The Administration Thread

[PistoldPete]

23 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 ???!!! 

Well as I've said there is an issue about why any of this should hold up the CVA.. a delay which is what the admin team statement is complaining about? How can they pay any claims in full when they don't know what "in full " means.  The admin team has offered the parties a compromised settlement but presumably they have refused so instead they have to assess what a realistic value might be.  So unless we have to wait until the claims are decided the CVA has to go ahead with an assumption on what the assumed value will be.. probably very low or nothing. That's an insolvency process where claims of uncertain value have to be factored in  (whether ultimately to be paid "in full" or not) , and that's a process which the admin team know all about. 

Plus the legal advice I think is that they are not football creditors anyway so it's not up to the EFL anyway.

 

Edited January 15, 2022 by PistoldPete

[RadioactiveWaste]

My suspicion is the EFL are trying to find themselves a defendable position whatever follows - there have been failings on their part throughout.

Do it wrong on one side and face Boro get it wrong on the other and face DCFC. They may also be thinking Derby are in a weakened position so if they can be persuaded to settle then their problem goes away.

If DCFC fight the claims, and they probably have to because no buy will accept the potential liabilities, it becomes will a solution be found before DCFC run out of money.

[kevinhectoring]

12 minutes ago, RammingStone66 said:

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

I think it will be fixed. Possible knights on chargers are Ashley, Appleby, Gadsby, MSD, even MM. Liquidation and/or loss of EFL membership is an irrational result. But as this drags on the numbers become more challenging 
 

Quantuma ? - they will ride on to the next one at £450 an hour. 

[DCFC1388]

So I sent an email to the supposed Rick Parry, reply seems legit like others have said with the efl advertising on the bottom.

My email - 

Hi Mr Parry,

 

I am sure you have received plenty of emails from worried/angry/upset Derby fans.

 

I would like to think as a founding member of the football league the EFL would be doing as much as they can to stop us going into liquidation.

 

There have been many articles & statements, resulting in a lot of anger, confusion & contradictions.

 

Can you confirm the following -

 

1. Has the club been given a deadine of 1st Feb to prove funds? And will be removed from the league if not provided?

 

2. Have Middlesbrough & Wycombe both officially made claims against us or are they still only threats that they will? Do you know the value of the claims?

 

3. Can a preferred bidder be named & we exit administration with the Middlesbrough & Wycombe claims still ongoing? Providing the new owner is happy to take these claims on.

 

Any clarity for us Derby fans would be greatly appreciated.

 

Many thanks

The below is my response - 

 

[Hanny]

27 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 ???!!! 

Heavy sigh. Has this account been compromised? It seems to currently only comment with half-truths pretending to be 100%true. 
 

I don’t want to get into a pissing match. But, mate, everyone of your statements are made with some level of knowing, yet it’s using incorrect information. The biggest grievance I have with your comments: 

You keep stating the EFL are simply asking for the claims to be paid in full. Well, they can’t demand that. Boro are NOT creditor’s, and therefore do not fall under that statute I’ve seen you post. 
 

Furthermore, it is outside of the EFLs purview to appoint creditors without legal cause. This point is crucial, as Boro and wycombe have zero legal cause to claim monies from Derby.
 

It’s as if you were sat at the closing table ready to sign for the new keys to your house, and some bloke comes in the room and says, wait, you owe me 100 thousand pounds. The room all ask the guy if he has any proof…he says well no, but give me the money. That interaction  is exactly what Boro are doing here. And that type of interaction is not going to stop you from closing on your house. 
 

Therefore, EFL are outside of their remit. Which is what the Administrators pointed out in their last statement. 
 

I really hope you are just performing some expert level trolling here. But please dial it back a bit for the mental health of some of our supporters here:) 

[StaffsRam]

Why is is that he’s happy to respond to Tom, Dick & Harry, but not any official channels? If you think there’s misleading information being put out there then hey, there's an easy way to remedy that, go on TV/Radio and give the EFL’s official stance rather than putting it through the Chinese whispers filter of Nixon/Percy etc.

[Ram-Alf]

4 minutes ago, DCFC1388 said:

So I sent an email to the supposed Rick Parry, reply seems legit like others have said with the efl advertising on the bottom.

My email - 

Hi Mr Parry,

 

I am sure you have received plenty of emails from worried/angry/upset Derby fans.

 

I would like to think as a founding member of the football league the EFL would be doing as much as they can to stop us going into liquidation.

 

There have been many articles & statements, resulting in a lot of anger, confusion & contradictions.

 

Can you confirm the following -

 

1. Has the club been given a deadine of 1st Feb to prove funds? And will be removed from the league if not provided?

 

2. Have Middlesbrough & Wycombe both officially made claims against us or are they still only threats that they will? Do you know the value of the claims?

 

3. Can a preferred bidder be named & we exit administration with the Middlesbrough & Wycombe claims still ongoing? Providing the new owner is happy to take these claims on.

 

Any clarity for us Derby fans would be greatly appreciated.

 

Many thanks

The below is my response - 

 

"I can't go into specifics of claims, But if buyers were willing to acknowledge them and deal with them later there is no reason why we would object"

Hhmmm

[R@M]

Nice to see Quest actually address the issue of Middlesbrough and Wycombe and not just repeat EFL bull. Ironically on EFL on quest. 

[Philmycock]

9 minutes ago, Unlucky Alf said:

"I can't go into specifics of claims, But if buyers were willing to acknowledge them and deal with them later there is no reason why we would object"

Hhmmm

That's not what happened friday 

Edited January 15, 2022 by Philmycock

[Eatonram]

45 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

 

11 hours no reply. It was a simple question.  A one line reply would cover it or a simple yes or no. Strange

[Shipley Ram]

Just now, Eatonram said:

11 hours no reply. It was a simple question.  A one line reply would cover it or a simple yes or no. Strange

I think that is what happens when you send a question where there isn't a scripted answer.

[Van der MoodHoover]

4 minutes ago, R@M said:

Nice to see Quest actually address the issue of Middlesbrough and Wycombe and not just repeat EFL bull. Ironically on EFL on quest. 

They clearly had to be careful, but Colin Murray got a little dig in about "penalty points already having been applied" in respect of the football authorities when talking about the progress of dcfc being purchased. 

They said that there were 3 offers on the table. 

[Carnero]

53 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 ???!!! 

So basically, of course the claims can be compromised, but if you do compromise them then you are booted out of the football league?

I would think the best option now is to secure funding to the end of the season and to deal with a LAP in respect of these (vexacious) "claims".

[PistoldPete]

2 minutes ago, Shipley Ram said:

I think that is what happens when you send a question where there isn't a scripted answer.

"Derby County is important to us but we have to apply our insolvency policy consistently " Blah Blah blah!

So what consistency do they have to deal with when a football club has gone into admin with spurious ambulance chasing claims from two other clubs?

 

[kevinhectoring]

43 minutes ago, PistoldPete said:

 

43 minutes ago, PistoldPete said:

 

43 minutes ago, PistoldPete said:

Well as I've said there is an issue about why any of this should hold up the CVA.. a delay which is what the admin team statement is complaining about? How can they pay any claims in full when they don't know what "in full " means.  The admin team has offered the parties a compromised settlement but presumably they have refused so instead they have to assess what a realistic value might be.  So unless we have to wait until the claims are decided the CVA has to go ahead with an assumption on what the assumed value will be.. probably very low or nothing. That's an insolvency process where claims of uncertain value have to be factored in  (whether ultimately to be paid "in full" or not) , and that's a process which the admin team know all about. 

Plus the legal advice I think is that they are not football creditors anyway so it's not up to the EFL anyway.

 

Well you’ve certainly not responded to my post ! 
It’s all complicated and I’m not as worked up as I was yesterday so less inclined to rant. 
 I actually think we’ll be OK but Q have certainly put our future more at risk.
I even think our thin squad might make this season one of the most memorable since the days of Sir Brian ?  Don’t know if you witnessed those heady days ... 

Edited January 15, 2022 by kevinhectoring

[kevinhectoring]

24 minutes ago, DCFC1388 said:

So I sent an email to the supposed Rick Parry, reply seems legit like others have said with the efl advertising on the bottom.

My email - 

Hi Mr Parry,

 

I am sure you have received plenty of emails from worried/angry/upset Derby fans.

 

I would like to think as a founding member of the football league the EFL would be doing as much as they can to stop us going into liquidation.

 

There have been many articles & statements, resulting in a lot of anger, confusion & contradictions.

 

Can you confirm the following -

 

1. Has the club been given a deadine of 1st Feb to prove funds? And will be removed from the league if not provided?

 

2. Have Middlesbrough & Wycombe both officially made claims against us or are they still only threats that they will? Do you know the value of the claims?

 

3. Can a preferred bidder be named & we exit administration with the Middlesbrough & Wycombe claims still ongoing? Providing the new owner is happy to take these claims on.

 

Any clarity for us Derby fans would be greatly appreciated.

 

Many thanks

The below is my response - 

 

Jeese there must be at least 6 Rick Parrys in EFL house, all of them working 24/7

[Ram-Alf]

12 minutes ago, Philmycock said:

That's not what happened friday 

Absolutely not, Now if this is the real deal of a reply, I'd say it was a softening of the EFL, As I believe they HAVE painted themselves into a corner

[kevinhectoring]

11 minutes ago, Eatonram said:

11 hours no reply. It was a simple question.  A one line reply would cover it or a simple yes or no. Strange

It’s not a simple question !  You’ve asked them a technical legal question and one they would be foolish to express a view on even if the PA pool handling Parry’s email account had the competence.  Come on ! 
 

[ariotofmyown]

Can't the preferred bidder just say they will pay any money owed to Boro/Wycombe once a court tells them too? Which will never happen.

[PistoldPete]

3 minutes ago, kevinhectoring said:

 

Well you’ve certainly not responded to my post ! 
It’s all complicated and I’m not as worked up as I was yesterday so less inclined to rant. 
 I actually think we’ll be OK but Q have certainly put our future more at risk.
I even think our thin squad might make this season one of the most memorable since the days of Sir Brian ?  Don’t know if you witnessed those heady days ... 

Just saying I think you may have intrepreted "compromised" differntly to me. I don't mean paying 25p in the pound , I mean making an assesment of a claim of uncertain value (just becasue £45 million is what Boro are claiming you cant give them that weight as there is no way that i seven the full value) and you have to put some value in when giving the weights to the CVA votes. That's how I see it but I could be wrong. Anyway, goodnight the Rams are doing it on the pitch but the next two weeks are critical off it. We can't lose too many more players, especially the best ones. .