CocuBarmyArmy

In fairness to Boro, I thought they had some serious quality today. Crooks was a player I really hoped we would be in for (back before admin). 
 
With that being said, I do feel that they are in a similar position to us back in 2016/2017. A lot of big wages, big fees (perhaps not as much as we spent nominally, but adjusted for the weak market probably a similar amount). Furthermore, I can’t imagine they generate the sort of revenue we did, they’re not a small club by any means but they are a tier under us (in my opinion anyway). 
 
I’ve always had my suspicions that they’re claim might have been FFP related, they lost eye watering amounts last year and they have spent big this year. I know they have a few assets with serious value, but I’m skeptical of some of the figures being banded around. Spence looks class but 10 million for half a season in the champ? Can’t see it personally, especially with the market still in a bit of a lull. 
 
Maybe I’m wrong and they’ll come up smelling of roses, but somehow I think karma might be making its way to Teeside in the near future.

In fairness to Boro, I thought they had some serious quality today. Crooks was a player I really hoped we would be in for (back before admin). 
 
With that being said, I do feel that they are in a similar position to us back in 2016/2017. A lot of big wages, big fees (perhaps not as much as we spent nominally, but adjusted for the weak market probably a similar amount). Furthermore, I can’t imagine they generate the sort of revenue we did, they’re not a small club by any means but they are a tier under us (in my opinion anyway). 
 
I’ve always had my suspicions that they’re claim might have been FFP related, they lost eye watering amounts last year and they have spent big this year. I know they have a few assets with serious value, but I’m skeptical of some of the figures being banded around. Spence looks class but 10 million for half a season in the champ? Can’t see it personally, especially with the market still in a bit of a lull. 
 
Maybe I’m wrong and they’ll come up smelling of roses, but somehow I think karma might be making its way to Teeside in the near future.

Help from finance analysts needed!
In 2016, Gibson sold Middlesbrough's tax losses to the club's parent company (Gibson-owned), turning the loss into revenue.
He turned a financial trick between his companies to benefit MFC.
How did this benefit MFC's FFP performance and was it significant? If so, can it be splashed onto Twitter, please, to expose the vengeful hypocrite?
Now, he is hoping for a payout from DCFC to shore up his future FFP results, given that they posted a £35.5 million loss last year...just think, if a possible DCFC compensation payout to MFC ended up preventing Gibson being in dock and suffering a  points penalty!

We need to up the pressure on Gibson again, I know the admins aren't perfect but they are simply doing their jobs (satisfying the creditors, as opposed to the club). It's abundantly clear the claims are the issue, and as fans we need to force another reaction from the EFL like we did earlier last month.

We need to up the pressure on Gibson again, I know the admins aren't perfect but they are simply doing their jobs (satisfying the creditors, as opposed to the club). It's abundantly clear the claims are the issue, and as fans we need to force another reaction from the EFL like we did earlier last month.

We need to up the pressure on Gibson again, I know the admins aren't perfect but they are simply doing their jobs (satisfying the creditors, as opposed to the club). It's abundantly clear the claims are the issue, and as fans we need to force another reaction from the EFL like we did earlier last month.

The EFL (and the 2 cretin chairmen) are still saying that HMRC and the stadium deal are the biggest obstacles.  The admins are saying the major obstacle is the 'Boro/Wycombe issue. The fact that one of the bidders is apparently confirming what the admins are saying must give it some credibility.

Isn’t Kellyman on a youth contract? If he is it’s not hard to see why the admin have sold him, he could be poached anyways and the club would have to wait for the money, hate to say it but it makes sense to sell now.

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."

Should that be ‘now the damage has been Quantuma-ed’?

I get the anger at him getting to walk away scot-free from this mess he's created (albeit £200MILLION of his own money lighter) but c'mon he's not Pol Pot, he's not embezzled or even done anything remotely illegal. Perhaps slightly immoral as it's put jobs at risk/forced redundancy.
The MBE was for services to business and charity, he's not exactly demanded all his charity money be repaid to him. This business (already loss making when he bought it and funded by his own money) has failed undoubtedly but that does not erase his past contributions to other business?
The petition to strip his CBE from him is petty and misguided and the small minority who have actually signed it tars the entire fanbase with looking like spoilt children.

Bear in mind Mel still owns the stadium and in consequence, whether we like it or not, we're still dependent on his goodwill to complete the successful transition to new ownership. If he's looking for an excuse to say duck it, this is exactly the kind of thing that could give him it....

Can't be there on Wednesday but will buy on RamsTV instead of the sky red button, only a few quid but every little helps at the minute!

Can't be there on Wednesday but will buy on RamsTV instead of the sky red button, only a few quid but every little helps at the minute!

Can't be there on Wednesday but will buy on RamsTV instead of the sky red button, only a few quid but every little helps at the minute!

Can't be there on Wednesday but will buy on RamsTV instead of the sky red button, only a few quid but every little helps at the minute!

Can't be there on Wednesday but will buy on RamsTV instead of the sky red button, only a few quid but every little helps at the minute!

Can't be there on Wednesday but will buy on RamsTV instead of the sky red button, only a few quid but every little helps at the minute!

Why is Percy's reputation all of a sudden being dismissed?
He has been the most reliable journo for Derby news for years. He is clearly getting fed info from within the club.
Yes he released articles etc over the takeovers which didnt end up being finalised but they were still clearly based off info passed to him from the club, and since then the likes of Radio Derby and I think even Pearce have said things which pretty much back up what Percy said at the time.
I dont think for one second he would release an article which could go against his reputation just because he is a Forest fan & we play them on Sat.

Some of the language I'm seeing on twitter is beyond ridiculous. Branding Mel Morris a 'disgrace' etc is really poor imo, the club has clearly been mismanaged, it's an omnishambles at the moment, but I don't think it's appropriate nor fair to use such harsh language. Fans need to understand that there is a fundamental difference between mismanagement and having malicious intent. The sort of owners I reserve that sort of language for are people like the Oystens at Blackpool or that bloke that put Wigan into admin, not Mel Morris. 

Some of the language I'm seeing on twitter is beyond ridiculous. Branding Mel Morris a 'disgrace' etc is really poor imo, the club has clearly been mismanaged, it's an omnishambles at the moment, but I don't think it's appropriate nor fair to use such harsh language. Fans need to understand that there is a fundamental difference between mismanagement and having malicious intent. The sort of owners I reserve that sort of language for are people like the Oystens at Blackpool or that bloke that put Wigan into admin, not Mel Morris. 

Some of the language I'm seeing on twitter is beyond ridiculous. Branding Mel Morris a 'disgrace' etc is really poor imo, the club has clearly been mismanaged, it's an omnishambles at the moment, but I don't think it's appropriate nor fair to use such harsh language. Fans need to understand that there is a fundamental difference between mismanagement and having malicious intent. The sort of owners I reserve that sort of language for are people like the Oystens at Blackpool or that bloke that put Wigan into admin, not Mel Morris. 

Some of the language I'm seeing on twitter is beyond ridiculous. Branding Mel Morris a 'disgrace' etc is really poor imo, the club has clearly been mismanaged, it's an omnishambles at the moment, but I don't think it's appropriate nor fair to use such harsh language. Fans need to understand that there is a fundamental difference between mismanagement and having malicious intent. The sort of owners I reserve that sort of language for are people like the Oystens at Blackpool or that bloke that put Wigan into admin, not Mel Morris. 

Some of the language I'm seeing on twitter is beyond ridiculous. Branding Mel Morris a 'disgrace' etc is really poor imo, the club has clearly been mismanaged, it's an omnishambles at the moment, but I don't think it's appropriate nor fair to use such harsh language. Fans need to understand that there is a fundamental difference between mismanagement and having malicious intent. The sort of owners I reserve that sort of language for are people like the Oystens at Blackpool or that bloke that put Wigan into admin, not Mel Morris. 

Some of the language I'm seeing on twitter is beyond ridiculous. Branding Mel Morris a 'disgrace' etc is really poor imo, the club has clearly been mismanaged, it's an omnishambles at the moment, but I don't think it's appropriate nor fair to use such harsh language. Fans need to understand that there is a fundamental difference between mismanagement and having malicious intent. The sort of owners I reserve that sort of language for are people like the Oystens at Blackpool or that bloke that put Wigan into admin, not Mel Morris.