The Administration Thread

[PistoldPete]

32 minutes ago, LauraH said:

My reply from Mr Parry

 

Dear Laura

It is unfortunate that so much misleading briefing is going on. It is helping no-one.

We have no agenda against Derby County and there is no vendetta.

We want the club to survive.

We do know how important it is to supporters but it is also important to the EFL.

We do have to apply our insolvency policy consistently for obvious reasons but no other club has failed to come out of administration.

Regards

Rick Parry

It's stinking hypocrisy of Parry to accuse the admin team of "misleading briefing".

Remind me of who has been feeding false and misleading  stories to the media for the last two years?  Like how they got an "independent valuation" of Pride Park Stadium that was much lower than "Derby's own valuation." Or that Derby were amortising players values to non zero values at the end of their contracts? etc etc etc. Or how Derby were not eligible for a COVID loan and then suddenly that got changed to they forgot to apply? Lying,  cheating corrupt duck jobs.     

[mrdave85]

“& they thought I was actually Rick Parry”

[Ram-Alf]

5 minutes ago, Malty said:

I just have. I’ll let you know whether I hear anything.

I emailed rickparry@swingers.com purely by mistake, I'm meeting him and his wife on Markeaton park, Looking for a yellow VW

[Anag Ram]

Just now, Unlucky Alf said:

I emailed rickparry@swingers.com purely by mistake, I'm meeting him and his wife on Markeaton park, Looking for a yellow VW

It’ll be the one that looks like a dozen seagulls crapped on the windscreen.

[duncanjwitham]

1 minute ago, Malty said:

If Everton want Rooney …. Does anyone know if we could get compensation? 

much as I don’t want Toulouse him. It could be a blessing in disguise?

Unless he has a clause in his contract saying he can go for free, or go for a fixed amount or something, we’re free to negotiate a deal for him like we would with a player.

Honestly, as bad as it would be to lose him, he’s quite possibly our most saleable asset right now. We probably wouldn’t get the £4m+ we got for Lampard, but it could potentially be a million or 2.

[Ram-Alf]

1 minute ago, duncanjwitham said:

Unless he has a clause in his contract saying he can go for free, or go for a fixed amount or something, we’re free to negotiate a deal for him like we would with a player.

Honestly, as bad as it would be to lose him, he’s quite possibly our most saleable asset right now. We probably wouldn’t get the £4m+ we got for Lampard, but it could potentially be a million or 2.

Would he go...hhmmm

[duncanjwitham]

Just now, Unlucky Alf said:

Would he go...hhmmm

If, for example, Everton offered £3m and the admins told him it would be the difference between us going out of business or not, I suspect he probably would. 
 

Beyond something like that, I think it depends how much if a bloodbath the next couple of weeks are. If we say lose a dozen players, get thumped in the next couple of games playing kids, I think he might hold his hands up and say he can’t go on.  Probably frame it as saving the club money.

[kevinhectoring]

6 minutes ago, PistoldPete said:

 

So what was "misleading and disingenuous" about the Admin team statement (which I thought was infinitely more professional than the EFL one)? You seem to be ploughing a lone furrow here. 

 

Happy to explain. It’s worth concentrating on this because not only does it reveal why the statement was misleading. It also reveals how Q and their advisers have messed this up. 
 

What Q said, very carefully and deliberately, was the following : 

an obstacle is to deal with certain claims that are very much disputed but which we are being advised by the EFL cannot be currently compromised notwithstanding statute says otherwise. 
 

Now here’s the problem.  Q are indicating the EFL have wrongly said that the claims can’t be compromised. They evidence this by referring to a ‘statute’, which ‘says otherwise’

It is a devious and misleading way to cover their expensive and incompetent arses and to seek to blame the EFL for our predicament. 
 

Because the truth is - 

1 yes there is a statute that allows football claims to be compromised. Of course there is 
 

2 but the EFl is not denying this. Instead the EFL is saying something quite different. They are saying: ‘you can compromise the football claims to kingdom come, in accordance with statute, we don’t care. But the EFl rules require those claims to be paid IN FULL.  And you have foolishly and carelessly assumed that under our rules the claims only need to be paid in accordance with the compromise. Well that is wrong 
 

It’s exactly what you would expect the EFL’s position to be and it’s a reasonable one 

So the Q statement was misleading in a way that was intended to deflect blame from them to the EFl. And you think the EFL is not entitled to defend itself ???!!! 

[RoyMac5]

4 minutes ago, duncanjwitham said:

Beyond something like that, I think it depends how much if a bloodbath the next couple of weeks are. If we say lose a dozen players, get thumped in the next couple of games playing kids, I think he might hold his hands up and say he can’t go on.  Probably frame it as saving the club money.

He would never say that. He is in this with the squad and his team, he won't leave unless we say he has to go.

[PistoldPete]

1 hour ago, Barrytheanon said:

Your right it is a massive problem however these prospective owners are buying a club at its worth at this moment, they do not want to foot the bill of this ridiculous claim, that being said the solution will be a ballsy person to take this case on head first and produce the money to call the bluff

You rang sir?

 

 

[Eatonram]

I emailed more than 10 hours ago and asked directly if under Uk insolvency laws do the EFl see the Boro and Wycombe claims as  “creditors”     No reply so far after 10 hours

 

[duncanjwitham]

1 minute ago, RoyMac5 said:

He would never say that. He is in this with the squad and his team, he won't leave unless we say he has to go.

I certainly don’t think he’s going to walk away casually, it’s going to have to be something pretty extreme that prompts it. But I think would could be in for that over the next fortnight.  We might not have much of the squad left.
 

Honestly, it’s his behaviour on the pitch afterwards that makes me wonder. It certainly felt like he was aware it could be his last time when he was clapping the fans.

[Eatonram]

7 minutes ago, kevinhectoring said:

Happy to explain. It’s worth concentrating on this because not only does it reveal why the statement was misleading. It also reveals how Q and their advisers have messed this up. 
 

What Q said, very carefully and deliberately, was the following : 

an obstacle is to deal with certain claims that are very much disputed but which we are being advised by the EFL cannot be currently compromised notwithstanding statute says otherwise. 
 

Now here’s the problem.  Q are indicating the EFL have wrongly said that the claims can’t be compromised. They evidence this by referring to a ‘statute’, which ‘says otherwise’

It is a devious and misleading way to cover their expensive and incompetent arses and to seek to blame the EFL for our predicament. 
 

Because the truth is - 

1 yes there is a statute that allows football claims to be compromised. Of course there is 
 

2 but the EFl is not denying this. Instead the EFL is saying something quite different. They are saying: ‘you can compromise the football claims to kingdom come, in accordance with statute, we don’t care. But the EFl rules require those claims to be paid IN FULL.  And you have foolishly and carelessly assumed that under our rules the claims only need to be paid in accordance with the compromise. Well that is wrong 
 

It’s exactly what you would expect the EFL’s position to be and it’s a reasonable one 

So the Q statement was misleading in a way that was intended to deflect blame from them to the EFl. And you think the EFL is not entitled to defend itself ???!!! 

But surely to be considered football creditors you first have to meet the definition of creditor under Uk insolvency law. Literally any club could have submitted a claim for any amount. 

[Norman]

4 minutes ago, Eatonram said:

I emailed more than 10 hours ago and asked directly if under Uk insolvency laws do the EFl see the Boro and Wycombe claims as  “creditors”     No reply so far after 10 hours

 

And that is everything we need to know. 

******** replies about misleading information but can't answer a straight forward question that would stop all the misleading information. 

[Hanny]

Observations I’m making: 

With the public information available(official statements from all parties), and attempting to apply some simple logic (ie look for common reasonable links as opposed to conspiracy theories. I’ve come to these conclusions/predictions:

1. highly unlikely the chairman of the EFL is responding to random emails (let alone on a Saturday night). 

2. in any negotiation, when one party starts to offer up other terms…you’ve identified the party with the weaker position. With this in mind; the EFL are the only ones who keep changing there answers. Including the most recent save-face offer of allowing any new owners to deal with the boro/wycombe claims after exiting administration.

3. The EFL don’t have a vendetta against Derby. But I do think the EFL have some old men who have had their egos hurt, and are attempting to show strength by puffing up there chest. Pretty much all fur coat and no trousers.

4. Continuing from point 3. Those chest puffing ego men, are realizing they are painting themselves into a corner and are now being called out by the Administrators (and I suspect the creditors themselves). 
 

5. The administrators (and approved bidders) will attempt to get the EFL to dismiss the Boro/wycombe claims, because the EFL certainly seem to be in the weaker position currently. But, regardless, the club will be sold in the next week or so(my big prediction) 


Again. These are my personal opinions based on the available data, wrapped in a little business logic. I’m as in the dark as all of us here. The hour looks dark, and time is ticking. But the way I am seeing it. A deal is close. I’ve made other more detailed comments in posts past, if you want to see some of my reasoning for the above thoughts.  
 

coyr! 

[RammingStone66]

11 minutes ago, kevinhectoring said:

Happy to explain. It’s worth concentrating on this because not only does it reveal why the statement was misleading. It also reveals how Q and their advisers have messed this up. 
 

What Q said, very carefully and deliberately, was the following : 

an obstacle is to deal with certain claims that are very much disputed but which we are being advised by the EFL cannot be currently compromised notwithstanding statute says otherwise. 
 

Now here’s the problem.  Q are indicating the EFL have wrongly said that the claims can’t be compromised. They evidence this by referring to a ‘statute’, which ‘says otherwise’

It is a devious and misleading way to cover their expensive and incompetent arses and to seek to blame the EFL for our predicament. 
 

Because the truth is - 

1 yes there is a statute that allows football claims to be compromised. Of course there is 
 

2 but the EFl is not denying this. Instead the EFL is saying something quite different. They are saying: ‘you can compromise the football claims to kingdom come, in accordance with statute, we don’t care. But the EFl rules require those claims to be paid IN FULL.  And you have foolishly and carelessly assumed that under our rules the claims only need to be paid in accordance with the compromise. Well that is wrong 
 

It’s exactly what you would expect the EFL’s position to be and it’s a reasonable one 

So the Q statement was misleading in a way that was intended to deflect blame from them to the EFl. And you think the EFL is not entitled to defend itself ???!!! 

That sounds horribly worrying and a rather bad position to be in for Quantuma and the Club ?

[Comrade 86]

I'll just leave this here then...

 

[rammieib]

Ok so in Lehman’s terms, if the EFL are saying that the claims can go through to Arbitration in the future, what exactly is the delay?

Unless a buyer doesn’t want to take on the risks which means for sure this situation never gets resolved.

Edited January 15, 2022 by rammieib

[alexxxxx]

The only thing I can think of is that the pb want the efl to assure them that they won’t be able to be sued by boro or Wycombe which the efl can’t guarantee.

I don’t understand why there needs to be an insistence on getting this sorted now as long as the pb understand they have to deal with Wycombe and Boris claims at arbitration. 

[Steve Buckley’s Dog]

26 minutes ago, Unlucky Alf said:

I emailed rickparry@swingers.com purely by mistake, I'm meeting him and his wife on Markeaton park, Looking for a yellow VW

Yeah what time you gettinghere, it's quite cold and I'm shrivelling up.