The Administration Thread

[peakram]

7 minutes ago, G STAR RAM said:

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.

I really don’t understand why they need to be addressed now when it’s purely hypothetical, the outcome is unknown and could also be way down the line (logically it seems unlikely they would win their claims anyway). How can the club possibly move on while the EFL take such a ridiculous stance?

[The Scarlet Pimpernel]

The only way to cut through this is to higher the stakes by going after QPR. 

 

[Ramos]

Link here - 

 

https://www.thesun.co.uk/sport/football/17339503/mike-ashley-middlesbrough-compensation-Derby-takeover/

[jcidaho]

It's not "entirely obvious that they needed to be addressed." Claims that may well dismissed as vexatious and unworthy, are given undue legitimacy purely due to the EFL commanding we need to address them / settle, otherwise we get liquidated.

Beggars belief.

[richinspain]

15 minutes ago, i-Ram said:

@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

Thanks very much @i-Ram. I think that I more or less was on those lines, but with so many comments from other posters, and more so Nixon who seems to be able to confuse Confucius, I was getting my thoughts in a twist. Although the EFL may be following their rules, they seem to have changed enough rules retrospectively to be able to punish DCFC that surely a statement saying that we have already been punished following EFL rules and therefore the matter is closed. Once again, thanks for clearing things up. I owe you a pint ? 

[R@M]

Put our claim in now, we want £200mil from QPR. While we are at it, how about £50mil from every other club that has breached ffp and cost us the couple of points which would have given us automatic promotion. Start the free for all. 

[Sparkle]

I repeat again no Preferred bidder is going to move forward with a situation where they agree to a potential cost ( believed to be around £51 million) to be potentially due to two owners of football clubs where the decision of an award is made by a LAP which can consist of pinky and perky and the flower pot men with no appeal system of merit - now if it was a case of see you in the high court maybe Ashley would take it on but definitely while it is sat with a potential kangaroo court there is zero chance, we have seen the kangaroo court in action already thanks very much.
 

The parasite owners of two football clubs are using the dreadfully thought out rules of the EFL to destroy our football club while the EFL stand by and say they can do nothing - more like they don’t want to.

quite frankly why would any potential purchaser want to be involved in an organisation that conducts itself in that manor.

[Gritstone Ram]

My email to Parry has come back undelivered. Has he blocked us?

[Sparkle]

11 minutes ago, The Scarlet Pimpernel said:

The only way to cut through this is to higher the stakes by going after QPR. 

 

You are correct and it’s the saddest thing ever - it would be useful if clubs like QPR started making comments in public about this.

[Tyler Durden]

3 minutes ago, Gritstone Ram said:

My email to Parry has come back undelivered. Has he blocked us?

He's probably got a spam filter on. Try removing the attachments of the huge phallus then should be OK.

[Van der MoodHoover]

55 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 are these "mechanisms"? Why, as the regulatory body, could they not be more explicit, especially earlier. 

Have the "claims" been formalised - surely there is a process around that. 

Saying now that "it was obvious action was needed" is just deflection. If it's so obvious then the EFL can say now what the parties should have done. 

Having failed to provide any regulatory guidance and clear leadership, to simply say "you haven't done everything we expected" when it is not at all clear what that is, is crass. 

Edited January 16, 2022 by ThePrisoner
Quote edited

[EtoileSportiveDeDerby]

17 minutes ago, Ramos said:

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). 

Compo for Boro? A Sportsdirect mug, and a pair of Lonsdale trackie bottoms  no more. And a legally binding disclaimer to say that they cannot be exchanged for a gift voucher.

[winktheram]

I have just had a reply from Rick. He started by asking me not to be offensive. I didn't feel I was, I just asked him to grow a pair of baalocks and get it sorted. And suggested he set up a panel quickly to hear the claims, put them to bed one way or another, so we can move on.  

His reply was pretty much the statement they released. But he also said that he could put a panel together quickly and do just that, but 'the parties need to agree to do this'. Looks like no one is actually prepared to get a decision on it? But as 3 parties involved who knows. 

Also said I should ask the administrators what they have been doing, as they have known they needed to sort the issue out from Day 1.

[Ram-Alf]

25 minutes ago, Ramos said:

Link here - 

 

https://www.thesun.co.uk/sport/football/17339503/mike-ashley-middlesbrough-compensation-Derby-takeover/

If this is a true event then Ashley has lost his marbles, I can not see how a man who's well known in business circles as being one hell of a tough person to deal will paying out a parasite, NOW! if he's going to say "get stuffed i'll see you in court" then alls good.

Then again Nixon has to write some bile to get his food vouchers

[Old Spalding Ram]

Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee

Oral evidence: Sport governance

Tuesday 7 December 2021

Tracey Crouch MP, Chair, Independent Fan-Led Review of Football Governance.

 

Damian Green: In the context of this being a fan-led review and there is lots of very good stuff in it, it strikes me that one of the paradoxes that perhaps you have not managed to solve—and it may not be solvable—is that when you punish a club because the owners have done something reprehensible or reckless, you punish the fans. Is that just insoluble?

 

Tracey Crouch: I feel quite strongly about it. I think it is very unfair when clubs are docked points because of the behaviours of their fans. We do address that in the report, about the various sanctions that can be employed. You cannot remove point deduction entirely from that process, but I think there are certainly different ways you can punish the owners and the directors before you get to points deduction. I think there are a lot of examples where clubs have been relegated. Clive Betts always tells me about Sheffield Wednesday, for example, and—

 

Damian Green: Or Derby this year.

 

Tracey Crouch: Derby, yes. I think it is very hard on the fans for those clubs because, as I say, they are being punished because of the behaviours of their owners. But we do address that in the report. I think it is impossible to remove the threat of points deduction because obviously if you are relegated, then that in turn impacts on your financial well-being but it is unfair on the fans.

…………….if any wordsmith on here would like to put together a response to the points made I would gladly send it off to Tracey Crouch MP.

[Jimbo Ram]

Also says Curtis could be on his way ?

[Van der MoodHoover]

51 minutes ago, i-Ram said:

@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

So many erudite words..... 

 

Could you explain using a gif? ?

 

PS sounds like quantuma should give you a call..... 

[duncanjwitham]

40 minutes ago, Ramos said:

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). 

Not sure the Court of Arbitration for Sport makes sense - I'm sure you need to have exhausted all of your current options to get them to look at anything. They're just going to tell us to go through the EFL's arbitration process first.  If I had to guess, Nixon (or his source) has confused EFL arbitration with the CAS.

[PistoldPete]

8 minutes ago, Jimbo Ram said:

Also says Curtis could be on his way ?

Say it isn't true.

[BuckoBeast]

9 minutes ago, Jimbo Ram said:

Also says Curtis could be on his way ?

Really doubt that. But we’re in bleak times