The Administration Thread

[Eatonram]

5 minutes ago, Jimbo Ram said:

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.

We would simply need to lodge a claim in exactly the same way that Boro have done.....I suspect this could be done in 24 hours. Use the Boro claim as a template just to make the point......our claim would surely have exactly the same legitimacy ie none, but that is not the point. 

And just imagine the publicity and press interest it would cause AND the EFL could not stay silent, there would be too much pressure on them.

[kevinhectoring]

24 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. 

Don’t think the rules need updating. There’s no problem with a rule that says: “sure, you can compromise football creditors as far as the law allows. No problem. But if you do, and if they don’t consent, then you get a points deduction or worse’ 

[Ian Buxton's Bat]

7 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.

 

Very interesting article here on director's personal liability.

So far, everyone has assumed that operating within a limited company offers total personal protection. It doesn't.

https://www.daslaw.co.uk/blog/when-can-company-directors-be-personally-liable

"In this case the defendants had failed to comply with the National Minimum Wage, and did so with intent, and this factored into the court’s decision; however, the court ultimately found it was more the fact the Directors had wrecked the reputation of the company in the eyes of the community which rendered their conduct as falling outside the scope of their authority, and contrary to the interests of their company.

The court concluded the desire to maximise the profits of the company in the manner in which they did, were neither in the interests of the company nor its employees."

Presume all those owed money could consider seeking money from ex-directors.

 

[The Scarlet Pimpernel]

It bothers me now that I didn't take more interest in what happened to Bury FC and others. 

Its easy to see how Bury were flattened by the EFL, they didn't stand a chance. Its only because we are a much larger club with a substantial fan base that we have just about managed to push back and to some extent turn the tide on the bullies. 

[Ram@Lincoln]

9 minutes ago, simmoram1995 said:

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 

 

 

That'll get overlooked with the Forest guy on the EFL board. Wouldn't surprise me if the profit made on the player is equal to whatever losses they have over the FFP limit. Absolutely corrupt the lot of them. We get 9 points for something that we were proved to be not in the wrong, just using different methods, yet forced to change to avoid any foreseen competitive advantage. This independent regulator needs bringing in asap, let the EFL manage the fixtures and that's it.

[Raich Carter]

We should issue an action against every club that had a vague impact on our league position. It's just about promotion (are you listening QPR) but how about us being 15th rather than 14th when Fulham (who got 'done') went up (I'm making up the league positions but you know what I mean.

Clubs that got 'done' in some capacity for FFP which could have had an impact on us are :

• Fulham
• QPR
• Florist
• Bournemouth
• Millwall
• Leeds
• Blackburn
• Hull
• Reading
• Sheff Weds
• Luton
• Coventry

All of those have had sanctions so by applying Gibson's logic, we should sue them all for any negative impact they may have had on our prize money... 

[TheresOnlyWanChope]

20 minutes ago, Sparkle said:

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 

Isn’t there a time limit on bringing this kind of action. Think the time has passed unfortunately. Would be a good insurance move if it were allowed but this happened 8 years ago. 

[Elwood P Dowd]

It is amusing to read that the EFL's negligent failure up to date their rules with a two year old statute could be settled by  arbitration. The EFL are arrogant but surely even they must understand no matter what it is in the EFL rules the law is the law and this cannot be diluted, altered or ignored by the EFL.

[Jimbo Ram]

8 minutes ago, Eatonram said:

We would simply need to lodge a claim in exactly the same way that Boro have done.....I suspect this could be done in 24 hours. Use the Boro claim as a template just to make the point......our claim would surely have exactly the same legitimacy ie none, but that is not the point. 

And just imagine the publicity and press interest it would cause AND the EFL could not stay silent, there would be too much pressure on them.

And how long would all that take. The Administrators won’t be looking at us suing anyone in any case. I am not sure it is dawning on you the perilous position we are in and the limited time we have to sort it out.

[i-Ram]

2 minutes ago, The Scarlet Pimpernel said:

It bothers me now that I didn't take more interest in what happened to Bury FC and others. 

Its easy to see how Bury were flattened by the EFL, they didn't stand a chance. Its only because we are a much larger club with a substantial fan base that we have just about managed to push back and to some extent turn the tide on the bullies. 

Agree entirely. I have seen a lot on here of our fans moaning that no one from the football family has been overly supportive of our plight. But quite honestly I really don’t recall anyone on here waving the flag for Bury, nor Wigan, Macclesfield or indeed Bolton. Football fans are a very fickle lot.

[Jimbo Ram]

3 minutes ago, Raich Carter said:

We should issue an action against every club that had a vague impact on our league position. It's just about promotion (are you listening QPR) but how about us being 15th rather than 14th when Fulham (who got 'done') went up (I'm making up the league positions but you know what I mean.

Clubs that got 'done' in some capacity for FFP which could have had an impact on us are :

• Fulham
• QPR
• Florist
• Bournemouth
• Millwall
• Leeds
• Blackburn
• Hull
• Reading
• Sheff Weds
• Luton
• Coventry

All of those have had sanctions so by applying Gibson's logic, we should sue them all for any negative impact they may have had on our prize money... 

That would take months. What legal team would represent us and at what cost? Simply not going to happen.

[Raich Carter]

Just now, Jimbo Ram said:

That would take months. What legal team would represent us and at what cost? Simply not going to happen.

Of course - I was being slightly sarcastic!

[Jimbo Ram]

Just now, Raich Carter said:

Of course - I was being slightly sarcastic!

Well, some on here are looking at those sort of actions ?

[Tamworthram]

1 hour ago, Oldben said:

Wycombe who did so well in 2020/21, deserved to remain in the Championship.

They only qualified when league one was stopped half way through in 2019/20 and points calculation was given to provide them with a place in the Championship.

The league one teams that missed out to Wycombe, must have had a reason to feel aggrieved at the efl.

Any way here's Wycombe being thrashed by Blackburn because they just weren't good enough for a place in the Championship.

 

 

A week before we lost 4:0 AT HOME to Blackburn? Kind of destroys that part of your argument.

Also, whilst some other clubs in league 1 will no doubt have felt hard done by and unlucky in the way the previous season ended, it was probably the fairest way so, I doubt have any problem with the way Wycombe were promoted.

As far as I'm concerned there are simply two reasons why the Wycombe owner should do one:

1) We didn't impose or exceed the timelines for resubmission of amended figures and therefore didn't breach any rules in that respect

2) The years we "cheated" were before Wycombe were in the Championship and therefore, morally, there is no reason they should benefit.

[RammingStone66]

Just now, i-Ram said:

Agree entirely. I have seen a lot on here of our fans moaning that no one from the football family has been overly supportive of our plight. But quite honestly I really don’t recall anyone on here waving the flag for Bury, nor Wigan, Macclesfield or indeed Bolton. Football fans are a very fickle lot.

I have to agree, not many of us were trying to save Bury but at somepoint the cycle needs to broken and clubs need to come together to stop this kind of thing happening 

Iv been amazed how ruthless some fans have been in actively wanting our death, some seem more ruthless than the chairman ? 

I can't see the general football community coming together at this moment but maybe one day

[Sparkle]

13 minutes ago, Jimbo Ram said:

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.

I understand your sentiment but when you submit to a bully or extortion you are as bad in a way - World War Two probably could easily have been stopped if the appropriate powers at the time told Nazi Germany you are not going to take the Sudetenland you are not going to take Austria you are not going to take the rest of the Czechoslovakia - yes it’s an extreme comparison but it’s the same principle - it’s the EFL who have to make a decision and it should have been made weeks ago. I for one will never subscribe to a compromise agreement based on duress regardless of the consequences. We all want what’s best for Derby county but not at any price.

[i-Ram]

5 minutes ago, Ram@Lincoln said:

That'll get overlooked with the Forest guy on the EFL board. Wouldn't surprise me if the profit made on the player is equal to whatever losses they have over the FFP limit. Absolutely corrupt the lot of them. We get 9 points for something that we were proved to be not in the wrong, just using different methods, yet forced to change to avoid any foreseen competitive advantage. This independent regulator needs bringing in asap, let the EFL manage the fixtures and that's it.

The Forest ‘dodge’ needs to be looked at, but we would have breached P&S limits whatever FRS 102 compliant amortisation policy we used. The 9 points was for a significant overspend on net transfer fees and players wages, which no amortisation policy could eventually hide. Everything went on and on because Morris was clearly reluctant to submit any accounts for 2 to 3 years.

[duncanjwitham]

3 minutes ago, Ian Buxton's Bat said:

Very interesting article here on director's personal liability.

So far, everyone has assumed that operating within a limited company offers total personal protection. It doesn't.

https://www.daslaw.co.uk/blog/when-can-company-directors-be-personally-liable

"In this case the defendants had failed to comply with the National Minimum Wage, and did so with intent, and this factored into the court’s decision; however, the court ultimately found it was more the fact the Directors had wrecked the reputation of the company in the eyes of the community which rendered their conduct as falling outside the scope of their authority, and contrary to the interests of their company.

The court concluded the desire to maximise the profits of the company in the manner in which they did, were neither in the interests of the company nor its employees."

Presume all those owed money could consider seeking money from ex-directors.

 

I suspect it will be very hard to prove anything like that for our case.  As far as I can tell Morris has done nothing outright illegal (there's nothing like the minimum wage violation cited in that article, for example).  When you look at it, what he's actually done (on the financial side anyway) is commit us to spending beyond what we could afford, cover that shortfall personally, and then when COVID hit, stop covering it because the amounts he was required to put in went through the roof.  I don't think that's anywhere near to breaching the tests outlined in that article.

There's also this specific paragraph, which to me, pretty much underlines that we fall into the first category (no personal liability):

"It then drew an analogy between a director who deliberately breached the terms of a contract with a supplier by failing to pay a bill on time, to protect his company’s cash flow (no personal liability), and a director who uses horse meat instead of beef in burgers because it is cheaper (personally liable)."

[Sparkle]

9 minutes ago, The Scarlet Pimpernel said:

It bothers me now that I didn't take more interest in what happened to Bury FC and others. 

Its easy to see how Bury were flattened by the EFL, they didn't stand a chance. Its only because we are a much larger club with a substantial fan base that we have just about managed to push back and to some extent turn the tide on the bullies. 

It was the fellow EFL football clubs who voted to expel Bury from the Football league - that’s the main thing to remember!

[TheresOnlyWanChope]

6 minutes ago, Jimbo Ram said:

That would take months. What legal team would represent us and at what cost? Simply not going to happen.

Actually, if it were possible, it would be a good move- a case can be lodged by new owners, not by the administrators. The threat to the EFL now that Derby will bring a case would probably mean they act to stop the Wycombe and Boro process. But I doubt English law would allow it if we are talking about QPR. I think it’s 6 years in most cases. 

Edited January 28, 2022 by TheresOnlyWanChope