The Administration Thread

[Maharan]

3 minutes ago, Gaspode said:

If they're being used to prevent the Administrators from carrying out their legal duty (in terms of exiting Administration), I'm sure there is something that can be done. Whatever rules the EFL invent, they are still bound by the law of the land....

Is it a real legal barrier though, or is it the fact potential buyers won’t commit until it’s resolved? I assume the EFL can’t block the club coming out of administration, but it’s the risk of further costs as a result of the compliance with league rules which is giving pause for thought. 
 

to be honest, reading the link earlier about Ashley wanting to pay as little as possible of the HMRC debt does worry me as much as these claims from Wycombe and Middlesbrough 

[RammingStone66]

23 minutes ago, Derbados said:

I agree, so then why commit to sending out the update the same day with little to no realistic chance of that happening? 

Did they commit to that, did they put out anything official? I only saw it on here, so genuine question?

[FlyBritishMidland]

59 minutes ago, peakram said:

It was on a podcast interview, not radio my mistake 

 

I’ve just listened to this.  Despite the EFL statement saying they don’t know what the claim is about in this Parry says what the claim is about.  I’m not on Twitter or anything but can someone a bit more tech savvy (and younger ?) than me send this to Team Derby as they’re meeting the EFL today and MPs?

[duncanjwitham]

2 minutes ago, Maharan said:

Is it a real legal barrier though, or is it the fact potential buyers won’t commit until it’s resolved? I assume the EFL can’t block the club coming out of administration, but it’s the risk of further costs as a result of the compliance with league rules which is giving pause for thought. 

They can also kick the club out of the league if they don't pay 100% of football creditors.  So any buyer needs to know for sure that that isn't going to happen either or they won't commit to buying.

[Maharan]

1 minute ago, duncanjwitham said:

They can also kick the club out of the league if they don't pay 100% of football creditors.  So any buyer needs to know for sure that that isn't going to happen either or they won't commit to buying.

Exactly, but these are EFL rules, so I’m not sure if the talk of injunctions (which is the point I first responded to) is relevant. 

[MackworthRamIsGod]

2 hours ago, Ram a lamb a ding dong said:

No statement from Q yet?

And yet again they have agreed to talk to another fans group today.

They told Ramstrust yesterday they would update us all yesterday, yet another failed deadline.

As much as I want updates, there are 11 days left and if the updates with MPs is anything to go by, not enough progress is being made.

Instead of meeting fan groups, they need to get on the bloody phone yo Gibbo and the little American fella and sort it out.

[Mihangel]

 

[Ram-Alf]

4 minutes ago, Maharan said:

Exactly, but these are EFL rules, so I’m not sure if the talk of injunctions (which is the point I first responded to) is relevant. 

It had better be relevant

Injuntion

An equitable remedy in which a court orders a party to perform, or refrain from performing, a particular act. A prohibitory injunction is an order forbidding a party from performing an act; a mandatory injunction is an order to perform an act.

[RoyMac5]

Just now, Unlucky Alf said:

It had better be relevant

Injuntion

An equitable remedy in which a court orders a party to perform, or refrain from performing, a particular act. A prohibitory injunction is an order forbidding a party from performing an act; a mandatory injunction is an order to perform an act.

So again, how? 

Where do we start. Where do we push?

[Topram]

The meeting with supporters group today is 11am

[Andicis]

1 hour ago, Gritstone Tup said:

Ashley has never said he wants to buy Derby either. As for Boros legal case no nothing has changed, there isn’t a legal case only the threat of one and no there has never been a preferred bidder either. If there was can you tell me who it is and when it was announced?

Mate, what are you even talking about? I never said there was a preferred bidder, they claimed they were in a position to announce one and clearly something changed. As of what I said in my post. 

[Maharan]

3 minutes ago, Unlucky Alf said:

It had better be relevant

Injuntion

An equitable remedy in which a court orders a party to perform, or refrain from performing, a particular act. A prohibitory injunction is an order forbidding a party from performing an act; a mandatory injunction is an order to perform an act.

Yeah, I genuinely don’t know. I’d assumed it would need to be related to some breach of the law rather than a breach of EFL rules of membership, but I just don’t know any more 

[duncanjwitham]

9 minutes ago, Maharan said:

Exactly, but these are EFL rules, so I’m not sure if the talk of injunctions (which is the point I first responded to) is relevant. 

In theory, there's nothing stopping a court stepping in and ordering the EFL to perform (or abstain from) specific actions regarding our administration.  What I can't figure out is how that interacts with the arbitration mechanism in the EFL rules.  Are we forced to use that mechanism instead of getting an injunction (as it's a dispute between the club and the league), or can we just have at it.

[Crewton]

52 minutes ago, Eatonram said:

That podcast tells me that Boro were not in the slightest interested in the EFL applying rules. They were after money. And once again Parry brought up the stadium sale without saying that that point was resolved in Derby's favour, with no punishment. I have no problem if they give their side as long as the are honest....that was NOT.

Boro got the application of the rules that they claimed they wanted (according to Parry) but then simply saw an opportunity for money. Someone ask Parry if he can give any other example of this opportunism? There must now be about 20 cases of exceeding FFP...have any others been followed up with a claim for compo?? None...and we get 2.

It's worth remembering that Boro applied to Arbitration to force the EFL to appeal against the DC's ruling that the Stadium sale was all OK, in October 2020. It was one of the two cases that Boro brought which delayed the appeal hearing by the LAP. I don't know if Couhig is claiming against Boro for contributing to the delay that meant it was impossible for DCFC to have a PD applied last season (well, I do of course) but if he's looking for justice, that also means that all parties that could be held culpable for the delay that caused Wycombe's "losses" should be in the dock together?

[Dai Capp]

19 minutes ago, FlyBritishMidland said:

I’ve just listened to this.  Despite the EFL statement saying they don’t know what the claim is about in this Parry says what the claim is about.  I’m not on Twitter or anything but can someone a bit more tech savvy (and younger ?) than me send this to Team Derby as they’re meeting the EFL today and MPs?

Done

[Maharan]

3 minutes ago, duncanjwitham said:

In theory, there's nothing stopping a court stepping in and ordering the EFL to perform (or abstain from) specific actions regarding our administration.  What I can't figure out is how that interacts with the arbitration mechanism in the EFL rules.  Are we forced to use that mechanism instead of getting an injunction (as it's a dispute between the club and the league), or can we just have at it.

Cheers for that. Based on that, Personally, I think if we go down an injunction route, then the club will regret it. 

[Mihangel]

2 minutes ago, Dai Capp said:

Done

x2 ?

[Rammeister]

10 minutes ago, Mihangel said:

 

Nice; this goes some way towards me forgiving them for the 6-0 F.A. Cup final defeat in 1903. 

[PistoldPete]

8 minutes ago, duncanjwitham said:

In theory, there's nothing stopping a court stepping in and ordering the EFL to perform (or abstain from) specific actions regarding our administration.  What I can't figure out is how that interacts with the arbitration mechanism in the EFL rules.  Are we forced to use that mechanism instead of getting an injunction (as it's a dispute between the club and the league), or can we just have at it.

We can apply for injunction to stop Efl expelling is from the League.

[glyn1957]

13 minutes ago, Unlucky Alf said:

It had better be relevant

Injuntion

An equitable remedy in which a court orders a party to perform, or refrain from performing, a particular act. A prohibitory injunction is an order forbidding a party from performing an act; a mandatory injunction is an order to perform an act.

I was wondering if a judicial review was possible with the courts setting aside the two claims to be dealt with at a specified date after the takeover was complete.