The Administration Thread

[Tombo]

6 minutes ago, Barney1991 said:

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

Think you probably need a sense of humour transplant if that's funny to you.

No love lost for the guy and what he has caused. But I hope he stays safe and hopefully one day soon does not have to worry about his safety and the safety of his family, and perhaps feel free to live in whatever area of the country he sees fit.

He ducked up badly and jeopardised the future of the club but he's still one of our own. And I'll defend that last statement to the hilt no matter how inflammatory it may seem to some fans.

[uttoxram75]

11 minutes ago, Plusi_Ram said:

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.

He owes Gibson f all. 

His crime is against us but its f all to do with Gibson. Gibson is a chancer.

[Ghost of Clough]

When all of this is done and dusted, I can't wait for the independent inquiry starting from the very beginning.

From us changing amortisation policy, it being approved by the EFL, stadium sale, stadoum sale profit being approved, the decision to revisit the accounts, the charges, the choice of experts to justify the charges, the makeup of the LAP, the constant delays, being "dissapointed" at outcomes and "regret" over being unable to appeal, and then the recent mess over the last few months.

There should only be one outcome from all of that... 

[ilkleyram]

8 minutes ago, Ghost of Clough said:

When all of this is done and dusted, I can't wait for the independent inquiry starting from the very beginning.

From us changing amortisation policy, it being approved by the EFL, stadium sale, stadoum sale profit being approved, the decision to revisit the accounts, the charges, the choice of experts to justify the charges, the makeup of the LAP, the constant delays, being "dissapointed" at outcomes and "regret" over being unable to appeal, and then the recent mess over the last few months.

There should only be one outcome from all of that... 

Sounds like a good plot for Pride 2, the sequel.

[Gee SCREAMER !!]

18 minutes ago, Tombo said:

Think you probably need a sense of humour transplant if that's funny to you.

No love lost for the guy and what he has caused. But I hope he stays safe and hopefully one day soon does not have to worry about his safety and the safety of his family, and perhaps feel free to live in whatever area of the country he sees fit.

He got caught up in his own ego and killed the club . He should be forced to ring a bell and declare himself unclean having washed his hands of his obligation for no reason . And I'll defend that last statement to the hilt no matter how inflammatory it may seem to some fans.

FTFY

[Zag zig]

20 minutes ago, uttoxram75 said:

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.

 

Well that’s where Quantama have to step up their game.

They hold the key in my opinion to pushing the EFL into backing down. They need spell it out effectively to the various political entities that are now showing interest, if they achieve that the EFL will feel more heat, because the more the EFL speak, the more the EFL contradicts itself or scores own goals.

If they won’t back down to political pressure, seize the initiative and seek that legal injunction, without a club they have no success. If they can save us, something tells me, despite what appears a clumsy, drawn out approach, they could become go to administrators for other sporting bodies, of which with current debts, there could be a few more quite soon.

[Plusi_Ram]

14 minutes ago, uttoxram75 said:

He owes Gibson f all. 

His crime is against us but its f all to do with Gibson. Gibson is a chancer.

Oh, make no mistake, these claims from Gibson are spurious at best, and a downright fantasy at worst. Still, these claims are being brought up from a time when it was his tenure and if he is a fan of this club, he'd be fronting up to try and save it.

Still doesn't mean the EFL shouldn't have done their job properly 5 years ago and said to Morris "Hey, you can't fill in your accounts that way". If they had, then all this would have been avoided.

[Van der MoodHoover]

1 hour ago, RoyMac5 said:

I didn't use plural but will if you like. I think the claims were dealt with by the LAP and have been one or more, resurrected by Boro when we went into admin. This is of course why the EFL can say the have no exact knowledge of them. The claims were creditor claims (or whatever the terminology) made against the Club when it went into admin. Nothing to do with the EFL. In fact is there anything in their statement about either claim being viewed as 'football creditors'?

The admin proposals (as reported) would have compromised the claims out by treating them as non football creditors. Which was unacceptable as a plan of action to the EFL and hence the current furore. 

The efl actions would appear to imply that which is not explicitly stated in their statement this evening. 

MFC tried to establish dcfc "guilt" through the decision panel and LAP process but only ever stated their intention to claim in the event of a guilty verdict. 

Which were referred to in the LAP as "claim for compensation" . 

The lodging of the 45m reported amount wasn't until November so after administration. 

So strictly, I suppose their "claim" or "claims" were not previously rejected as they never actually got made. 

Still leaves the problem of how an unproven claim for compensation has now "got" to be addressed -  there is no process for doing so, which might explain why the EFL have tried to "bolt" them into the creditor process. 

[Woodypecker]

39 minutes ago, Ghost of Clough said:

When all of this is done and dusted, I can't wait for the independent inquiry starting from the very beginning.

From us changing amortisation policy, it being approved by the EFL, stadium sale, stadoum sale profit being approved, the decision to revisit the accounts, the charges, the choice of experts to justify the charges, the makeup of the LAP, the constant delays, being "dissapointed" at outcomes and "regret" over being unable to appeal, and then the recent mess over the last few months.

There should only be one outcome from all of that... 

Note to Parry, Birch, Ridsdale et al:

Don't worry, all this horrible attention and criticism of your deceit, bias and incompetence will all go away very soon.

No - we won't be going away....it will all go away because you will be sacked, the EFL reformed / re-regulated. We, and others, will make sure of that.

Sleep tight, don't let the bed-bugs bite.

 

C O Y R

[Oldben]

As the Administrators prepare to take legal action over the Boro and Wycombe situation, it is my hope that they choose the best sports lawyer according to the Legal 500.

Nick De Marco Qc, who has spoken up for Derby in recent times.

He's taken on big sports cases against the efl ...

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.lancs.live/sport/football/football-news/who-nick-de-marco-sports-20536513.amp

 

[Oldben]

Assuming that the msd loan is against the stadium, technically msd own the stadium.

No legal action has been taken against MM, is that due to him owning the stadium, he doesn't msd own it, if the Loan was taken out against the stadium.

That leaves the way clear for Derby to recover a large proportion of the debt from mm, because legal action can be taken against him, for putting Derby in its current state.

Mm has the ability to significantly reduce Derbys debts if he is forced to do so by a court of law.

So what's the charge against mm ...

Director duties include promoting the company's success, exercising reasonable care and skill, exercising independent judgement, and declaring interests in transactions.

 

While breaches can be ratified by shareholder resolution, a company can sue one of its own directors if they breached their duties and caused the company loss.

 

If a director profits from a breach, he or she may have to account to the company.

[PistoldPete]

6 hours ago, uttoxram75 said:

I don't know why you would want that, maybe you don't, but that's what the result of your actions could well bring about.

Rick Parry has the power to allow this takeover to go ahead at the stroke of a pen but he daren't because of Steve Gibson.

And Gibson has sued him before over Ziege.

[jono]

5 hours ago, Ghost of Clough said:

When all of this is done and dusted, I can't wait for the independent inquiry starting from the very beginning.

From us changing amortisation policy, it being approved by the EFL, stadium sale, stadoum sale profit being approved, the decision to revisit the accounts, the charges, the choice of experts to justify the charges, the makeup of the LAP, the constant delays, being "dissapointed" at outcomes and "regret" over being unable to appeal, and then the recent mess over the last few months.

There should only be one outcome from all of that... 

yes ! They should give us our points back ! 

[G STAR RAM]

7 hours ago, uttoxram75 said:

@The Baron,  ducking disgraceful, vindictive behaviour from someone like yourself who professes to be a football fan.

 

To be fair he also professes to be a 'football finance expert' yet when real experts looked at the issue he was harping on about they found nothing wrong with it.

 

[Gritstone Ram]

5 hours ago, Barney1991 said:

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

So he’s set his intruder alarm and ducked off on holiday.

[TomBustler1884]

6 hours ago, Plusi_Ram said:

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.

Exactly this. It blows my mind that he is not willing to prevent the destruction of DCFC.

[DarkFruitsRam7]

8 hours ago, Ghost of Clough said:

Bookies gave us about an 18% chance of winning the Playoffs. Take us out of the equation and Boro didn't even have a 100% chance of taking 6th. We beat Bristol City in the run in who were in better form than Boro.

Assuming they would have had a 100% chance of placing 6th, and assuming they also had the same bookies odds as us, and basing the loss of earning on their previous spell in the PL, a reasonable compensation claim would be £0m ?

FTFY

Edited January 18, 2022 by DarkFruitsRam7

[robglosta]

Full time job keeping up with this at the minute. Amazing work by everyone pushing to save the club. 

[FlyBritishMidland]

6 hours 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 
 

 

I’m not sure the claims do exist.  Starting with statute, the Insolvency Act introduces a moritorium where any creditors or others are prohibited from pursuing any legal action whilst the company is in administration.   It’s pretty clear that the administrators haven’t agreed and, as far as we know, they haven’t been through the courts.

The only way they exist with the EFL is if arbitration proceedings brought by either MFC or WWFC have started.  As the EFL claim to know nothing of the cases it’s safe to assume they don’t exist in this form.

They may have lodged something with the administrators but, from what I’ve read, at this point of time they have no legal standing.  How can the administrators make provision for something that doesn’t exist?

[CornwallRam]

3 minutes ago, FlyBritishMidland said:

I’m not sure the claims do exist.  Starting with statute, the Insolvency Act introduces a moritorium where any creditors or others are prohibited from pursuing any legal action whilst the company is in administration.   It’s pretty clear that the administrators haven’t agreed and, as far as we know, they haven’t been through the courts.

The only way they exist with the EFL is if arbitration proceedings brought by either MFC or WWFC have started.  As the EFL claim to know nothing of the cases it’s safe to assume they don’t exist in this form.

They may have lodged something with the administrators but, from what I’ve read, at this point of time they have no legal standing.  How can the administrators make provision for something that doesn’t exist?

The problem is not a legal one. My understanding is that legally we can get a restructuring agreement and walk away from the claims.

The problem is that it supposedly breaches EFL rules so they won't allow us to remain in the league if we follow that route. It then effectively removes the restructuring plan as an option because no bidder will actually fund the restructure without the golden share.