The Administration Thread

[RoyMac5]

1 hour ago, Gritstone Ram said:

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.

 

[RoyMac5]

47 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). 

If Ashley is talking to Gibson it's likely to consist of 'drop your claim or I will sue the arse off you when I take over Derby'!

[LauraH]

8 minutes ago, Jimbo Ram said:

Also says Curtis could be on his way ?

Nixon is simply unable to run a story on Derby without adding some fear and uncertainty. It's a relatively positive story so to even things up he added some totally unnecessary detail about Curtis having a release clause but crucially no detail on if he actually wants wants leave or if another club has offered him a deal.

It's honestly pathetically predictable reporting.

[PistoldPete]

59 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

Just to slighly challenge you iram instead of my new found habit of agreeing with you :
 

"To be clear neither Boro or Wycombe have commenced a legal process" Is this true? Isn't claiming disputed amounts of money which can only be decided by an arbitration in accordance with EFL rules a "legal process" of sorts? 

 

 

[Tyler Durden]

50 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). 

Ashley's talks with Gibson probably involve him inviting him outside for a straightener to resolve the matter amicably 

[davenportram]

21 minutes ago, winktheram said:

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.

But according the law the claims have no value while in administration so the exit plan can only say “once out of administration let’s go for the LAP or we’ll see them in court”

[davenportram]

1 minute ago, PistoldPete said:

Just to slighly challenge you iram instead of my new found habit of agreeing with you :
 

"To be clear neither Boro or Wycombe have commenced a legal process" Is this true? Isn't claiming disputed amounts of money which can only be decided by an arbitration in accordance with EFL rules a "legal process" of sorts? 

 

 

The law says commenced or continued with. So even if started the admin can still not continue it.

[PistoldPete]

11 hours ago, Topram said:

Mine exactly the same

If you are sure its legit (which I wasn't given the puerile responses he's given), I wil try emailing him too. My email might take some time to write.

[CBRammette]

17 minutes ago, Old Spalding Ram said:

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.

Is Tracey Crouch your or anyone else on here's MP. Think they can only respond to emails from constituents. The current committee members are as per the attached. Anyone's MP?

There is an email for the D,C,M& S committee being dcmscom@parliament.uk

could be next recipient for emails

 

 

[Comrade 86]

9 minutes ago, Tyler Durden said:

Ashley's talks with Gibson probably involve him inviting him outside for a straightener to resolve the matter amicably 

Is this where two or more blokes punch each other senseless in a cheery and friendly manner? ?

Edited January 16, 2022 by 86 Hair Islands
typo

[PistoldPete]

1 hour ago, Tyler Durden said:

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. 

The guy is a total amatuer. In any case it clear the admin team has addressed the claims, they've made that clear in all their communication, it's not as if they have just ignored them. 

[Barney1991]

 

ashley and Gibson in there meeting 

[Edinburgh ram]

What’s there to stop Ashley in these talks saying something along the lines of, “I’m going to be taking them over at some point soon. Either back off with these ridiculous claims now or have to pay out later down the line when I counter sue the duck out of you”?

[Eatonram]

The trouble with the parasite claims being settle at an EFL LAP is that only one side has something to lose. If Boro and Wycombe were put in jeopardy eg by both sides providing a bond of say £5m to cover the damages to other party. They would both back off. t the moment they have paid the cost of a postage stamp. 

[Indy]

1 hour ago, Rambam said:

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

He doesn’t know what the claim is because they haven’t formally lodged a complaint with them. Therefore - there is no claim (only the threat of making a claim in the future).It’s absolute nonsense. 

[Tyler Durden]

39 minutes ago, LauraH said:

Nixon is simply unable to run a story on Derby without adding some fear and uncertainty. It's a relatively positive story so to even things up he added some totally unnecessary detail about Curtis having a release clause but crucially no detail on if he actually wants wants leave or if another club has offered him a deal.

It's honestly pathetically predictable reporting.

If you know this then why do you let it upset you 

[Charlie George]

Might be clutching at straws here,but don't we have to have a minimum amount of players of professional standing ? Marshall,Jags,Shinnie and Baldock all gone now leaves us seriously short of experienced pro's.

Plenry was made of this is August. Can anyone clarify the EFL's ruling on this ?

[Indy]

38 minutes ago, PistoldPete said:

Just to slighly challenge you iram instead of my new found habit of agreeing with you :
 

"To be clear neither Boro or Wycombe have commenced a legal process" Is this true? Isn't claiming disputed amounts of money which can only be decided by an arbitration in accordance with EFL rules a "legal process" of sorts? 

 

 

But they haven’t done that. They’ve talked about doing that. Until they instruct EFL to set up arbitration, or file court papers, there’s nothing for DCFC/administrators to resolve. Unless I’ve missed something. 

[i-Ram]

20 minutes ago, PistoldPete said:

Just to slighly challenge you iram instead of my new found habit of agreeing with you :
"To be clear neither Boro or Wycombe have commenced a legal process" Is this true? Isn't claiming disputed amounts of money which can only be decided by an arbitration in accordance with EFL rules a "legal process" of sorts? 

Again I have to caveat my reply as a) I am no lawyer, and b) I am not party to either Club or Quantuma correspondence, but I have read nothing to suggest that Boro or Wycombe have served claims/writs on Derby with direct recourse either before or after Derby entered into Administration. So I am referencing ‘legal process’ in relation to statute law. If they had done it before the administration the Administrators would have been duty bound to declare it (listed it) as a potential liability when considering creditor claims they were representing, surely?

My understanding is that Boro and Wycombe’s claims so far are only via the EFL rule book, and therefore it is a membership claim.  Internal, to be dealt with in-house. Of no statutory affect. If we don’t comply we could be kicked out of the league, but the 2 Clubs couldn’t enforce any LAP award legally. They could only insist the EFL throw us out.

I am however interested by Parry’s  (or Parry’s team’s) response to Igorwasking a few pages back. It says.

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.

The second paragraph is either disingenuous or quite astonishing. He is suggesting that the EFL are in the dark, but nonetheless happy to keep Derby in purgatory.

He may have a point in the first paragraph that Quantuma should have done more at this stage to address the membership dispute (and claim) but presumably, and hopefully, Quantuma have taken the view with legal counsel that there is no statutory requirement to consider the claims during administration and that the IA86 allows them to proceed with their duties to creditors without concern to that process. They are kicking that problem down the road. The preferred bidders though would have likely been guided to the issue raising its head again post-administration.

No disrespect to you or anyone Pete, but I think I will back out on this subject at this stage. All the speculation is pointless without full facts. Hopefully there will be some positivity and teeth shown from Quantuma this week, and certainly for the remainder of the day I would prefer to spend my time on here laughing with, or laughing at, a few other posters.

[Half Fan Half Biscuit]

1 hour ago, Gritstone Ram said:

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

Probably the Inbox is full!

Or any message that mentions Derby has been marked as spam. 

Edited January 16, 2022 by Half Fan Half Biscuit