Jump to content

The Administration Thread


Boycie

Recommended Posts

28 minutes ago, PistoldPete said:

But accepting the bid from Binnies as it stands could bring problems further down the line. It could cause HMRC for example to reject the deal offered. And even after we then emerge from admin, the new owners accepting an open ended liability for Boro and Wycombe claims coudl bring mor efinancial probelms even further down the line. And set a dangerous precedent.

Surely if HMRC were to reject the deal then there wouldn’t be any “further down the line”. The deal would be dead as it needs to be accepted by a sufficient percentage of creditors.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Gaspode said:

I must admit that I was pretty down after watching Rick (with a silent P) Parry's interview yesterday - quite clear he has no interest in helping the club but purely on making sure that the 2 opportunist, money grabbing, ambulance chasers get a payout so they don't go after the EFL. If the worst does happen, League 2 would be significantly higher in the pyramid than I could possibly have hoped for.....  

Parry comes across as entirely indifferent and this is probably representative of the attitude that permeates the whole EFL organisation. If benign indifference was the only problem it might not be so much of a issue however, the general attitude is one of indifference coupled with an ugly malicious streak.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, PistoldPete said:

Q had a preferred bidder in mind last week. Was it the Binnies? 

 

You know the obvious answer to that? Boro and Wycombe claims are not football creditors. See the thread on that one.

I’d go further than that. They are not as yet “creditors” let alone “football creditors” and that is the main point. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Eatonram said:

I’d go further than that. They are not as yet “creditors” let alone “football creditors” and that is the main point. 

Isn’t that the entire problem. The EFL says they meet their definition of a football body, which no-one disputes. The administrators are saying that they don’t meet the insolvency law definition of a creditor, so the fact that they are a football body is irrelevant. 

One of the MPs referred to this in the parliamentary debate when they said that Boro and Wycombe were bringing a ‘grievance’ rather than a ‘claim’. 

And that’s before we even consider whether their argument even has any merit. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Curtains said:

I’m surprised you’re surprised .

I’m not surprised by anything him or Birch say. 
Boro and Wycombe don’t surprise me either.  
The EFL are not my favourite people and never have been 

It’s like negotiating with both hands tied behind your back discussing with them 

You may be surprised that I’m surprised but I'm not surprised....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, Gaspode said:

I must admit that I was pretty down after watching Rick (with a silent P) Parry's interview yesterday - quite clear he has no interest in helping the club but purely on making sure that the 2 opportunist, money grabbing, ambulance chasers get a payout so they don't go after the EFL. If the worst does happen, League 2 would be significantly higher in the pyramid than I could possibly have hoped for.....  

The worst is being ignored by the you and the EFL. 

They would not be Derby County, we would no longer be a founder member of the EFL - that is what they want too.

It would be a different club. So just pick a.n.other club to support, it'll be the same.

Edited by RoyMac5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Indy said:

Isn’t that the entire problem. The EFL says they meet their definition of a football body, which no-one disputes. The administrators are saying that they don’t meet the insolvency law definition of a creditor, so the fact that they are a football body is irrelevant. 

One of the MPs referred to this in the parliamentary debate when they said that Boro and Wycombe were bringing a ‘grievance’ rather than a ‘claim’. 

And that’s before we even consider whether their argument even has any merit. 

I think we all know this. The bid that has been made suggests this will be addressed further down the line doesn’t it…..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, G STAR RAM said:

EFLs stance does not affect who.our preffered bidder is.

If we have don't have a bidder who can meet the requirements then we have no bidder.

If the administrators are confident in their stance and the legal advice they have received, then they name our preferred bidder and give the EFL something to think about.

Although the EFL can stop a takeover, I dont see exactly how they can stop the administrators from naming their preferred bidder.

Naming someone as preferred bidder does not mean they have to complete the takeover.

The issue is the cash is going to run out in February. It's no good giving EFL something to think about we need action now. And that is  what is happening.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Indy said:

Isn’t that the entire problem. The EFL says they meet their definition of a football body, which no-one disputes. The administrators are saying that they don’t meet the insolvency law definition of a creditor, so the fact that they are a football body is irrelevant. 

One of the MPs referred to this in the parliamentary debate when they said that Boro and Wycombe were bringing a ‘grievance’ rather than a ‘claim’. 

And that’s before we even consider whether their argument even has any merit. 

Even if it was classified as a claim surely it’s still not a debt until either a deal is agreed or they win in court. We could all submit claims  to Middlesbrough for the emotional distress they are causing but that doesn’t make us creditors (I think).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, kevinhectoring said:

Yes. So if the Binnies accept the risk on the two claims, and if bizarrely Gibbo gets awarded some damages the effect is:

- unsecureds take a haircut

- Gibbo gets 100 p in the pound  

That satisfies the EFL rules but seems unfair on the unsecureds. It’s what happened in the Wolves case and there may be a way of structuring the payment to Gibbo to avoid the problem. But I hope Q have thought it through 

 

Not true

deal has a certain amount for creditors

Shared out amongst agreed creditors (not including MFC or WW as they are being dealt with afterwards) so that is what they’d get under the deal

If you actually include MFC and WW claims now then that same amount of money is split between more creditors (you increased it by two) which reduces how much they get each

 

 

 

dealing with Parrysites later is better for all creditors.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account.

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...