management and strategy have been absolutely spot on in the hardest of circumstances. And he navigates the media brilliantly too. Suspect he's going to have a second stellar career. 

Once again, so impressed by Rooney. First job in management and his team building, man management and strategy have been absolutely spot on in the hardest of circumstances. And he navigates the media brilliantly too. Suspect he's going to have a second stellar career. 

Once again, so impressed by Rooney. First job in management and his team building, man management and strategy have been absolutely spot on in the hardest of circumstances. And he navigates the media brilliantly too. Suspect he's going to have a second stellar career. 

If nothing else the EFL has brought all Derby fans together. We may have disagreed about Morris but the way they are acting now seems little short of gangsterism: riding roughshod over law, due process and basic fairness. Given the importance of football to communities across the country, they really should be regulated.