hintonsboots Posted January 28, 2022 Share Posted January 28, 2022 1 minute ago, Eatonram said: Have we heard anything from the BAWT/Rams Trust meeting this afternoon yet? Mel is still on the rack I believe. jimtastic56 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eatonram Posted January 28, 2022 Share Posted January 28, 2022 Just now, RadioactiveWaste said: At least -15 for not paying the minimum stated in the EFL's insolvency rules, and ultimately at pain of being expelled from the league. It's not just a decision that squashes the claims, it's the "cross-class-cram-down" that is intended as last resort next to liquidation. It's not a good or easy solution. I'm sure you know more about this than me, but not sure how we can know from this that the PB would not pay the minimum required? How do you know that cccd is planned? Is this not just intended to get clarity on the claims? RadioactiveWaste 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cool As Custard Posted January 28, 2022 Share Posted January 28, 2022 8 minutes ago, RadioactiveWaste said: I think the legal thing the administrators want is court ordered restructuring of the debts. Doing that isn't covered in the EFL rules (the EFL rules not being up to date issue) Doing that is bad for everyone who the club owes money to (bad thing) Gets us more EFL penalties (bad thing) Crushes MFC and WW claims (good thing) Means a buyer can buy for realistic price with certainty (good thing) avoiding liquidation (,very good thing) Might not get the court to agree (very big risk) The EFL don't have the balls to give us more penalties on top of everything else - we'd just threaten to sue on numerous grounds (out of date rules, delaying exit from administration etc) & they'd crumple like a pack of cards. Most important thing is to come out of administration by legal means & then deal with whatever comes next Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gee SCREAMER !! Posted January 28, 2022 Share Posted January 28, 2022 3 minutes ago, BramcoteRam84 said: Interesting from Nixon. HMRC has been made out to be the bigger problem via yesterday’s leaks but Nixon in that article appears to be inferring it’s pressure from HMRC on the Admins and the EFL as they don’t want their position impacted by Boro and Wycombe. Something I suggested would happen 3 weeks ago. Creditors of that size may even get involved legally to push through on this via the administrator and court. r_wilcockson, RoyMac5 and BramcoteRam84 1 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PistoldPete Posted January 28, 2022 Share Posted January 28, 2022 15 minutes ago, RadioactiveWaste said: I think the legal thing the administrators want is court ordered restructuring of the debts. Doing that isn't covered in the EFL rules (the EFL rules not being up to date issue) Doing that is bad for everyone who the club owes money to (bad thing) Gets us more EFL penalties (bad thing) Crushes MFC and WW claims (good thing) Means a buyer can buy for realistic price with certainty (good thing) avoiding liquidation (,very good thing) Might not get the court to agree (very big risk) Why does it get us more EFL penalties? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cool As Custard Posted January 28, 2022 Share Posted January 28, 2022 6 minutes ago, RadioactiveWaste said: At least -15 for not paying the minimum stated in the EFL's insolvency rules, and ultimately at pain of being expelled from the league. It's not just a decision that squashes the claims, it's the "cross-class-cram-down" that is intended as last resort next to liquidation. It's not a good or easy solution. They wouldn't dare do either - the public & political outcry for further penalising a club for coming out of administration via a legal route in line with the law of the land would be too much for them to enforce - especially when there rules are already out of date Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ram@Lincoln Posted January 28, 2022 Share Posted January 28, 2022 29 minutes ago, ollycutts1982 said: Why use that photo where the ground looks in disrepair?? Does anyone local own a jet wash? I did think the last time I was at the ground it needs a good jet washing all over. If I'm selling a car, it has a full wash and valet. Sure we can't be fancy with it, but surely there's a local commercial jet washing company that could spare a day washing even the worst bits down? Derby4Me and jimtastic56 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PistoldPete Posted January 28, 2022 Share Posted January 28, 2022 2 minutes ago, Gee SCREAMER !! said: Something I suggested would happen 3 weeks ago. Creditors of that size may even get involved legally to push through on this via the administrator and court. Well exactly. Boro and Wycombe claims create a problem for HMRC. Who we certainly don’t want to have pissed off. jimtastic56 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RadioactiveWaste Posted January 28, 2022 Share Posted January 28, 2022 1 minute ago, BramcoteRam84 said: Interesting from Nixon. HMRC has been made out to be the bigger problem via yesterday’s leaks but Nixon in that article appears to be inferring it’s pressure from HMRC on the Admins and the EFL as they don’t want their position impacted by Boro and Wycombe. Everyone is fighting their own corner, so who is being "the issue" depends who is likely to get less... BramcoteRam84 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ram-Alf Posted January 28, 2022 Share Posted January 28, 2022 18 minutes ago, TuffLuff said: But it’s the commute they’ve done im more bothered about. In that traffic, up the M1, on a Friday. It’s bad organisation at the very best. Up the motorway…on a friday. In the afternoon! Then call in the Neptune around 8pm Eddie, RadioactiveWaste, jimtastic56 and 2 others 1 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maharan Posted January 28, 2022 Share Posted January 28, 2022 (edited) 10 minutes ago, RoyMac5 said: Can't blame HMRC, losing money to a couple of chancers wouldn't be great. Not when they’ve already like to have lost millions courtesy of Derby’s own chancer edit; better choice of words Edited January 28, 2022 by Maharan RadioactiveWaste 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RadioactiveWaste Posted January 28, 2022 Share Posted January 28, 2022 7 minutes ago, Eatonram said: I'm sure you know more about this than me, but not sure how we can know from this that the PB would not pay the minimum required? How do you know that cccd is planned? Is this not just intended to get clarity on the claims? I don't know, it my guess/fear that this is what the administrators think is the only way to get the club sold, it's doomsday-lite rather than doomsday. I could be wrong. If it's just to get rid of the claims then pay everyone else what's been (we think) more or less agreed then it's probably not as bad as I fear. But the EFL additional penalties are a major stumbling block to exiting in a none EFL approved way and the EFL want the claims recognised as football creditors or settled. jimtastic56 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bald Eagle's Barmy Army Posted January 28, 2022 Share Posted January 28, 2022 19 minutes ago, RoyMac5 said: #COYR These need Ebosele to turn up and give them all tickets with parents to the next home game on a Saturday. If somebody can sort this, I'll pay for 10 x 2 tickets Kathcairns, Premier ram, Ramslad1992 and 3 others 6 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BucksRam Posted January 28, 2022 Share Posted January 28, 2022 22 minutes ago, TuffLuff said: But it’s the commute they’ve done im more bothered about. In that traffic, up the M1, on a Friday. It’s bad organisation at the very best. Up the motorway…on a friday. In the afternoon! To be fair to them, knowing Wycombe as well as I do, the view of M1 traffic, and of course a largely empty Pride Park is far more pleasing on the eye than Wycombe town centre. TuffLuff, GenBr and RadioactiveWaste 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ollycutts1982 Posted January 28, 2022 Share Posted January 28, 2022 Nearly 500 pages. jimtastic56 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maharan Posted January 28, 2022 Share Posted January 28, 2022 1 minute ago, RadioactiveWaste said: I don't know, it my guess/fear that this is what the administrators think is the only way to get the club sold, it's doomsday-lite rather than doomsday. I could be wrong. If it's just to get rid of the claims then pay everyone else what's been (we think) more or less agreed then it's probably not as bad as I fear. But the EFL additional penalties are a major stumbling block to exiting in a none EFL approved way and the EFL want the claims recognised as football creditors or settled. I agree. And if people think the EFL won’t have the balls to apply a 15 point penalty if the minimum thresholds aren’t reached, then I would respectfully disagree. RadioactiveWaste 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eddie Posted January 28, 2022 Share Posted January 28, 2022 7 minutes ago, Unlucky Alf said: Then call in the Neptune around 8pm I'm sure they'd be made very welcome. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ram-Alf Posted January 28, 2022 Share Posted January 28, 2022 5 minutes ago, Eddie said: I'm sure they'd be made very welcome. Oh yes ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eatonram Posted January 28, 2022 Share Posted January 28, 2022 6 minutes ago, RadioactiveWaste said: I don't know, it my guess/fear that this is what the administrators think is the only way to get the club sold, it's doomsday-lite rather than doomsday. I could be wrong. If it's just to get rid of the claims then pay everyone else what's been (we think) more or less agreed then it's probably not as bad as I fear. But the EFL additional penalties are a major stumbling block to exiting in a none EFL approved way and the EFL want the claims recognised as football creditors or settled. But that sort of assumes they are creditors at all (never mind football creditors) They are making a "claim" for unproven (in fact unprovable) damages? If they are taken out of the equation I think any buyer would not want their new Club to face a realistic possibility of being in the 4th tier of the League just 12 months after they take over, which would be likely with further sanctions. So I would assume they want a route to a clean exit, only possible if the parasite claims are dismissed. r_wilcockson, RadioactiveWaste and Indy 1 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cool As Custard Posted January 28, 2022 Share Posted January 28, 2022 (edited) 12 minutes ago, Maharan said: I agree. And if people think the EFL won’t have the balls to apply a 15 point penalty if the minimum thresholds aren’t reached, then I would respectfully disagree. Then we'll have to respectfully disagree EFL rules around minimum thresholds for creditors are not aligned to the law of the land & out of date legally(fact) Therefore if they choose to enforce a 15 point penalty it wouldn't stand up in a court of law They wouldn't have the balls to enforce it Edited January 28, 2022 by Cool As Custard GenBr 1 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