The Administration Thread

[PistoldPete]

12 minutes ago, Tyler Durden said:

Pete point I was trying to make was that the EFL can fire pelters at the admin team and some of those will stick and vice versa but this doesn't do anyone any good.

The quote from the Sports Minister today about all parties finding a pragmatic solution is the most sensible outcome to try and resolve this. 

Agreed , I think the SPorts Minister is exactly right but I think it is more aimed at EFL and Boro and Wycombe. The practical thing for Boro and Wycombe to do now is to drop their claims. because they will end up with nothing if we are liquidated, and will end up with a trashed reputation as a result.  There is nothing that admin team can do in practice that would make things  anything any better.  The only thing they could do is sell players before 1 February to satisfy EFL's ultimatum. But that would put off the bidders and actually make creditors worse off, which is contrary to their legal duty, and may well precipitate liquidation.   

 

Edited January 17, 2022 by PistoldPete

[The Scarlet Pimpernel]

2 minutes ago, kevinhectoring said:

Don’t think that’s an option until Gibbo initiates the claim.  That’s why Q are talking about going to the insolvency court instead 

Perhaps the pressure being brought to bear can force the issue and  timescale? 

[Van der MoodHoover]

58 minutes ago, Tyler Durden said:

Who's this Q person is it like Prince renamed himself symbol 

He's on the right ??

[Dai Capp]

13 minutes ago, Tyler Durden said:

I don't think the administrators are totally blameless in all of this neither are the EFL, the truth more often than not lies somewhere in between.

Think that's right - the truth lies in the middle somewhere but neither seem to be grown up enough to get their heads together and sort it. I think that's probably what Round 1 of the MP's was about - I don't think we've seen the last of that yet.

 

Incidentally, I'm reading more and more on social media and Boro forums that the £45m number is way off the mark and they're actually looking for the play off semi gate receipts and TV revenue. If true that's a far more plausible opening position that might garner a more  sympathetic view in court. That could be why it's giving pause for thought.

[mrdave85]

3 minutes ago, kevinhectoring said:

You don’t need a time machine. Everyone on here - literally everyone - would have told Q in September : don’t assume Gibbo will be rational. Don’t assume he will stop being vindictive. 
 

It’s one of the few things everyone on here would agree on ! But Q built a plan which assumed they could pay him off at the value of his stupid claim 

And they would have written off everyone in here telling them as much because of bias of being a Derby fan. It would have been the same as every team thinks they get the rubbish ref or they’re not shown enough on sky highlights etc. 

[Woodley Ram]

It’s interesting reading posts between other forums, this forum and Twitter. Some is very informative and most tosh. I love the way people take a snapshot of a post and construct a whole story around it.

so in the last 5 minutes I have seen a Middlesbrough post saying Buying Waghorn and him scoring 5 goals was cheating as it took us above FFP. Not withstanding that if we were under for the 3 year period but over for the one year it would have meant nothing. 
 

then a Bristol one which says that Wycombe have a case as we should have put in our accounts and would have got the points last season. Incorrect the accounts pre EFL appeal would have been fine for FFP. They were submitted and over the FFP limit after the appeal so we would never have had points deducted last season.

I do find it funny how we are cheats but Birmingham, QPR, Reading et al are not.

for our forum we still have -expletive that seem to blame the EFL before Mel. Mel put use in this position, the EFL are just being vindictive and as transparent as a brick wall. 

[PistoldPete]

42 minutes ago, SBW said:

I'd not an administrator 'earning' about £700 an hour.

 

What I would do, I have mentioned elsewhere, however.  I would seek to sell every asset out of contract in the summer that is unlikely to sign a new deal in League One.  Save the wages, obtain as much instant cash as possible.  See what impact that has on the funds needed, suspect it would ease a couple of million.  That would have been my first port of call Jan 1st.  

So Shinnie gone, Marshall gone and your point is? 

[RoyMac5]

7 minutes ago, kevinhectoring said:

You don’t need a time machine. Everyone on here - literally everyone - would have told Q in September : don’t assume Gibbo will be rational. Don’t assume he will stop being vindictive. 
 

It’s one of the few things everyone on here would agree on ! But Q built a plan which assumed they could pay him off at the value of his stupid claim 

The point isn't about Gibbo. He isn't the one going against statute, the EFL are. 

Why should Q have assumed the EFL would do that? 

[RadioactiveWaste]

1 minute ago, Dai Capp said:

Think that's right - the truth lies in the middle somewhere but neither seem to be grown up enough to get their heads together and sort it. I think that's probably what Round 1 of the MP's was about - I don't think we've seen the last of that yet.

 

Incidentally, I'm reading more and more on social media and Boro forums that the £45m number is way off the mark and they're actually looking for the play off semi gate receipts and TV revenue. If true that's a far more plausible opening position that might garner a more  sympathetic view in court. That could be why it's giving pause for thought.

At least that's in the ball park of "we can have a debate on that" - I remember many moons ago saying that's the extent they could have any ligitmacy in claiming they should have had and lost out on. I would fight it, but it's got some sembelence of reality to it.

[RoyMac5]

7 minutes ago, kevinhectoring said:

Don’t think that’s an option until Gibbo initiates the claim.  That’s why Q are talking about going to the insolvency court instead 

Where have they mentioned that, and isn't it down to the EFL and their take on Gibbos claim?

[richinspain]

So, from what I understand, the 2 "aggrieved" clubs can't sue us because we're in administration. The EFL's rules don't allow a club to sue another club, they have to take them to an independent tribunal.

So where has our current predicament come from? I would hope that the administrators have at some point asked for the 2 clubs to at least apply for an independent panel hearing to take place, thus signalling that their intention is to actively seek compensation. I can understand their legal process towards the merits of the claims, but the claims don't mean anything if they're not officially made. Here is where the EFL should have stepped in. Insist on an official claim within a certain timeframe or dismiss any future claims. This may not be in their remit normally, but we are looking at extreme circumstances. Surely extreme circumstances require some kind of guidance from the ONLY (non)governing body able to do so?

I have very little faith in any independent panel set up by the EFL. They have shown that they will keep setting up different independent panels until they get the result that they desire. Quantuma should take some flack I believe for the way this particular problem has been handled, but the EFL for me are showing their bias and allowing this whole affair to drag on to get the result they hoped for 2 years ago.

[Mucker1884]

40 minutes ago, CornwallRam said:

The problem isn't that the EFL believe that Boro and Wycombes' claims have merit or that they're football debts. From all that I've read, the EFL are not claiming either of those things.

What the EFL are saying is that the claims have to be dealt with according to their rules, which means an arbitration panel. If the panel finds against us and awards compensation, that would be a footballing debt. That's the reason why they will not sanction a restructuring plan - it bypasses the EFL's dispute resolution system. Indeed, I suspect that the EFL are fairly certain that we'd actually win the cases, so football wouldn't implode.

On reflection, I don't think it's actually the risk of losing the cases which is actually stopping bidders from closing. I think that it's they don't believe that Derby County is worth what it would take to get a CVA, and the 'cases' are effectively preventing a restructuring plan.

Impossible to know the numbers, but maybe £50m including the stadium is thought viable, but £75m isn't. Throw in the very outside chance of losing the cases and it all falls apart.

Assuming we don't just walk away and take our chances in whatever tier will takes us, we've either got to get the cases dropped, heard or get a better bid. As fans, the third option is the best as we would avoid a further points deduction. 

 

I'd agree with that.

However, what I'm baffled by is the apparent ultimatum by EFL to DCFC to get this sorted by 1st Feb, or face the consequences.

For this to go to arbitration/LAP, wouldn't that require action by the parasites, not us? Them making it official, so to speak?
Shouldn't the EFL be giving any deadlines and ultimatums to the parasites?  "Make it official by x date, or your claim won't be acknowledged, your case won't be heard, and for wasting everybody's time, we'll also shave every pubic hair from your head"!

How come DCFC are the ones facing the deadline, when we can't make that next move forward?

?‍♂️

 

[kevinhectoring]

2 minutes ago, Dai Capp said:

Incidentally, I'm reading more and more on social media and Boro forums that the £45m number is way off the mark and they're actually looking for the play off semi gate receipts and TV revenue. If true that's a far more plausible opening position that might garner a more  sympathetic view in court. That could be why it's giving pause for thought.

Floodgates ! The league becomes a courtroom if they get a penny. The best Boro will do in an arbitration is:

yes we agree Derby is in breach of the contract between the clubs and the EFL, because it broke the rules 

BUT it is a term of that contract that the penalty for FFP breach is through the disciplinary process. So clubs can’t claim damages against each other 

[BramcoteRam84]

6 minutes ago, Dai Capp said:

Think that's right - the truth lies in the middle somewhere but neither seem to be grown up enough to get their heads together and sort it. I think that's probably what Round 1 of the MP's was about - I don't think we've seen the last of that yet.

 

Incidentally, I'm reading more and more on social media and Boro forums that the £45m number is way off the mark and they're actually looking for the play off semi gate receipts and TV revenue. If true that's a far more plausible opening position that might garner a more  sympathetic view in court. That could be why it's giving pause for thought.

If that was their position then I don’t think there would be much of an issue. Thats probably £2m max. Would change any deal drastically.

[Ilkestonian]

I think I'm a positive person generally but I fear the worse for our club from what I've read in the last few days and I'm more worried now than I was when we almost went bust in the 80's as I always felt that a deal for our survival would be done back then but sadly I don't have that feeling now as it seems unlikely to me that Middlesborough and Wycombe will drop their claims and I don't think player sales will bring in the amount necessary to see us to the end of the season and I doubt that anyone would lend us the money to see us to the end of the season either, knowing they might lose it all if we go under and as nobody seems willing to buy us with the two claims outstanding and the EFL's refusal to change their position regarding those claims, then I sadly think that we are witnessing the final days of the Derby County we all know and love - hopefully I'll be proved wrong though. ?

[Rev]

3 minutes ago, Dai Capp said:

Think that's right - the truth lies in the middle somewhere but neither seem to be grown up enough to get their heads together and sort it. I think that's probably what Round 1 of the MP's was about - I don't think we've seen the last of that yet.

 

Incidentally, I'm reading more and more on social media and Boro forums that the £45m number is way off the mark and they're actually looking for the play off semi gate receipts and TV revenue. If true that's a far more plausible opening position that might garner a more  sympathetic view in court. That could be why it's giving pause for thought.

Play off semi final revenues are added together across the two legs, then divided equally between the clubs, minus the EFL levy, which is somewhere between the 10/20% mark from memory.

Take away the costs of hosting the fixtures, and you wouldn't be looking at a great deal owing, certainly not enough to stop any takeover. 

We may as well launch a counter claim that our actions saved Boro from paying out millions in promotion bonuses, and demand a cut of that saving!

 

 

[SBW]

21 minutes ago, PistoldPete said:

They have been in charge for 4 months. 

They have resolved the issue of our FFP charges from the EFL. They have secured bids from three credible buyers. They have devised a  plan for exiting administration, which was rejected by EFL last week. They have taken advice re the Boro and Wycombe claims which is that they are without merit. I don't think they can settle those claims anyway if EFL believe them to be football creditors because that would give unlawful preference ahead of actually preferred creditors.     

So what exactly do you think the admin team should have done that they actually haven't? What is this inaction? 

I've very literally mentioned it previously.  

[RoyMac5]

1 minute ago, Ilkestonian said:

I think I'm a positive person generally but I fear the worse for our club from what I've read in the last few days and I'm more worried now than I was when we almost went bust in the 80's as I always felt that a deal for our survival would be done back then but sadly I don't have that feeling now as it seems unlikely to me that Middlesborough and Wycombe will drop their claims and I don't think player sales will bring in the amount necessary to see us to the end of the season and I doubt that anyone would lend us the money to see us to the end of the season either, knowing they might lose it all if we go under and as nobody seems willing to buy us with the two claims outstanding and the EFL's refusal to change their position regarding those claims, then I sadly think that we are witnessing the final days of the Derby County we all know and love - hopefully I'll be proved wrong though. ?

Yeah that's where I am too. #COYR

[Ghost of Clough]

2 hours ago, Eatonram said:

Can a journalist/mp/council/other interested party ask Boro to give a breakdown of their £45m claim. Why are they allowed to sit there silently unchallenged with a figure plucked out of nowhere. 

£180m for promotion based on increased income in the first season of being in the PL, followed by 2 seasons of parachute payments.

4 teams in the playoffs.

£180m / 4 = £45m

[kevinhectoring]

5 minutes ago, RoyMac5 said:

The point isn't about Gibbo. He isn't the one going against statute, the EFL are. 

Why should Q have assumed the EFL would do that? 

Q has told you the EFL is ‘going against statute’. We’ve had 100 posts on here today that take that as gospel. But so far as I know not one of those posters has explained what statute they are going against, and what they have done that contravenes that statute