The Administration Thread

[Bald Eagle's Barmy Army]

26 minutes ago, Rammeister said:

Gibson is a spanner and an opportunist who is not as clever as he thinks he is.

There is no plausible claim against Derby that can win. Any claim, however spurious would need to be made against the EFL, who enforce their own rules. And, last time I checked, they had deducted points off us for breaching fair play rules.

As has been said previously, any such successful claim would cause us to go for QPR and no doubt other teams, to go after those who’d breached fair play whilst in the Championship.

The way forward with this is for Ashley or Appleby to ignore it and let Gibson decide if he really wants to take this to court.

That’s being quite disrespectful to a spanner ?

[Tyler Durden]

8 minutes ago, MackworthRamIsGod said:

So, if the EFL are forcing the administrators to settle the claims by Wycombe and Boro, we have three options.

1) pay them the full amount (precedent set and liquidation)

2) negotiate an amount they both accept

3) tell them we will see them in court, thus delaying any takeover and probably end up with liquidation due to funds running out.

So; the way I see it, the EFL are looking after their mate and a fellow board member, forcing us into a situation where we actually pay Gibbo and t'other one money for something that shouldn't even be a thing, to speed through a takeover.

The wonderful murky world of football below the Prem.

 

Or the 4th Mel Morris option of sticking your fingers in your ears shouting lalala and hoping it all goes away 

[MackworthRamIsGod]

2 minutes ago, Tyler Durden said:

Or the 4th Mel Morris option of sticking your fingers in your ears shouting lalala and hoping it all goes away 

Yes or that one ?

[Bald Eagle's Barmy Army]

My guess is that Gibson will drag this out for all of January so the transfer window shuts and we can’t sign anybody. 
 
 

[ilkleyram]

5 minutes ago, MackworthRamIsGod said:

So, if the EFL are forcing the administrators to settle the claims by Wycombe and Boro, we have three options.

1) pay them the full amount (precedent set and liquidation)

2) negotiate an amount they both accept

3) tell them we will see them in court, thus delaying any takeover and probably end up with liquidation due to funds running out.

So; the way I see it, the EFL are looking after their mate and a fellow board member, forcing us into a situation where we actually pay Gibbo and t'other one money for something that shouldn't even be a thing, to speed through a takeover.

The wonderful murky world of football below the Prem.

 

There are other options.

The new owners could take on the risk.  It might be why there have been delays and some complications - the prospective owners getting legal advice on how strong the cases are.  If Appleby really is 'ready to go' he's obviously come to some conclusion about the claim that allows him to be confident.  Kirchener too.

As there is no current owner as such - the new buyers could have agreed with the outgoing owner that the final price paid would be adjusted after the conclusion of the cases - the prospective owner could insure themselves against any damages arising from the cases.  Again that might explain complications/delays as the insurers would have to be found and would then have to judge the level of risk to work out the premium.

It would help no end if the EFL were to make public their dissatisfaction with the case - make a positive statement that the cases have no merit.  But they won't do that because they would effectively be acting as judge and jury without hearing the case which would be against their rules; would be taking sides in a dispute between 3 of their members each one of whom they should be treating equally.

They could though help by publicly saying that the dispute will be heard by an independent panel within a set timetable.  Trouble is that they really don't want that - too much precedent will be set.  They are between a rock and a hard place through largely their own inefficiency in allowing our case to drag on originally. As @angieram has said - I bet they wish that this whole thing would go away and I would bet that behind the scenes they are trying very hard to do just that without p'ing off all three clubs and owners.  Certainly getting the new owners to slap a few quid the way of Boro and Wycombe would be a solution they would like - no hearing, no lawyers, no precedent, spinnable whichever way any party likes.   

[TooFarInToTurnRed]

Are the EFL are legally allowed to interfere in the Administration process to this extent? I very much doubt it

[kevinhectoring]

1 hour ago, TomTom92 said:

Find the Boro and Wycombe story crazy. Am I right in thinking that if we go bust then neither will get a penny? so what’s the point in their actions? Unless they see us going bust as a win.
  
Pretty sure majority or Boro and Wycombe fans don’t agree with there actions. Wish both sets of supporters would put pressure on Gibson and the other bloke to drop it. 
  
 

It’s a contingent claim, they are contingent creditors.

The admins can’t ignore it unless they get legal advice that there’s nothing in it. No lawyers brave enough to say that obviously. The solutions I see are

- hold your nose and do a deal with the claimants before sale

- find a buyer who will take the risk (Ashley might, before his 2 friends in Glasgow take a day trip to boro)

- someone indemnifies the buyer against the risk (eg Mel, the admins can’t obviously) 

If none of these solutions is available, the structural problem for the admins I’d guess is this:

they can’t secure a sale  unless they can be sure they can deal with unsecured creditors. They can only be sure of that if they have an alternative exit which gets 25% to creditors even if the CVA fails. The alternative exit is a Phoenix structure. But the Phoenix doesn’t work if there are unquantifiable claims against the club (because you don’t know how much cash the club needs in order to get 25% to creditors, therefore you don’t know how much money you need from the buyer)

[Sparkle]

1 hour ago, Crewton said:

The procedures for settling disputes between clubs is CLEARLY set out in the EFL rule book - it's Arbitration via a League Arbitration Panel. Of course, that would take a few months to sort out and the outcome for the Claimants would be highly uncertain. Their tactics have been clear from the outset : to obstruct the takeover process and try to force the Administrators to settle with them without them having to prove their case, because they must surely know that if £51M was added to the unsecured creditors list, they get sweet FA. The EFL are bricking it because they know that they carry a share of any liability for the delay in applying sanctions and because of the flood gates that would open if these claims aren't binned.

Far from being lauded for sticking up for their clubs, Gibson and Couhig should be getting pelters from everyone in football for their cynical opportunism and where it could lead. 

And like others have said, the only way Boro and Wycombe can legally be considered creditors by the Administrators is if a recognised Court makes a judgement in their favour, or the Administrators or a prospective owner agrees that they are. 

They know that the administrators caved in on the point deduction regarding the 9 points and the 12 point administration penalty’s to get things moving and they are expecting their greasy palms to pick up something from us.

[Sparkle]

1 hour ago, PistoldPete said:

To be fair I think Gibson is even getting pelters from some of Boro's own fans. He is an embarrassment to his club and to football.

I would like to see some examples of this?

[PistoldPete]

2 minutes ago, kevinhectoring said:

It’s a contingent claim, they are contingent creditors.

The admins can’t ignore it unless they get legal advice that there’s nothing in it. No lawyers brave enough to say that obviously. The solutions I see are

- hold your nose and do a deal with the claimants before sale

- find a buyer who will take the risk (Ashley might, before his 2 friends in Glasgow take a day trip to boro)

- someone indemnifies the buyer against the risk (eg Mel, the admins can’t obviously) 

If none of these solutions is available, the structural problem for the admins I’d guess is this:

they can’t secure a sale  unless they can be sure they can deal with unsecured creditors. They can only be sure of that if they have an alternative exit which gets 25% to creditors even if the CVA fails. The alternative exit is a Phoenix structure. But the Phoenix doesn’t work if there are unquantifiable claims against the club (because you don’t know how much cash the club needs in order to get 25% to creditors, therefore you don’t know how much money you need from the buyer)

Under a restructuring arrangement a Court can define the classes of creditors. So a court could maybe decide to create  a class of creditor as you say " contingent creditor".  And if they don't agree to a settlement the Court has the power to  force them to agree to one.

You might still have an issue with EFL. As EFL want "football creditors " settled at 100%. But again it isn't clear if they would class as football creditors, ranking above HMRC and trade creditors. If so just how scummy are Gibson and Couhig to try and muscle in ahead of them? . 

 

[Elwood P Dowd]

From where do the EFL obtain the authority to instruct Derby to settle with Boro and Wycombe !!!!!

[Andicis]

2 minutes ago, PistoldPete said:

If so just how scummy are Gibson and Couhig to try and muscle in ahead of them? . 

I think we already know the answer to this. 

[Sparkle]

41 minutes ago, angieram said:

I'm sure that this happens in terms of meetings, but it doesn't stop the persons 'having the ear' and easy access to key individuals within the EFL structure. This didn't really do Derby any favours, though, so I am hoping it won't Middlesbrough. 

I bet the EFL are fed up to the back teeth with it all! 

Yet the EFL can actually settle it easily 

[Andicis]

2 minutes ago, Elwood P Dowd said:

From where do the EFL obtain the authority to instruct Derby to settle with Boro and Wycombe !!!!!

They don't have the authority to do that, but if they won't allow us to pass on any legal responsibilities to the next owner it's going to be that or we go bust. 

[Woodley Ram]

14 minutes ago, TooFarInToTurnRed said:

Are the EFL are legally allowed to interfere in the Administration process to this extent? I very much doubt it

In so much as all creditors or potential creditors need to be part of the package , or ensure a sustainable football club. The EFL are dotting every possible l and cross every possible T.

[Elwood P Dowd]

3 minutes ago, Andicis said:

They don't have the authority to do that, but if they won't allow us to pass on any legal responsibilities to the next owner it's going to be that or we go bust. 

If they don’t have the authority to make Derby settle then they certainly do not have the authority to make it a condition of the take over. 
 

 

[Andicis]

3 minutes ago, Elwood P Dowd said:

If they don’t have the authority to make Derby settle then they certainly do not have the authority to make it a condition of the take over. 
 

 

That isn't what they are doing though, they are doing what they have the authority to do, accept the administrators plan or reject it. Nothing so blatant as how you're wording it. 

[TooFarInToTurnRed]

18 minutes ago, Andicis said:

They don't have the authority to do that, but if they won't allow us to pass on any legal responsibilities to the next owner it's going to be that or we go bust. 

So, unlikely as it is could Mel Morris legally agree to keep any liability from these claims?
Could we then see a counter claim against Boro for costing him millions due to the lost sale caused by their low Pride Park valuation. Could be boom or bust for Boro, see if Gibson has the balls for it. 

Edited January 9, 2022 by TooFarInToTurnRed

[Elwood P Dowd]

21 minutes ago, Andicis said:

That isn't what they are doing though, they are doing what they have the authority to do, accept the administrators plan or reject it. Nothing so blatant as how you're wording it. 

Your missing the point which is to impose rules, regulations or conditions you have to have ether an agreement in place between the two parties or authority to impose the regulations unilaterally.

There is also common law to take into consideration are the actions of the EFL lawful.

Edited January 9, 2022 by Elwood P Dowd

[KBB]

It's almost as if both wycombe and boro want Derby to publicly admit that we cheated. This should be played out through the courts.

The "damages" they see seeking, if we pay them out before a court case, would almost be a public way of us saying we cheated, got caught, we have paid to out an end to it. If that's what they want, they won't stop until they have it.

We, as fans, need to blanket tweet, email, phone any journalists, broadcasting outlets, local and national radio or media types who can highlight what we are facing as a club and a fan base. All we are seeing is how wycombe and boro have been heard done by. We need our side to be told in the  national press. At the moment it seems to me like the media don't give a poo about how this is impacting our club.