Ramtastic ones

Just lodged these questions with the EFL.
"I have some questions I would like answers to/an understanding of the efl's view on.
1. Doesn't the action being taken by 'Boro and Wycombe go against an EFL directive from 2019, stating clubs should not litigate against each other?
2. How are 'Boro and Wycombe's claims viewed as a debt by the EFL when they are simply that, a claim, that has not been through the court process?
3. How are Derby meant to resolve a claim against them when the administrative law states that such processes are not to commence or continue whilst a company is in administration?"

Just lodged these questions with the EFL.
"I have some questions I would like answers to/an understanding of the efl's view on.
1. Doesn't the action being taken by 'Boro and Wycombe go against an EFL directive from 2019, stating clubs should not litigate against each other?
2. How are 'Boro and Wycombe's claims viewed as a debt by the EFL when they are simply that, a claim, that has not been through the court process?
3. How are Derby meant to resolve a claim against them when the administrative law states that such processes are not to commence or continue whilst a company is in administration?"

Just lodged these questions with the EFL.
"I have some questions I would like answers to/an understanding of the efl's view on.
1. Doesn't the action being taken by 'Boro and Wycombe go against an EFL directive from 2019, stating clubs should not litigate against each other?
2. How are 'Boro and Wycombe's claims viewed as a debt by the EFL when they are simply that, a claim, that has not been through the court process?
3. How are Derby meant to resolve a claim against them when the administrative law states that such processes are not to commence or continue whilst a company is in administration?"

Just lodged these questions with the EFL.
"I have some questions I would like answers to/an understanding of the efl's view on.
1. Doesn't the action being taken by 'Boro and Wycombe go against an EFL directive from 2019, stating clubs should not litigate against each other?
2. How are 'Boro and Wycombe's claims viewed as a debt by the EFL when they are simply that, a claim, that has not been through the court process?
3. How are Derby meant to resolve a claim against them when the administrative law states that such processes are not to commence or continue whilst a company is in administration?"

Isn't the point being missed here. Neither Boro or Wycombe are creditors. They have made a claim nothing more. And the fact remains you can't be sued whilst in administration, so under adminstrative law, which takes president over the rules of two bob football league governing body, the Boro and Wycombe claims can't proceed until we are out of administration. The EFL are breaking the law by impeding the administrators.

Isn't the point being missed here. Neither Boro or Wycombe are creditors. They have made a claim nothing more. And the fact remains you can't be sued whilst in administration, so under adminstrative law, which takes president over the rules of two bob football league governing body, the Boro and Wycombe claims can't proceed until we are out of administration. The EFL are breaking the law by impeding the administrators.

Talisker for me.

Gibson's claim is not a debt. As such under the laws of administration it is none existent until we are out of administration. Legally, under administration, you can't be sued.

I have to say, I don't get this. How can a sum of money relating to litigation, that has yet to start the legal process, never mind complete it, be deemed a debt. There is not even any certainty that the litigation will find in favour of the claimant. It simply beggars belief. Accordingly and in line with the law relating to administration and litigation cases against companies in administration, the EFL should totally disregard the Boro and Wycombe cases.

Gibson's claim is not a debt. As such under the laws of administration it is none existent until we are out of administration. Legally, under administration, you can't be sued.

Gibson's claim is not a debt. As such under the laws of administration it is none existent until we are out of administration. Legally, under administration, you can't be sued.

It'll be the only nice house in middlesbrough

It'll be the only nice house in middlesbrough

It'll be the only nice house in middlesbrough

It'll be the only nice house in middlesbrough

Talisker for me.

Not really. The administrators job is to ensure we don't accrue additional debt (that can't be repaid), find a buyer and whilst doing that run us as a going concern. If the administrators have preferred bidders that will cover any accrued debt when they take over, or the administrators can repay that debt should they have to liquidate the company then there is no issue.
The EFL are creating issues that don't exist and that can only be because they either want us liquidated or related.

Are we sure this pair of scoundrels are't related. That hair, that hair line.

Nah. At least one more game. A 5-0 victory over the red dogs.

Nah. At least one more game. A 5-0 victory over the red dogs.

Just been announced on Midlands today that administrators have stated that the process of selling club is stalled until 'boro and Wycombe cases are solved. Time for the Rams to sue QPR and Villa.
Worth noting only one club (Brentford) of last nine promoted have not breached FFP rules in their promotion season.

By all means. Go for it.

Thought we might avoid relegation so are looking for more coffin nails
 

Boro are at risk of their own FFP breach (see daily telegraph - not Derby). He would have known that was coming and hence lodge the case in the hope of a fast buck to avoid acute embarrassment and cause us grief at the same time.
C U Next Tuesday in court Mr G.

Boro are at risk of their own FFP breach (see daily telegraph - not Derby). He would have known that was coming and hence lodge the case in the hope of a fast buck to avoid acute embarrassment and cause us grief at the same time.
C U Next Tuesday in court Mr G.