CBRammette Posted January 28, 2022 Share Posted January 28, 2022 41 minutes ago, Eatonram said: We cannot give Boro a penny. It is obscene to think we owe them money UNLESS we sue QPR also and then where does it end. We cannot give in to what is basically blackmail. Agreed if we give either club anything what is to stop others when we exit administration coming forward with similar claims against us based on the precedent? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jimbo Ram Posted January 28, 2022 Share Posted January 28, 2022 1 minute ago, CBRammette said: Agreed if we give either club anything what is to stop others when we exit administration coming forward with similar claims against us based on the precedent? What’s to stop others if we don’t cough up? I hate the situation as much as anyone else but a compromise is the only way forward…. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SirBrian Posted January 28, 2022 Share Posted January 28, 2022 Meeting 15 mins old wonder if Parry is on the naughty step, would not fancy an angry Margaret going at me with all guns blazing!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mountain Ram Posted January 28, 2022 Share Posted January 28, 2022 8 minutes ago, SirBrian said: Meeting 15 mins old wonder if Parry is on the naughty step, would not fancy an angry Margaret going at me with all guns blazing!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Indy Posted January 28, 2022 Share Posted January 28, 2022 7 minutes ago, SirBrian said: Meeting 15 mins old wonder if Parry is on the naughty step, would not fancy an angry Margaret going at me with all guns blazing!! Seeing as the fact that EFL regs not being updated was specifically highlighted in the parliamentary debate, I’d hope that they’d be pointing out that not being up to date with two year old statute is more a case of their negligence rather than arbitration. As someone has mentioned before, we should be submitting claims against QPR and anyone else who was found guilty of FFP breaches (Bournemouth?) - with same arguments as the Boro claim - so that the EFL don’t immediately change the rules after we’re ducked. They would be baseless nonsense, but that’s the point. Sparkle, Curtains, BriggRam and 3 others 6 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eatonram Posted January 28, 2022 Share Posted January 28, 2022 12 minutes ago, Jimbo Ram said: What’s to stop others if we don’t cough up? I hate the situation as much as anyone else but a compromise is the only way forward…. NO, NO, NO we have no debt to them, it is a speculative claim for a fictional amount of money, with no basis in law or even the EFL rules. What if their claim had been for £100m or £200m?....but they would generously accept just £30m to help us out? Can you not see what their tactics are? Of course they will "accept" less OR "compromise" because it gives credence to an otherwise spurious claim and makes them look like they are "helping" when they have in fact just extorted money AND reduced the amount going to actual creditors. WE CANNOT give in to this unless we sue QPR also. Ramarena, RadioactiveWaste, The Scarlet Pimpernel and 6 others 1 8 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fullspizz Posted January 28, 2022 Share Posted January 28, 2022 (edited) 8 minutes ago, Indy said: Seeing as the fact that EFL regs not being updated was specifically highlighted in the parliamentary debate, I’d hope that they’d be pointing out that not being up to date with two year old statute is more a case of their negligence rather than arbitration. As someone has mentioned before, we should be submitting claims against QPR and anyone else who was found guilty of FFP breaches (Bournemouth?) - with same arguments as the Boro claim - so that the EFL don’t immediately change the rules after we’re ducked. They would be baseless nonsense, but that’s the point. By using the maths that Curly Sue has used to base his "wild" claim of £45m for coming after us, seeing as we got to the final then it is a minimum of £90m we should claim from QPR. This is what would happen if this claim of his was to succeed. Sorry state of affairs and if some of what I have read on here is correct, then his gripe is with MM and seeing as he is not in charge of the club anymore, he should go after him in a court of law (in which he probably loses) Edited January 28, 2022 by Fullspizz addition Indy 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
angieram Posted January 28, 2022 Share Posted January 28, 2022 All this "we", who is "we"? WE are in administration, and the administrators are in charge. They can't be suing anybody. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
duncanjwitham Posted January 28, 2022 Share Posted January 28, 2022 1 hour ago, Curtains said: Part of article from Athletic ... “Quantuma’s confidence that Derby will exit administration intact derives from noting a provision in the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act 2020 that appears to enable them to write off a significant chunk of their debts, including £29 million to HMRC. Quantuma’s plan to offer the taxman the same 25 per cent of what is owed to the unsecured creditors makes Derby a much more attractive option for buyers and explains why the Binnie family has bid only £28 million. However, the law has changed since the last football administration, and the EFL is yet to update its rule book, so the method is not yet approved. The latest update is that the EFL has offered to send the matter to arbitration.” Honestly, that paragraph sounds like the writer is completely confused about things. The way I understood it was that paying HMRC 25% was fine (even with the change in their status), provided it was at least the 25% that the EFL insolvency policy requires. And the updated law (that the EFL are out of date with) was more to do with compressing the 'Boro/Wycombe claims, and that's what the offer of arbitration is about - to sort out that issue, not force the EFL to update their rules. Can you even use arbitration to make the EFL change their rules? I thought it had to go through a club vote etc. More than willing to admit I could be wrong on this, but it sounds to me like the writer has conflated 2 or 3 issues into one and got in a mess over what belongs to what. angieram, Ghost of Clough, i-Ram and 1 other 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Curtains Posted January 28, 2022 Share Posted January 28, 2022 1 minute ago, angieram said: All this "we", who is "we"? WE are in administration, and the administrators are in charge. They can't be suing anybody. Feel free to delete this part of Athletic article Angie if you don’t want it posted. “The claims from Wycombe and Middlesbrough are still in the mix, too. In its statement confirming the month-long extension, Quantuma said: “The additional month will provide time to seek clarity on the claims from Middlesbrough and Wycombe.” These remain significant stumbling blocks, cited by administrators last week as a “key issue for interested parties”. Carlisle Capital made its bid in full knowledge of the claims, suggesting it will not prevent a bidder from making progress. Still, concerns remain from potential owners about the considerable cost of the claims or a possible legal battle. Although Rooney had plans to bring in a few players in January, including an unnamed player from rivals Nottingham Forest, the chances that a preferred bidder is named before the close of the window is growing less likely. Most of the battles that have characterised the administration remain, but at least Derby fans know the Birmingham match on Sunday will not be the last in the club’s 138-year history.” “ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sparkle Posted January 28, 2022 Share Posted January 28, 2022 2 minutes ago, angieram said: All this "we", who is "we"? WE are in administration, and the administrators are in charge. They can't be suing anybody. Not so sure on that - QPR can be viewed as an income stream by them and raise money as it is clearly allowed according to the EFL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Curtains Posted January 28, 2022 Share Posted January 28, 2022 (edited) 8 minutes ago, duncanjwitham said: Honestly, that paragraph sounds like the writer is completely confused about things. The way I understood it was that paying HMRC 25% was fine (even with the change in their status), provided it was at least the 25% that the EFL insolvency policy requires. And the updated law (that the EFL are out of date with) was more to do with compressing the 'Boro/Wycombe claims, and that's what the offer of arbitration is about - to sort out that issue, not force the EFL to update their rules. Can you even use arbitration to make the EFL change their rules? I thought it had to go through a club vote etc. More than willing to admit I could be wrong on this, but it sounds to me like the writer has conflated 2 or 3 issues into one and got in a mess over what belongs to what. I think he’s spot on sorry . The point is that the EFL have to agree to the whole package Edited January 28, 2022 by Curtains Added Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Indy Posted January 28, 2022 Share Posted January 28, 2022 5 minutes ago, Eatonram said: NO, NO, NO we have no debt to them, it is a speculative claim for a fictional amount of money, with no basis in law or even the EFL rules. What if their claim had been for £100m or £200m?....but they would generously accept just £30m to help us out? Can you not see what their tactics are? Of course they will "accept" less OR "compromise" because it gives credence to an otherwise spurious claim and makes them look like they are "helping" when they have in fact just extorted money AND reduced the amount going to actual creditors. WE CANNOT give in to this unless we sue QPR also. And using the same logic that Boro had a 25% chance of getting premiership £££ if they’d not been denied that place by us, we would have had 100% chance of reaching the premiership if we’d beaten QPR - so the full revenue should be claimed (no reduction for costs likely to be incurred). Absolute tosh, of course. We should demand that both cases are heard simultaneously. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jimbo Ram Posted January 28, 2022 Share Posted January 28, 2022 9 minutes ago, Eatonram said: NO, NO, NO we have no debt to them, it is a speculative claim for a fictional amount of money, with no basis in law or even the EFL rules. What if their claim had been for £100m or £200m?....but they would generously accept just £30m to help us out? Can you not see what their tactics are? Of course they will "accept" less OR "compromise" because it gives credence to an otherwise spurious claim and makes them look like they are "helping" when they have in fact just extorted money AND reduced the amount going to actual creditors. WE CANNOT give in to this unless we sue QPR also. I am afraid YES YES YES. We are not in a position to sue anyone. Time is not on our side. A compromise that satisfies all parties, including Goldilocks, is the ONLY way forward, if you still want a football club. I like it no more than you but that is the reality. Curtains 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fullspizz Posted January 28, 2022 Share Posted January 28, 2022 9 minutes ago, angieram said: All this "we", who is "we"? WE are in administration, and the administrators are in charge. They can't be suing anybody. Ok, then we should put a case into the EFL as per other 2 clubs to go after potential compensation and do exactly what Gibson appears to have done to them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of Clough Posted January 28, 2022 Share Posted January 28, 2022 11 minutes ago, Fullspizz said: By using the maths that Curly Sue has used to base his "wild" claim of £45m for coming after us, seeing as we got to the final then it is a minimum of £90m we should claim from QPR. This is what would happen if this claim of his was to succeed. Sorry state of affairs and if some of what I have read on here is correct, then his gripe is with MM and seeing as he is not in charge of the club anymore, he should go after him in a court of law (in which he probably loses) With Derby out of the picture, Boro would have been 6th with a '25% chance' of winning the playoffs [£45m] With QPR out of the picture, Derby have no one to play in the Playoff Final [£180m] Indy, Eatonram, Fullspizz and 1 other 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
simmoram1995 Posted January 28, 2022 Share Posted January 28, 2022 11 minutes ago, Eatonram said: NO, NO, NO we have no debt to them, it is a speculative claim for a fictional amount of money, with no basis in law or even the EFL rules. What if their claim had been for £100m or £200m?....but they would generously accept just £30m to help us out? Can you not see what their tactics are? Of course they will "accept" less OR "compromise" because it gives credence to an otherwise spurious claim and makes them look like they are "helping" when they have in fact just extorted money AND reduced the amount going to actual creditors. WE CANNOT give in to this unless we sue QPR also. Very interesting developments… boro are allegedly around 10-15 million in breach of FFP so I guess the settlement will be very similar to what they actually want - funny that “ crap we’re in breach let’s get some money in quick” as for another potentially guilty party , Notts Forrest have just sold Carlvalho to olympiarkos for a fee reported to be 14.5 m rising to 18 m funny that for a player they’ve barely played gets a large figure transfer and just so happens to be the other club the fat Greek owns! I love a bit of FFP democracy… what a joke Indy, Premier ram, Eatonram and 1 other 1 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Curtains Posted January 28, 2022 Share Posted January 28, 2022 Just now, Ghost of Clough said: With Derby out of the picture, Boro would have been 6th with a '25% chance' of winning the playoffs [£45m] With QPR out of the picture, Derby have no one to play in the Playoff Final [£180m] The claims are totally unfair and that’s what needs to be addressed but unfortunately a legal challenge will also cost. The MPs are our best hope of intervention Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of Clough Posted January 28, 2022 Share Posted January 28, 2022 12 minutes ago, duncanjwitham said: Honestly, that paragraph sounds like the writer is completely confused about things. The way I understood it was that paying HMRC 25% was fine (even with the change in their status), provided it was at least the 25% that the EFL insolvency policy requires. And the updated law (that the EFL are out of date with) was more to do with compressing the 'Boro/Wycombe claims, and that's what the offer of arbitration is about - to sort out that issue, not force the EFL to update their rules. Can you even use arbitration to make the EFL change their rules? I thought it had to go through a club vote etc. More than willing to admit I could be wrong on this, but it sounds to me like the writer has conflated 2 or 3 issues into one and got in a mess over what belongs to what. Pretty much. I imagine the arbitration would be to rule on the claims - whether they have merit and if they'd be football creditors or not. I'd be surprised if an amount owed would be decided on whilst we're in administration. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sparkle Posted January 28, 2022 Share Posted January 28, 2022 9 minutes ago, Indy said: And using the same logic that Boro had a 25% chance of getting premiership £££ if they’d not been denied that place by us, we would have had 100% chance of reaching the premiership if we’d beaten QPR - so the full revenue should be claimed (no reduction for costs likely to be incurred). Absolute tosh, of course. We should demand that both cases are heard simultaneously. Absolutely we should claim 100% and maybe be nice and reduce it a little according to Middlesbrough and Wycombe parasite owners do we agree with it absolutely not - we lost to QPR on the field of sport and that is where it should rest - unfortunately the EFL disagree - I do hope other football clubs are watching Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now