The Administration Thread

[RoyMac5]

2 minutes ago, RAMS1992 said:

Is this going to be through a fire sale though?

Wouldn't raise enough I'd have thought, even with wages saved too. We've had a 'soft loan' before, maybe get another? Not got one as didn't think we'd need it as we had PB ready.

[kevinhectoring]

5 minutes ago, RadioactiveWaste said:

Off the bottom of the table after 21 deducted.

Each little step.

Positive points

Above 11 points

Off the bottom

Distance to safety reduced

Against the gloom we have to square it against what the team are doing in response.

 

More to the point Hull, Cardiff and Reading all within 10 points. The chance of one of them blowing up is not small 

[duncanjwitham]

2 minutes ago, RoyMac5 said:

Admin seemed certain they'd get proof of funds for the Club to the end of the season?

I assume they were expecting the EFL to rubber-stamp the exit plan they’ve agreed. They’d then name a preferred bidder on the basis of that plan, who would fund the rest of the season somehow.  The EFL basically told them the plan was unacceptable due to the pair of cretins who must not be named, and we’re back to square one. I assume the admins either believe they legally cannot include those 2 in the exit plan because they have no legal claim to anything, or none of the bidders are willing to take on that risk.

[RAMS1992]

1 minute ago, RoyMac5 said:

Wouldn't raise enough I'd have thought, even with wages saved too. We've had a 'soft loan' before, maybe get another? Not got one as didn't think we'd need it as we had PB ready.

Rumours are Shinnie going for £200k makes me think admin aren’t convinced that a soft loan is likely. It’s worrying if the rumours are true. 

[RoyMac5]

Just now, RAMS1992 said:

Rumours are Shinnie going for £200k makes me think admin aren’t convinced that a soft loan is likely. It’s worrying if the rumours are true. 

Perhaps he worried he might not get a better deal from us at the end of the season? Thommo has his spot now don't you think?

[Ramtastic ones]

6 hours ago, Mucker1884 said:

I wasn't referring to anything Boro related.  I was responding to a poster who made calls for DCFC to sue Villa.

How do you know what rules Villa broke in their promotion season?  Show me the link!  Show me the charges.  Show me the subsequent findings.  Show me the punishment they received.

Villa have broken no rules, from what I can see.  That would make it a tad awkward... and a tad more embarrassing...  for us to try to sue them, I'd imagine... as things stand!

 

They breached FFP it's their accounts. It was poo or bust for them in the final, win or get a points deduction the following season.

Edited January 15, 2022 by Ramtastic ones

[richinspain]

I'm feeling a bit thick at the moment (and very emotional after today's performance. I couldn't be prouder of OUR club. I haven't been able to "get up for" a game really since Mac I due to the bunch of primadonas we've hired over the subsequent years, excepting perhaps Lampard's season due to the team spirit. But that's all another matter).

 Could somebody please explain in simple terms what is it exactly that the EFL want with regards Boro and that other bunch of non-entities? I don't know if it's the legal jargon being used or just me. Nixon seems to put so many tweets out that are just gibberish to me (yes, I know, it's his style). Maybe @i-Ram could explain it to me in layman's terms. What are their current demands?

It's obvious to me that no one in their right mind would buy a very expensive plaything knowing that a kangaroo court could order them to pay double for it in 6 months time. So they have the option to pay a sum acceptable to both clubs in order for them to drop their claims. Up to there I think I've got it fairly clear. Where I'm struggling is the necessity to solve everything, but the EFL aren't going to intervene because it's not in their remit. So who's remit is it? The administrators seemed to make it fairly obvious that the EFL are in their opinion acting against the law. They will need to decide what steps to take to get past this impasse. I know that the legal side of things depends on legal people resolving them, but I just can't fathom in my head what it is exactly that is being demanded.

[RAMS1992]

4 minutes ago, RoyMac5 said:

Perhaps he worried he might not get a better deal from us at the end of the season? Thommo has his spot now don't you think?

Potentially. Just concerned that Rooney didn’t want him gone and Admin has made the decision and the fee is so small. 
 

Do hope I’m wrong, haven’t been concerned until today. 

[duncanjwitham]

2 minutes ago, richinspain said:

Could somebody please explain in simple terms what is it exactly that the EFL want with regards Boro and that other bunch of non-entities? I don't know if it's the legal jargon being used or just me. Nixon seems to put so many tweets out that are just gibberish to me (yes, I know, it's his style). Maybe @i-Ram could explain it to me in layman's terms. What are their current demands?

What they want is for those claims to be treated as “football creditors”. The EFL rules mean that to come out of admin and stay in the league, we need to pay 100% of what we owe to other football clubs etc.  The EFL want a commitment, in some way or other, that we will pay 100% of anything that it’s decided we owe those 2.

So we either agree a settlement with them now, go through the arbitration process now and get a final decision on what we owe, or get a commitment from the new owner that they will pay 100% of whatever it is. The admins feel that they either legally don’t have to do any of those things, or that they cannot achieve a sale under those terms (and before we run out of money).

[Ram-Alf]

5 minutes ago, richinspain said:

I'm feeling a bit thick at the moment (and very emotional after today's performance. I couldn't be prouder of OUR club. I haven't been able to "get up for" a game really since Mac I due to the bunch of primadonas we've hired over the subsequent years, excepting perhaps Lampard's season due to the team spirit. But that's all another matter).

 Could somebody please explain in simple terms what is it exactly that the EFL want with regards Boro and that other bunch of non-entities? I don't know if it's the legal jargon being used or just me. Nixon seems to put so many tweets out that are just gibberish to me (yes, I know, it's his style). Maybe @i-Ram could explain it to me in layman's terms. What are their current demands?

It's obvious to me that no one in their right mind would buy a very expensive plaything knowing that a kangaroo court could order them to pay double for it in 6 months time. So they have the option to pay a sum acceptable to both clubs in order for them to drop their claims. Up to there I think I've got it fairly clear. Where I'm struggling is the necessity to solve everything, but the EFL aren't going to intervene because it's not in their remit. So who's remit is it? The administrators seemed to make it fairly obvious that the EFL are in their opinion acting against the law. They will need to decide what steps to take to get past this impasse. I know that the legal side of things depends on legal people resolving them, but I just can't fathom in my head what it is exactly that is being demanded.

Boro £45m Wycombe £6m, They are not creditors, The EFL in their "wisdom" are saying before we except your prefered bidder they must accept to take on those clubs claims, If not then we will not sanction the takeover, And to cap it all apparently if we have not the proof of funds by Febuary 1st (when the transfer window has closed) to complete the season we could have our golden share taken off us which meens we're no longer an EFL member

[PistoldPete]

7 minutes ago, kevinhectoring said:

I’ve given my head a good old wobble Pistoldpete (as you recommended) but I’m still frowning as I read your jurisprudence. You are nimbly skating over some difficult ‘class issues’ for starters. 
 

Anyway the following extract from a terrafirma chambers article on schemes (easily found online) is interesting and I think sheds some light on the types of arrangements Q ought to have been thinking about, whilst they were instead spending their expensive time telling supporters everything was going to be fine.  Alerting @i-Ramand @RoyMac5to this as they have expressed interest in these difficult aspects of restructuring law and practice 

(2) IRC -v.- The Wimbledon Football Club Ltd [2004] BCC 638 was a highly unusual case in which, as part of the general rescue package for a football club which was a member of the Football League, a third party who purchased the club agreed to pay off the club's "football creditors" in full, because the Football League insisted on such a payment being made as a quid pro quo for its own co-operation in the rescue. As part of the package, the company went into a CVA under which preferential creditors (which in those days included the Revenue) would be paid 30 pence in the pound. The Revenue sought to have the CVA revoked or suspended on the ground that it was unfairly prejudicial to them, since the effect of the deal as a whole was that certain unsecured creditors (the football creditors) were to be paid in full whilst the preferential creditors received only a dividend. The Court of Appeal rejected the Revenue's claim, largely on the basis that the assets being used to pay the football creditors were those of the rescuer, not of the company.

Well I'm no expert but ironically I think that deal for Wimbledon  you mention involved Quantuma didn't it? 

We also now have the option of a restructuring arrangement if a CVA cannot be agreed. 

As for class issues well if Boro and Wycombe  are football creditors they can be outvoted by Arsenal And that Polish club as the value of their claims will be higher than theirs and if  unsecured creditors then they will be outvoted by them too.
And if any class doesn't agree then we could have a  restucturing agreement in which i am sure if HMRC have agreed a deal already then they will be happy to squash anyone who votes against.

And so they should. Are EFL really saying Boro and Wycombe should jump to the head of the queue ahead of HMRC?  
 

[Chester40]

Worrying that Wayne said he was called and told a bid had been accepted for Shinnie  ...what happened to no one will leave without his blessing. 

[Derbados]

1 minute ago, PistoldPete said:

Is that a spoof? Should "no" better? 

 

100% legit I promise you 

[Derbados]

1 minute ago, RAMS1992 said:

Is that real?! His English is dreadful 

100% real

[StaffsRam]

Thick tw**.

[PistoldPete]

37 minutes ago, CBRammette said:

Thanks for all the nice reaction to me pouring my heart out a little at full-time. Very emotional at the mo. Not my intention but the number of likes has made me think is this one way to publicise this and make EFL, Gibson and the totally no-idea who he is American one look like poo to start some sort of recurring thread/twitter feed from one of the fans groups or radio Derby or telegraph highlighting the human stories going on behind this and what it means to people that non-club fans will relate to? I am sure there are lots around with memories of friend, family etc linked to Derby or difficulties meaning Derby gets them through life? Are such stories more likely to be picked up to spread the word? I dont mean people having to put photos real names etc and personal stuff to their name but just a stream of what Derby means to me type stuff? Or am I just a soppy female going through a bad time of it at the same time as this crap? Just think it may be different angle?

You could email Rick Parry at EFL, at rparry@efl.com

He is responding to emails allegedly. 

[i-Ram]

28 minutes ago, kevinhectoring said:

I’ve given my head a good old wobble Pistoldpete (as you recommended) but I’m still frowning as I read your jurisprudence. You are nimbly skating over some difficult ‘class issues’ for starters. 
 

Anyway the following extract from a terrafirma chambers article on schemes (easily found online) is interesting and I think sheds some light on the types of arrangements Q ought to have been thinking about, whilst they were instead spending their expensive time telling supporters everything was going to be fine.  Alerting @i-Ramand @RoyMac5to this as they have expressed interest in these difficult aspects of restructuring law and practice 

(2) IRC -v.- The Wimbledon Football Club Ltd [2004] BCC 638 was a highly unusual case in which, as part of the general rescue package for a football club which was a member of the Football League, a third party who purchased the club agreed to pay off the club's "football creditors" in full, because the Football League insisted on such a payment being made as a quid pro quo for its own co-operation in the rescue. As part of the package, the company went into a CVA under which preferential creditors (which in those days included the Revenue) would be paid 30 pence in the pound. The Revenue sought to have the CVA revoked or suspended on the ground that it was unfairly prejudicial to them, since the effect of the deal as a whole was that certain unsecured creditors (the football creditors) were to be paid in full whilst the preferential creditors received only a dividend. The Court of Appeal rejected the Revenue's claim, largely on the basis that the assets being used to pay the football creditors were those of the rescuer, not of the company.

Sorry, I’m out.

[Ram-Alf]

5 minutes ago, Chester40 said:

Worrying that Wayne said he was called and told a bid had been accepted for Shinnie  ...what happened to no one will leave without his blessing. 

It's out of his hands now, Admins calling the shots

[Simmo’s left foot]

So Marshall, Shinnie, Jags and Baldock off the books. Not much cash coming in but there must be in the region of £2 million per year in wages saved there. that must be a big improvement in cash flow for the rest of the season.

Wonder how much more is to come? Who next I wonder? Terrible that we have come to this, but perhaps we should have been challenging the numbers a few years ago.

[mrdave85]

5 minutes ago, Derbados said:

100% real