The Administration Thread

[RandomAccessMemory]

5 minutes ago, Maharan said:

Yeah, I get what you’re saying, but to me it reads like coming out of admin might have to be via a restructuring rather than a CVA. That might incur another points deduction 

I think it’s the Wycombe and Boro (as an aside, where do they get the other o from, seeing as they’re always quick to point out it’s Middlesbrough, not Middlesborough??) claims having the potential to be football creditors, and the EFL’s complete failure to rule on this, even though it is their rules we have to follow, that are causing this line of questioning.

[R@M]

2 minutes ago, OUFCfan said:

Neutral fan in peace here!

This whole mess (which I am sorry you are all suffering btw) seems to be getting very mixed up with all the information and misinformation flying around.

I seem to have read the Gibson letter differently than most here thought (possibly less emotionally?) in that to me all it was saying is that this is a complex issue and not just a simple WW/MFC are to blame, lets get together to discuss it - and from his point of view likely agree a settlement I guess.

 

Genuinely don't understand where the deadline has come from either, seems to be entirely arbitrary to me, but again as external I don't know the complexities of it. Seems to be a lot of incompetent people from EFL to administrators involved though

Simply put, the claims cannot be legally put or challenged due to insolvency law, the EFL rules on that are out of date, the EFL have not ruled that the claims are football debts, but might do in the future. All bidders have stated they cannot proceed without knowing what the amount might be. The EFL will not set precedent and get involved but have said it needs to be resolved while setting a 1st Feb deadline to provide funding evidence, which is not looking possible without a preferred bidder. The only way Gibson and the ambulance chaser will go away is a settlement, without trial or due process. They know this and are effectively trying to ransom the administration. They cannot in all conscious do this as there are actual creditors in front…if we had the money. 

[Norman]

Just now, SBW said:

I'm still not sure Q are putting their position entirely in the public domain.  Feels like of each parties announcements, they're the ones still not telling all.

Even today, they've said they've presented 3 options to fund the rest of the season and seeing what the EFL say regarding them.  Why not tell us what the options are?  Is it so if/when they get knocked back they can put their own spin on it?  

They put options forward before, i.e getting the preferred bidder to take them on without trying to resolve the Boro/Wycombe issue, which wasn't acceptable.  Is that one of the offers again now, in the hope things have changed? Be nice to know. 

It states why in the statement. 

'Whilst we have tried to be as clear and open as possible, there are matters, for reasons of confidentiality and sensitivity, which cannot be shared and we hope supporters and the media will understand the reasons for this' 

[TooFarInToTurnRed]

5 minutes ago, Eatonram said:

In a Nutshell, the EFL's position is ....if we make a decision on this to unblock the logjam, Boro will sue us instead of Derby.

The extortion is quite simply that crude.

Clever solution though: "In an attempt to move this particular matter forward swiftly, the EFL has written to all parties with a proposed solution to negotiate a deal via independent legal mediation"

Get someone else to rule on it so they are in the clear!!!!!!

[Tamworthram]

Just now, OUFCfan said:

As an outsider can I ask, who is to blame for the situation you're all in now, I'm presuming Mel Morris? but were there others? 

I know EFL, MFC/WW issues are ongoing but that obvs didn't start the situation

I think you’ve answered your own question. The root cause is Morris’s miss-management but the situation has been serious worsened by the EFL, Wycombe and Middlesbrough. Of course Covid hasn’t helped but all clubs have suffered in this respect.

[OUFCfan]

1 minute ago, R@M said:

Simply put, the claims cannot be legally put or challenged due to insolvency law, the EFL rules on that are out of date, the EFL have not ruled that the claims are football debts, but might do in the future. All bidders have stated they cannot proceed without knowing what the amount might be. The EFL will not set precedent and get involved but have said it needs to be resolved while setting a 1st Feb deadline to provide funding evidence, which is not looking possible without a preferred bidder. The only way Gibson and the ambulance chaser will go away is a settlement, without trial or due process. They know this and are effectively trying to ransom the administration. They cannot in all conscious do this as there are actual creditors in front…if we had the money. 

Thanks for this, 1 thing I don't get though, if the claims are as frivolous as most on here seem to say (I genuinely have no idea what they are btw), then why has it put bidders off? Surely they and their lawyers would look at it, know it's no risk and carry on?

[duncanjwitham]

2 minutes ago, OUFCfan said:

As an outsider can I ask, who is to blame for the situation you're all in now, I'm presuming Mel Morris? but were there others? 

I know EFL, MFC/WW issues are ongoing but that obvs didn't start the situation

It’s a combination of Morris sanctioning overspending, COVID and the EFL issues (also Morris, in part at least) all occurring at the same time, IMO anyway. If it’s only one or 2 of those together, we probably don’t end up in admin. All 3 together and it’s an impossible situation.

[Ghost of Clough]

6 minutes ago, OUFCfan said:

Neutral fan in peace here!

This whole mess (which I am sorry you are all suffering btw) seems to be getting very mixed up with all the information and misinformation flying around.

I seem to have read the Gibson letter differently than most here thought (possibly less emotionally?) in that to me all it was saying is that this is a complex issue and not just a simple WW/MFC are to blame, lets get together to discuss it - and from his point of view likely agree a settlement I guess.

 

Genuinely don't understand where the deadline has come from either, seems to be entirely arbitrary to me, but again as external I don't know the complexities of it. Seems to be a lot of incompetent people from EFL to administrators involved though

WW/MFC are the hold-up as no PB is willing to risk paying out £50m in the event of an arbitration body ruling in favour of them being classed as a football creditor.
The club (with the stadium) is apparently valued at £50m. Excluding the frivolous claims by those two clubs, £50m is the approximate amount for the club to exit administration without any further points deductions. If the two claims are then accounted for, the PB either has to double down on his investment or choose not to pay the required amount to avoid the points deduction.
Look into the claims. Following EFL procedures and applying the points deduction(s) when they should have, the league tables would have remained unnaffected during the two seasons in question (Boro 18/19 and Wycombe 20/21). Derby are only guilty of breaching P&S rules (and punished for them). If Derby are liable, then around 20 other clubs are too. The real issue here is the EFL not complying with there own rules, as such should be the ones on the end of the claims rather than the Club.

The deadline has arisen from the need to fund the club until the end of the season. As things stand, we only have enough cash (or incoming cash) to get through to some time in February. Given the transfer window is a good source of cash (through player sales), the date of Feb 1st was chosen. I cannot argue agaisnt this date, which I believe is more than fair under the circumstances.

[jono]

9 minutes ago, Eatonram said:

In a Nutshell, the EFL's position is ....if we make a decision on this to unblock the logjam, Boro will sue us instead of Derby.

The extortion is quite simply that crude.

My thoughts exactly and you managed to express it in two sentences, genius. ????

( I can never quite do that being fond of my own voice  ?) 

[Day]

 

[RadioactiveWaste]

6 minutes ago, OUFCfan said:

Neutral fan in peace here!

This whole mess (which I am sorry you are all suffering btw) seems to be getting very mixed up with all the information and misinformation flying around.

I seem to have read the Gibson letter differently than most here thought (possibly less emotionally?) in that to me all it was saying is that this is a complex issue and not just a simple WW/MFC are to blame, lets get together to discuss it - and from his point of view likely agree a settlement I guess.

 

Genuinely don't understand where the deadline has come from either, seems to be entirely arbitrary to me, but again as external I don't know the complexities of it. Seems to be a lot of incompetent people from EFL to administrators involved though

Thanks for driving in - I hope you appreciate it's pretty emotional at the moment.

As far as I understand it, the pressing funding deadline is Quantuma have run out/are about to run out of the funding they secured at the start of the administration.

Q thought they had a deal in place and the preferred bidder would fund the club going forward - that was 1 week ago. They had a meeting with the EFL where Q thought it'd to through fine and happy days are on the horizon. The EFL said no.

There was much distress and jags going to Stoke because we can't renew his contact and Shinnie leaving to Wigan to save on his wages.

It is a complex situation, made more complicated by Mel Morris owning pride park (that company not insolvent and Mr Morris still being pretty rich)

Gibson's letter however, appears to demand information not relevant to his claim or obviously confidential to the parties involved.

There's questions for Quantuma to answer, but not necessarily in public, to Gibson or Couhig but to the parties directly concerned.

It is apparent from the previous confidence and shitstorm following last week that the key issue is in fact the financial risk due to Wycombe and Middlesbrough claims existing at all. If they continue to exist and the EFL maintain their stance that any settlement of those claims by arbitration must be paid in full as a football creditor,no one will buy the club.

 

[SBW]

7 minutes ago, Norman said:

It states why in the statement. 

'Whilst we have tried to be as clear and open as possible, there are matters, for reasons of confidentiality and sensitivity, which cannot be shared and we hope supporters and the media will understand the reasons for this' 

Yeah I read it.  Just seems like another cop-out to hind behind.  

[DCFC1388]

With regards Gibson's statement - like others have said before, what the hell does it have to do with him about the MSD/Mel & HMRC deals. Admins have said they're pretty much in place, Gibson has no right to know the amounts. If he is so keen on knowing those figures, why doesnt he come out with the figure his claim is for or what he would settle for? Looks like he wants to know what others will get so he knows what to ask for. Says it all about the bloke when he claims its a relatively simple task to get us to exit admin. Everyone knows how difficult it was even without his nonsense claim, it is simple now for us to exit admin though if he dropped his claim!

In terms of Mel & the stadium - I thought Mel gets £0 from it? The £20m goes to paying off the MSD loan, so MSD are paid & the new owners owns the stadium? If Mel was happy to accept less, would that not mean we would still owe MSD the difference which would need to be paid for the new owners to own the stadium? Or have I got that all wrong.

As for the EFL, what a load of eaffle. Stating rules, regs, laws yet their own arent upto date. Then stating they need to know the preferred bidder when everyone knows there isnt one until Boro/WW are sorted, have they had their heads in the sand these past weeks or what!

[RoyMac5]

48 minutes ago, Ghost of Clough said:

So was this rushed out in the 25 minutes following the Administrators statement, or did they have this lined up and sent it out without reading Q's statement? I'm thinking the latter...

My opinion is that Qs comment about their silence being 'tactical' really wound him up! ?

[TooFarInToTurnRed]

2 minutes ago, OUFCfan said:

Thanks for this, 1 thing I don't get though, if the claims are as frivolous as most on here seem to say (I genuinely have no idea what they are btw), then why has it put bidders off? Surely they and their lawyers would look at it, know it's no risk and carry on?

Because the EFL run the arbitration process and nobody has confidence in applying even their own regulations correctly. Add in a bit of subjectivity and anything could happen. I told a mate last week that they extended our embargo so we had to start each game with only 9 players and they thought it might be true!

[Eatonram]

10 minutes ago, OUFCfan said:

As an outsider can I ask, who is to blame for the situation you're all in now, I'm presuming Mel Morris? but were there others? 

I know EFL, MFC/WW issues are ongoing but that obvs didn't start the situation

Responsibility for where we are...yes MM

The responsibility for stopping us getting out of where we are, MFC/WW/EFL

[Ghost of Clough]

11 minutes ago, DCFC27 said:

£1.1m hardly peppercorn. MM is still pulling the strings. Needs highlighting and I believe   Gibson is doing so 

I vaguely recall Reading's rent being £3m and JLL stating our should be over £4m. You were saying...?

[Topram]

I can’t see anything but liquidation unfortunately it’s clear they aren’t willing to get it all resolved, they’ll just keep denying and arguing until we’re gone 

[Tamworthram]

5 minutes ago, OUFCfan said:

Thanks for this, 1 thing I don't get though, if the claims are as frivolous as most on here seem to say (I genuinely have no idea what they are btw), then why has it put bidders off? Surely they and their lawyers would look at it, know it's no risk and carry on?

Simply because they being frivolous is only our administrator’s opinion (after seeking legal advice I would hope). I’m not sure there is any such thing as “no risk” when it comes to legal cases especially for those that have no precedent.

[Sparkle]

37 minutes ago, Maharan said:

One interesting point from the administration update which seems to have been overtaken by the shitstorm of updates;

‘The uncertainty around the possibility of further sanctions from the EFL in the event the chosen bid does not deliver the financial compensation to pass the EFL rules around payment to both football creditors and other creditors.’ 
 

I wonder if that’s a general statement because none of the bids meet the minimum thresholds to comply with EFL rules?

Maybe as that may be option 2 if the administrators can’t get option 1 through because of the EFL and the two parasites - option one current deal - option two - no CVA = potential 15 point deduction next season if there is isn’t one and nobody gets anything.