The Administration Thread

[S8TY]

Been a lo

10 minutes ago, Ram1988 said:

Also Mel sadly has to chose to want to sell the stadium to however the potential party is. Been Mel should do the right thing and make sure it's only a small nominal fee to make sure it's not adding to any further problems.

Been a long time since Mel has done the right thing…don’t hold your breath 

[ck-]

6 hours ago, S8TY said:

Been a lo

Been a long time since Mel has done the right thing…don’t hold your breath 

I’m not an apologist for Mel Morris, and I wish he’d stuck to what he said he wanted to achieve , rather than compromise it by wasting millions on poor value players. So what am I suggesting he did right? Let’s look at the contribution of the academy yesterday, and acknowledge that for all his other failings, he left us something to be proud of. Just a shame he made such a spectacular mess of the rest of it.

 

[PistoldPete]

5 minutes ago, ck- said:

I’m not an apologist for Mel Morris, and I wish he’d stuck to what he said he wanted to achieve , rather than compromise it by wasting millions on poor value players. So what am I suggesting he did right? Let’s look at the contribution of the academy yesterday, and acknowledge that for all his other failings, he left us something to be proud of. Just a shame he made such a spectacular mess of the rest of it.

 

I'm really not going to mention you know who right now , but the other thing he got right was that the EFL are total duck jobs. 

[I know nuffin]

7 hours ago, Ram1988 said:

Also Mel sadly has to chose to want to sell the stadium to however the potential party is. Mel should do the right thing and make sure it's only a small nominal fee to make sure it's not adding to any further problems.

Have always though the cost of the stadium will be to pay off the loan. Thought that was stated very early on

[Crewton]

11 hours 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 ???!!! 

I'm only just catching up with posts from yesterday, but where I believe the EFL are taking a pedantic and erroneous line is that they are effectively saying that these claims must be treated as debts owed to Football Creditors simply because the claimants are football clubs. This is patent nonsense, because they don't arise from any kind of transaction between DCFC and the Claimants. It's not what the Football Creditors rules were designed for. I imagine HMRC think this is bollo too. 

Bear in mind that every £ these two chancers are paid is a £ that genuine unsecured Creditors won't see. The EFL should not be placing them above genuine creditors. It's disgraceful. 

[Comrade 86]

Ok, fess up. Who else has set Rick up with an account on Grindr?

[Mucker1884]

Can someone confirm the exact email addy for Rick Parry?

All I got back was this signed photo, and some meaningless words about never giving up...

 

[Sparkle]

No PB is going into a purchase with these outstanding claims around - the administrators may sell some of our players to pay them off to get the deal done which is totally the wrong use of the money and I am not sure if that is actually legal whilst the EFL sit back watching chaos happen on their high street as if they are due to receive a big fat brown paper bag. It stinks 

Drastic I know but I can’t tolerate paying anything to the parasite clubs in question especially because it’s not a football related matter and as a taxpayer that shouldn’t have preference anyway.

[Abu Derby]

So if Dick Parry says that they are simply upholding the EFL rules, where does it say that one club can sue another because they MIGHT have gained promotion if the other said club hadn’t broken the rules and the governing body didn’t react in time?

Its just madness it really is. 

Edited January 16, 2022 by Abu Derby

[Gritstone Ram]

I have seen from some communication that some MP’s have replied to emails from fans and are going to speak to the sports minister next week. I have emails my MP not sure if she’ll be any use but I can only try.

[Van der MoodHoover]

28 minutes ago, Crewton said:

I'm only just catching up with posts from yesterday, but where I believe the EFL are taking a pedantic and erroneous line is that they are effectively saying that these claims must be treated as debts owed to Football Creditors simply because the claimants are football clubs. This is patent nonsense, because they don't arise from any kind of transaction between DCFC and the Claimants. It's not what the Football Creditors rules were designed for. I imagine HMRC think this is bollo too. 

Bear in mind that every £ these two chancers are paid is a £ that genuine unsecured Creditors won't see. The EFL should not be placing them above genuine creditors. It's disgraceful. 

I absolutely agree, but am stuck on understanding exactly what has to happen from here to get these "actions" by Middlesbrough and Wycombe considered and then categorised. Hopefully dismissed for the nonsense they are. 

It seems as if merely spouting "we think you owe us" is thought sufficient, but surely that cannot be the case.

The efl are sat on the sidelines...claiming their rules are clear. So surely they should remind or inform both parties what they should be doing? Or even better, run a process to get these matters out of the way..... 

[Tyler Durden]

1 hour ago, ck- said:

I’m not an apologist for Mel Morris, and I wish he’d stuck to what he said he wanted to achieve , rather than compromise it by wasting millions on poor value players. So what am I suggesting he did right? Let’s look at the contribution of the academy yesterday, and acknowledge that for all his other failings, he left us something to be proud of. Just a shame he made such a spectacular mess of the rest of it.

 

 

[G STAR RAM]

4 minutes ago, Tyler Durden said:

 

Still no answer about MMs comments about having the EFL on strings though...

[peakram]

Surely latest results would encourage a genuinely interested bidder to step up now while there is a realistic chance to stay in this division and keep the squad together / add to it rather than wait until it’s dismantled and face the prospect of a few seasons in the lower leagues.
I agree hypothetical claims from Boro and Wycombe really shouldn’t be brought into the current situation by the EFL which only complicates matters and is frankly pie in the sky stuff. I’d think the chances of such claims proving fruitful would normally be virtually nil but in Derbys situation with time of the essence maybe these clubs are thinking they can get an easy windfall out of it.

Morris could at least do his bit by stepping in and sorting it if he really cared about the club so much but would involve swallowing his pride which I can’t see happening. Doesn’t help that the Boro CEO is apparently part of the EFL committee I guess.

Very proud of the efforts of the lads in the face of adversity.

[i-Ram]

13 hours ago, duncanjwitham said:

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).

@richinspainl promised to revert on your query. I am less intoxicated now. Actually Big Dunc above has explained the position of the EFL very well. In a nutshell they are saying these are our member rules, which DCFC and 71 clubs signed up too, comply in one of 3 ways or you will remain under sanction, and I guess ultimately they can kick us out of the league. The lawyers of EFL will I imagine at this stage be saying all you can do is implement the rules you have been mandated by the member clubs. To do anything different leaves you potentially exposed.

I would imagine that Quantuma’s position is that In an administration, a statutory moratorium automatically arises under IA 1986, and that no legal process or proceedings may be commenced, or continued with, against the company in administration or it's property without either the administator's consent or the permission of the court.

To be clear neither Boro or Wycombe have commenced a legal process; they are trying to ‘extort’ money via the EFL rules route. I doubt either fancy the costs of a High Court battle especially if they were to lose (and be then forced to pay DCFC defence costs). By proceeding down the EFL rules route there isn’t really any downside for the parasites. If a LAP finds in favour of Derby the parasites only have to make a small contribution to the hearing costs - I think those costs being shared by the member clubs (you couldn’t make it up!). If DCFC lose the LAP, I have read on here (so treat with care) that the LAP decision is binding and there is no appeal. Any new potential buyer will be particularly fearful of the risks of a LAP. A high court claim process is much more preferable to a new owner, because a) there is some very real cost jeopardy to the parasites, and b) there is a rights of appeal process, and quite a lengthy one which I think might include CAS.

How this gets resolved is really beyond my knowledge, but I think Quantuma strategy will be as follows:

1) obtain legal counsel as to next steps.

2) with a view to injuncting the EFL to prevent them putting any obstacles up from announcing a preferred bidder, continuing as a going concern (I.e. to be able to trade as a Championship football club) and progressing the administration involving getting creditor approval from the list of creditors detailed back in November (so to be clear excluding the parasites). If they get the injunction, the EFL would have to comply although their Lawyers might try some appeal. Not sure on what grounds - I can’t believe membership rules would be allowed to be superior to statute.

3) Quantuma will also want the injunction ruling to confirm that no claims can be made by the parasites until Derby are out of administration, i.e. (ideally) a new owner is in, a CVA has been agreed, and we are back to being a Club under any third party control. Ideally though, from our perspective, they can also use the injunction process to determine that the rules of the EFL are unfair, and are open to allow for vexatious claims to be brought forward, and should be struck from the rule book. That would be ideal, but I doubt the Court would want to interfere in membership rules per se, unless they were considered illegal or unlawful.

4) Quantuma may also want to explore with EFL the options they now have representing DCFC under EFL rules. It seems to me that there are two approaches here. A) The EFL has via their processes made a decision as to DCFC penalties (i.e. points deduction, and wage/signing constraints). That should be full and final, and not open to other Clubs making separate claims thereafter. There would appear no other precedence for this; I am unaware of any member club trying it on independently after an EFL decision? What grounds at there for the parasites to be allowed to do what they are doing.  B) If A) is batted away, what is the potential for DCFC to now claim against QPR, after all if it is a rule book matter, rather than a statute process, that is king, there would appear to be no limitation of time on making a claim against QPR for their FFP cheating in 2014.

Note at all times these are the musings of an increasingly senile old man, with no legal training or practice experience. It is all very much fwiw, and as I often say to my two kids, a little knowledge can often be a dangerous thing.

#UptheRams

#DucktheEFL

[G STAR RAM]

53 minutes ago, Igorwasking said:

I emailed Rick Parry and got the following response. I have replied asking the EFL to arbitrate on the claims so the takeover can complete.

Dear Mr Roper 

It is not desirable for clubs to be in dispute but it happens and there are mechanisms to resolve those disputes.

The administrators have known about the claims since they were appointed and it is entirely obvious that they needed to be addressed.

Why, after many months, they are blaming the EFL is anybody’s guess.

I can’t comment on the merits of the claims as we are not a party to them and I don’t know what the basis of the claims is.

What I can assure you is we have no agenda against Derby County, there is no vendetta and we want the club to survive.

Regards

Rick Parry

 

Rick Parry

Chairman

EFL

 

rparry@efl.com

Please note our staff are working flexibly from home and the office – please continue to contact us via telephone and email.

What a load of tosh.

The admins are aware of the claims and have dismissed them, hence them not being included in the statement of affairs.

So if the EFL do not think it is right to dismiss the claims then surely they must explain why.

Edited January 16, 2022 by ThePrisoner
Edited quote

[Rambam]

He doesn’t know what the claim is? 
This is getting ridiculous. 

[Ramtastic ones]

Just lodged these questions with the EFL.

"I have some questions I would like answers to/an understanding of the efl's view on.
1. Doesn't the action being taken by 'Boro and Wycombe go against an EFL directive from 2019, stating clubs should not litigate against each other?
2. How are 'Boro and Wycombe's claims viewed as a debt by the EFL when they are simply that, a claim, that has not been through the court process?
3. How are Derby meant to resolve a claim against them when the administrative law states that such processes are not to commence or continue whilst a company is in administration?"

[Tyler Durden]

54 minutes ago, Igorwasking said:

I emailed Rick Parry and got the following response. I have replied asking the EFL to arbitrate on the claims so the takeover can complete.

Dear Mr Roper 

It is not desirable for clubs to be in dispute but it happens and there are mechanisms to resolve those disputes.

The administrators have known about the claims since they were appointed and it is entirely obvious that they needed to be addressed.

Why, after many months, they are blaming the EFL is anybody’s guess.

I can’t comment on the merits of the claims as we are not a party to them and I don’t know what the basis of the claims is.

What I can assure you is we have no agenda against Derby County, there is no vendetta and we want the club to survive.

Regards

Rick Parry

 

Rick Parry

Chairman

EFL

 

 

 

rparry@efl.com

Please note our staff are working flexibly from home and the office – please continue to contact us via telephone and email.

His reply is totally inconsistent.  In one breath he said that he can't comment on the merit of the claims and he doesn't know what the basis of the claims are but on the other he says that it's entirely obvious that they need to be addressed.

How can it be entirely obvious if he doesn't know the merits of the claims in the first place. 

Edited January 16, 2022 by ThePrisoner
Quote edited

[Ramos]

Alan Nixon now stating Mike Ashley is planning talks with EFL and Boro. Apparently Appleby and co want it to go to court of arbitration for sport - sounds like plausible stories. At least it’s a slightly positive one for a change. (Whether true or guesswork). 

Edited January 16, 2022 by Ramos