The Administration Thread

[kevinhectoring]

9 minutes ago, Curtains said:

But the EFL should tell Boro to drop the claim or they themselves will get a points deduction.

Open season on clubs vs clubs is not sustainable for the EFL or the clubs .

 

Yes. They should tell Boro to drop the claim. 

[Tombo]

They sound on the ropes, as much as there wasn't much encouraging there. Now the Telegraph have the headline referring to a "vendetta". Poorly thought out piece of PR for the EFL

Do we....dare I say it...

 

...have them on strings? ?

 

(This is not serious, we are very much on their strings. And over a barrel... and up you-know-what creek)

[Gee SCREAMER !!]

12 minutes ago, The Baron said:

What actions?

Did you not spend months banging on about our amortisation stoking the fire till it became an inferno.  

[StaffsRam]

1 minute ago, kevinhectoring said:

Yes. They should tell Boro to drop the claim. 

The tail doesn’t really wag the dog, so the EFL will remain docile and compliant.

[EnigmaRam]

I still only see 2 options. 1 we pay them off so we can get a PB announced or 2 the Admins get an injunction preventing Boro and Wycombe being classed as creditors. 
 

I can’t see Boro and Wycombe rescinding their claim. 
 

One things for certain, there’s some serious arse covering going on at the EFL right now and they’re trying to cover their tracks. I doubt they will be in a rush to review the 3 parties stances on the situation which means times running out for us.

I hope I’m wrong 

[The Scarlet Pimpernel]

It's classic. Like all bullies they need to be in control. They think this rushed out claptrap gives them control but in reality it's a big mistake...... They are worried boys and girls they are worried. 

[Mckram]

8 minutes ago, RandomAccessMemory said:

Never forget their statement after we got the £100k fine.

When they were "disappointed" at the outcome and "regrettably" could find no grounds to appeal it.

That would be after going through their own disciplinary processes, the processes that are written in the rules, the processes we are all supposed to have faith in coming to the correct conclusion, they still weren’t happy at the outcome and wished they could find a way to punish us further as they didn’t think it was enough.

Well, well done EFL, you found a way.

What an absolute disgrace.

 

5 minutes ago, Gee SCREAMER !! said:

And they way they gave us two different sets of fixtures to allow that dipshit at Wycombe an open door to make his ******** claim. 

These are great points and there are so many other examples like these.

Imagine if this was against a club like Man Utd or Liverpool. It would be headlining the news. 

[FlyBritishMidland]

43 minutes ago, Needlesh said:

Yes. Everything, all the time. All avenues.

Done.  To Trevor Birch and my MP.  I can post the text if anyone wants to borrow it.

[Rammy03]

11 minutes ago, Tombo said:

They sound on the ropes, as much as there wasn't much encouraging there. Now the Telegraph have the headline referring to a "vendetta". Poorly thought out piece of PR for the EFL

Do we....dare I say it...

 

...have them on strings? ?

 

(This is not serious, we are very much on their strings. And over a barrel... and up you-know-what creek)

They don't even have us on strings. No one associated with Derby County is buying any of their bullsh*t

[Crewton]

As far as the Wycombe claim is concerned, someone should force Cowboy Rob to read the Disciplinary Commission's "Decision on Sanction" from the EFL vs Sheffield Wednesday case, particularly paragraphs 34 to 37, which deal with the reasons why the DC didn't impose the PD against SWFC at the end of the 2019/20 season. Link below.

https://www.efl.com/siteassets/image/201920/1920-judgements/efl-v-sheffield-wednesday---decision-on-sanction.pdf

Even if the LAP had awarded a PD against DCFC immediately after their decision to allow the EFL's appeal, it would have been impossible/iniquitous for the panel to apply it to the 20/21 season, for the very same reasons given in this judgement. The panels comments about the impact of Covid on delays are the process is also relevant.

So there is simply no scenario where Wycombe could have finished above Derby officially.

[Barney1991]

8 minutes ago, EnigmaRam said:

I still only see 2 options. 1 we pay them off so we can get a PB announced or 2 the Admins get an injunction preventing Boro and Wycombe being classed as creditors. 
 

I can’t see Boro and Wycombe rescinding their claim. 
 

One things for certain, there’s some serious arse covering going on at the EFL right now and they’re trying to cover their tracks. I doubt they will be in a rush to review the 3 parties stances on the situation which means times running out for us.

I hope I’m wrong 

I think the Wycombe guy could as I read in the athletic this morning I feel he is feeling the pressure. Gibson prob no chance 

[kevinhectoring]

6 minutes ago, uttoxram75 said:

You are wrong. The EFL are stopping a PB unless the PB agrees to sort the claims. Big difference. The EFL should decide on the administrators PB without any interference from any claims from Boro or Wycombe.

The claims exist, they are against the club. If a buyer buys the club, he buys it with the claims. What the EFL have actually said is : there is nothing to stop a buyer buying the club with the claims still there. 

Related to this: the EFl approach on club transfers is that when a buyer takes over, that buyer needs to show funding for the club for ? 2 years. This unfortunately means that if a buyer DOES buy the club with the claims, the EFl may have to assess what value to ascribe to the claims. We’ve not reached that point yet though Kirchner seemed to clear the hurdle. If Ashley is the buyer, it won’t matter, because he’s loaded 

So no, I think the PB issue is that Ashley won’t part with his money until the claims are sorted, it’s nothing to do with the EFl. If he agreed to proceed with the claims in place, I think the EFL would roll out a red carpet 
 

 

[Barney1991]

Made me laugh this did in the mail. Hope he never returns.

[chipperram]

15 minutes ago, Curtains said:

Fair enough mate it is confusing.

This might help 

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/football/2022/01/17/football-league-chief-denies-has-vendetta-against-Derby-county/

Thanks for the link, sadly it is just a rehash of the statement. The standard of the overall statement reeks of rushed straw clutching and getting their point out before the admins.

[uttoxram75]

22 minutes ago, RandomAccessMemory said:

Never forget their statement after we got the £100k fine.

When they were "disappointed" at the outcome and "regrettably" could find no grounds to appeal it.

That would be after going through their own disciplinary processes, the processes that are written in the rules, the processes we are all supposed to have faith in coming to the correct conclusion, they still weren’t happy at the outcome and wished they could find a way to punish us further as they didn’t think it was enough.

Well, well done EFL, you found a way.

What an absolute disgrace.

This.

The fact that a governing body was "disappointed" at the outcome of an independent disciplinary body that they recognise should be the grounds for legal action to prove our case if the bar stewards finish us.

[Inverurie Ram]

57 minutes ago, kevinhectoring said:

They are indeed flapping. There is only one point in this that is surprising: they have said that they are looking at the substance of the 2 claims and will try to help resolve them. I’ve not seen this before. It’s a sign that we are getting to them and that they will put more overt pressure on Gibson 

...........just words.......they will carry on with the words..........it's acting upon them that they will purposefully avoid doing, which is the problem for us but not themselves.

[Plusi_Ram]

3 minutes ago, Barney1991 said:

Made me laugh this did in the mail. Hope he never returns.

I think he'd be wise to leave the area permanently and never set foot within 100 miles of Derbyshire again.

He can put a stop to this. He can confront Gibson and cough up. Saves the club from the brink of extinction and may salvage some of his shattered reputation.

[Gee SCREAMER !!]

5 minutes ago, Barney1991 said:

Made me laugh this did in the mail. Hope he never returns.

Advertisement hey. I'm not interested. Damaged goods

[Sparkle]

31 minutes ago, Curtains said:

But the EFL should tell Boro to drop the claim or they themselves will get a points deduction.

Open season on clubs vs clubs is not sustainable for the EFL or the clubs .

 

The government should inform Middlesbrough and Wycombe that the creditors bill will be transferred to them if we a liquidated - that might focus their attention 

[uttoxram75]

6 minutes ago, kevinhectoring said:

The claims exist, they are against the club. If a buyer buys the club, he buys it with the claims. What the EFL have actually said is : there is nothing to stop a buyer buying the club with the claims still there. 

Related to this: the EFl approach on club transfers is that when a buyer takes over, that buyer needs to show funding for the club for ? 2 years. This unfortunately means that if a buyer DOES buy the club with the claims, the EFl may have to assess what value to ascribe to the claims. We’ve not reached that point yet though Kirchner seemed to clear the hurdle. If Ashley is the buyer, it won’t matter, because he’s loaded 

So no, I think the PB issue is that Ashley won’t part with his money until the claims are sorted, it’s nothing to do with the EFl. If he agreed to proceed with the claims in place, I think the EFL would roll out a red carpet 
 

 

The EFL could sanction a new buyer. The fact that Boro and Wycombe may want to claim against the new buyer is duck all to do with them. The EFL are potentially going to put us out of business because they don't want to offend Steve ducking Gibson.