The Administration Thread

[DCFC1388]

5 minutes ago, kevinhectoring said:

Look I agree that a neutral arbiter would regard these as spurious claims. But should Q expect that the regulator would treat the claims as spurious, when its rules say they are to be adjudicated by an arbitrator? Of course not  

As far as I am aware Boro & Wycombe havent made the claims official for it to go to an arbitrator, they have just threatened a claim, so until they do that which they legally cannot do whilst we are in Admin they actually have no claim so should not be part of the EFLs reasoning to prevent a preferred bidder being named.

From what admins have said previously, once the bidder is named some funds will have been input into the club and thats our proof of funds for the remainder of the season, we can extend deals & bring in players.

The EFL dont want us to be in that position, especially whilst the transfer window is open, they want us stripped to the bare bones so we cant stay up & humiliate them.

[Ramarena]

I think we should start talking about pulling the plug (whether empty threat or not). Rooney and the Administrators should both drill the message home.

Start putting it out there in the media, etc, that we may not complete our fixtures due to the EFL stopping our takeover.

The whole division will then have to discuss the implications of that and there will be huge pressure on the corrupt governing body!

 

[Gee SCREAMER !!]

18 minutes ago, kevinhectoring said:

Yes this is what the admins need us to believe.  But why do you say the EFL is attempting to break insolvency law? All they are saying is: this is how we have been advised that our rules work 

Moratorium law for a start .  You can't just send a letter to company in admin saying give me money without approval of the administrators and courts. They haven't gone to court and won't. 

The Bill gives struggling businesses a formal breathing space to pursue a rescue plan. It creates a moratorium during which no legal action can be taken against a company without leave of the court.

[kevinhectoring]

48 minutes ago, ripleyram88 said:

Quantuma shouldn't have to have a plan B.

A restructuring expert without a plan B is like a diver without an aqualung 

[Rich84]

Just now, kevinhectoring said:

This is not to do with ‘ratifying the sale’. I think the problem is we can’t prove to the EFl that we can fund ourselves to the end of the season. And that’s because the admins have not found a clean route out of administration (in light of Gibson’s claim) 

But this is the point made many times in more than 1 thread, they DID have a route out until the EFL added the requirement for Boro and Wycombe to be dealt with,  and if you believe them as experts and lawyers, what  the EFL are now asking is effectively against the law/their rules, hence using the term statute in their statement.

I don't believe there is anything filed legally from either club, it is internal to the EFL yet they state that they have no involvement in these claims in one of their statements yesterday. We have been punished with points deductions, embargoes and financial restrictions on how the club can be run in line with the regulations, that's it, end of.

Can't wait for the poo storm from every other club with an axe to grind for wrongdoings in the past, and I would love Boro to get 6th place this season but fail ffp and see 7th place raise the same case against them!

[Hanny]

6 minutes ago, kevinhectoring said:

This is not to do with ‘ratifying the sale’. I think the problem is we can’t prove to the EFl that we can fund ourselves to the end of the season. And that’s because the admins have not found a clean route out of administration (in light of Gibson’s claim) 

As I understand it:

the path forward WAS having a bid come through that satisfied the administrators (which is on behalf of the creditors, and ultimately satisfy club asset purchase as well).

That path was found and met by the 3 offers the Admin claim to have. Now EFL are saying, no, we want you to settle these other claims first. To which the administrators are saying- you have no jurisdiction to make that demand.

So the EFL must explain (to all, including the creditors) why they are demanding something more then is needed to ratify the club sale. 

To note: it is my understanding the EFL have no remit to stop a sale because of an outstanding claim by another club. 

[Rich84]

5 minutes ago, kevinhectoring said:

A restructuring expert without a plan B is like a diver without an aqualung 

I'd argue having 3 viable bids is a plan A, plan B and a plan C ......

[kevinhectoring]

7 minutes ago, Gee SCREAMER !! said:

Moratorium law for a start .  You can't just send a letter to company in admin saying give me money without approval of the administrators and courts. They haven't gone to court and won't. 

The Bill gives struggling businesses a formal breathing space to pursue a rescue plan. It creates a moratorium during which no legal action can be taken against a company without leave of the court.

The administration regime doesn’t prevent claims being notified. Nor does it allow admins to ignore claims. It merely stops proceeding being brought for so long as the admins are in place 

[Indy]

3 minutes ago, Hanny said:

As I understand it:

the path forward WAS having a bid come through that satisfied the administrators (which is on behalf of the creditors, and ultimately satisfy club asset purchase as well).

That path was found and met by the 3 offers the Admin claim to have. Now EFL are saying, no, we want you to settle these other claims first. To which the administrators are saying- you have no jurisdiction to make that demand.

So the EFL must explain (to all, including the creditors) why they are demanding something more then is needed to ratify the club sale. 

To note: it is my understanding the EFL have no remit to stop a sale because of an outstanding claim by another club. 

Also - the EFL could have said at any point in the last few months that these claims needed to be addressed for them to approve a takeover. Why didn’t they? Why wait until administrators present their solution to exiting administration? Because they know it’s illegal and would be challenged whenever they said it.
 

A total stitch up. 

[Gee SCREAMER !!]

1 minute ago, kevinhectoring said:

The administration regime doesn’t prevent claims being notified. Nor does it allow admins to ignore claims. It merely stops proceeding being brought for so long as the admins are in place 

It does actually if it's outside the list of creditors.  Any claim has to be legitimate and agreed by administrators and cleared by the court as a debt that needs including in possible CVA. Not this

[kevinhectoring]

4 minutes ago, Rich84 said:

they DID have a route out until the EFL added the requirement for Boro and Wycombe to be dealt with,  

Don’t think the EFl has ‘added’ anything. One problem is that you can’t force unsecured creditors into a CVA if you have other unquantified claims against the club. The EFl can’t fix that 

[kevinhectoring]

17 minutes ago, Hanny said:

That path was found and met by the 3 offers the Admin claim to have. Now EFL are saying, no, we want you to settle these other claims first.

The EFl are not saying you can’t accept an offer. Not are they saying you can’t appoint a PB. Instead Ashley is saying I will not  accept PB status until you show me an exit from administration    Q can’t do that

[kevinhectoring]

19 minutes ago, Rich84 said:

I'd argue having 3 viable bids is a plan A, plan B and a plan C ......

The admins can accept any of the bids. The EFl has no problem with that. The problem is, insolvency law makes exit from admin uncertain, so bidders probably won’t accept PB status and certainly won’t pony up large non refundable deposits to fund us to the end of the season 

[Ramtastic ones]

35 minutes ago, kevinhectoring said:

This is not to do with ‘ratifying the sale’. I think the problem is we can’t prove to the EFl that we can fund ourselves to the end of the season. And that’s because the admins have not found a clean route out of administration (in light of Gibson’s claim) 

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.

[Eddie]

22 minutes ago, kevinhectoring said:

The administration regime doesn’t prevent claims being notified. Nor does it allow admins to ignore claims. It merely stops proceeding being brought for so long as the admins are in place 

That's a bit of a problem then, because if the claims cannot be processed while the administrators are in place on the one hand, and the club cannot be taken over, in effect removing the administrators, until the claims HAVE been processed on the other hand, you have what we old-school database administrators term a 'fatal embrace'.

If those two conditions apply, then the club can do nothing except to die.

[kevinhectoring]

18 minutes ago, Gee SCREAMER !! said:

It does actually if it's outside the list of creditors.  Any claim has to be legitimate and agreed by administrators and cleared by the court as a debt that needs including in possible CVA. Not this

The problem really is the position on liquidation, because it’s that that means the Gibson claim endangers a CVA  The Athletic article got into this  but it was all a bit garbled 

This is clear though : 
 

“The general rule as to what constitutes a provable debt in administration, winding-up and bankruptcy is set out in the IR 2016, SI 2016/1024, r 14.2(1) (replacing IR 1986, SI 1986/1925, r 12.3):

'All claims by creditors except as provided in this rule, are provable as debts against the company or bankrupt, whether they are present or future, certain or contingent, ascertained or sounding only in damages'.

[kevinhectoring]

8 minutes ago, Ramtastic ones said:

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’s a contingent claim. Enough to bugger us up as today’s shenanigans make clear. It’s more the general law than the EFl that is the problem 

[Gee SCREAMER !!]

3 minutes ago, kevinhectoring said:

The problem really is the position on liquidation, because it’s that that means the Gibson claim endangers a CVA  The Athletic article got into this  but it was all a bit garbled 

This is clear though : 
 

“The general rule as to what constitutes a provable debt in administration, winding-up and bankruptcy is set out in the IR 2016, SI 2016/1024, r 14.2(1) (replacing IR 1986, SI 1986/1925, r 12.3):

'All claims by creditors except as provided in this rule, are provable as debts against the company or bankrupt, whether they are present or future, certain or contingent, ascertained or sounding only in damages'.

My take on that is they are not creditors and the debt is not provable and neither are damages and any court would agree. Any cash settlement requested by Wycombe should immediately have been batted back to the EFL and Boro as there pedantic dinosaur actions caused their issue.   The administrators should have dismissed this from the get go and the EFL should have done the same 8 or 9 weeks ago. 

[S8TY]

58 minutes ago, kevinhectoring said:

A restructuring expert without a plan B is like a diver without an aqualung 

Why do you keep sticking up for the EFL ?? The admin are doing there jobs the EFL are moving the goalposts simple as that …it’s a disgrace so stop defending the EFL ffs 

[Hanny]

1 hour ago, kevinhectoring said:

The admins can accept any of the bids. The EFl has no problem with that. The problem is, insolvency law makes exit from admin uncertain, so bidders probably won’t accept PB status and certainly won’t pony up large non refundable deposits to fund us to the end of the season 

Mate. You must be trolling with these comments (you’ve made a few, but I just grabbed this one). 
 

The information available to us points to the EFL being the one holding things up. 
 

You keep saying they haven’t added anything, or they are just following the rules. That they aren’t stopping the admins from accepting a bid. 
 

But those are precisely the things that have happened- as proven by the Admins  statement today (and honestly been backed up by the actions/words of Rooney and such).
 

The statement by the Admins. Rooneys comments about things almost finalized, and moving to re-sign and find new players.  Even ole Alan Nixon said the EFLs position appears to be extreme.
 

I don’t understand how you could think the EFL are just hands tied innocent (as your posts seem to suggest) in this situation.

Edited January 15, 2022 by Hanny
Misquote