RamsfanJim

Firstly, I will declare an interest in this topic, as most regular posters will know, I am secretary of RamsTrust, a fact I've never hidden and have often chatted about on here. I don't post anonymously anywhere.
I did say the Club had sent out 60,000 emails on X - this was the figure given to us before the consultation. Last week the Club said 26,000 at a meeting which I wasn't at , so I said sorry to Mike, who was there and had corrected me. That's still a lot of Derby fans. However, it was also posted on X Twitter to DCFC's 398,000 followers and this was followed up with a reminder during the consultation period.
Each fan group (and indeed individual) on the SCG was asked to communicate with their "constituencies" about the consultation so naturally RamsTrust emailed ALL our members about it and added it to our website, which can be viewed by anyone, not just members and we tweeted about it. 
I also posted in here about it at the time. 
I don't know what other groups did, because I'm not responsible for them. 
All I would ask of anyone is that they read what was written on the DCFC website at the time, and the FAQs, before making their minds up. It's still there:
https://www.dcfc.co.uk/news/2023/07/proposal-for-derby-county-supporters-boardsupporters-charter-group

It talks of lack of accountability and limited transparency due to the NDAs, that's just bizarre. The very creation of a shadow board is a demonstration of accountability and transparency and should be cherished. An NDA is perfectly normal, what do they expect? A free for all, you want to share the detail behind the published accounts, go for it!

According to the FSA, we're the only club they've ever dealt with where some sections of the fanbase have objected to being offered an increased level of representation🤦‍♂️ The Supporters Board will have the power to stop the sale of Pride Park and a change in the club colours from the traditional Black and White.
It's an absolute no-brainer but for some reason BAWT want to stop it happening🤔

Congrats Angie, well deserved ?

I was at the meeting, too, as a representative of RamsTrust Board (elected on Wednesday night!) 
Obviously my first meeting, but I agree that there appears to be a much more positive culture within the club from what has been reported on previously, we chatted together for quite a long time after the formal meeting was held. It felt like the building of new relationships.
Apart from a short embargo to allow us all to sleep last night, we were told we could report anything that was said and there would be an open atmosphere. No questions were frowned upon or dismissed and dare I say it, there was a lot more dialogue and many less "speeches" than I witnessed from the previous filmed meetings.
One of the things I am very pleased about personally is the possibility of the reinstatement of Fans Forums. Like many things mooted, it might not happen overnight but the club is moving in a positive direction. There's still a lot to do but a promising start. 
Bring on the safe standing! 

Looks like DC has brought lot's of good stuff with him. For me, the biggest thing of those is the shadow board. It's the most effective way to prevent unethical decision making at the top. Would've been nice to have it in the last 40 years or so.
Thanks DC.

Not recently. Have been promised a mtg, but no invite yet...

The pdf was purely for RamsTrust as the questions came almost entirely from RamsTrust members, and we didn't know how the official minutes would take. Andrew Hosking said there was nothing confidential we couldn't share, but that is not the same as what they are happy to be put in writing as their official response. Naturally they do not want to potentially upset anyone during negotiations, so are more careful what is put in writing.

I can try. I have been in touch with Boro and did receive a response, but they have not responded to me recently (seemingly since it got greater coverage). I will keep trying.
Cheers,
Jim.

I can try. I have been in touch with Boro and did receive a response, but they have not responded to me recently (seemingly since it got greater coverage). I will keep trying.
Cheers,
Jim.

I can try. I have been in touch with Boro and did receive a response, but they have not responded to me recently (seemingly since it got greater coverage). I will keep trying.
Cheers,
Jim.

I can try. I have been in touch with Boro and did receive a response, but they have not responded to me recently (seemingly since it got greater coverage). I will keep trying.
Cheers,
Jim.

Interesting - these minutes WERE written by Quantuma (or the club secretary). I used to write them (then get reviewed), but since I haven't (personally) been at last 2 mtgs, Quantuma has written them (which may explain some delays in release...).
I read this as Quantuma as *they*.
One other point that has been raised with me. As they (Quantuma) have 3 QCs opionions - which is that the cases have no merit - than legally they CANNOT use funds from club to pay a settlement. That would be an incorrect use of funds from a business in administration and would be against the law for an administrator (they could be disbarred). This hasn't been formally said by the admins, but they have hinted at it reading between the lines. That makes their negotiating position pretty clear cut...

Interesting - these minutes WERE written by Quantuma (or the club secretary). I used to write them (then get reviewed), but since I haven't (personally) been at last 2 mtgs, Quantuma has written them (which may explain some delays in release...).
I read this as Quantuma as *they*.
One other point that has been raised with me. As they (Quantuma) have 3 QCs opionions - which is that the cases have no merit - than legally they CANNOT use funds from club to pay a settlement. That would be an incorrect use of funds from a business in administration and would be against the law for an administrator (they could be disbarred). This hasn't been formally said by the admins, but they have hinted at it reading between the lines. That makes their negotiating position pretty clear cut...

Interesting - these minutes WERE written by Quantuma (or the club secretary). I used to write them (then get reviewed), but since I haven't (personally) been at last 2 mtgs, Quantuma has written them (which may explain some delays in release...).
I read this as Quantuma as *they*.
One other point that has been raised with me. As they (Quantuma) have 3 QCs opionions - which is that the cases have no merit - than legally they CANNOT use funds from club to pay a settlement. That would be an incorrect use of funds from a business in administration and would be against the law for an administrator (they could be disbarred). This hasn't been formally said by the admins, but they have hinted at it reading between the lines. That makes their negotiating position pretty clear cut...

Interesting - these minutes WERE written by Quantuma (or the club secretary). I used to write them (then get reviewed), but since I haven't (personally) been at last 2 mtgs, Quantuma has written them (which may explain some delays in release...).
I read this as Quantuma as *they*.
One other point that has been raised with me. As they (Quantuma) have 3 QCs opionions - which is that the cases have no merit - than legally they CANNOT use funds from club to pay a settlement. That would be an incorrect use of funds from a business in administration and would be against the law for an administrator (they could be disbarred). This hasn't been formally said by the admins, but they have hinted at it reading between the lines. That makes their negotiating position pretty clear cut...

Interesting - these minutes WERE written by Quantuma (or the club secretary). I used to write them (then get reviewed), but since I haven't (personally) been at last 2 mtgs, Quantuma has written them (which may explain some delays in release...).
I read this as Quantuma as *they*.
One other point that has been raised with me. As they (Quantuma) have 3 QCs opionions - which is that the cases have no merit - than legally they CANNOT use funds from club to pay a settlement. That would be an incorrect use of funds from a business in administration and would be against the law for an administrator (they could be disbarred). This hasn't been formally said by the admins, but they have hinted at it reading between the lines. That makes their negotiating position pretty clear cut...

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."

Smooth on the inside, crunchy on the outside?

Legally they can't. They cannot sell a product or service they cannot guarantee being able to provide. They are personally responsible for any money received if it needed to be refunded (if Derby cannot fulfil their fixtures).
Good idea though - which is why we already asked..
Cheers, Jim.

Legally they can't. They cannot sell a product or service they cannot guarantee being able to provide. They are personally responsible for any money received if it needed to be refunded (if Derby cannot fulfil their fixtures).
Good idea though - which is why we already asked..
Cheers, Jim.

Legally they can't. They cannot sell a product or service they cannot guarantee being able to provide. They are personally responsible for any money received if it needed to be refunded (if Derby cannot fulfil their fixtures).
Good idea though - which is why we already asked..
Cheers, Jim.

Legally they can't. They cannot sell a product or service they cannot guarantee being able to provide. They are personally responsible for any money received if it needed to be refunded (if Derby cannot fulfil their fixtures).
Good idea though - which is why we already asked..
Cheers, Jim.

Legally they can't. They cannot sell a product or service they cannot guarantee being able to provide. They are personally responsible for any money received if it needed to be refunded (if Derby cannot fulfil their fixtures).
Good idea though - which is why we already asked..
Cheers, Jim.

Ok I’ll clarify this for you and all at no charge.  More suitable for a PM, as offered, but whatever. Not a single pun
 
Before I answer your question: you are seriously suggesting MM can step in and procure a stadium sale ! There is no world in which an arms’ length buyer pays an acceptable price for the stadium alone. This as you know is because the value of the stadium rests on the club continuing as a going concern, which requires a sale of the club; and because the market has told the admins that any buyer of the club needs also to buy the stadium.  If this bizarre stadium sale of your imaginings occurs, we must assume it would be followed by an insolvent liquidation of 202 (which paid 80m for the stadium on acquisition, clearly well in excess of the current value). The parties to the sale and MSD would understand that the sale and the loan repayment would be at serious risk of unwind by a subsequent liquidator. So faced with this Alice in wonderland sale, MSD would act to stop it -  as would the admins.  And they could do so - see below. Yes, there would be a litigation-fest if the stadium were sold without the club, litigation that would spring from the insolvent liquidation of 202 and, probably,  of the club  :(
 
A few other things for starters : 1 one recurring misunderstanding in your posts is : you repeatedly assume that a security interest takes effect only on enforcement. It’s not correct.    2 you seem to think MM has given a personal guarantee to MSD. The public documents suggest this is unlikely and I think you’re getting MSD confused with Gabay.    3 I’m not clear you  understand the relationship between the Aug 2020 filings and the Nov 2021 ones, despite your compadre pistoldpete (he is rather good on this stuff) giving you gentle hints.    4 We are I think missing one important piece of the jigsaw - the detail of the current debtor/creditor position between 202 and the club. This aspect does not feature at all in your thinking so far as I can see. In fact I don’t believe we have a recent balance sheet for 202,  which undercuts the great certainty with which you swashbuckle over all of this     5 my reading of the 2020 charge is that the identity of the borrower is intentionally disguised. I think you are making some assumptions   6 your contention that 202 and the club sit within two separated sub-groups ignores the rights and obligations that spring up when guarantees are called. It also ignores any inter company loan positions and the lease. The two are joined at the hip   8 your comments on defaults under the MSD loan arrangements suggest that the closest you’ve been to a corporate restructuring is buying underpants in the Debenhams clearance. 
 
So to answer your question :
- legal title to PP has passed to MSD under the legal charge.  202 owns something called the equity of redemption. [ btw, you blithely state that for MM to redeem the MSD loan would be a simple thing. You should listen to your friend pistoldpete when he gently suggests to you that the non-public loan documents doubtless contain many provisions that impact on your weighty pronouncements. ]
 
- who owns 202? Well as part of the security structure for the initial deal, MSD has taken security over the shares 203 holds in 202. You’ll have seen this in the schedules to the security documents. This security interest has probably not been perfected, even now. But even so, MM’s indirect ownership of 202 is qualified. 
 
So in short, the security arrangements condition 202’s ownership of the stadium; and they qualify MM’s ownership and control of 202. And MSD’s rights under those arrangements enable the admins to get comfortable that MM could do nothing that would compromise the admins’ objective,  namely to sell the club and the stadium together.
I’ll say it again - I would guess there are 2 reasons why 202 is not in administration. One of them imho is that the admins and MSD are confident that MM can do nothing to thwart the stated intention to sell stadium and club together. 
 
Another thought: administration is a court supervised process. How do you think the court would react if MM, the controlling shareholder of the club (in administration),  took steps to frustrate the purpose for which the admins were appointed  ??  Can you imagine?! 
 
No  - if the admins secure a buyer, the stadium and the club will one way or another be sold together and - putting aside commercially irrational scenarios - there is nothing MM can do about this. And if he tried, I think 202 would swiftly move into administration and MM would once again end up on the wrong end of a court judgement.