The Administration Thread

[Day]

3 minutes ago, kevinhectoring said:

Hang on you were the guy who didn’t even realise the minutes were written by Q. Which they obviously were. What makes you think it’s a good idea not to stay in that hedge ?

If you had read the post, RamsTrust usually write the minutes, on this one occasion they had not. 

That does not support anything you have written tonight and the reason I have come out the bush, as it's simply not true, nor would it make any sense.

[Dava75]

21 minutes ago, kevinhectoring said:

But (from memory) the EFL articles state that creditors who are clubs are football creditors. End of, that’s the way it’s written. So it doesn’t matter what the claim is for 

Honest to God, Q has tried to persuade 3 QCs that the claimants are not football creditors and has failed 

I think you’re incorrect.
 

I think both the W and M claims are just “claims”  until they are proven or a negotiated settlement is reached (without requiring the case to be proven) - at which point it becomes a liability - and in turn the clubs making such claim and establishing the liability - become a football creditor. 

Edited January 29, 2022 by Dava75

[Scott129]

35 minutes ago, 86 Hair Islands said:

Well check you out! ?

Rather handy having an inhouse expert, we all know who to grill now!

So... As someone who works for a mediation provider, can you confirm the difference please? My rudimental understanding is that arbitration actually delivers a binding agreement, whereas mediation merely seeks to do so.

Also, has it been confirmed it will be arbitration as yet? I thought oftentimes mediation preceded arbitration with the latter being implemented only if mediation failed to secure an mutual agreement. The reason I ask is that the difference in respective timeframes might be critical given our current precarious state. If it has already been confirmed that we will move straight to arbitration then I for one would welcome that. 

So arbitration involves an impartial third party that seeks to gather all of the evidence and then make a legally-binding decision on who's right or wrong, as well as what the course of action should be. It's usually used for contractual disputes.

Mediation involves an impartial third party bringing the two (or more) parties together and facilitating a productive conversation between them. Crucially, they're not there to make suggestions on how it can be resolved and they're not there to decide who's right or wrong. It's actually quite unique in that it's up to the parties to agree in good faith on how the dispute should be resolved. It's usually used for workplace disputes or neighbour disputes, but it does sometimes appear in the news for cases like Charlie Garde.

The only exception is divorce mediation, where because it often deals with finances, properties, etc, things can be made legally binding. Obviously, you can't do this when it comes to people's interpersonal relationships.

A very small part of me throughout this whole thing kept thinking, 'I wonder if we'll get a call from Quantuma at some point'. But, as much as our mediators are very good, and I'd love to see them get Gibson, Couhig, and Q in a room together, it would just be completely inappropriate for this type of dispute. It just would never work.

[Van der MoodHoover]

2 minutes ago, Gritstone Tup said:

All this talk of going to court next week to resolve the Boro WW claims. That’s the last thing I want to see. The MP pushing for this is fffing brainless, if the court rule for Boro we’re done for.

True but this was always the risk and how else can we move on? 

[Scott129]

4 minutes ago, 86 Hair Islands said:

Do we know it'll be definitely be arbitration as yet? I can't find anything from non-media sources to confirm this. Nixon alludes to mediation AND arbitration in separate tweets / articles which ain't terribly helpful!

But if, as @Scott129 suggests, it's definitely arbitration, then this is potentially really good news, no? A guaranteed resolution, one way or t'other...

It's either really good news or really bad news. Whatever the outcome is has to happen, whether it benefits us or not.

If it were mediation, you could in theory agree on loads of stuff, walk out the room, and not actually follow through with any of it.

[kevinhectoring]

1 minute ago, David said:

 

What you want us all to believe @kevinhectoring is that Quantuma failed to persuade 3 QC's that Boro and Wycombe are not football creditors, so with that they have decided that they will get a ruling on this through arbitration, presumedly represented by the QC's that were failed to be persuaded by Quantuma.

 

READ THE BLOOD¥ MINUTES !!!

THE QCs REFUSED TO SAY THEY ARE NOT FOOTBALL CREDITORS. BUT WHAT THEY DID SAY IS WHAT WE ALL KNOW : THE CLAIMS WILL FAIL 

SO YES OF COURSE Q WILL BE WILLING TO TAKE THEM ON. BECAUSE THEY HAVE BEEN ADVISED THE CLAIMS WILL FAIL. IT’S NEITHER HERE NOT THERE THAT THEY ARE FOOTBALL CREDITORS   

SUGGEST YOU SEND THE HEDGE THING ROUND AGAIN 

 

[Day]

Just now, kevinhectoring said:

READ THE BLOOD¥ MINUTES !!!

THE QCs REFUSED TO SAY THEY ARE NOT FOOTBALL CREDITORS. BUT WHAT THEY DID SAY IS WHAT WE ALL KNOW : THE CLAIMS WILL FAIL 

SO YES OF COURSE Q WILL BE WILLING TO TAKE THEM ON. BECAUSE THEY HAVE BEEN ADVISED THE CLAIMS WILL FAIL. IT’S NEITHER HERE NOT THERE THAT THEY ARE FOOTBALL CREDITORS   

SUGGEST YOU SEND THE HEDGE THING ROUND AGAIN 

 

I have read the minutes, at no point did it say the QC's refused to say they are not football creditors. Caps lock posts do not change this, it's simply not there no matter how many times you repeat this.

You also do realise that this arbitration is to settle the argument, are they football creditors or not, don't you?

The EFL are under pressure from the two clubs to make them full creditors and also from HMRC to sort it out as they have accepted a massive hit on their demands.

https://www.thesun.co.uk/sport/17471890/Derby-rushing-legal-compensation-sell-club/

To say the football creditor status is neither here or there is completely missing the whole point of the arbitration. It's literally the main point thats being contested.

 

[RamuelLJackson]

9 minutes ago, kevinhectoring said:

READ THE BLOOD¥ MINUTES !!!

THE QCs REFUSED TO SAY THEY ARE NOT FOOTBALL CREDITORS. BUT WHAT THEY DID SAY IS WHAT WE ALL KNOW : THE CLAIMS WILL FAIL 

SO YES OF COURSE Q WILL BE WILLING TO TAKE THEM ON. BECAUSE THEY HAVE BEEN ADVISED THE CLAIMS WILL FAIL. IT’S NEITHER HERE NOT THERE THAT THEY ARE FOOTBALL CREDITORS   

SUGGEST YOU SEND THE HEDGE THING ROUND AGAIN 

 

Mate. Is everything ok at home?

[Comrade 86]

6 minutes ago, Scott129 said:

So arbitration involves an impartial third party that seeks to gather all of the evidence and then make a legally-binding decision on who's right or wrong, as well as what the course of action should be. It's usually used for contractual disputes.

Mediation involves an impartial third party bringing the two (or more) parties together and facilitating a productive conversation between them. Crucially, they're not there to make suggestions on how it can be resolved and they're not there to decide who's right or wrong. It's actually quite unique in that it's up to the parties to agree in good faith on how the dispute should be resolved. It's usually used for workplace disputes or neighbour disputes, but it does sometimes appear in the news for cases like Charlie Garde.

The only exception is divorce mediation, where because it often deals with finances, properties, etc, things can be made legally binding. Obviously, you can't do this when it comes to people's interpersonal relationships.

A very small part of me throughout this whole thing kept thinking, 'I wonder if we'll get a call from Quantuma at some point'. But, as much as our mediators are very good, and I'd love to see them get Gibson, Couhig, and Q in a room together, it would just be completely inappropriate for this type of dispute. It just would never work.

Cheers Scott. Much obliged. The highlighted bit above is basically the exact scenario I first alluded to as being a possible spanner in the works. Clearly arbitration is a more viable route given the nature of the 'combatants' ?

6 minutes ago, Scott129 said:

It's either really good news or really bad news. Whatever the outcome is has to happen, whether it benefits us or not.

If it were mediation, you could in theory agree on loads of stuff, walk out the room, and not actually follow through with any of it.

LOL, fair point. I'm still of the opinion that it's unlikely any party would find merit in MFC/WWFC's claims, indeed I believe (again based on a rudimentary grasp of the subject matter) that they are more likely to be viewed as borderline vexatious, but I do understand that 'finality' is a double-edged knife, clearly!

Frankly, a quicker resolution is to my mind preferable, whatever the outcome. Folk have endured more than enough in my book and some closure (hopefully of a positive kind) is well overdue. I'm going to remain positive about this until I've reason not to.

[kevinhectoring]

14 minutes ago, David said:

If you had read the post, RamsTrust usually write the minutes, on this one occasion they had not. 

That does not support anything you have written tonight and the reason I have come out the bush, as it's simply not true, nor would it make any sense.

No one cares who ‘usually’ writes the minutes !  We wanted to know who wrote THOSE minutes. And you ridiculed me, I-ram style, for saying it was obviously Q and when that was confirmed (duh) you got into the hedge (only in your dreams is it a bush by the way). 

[Animal is a Ram]

5 minutes ago, kevinhectoring said:

READ THE BLOOD¥ MINUTES !!!

THE QCs REFUSED TO SAY THEY ARE NOT FOOTBALL CREDITORS. BUT WHAT THEY DID SAY IS WHAT WE ALL KNOW : THE CLAIMS WILL FAIL 

SO YES OF COURSE Q WILL BE WILLING TO TAKE THEM ON. BECAUSE THEY HAVE BEEN ADVISED THE CLAIMS WILL FAIL. IT’S NEITHER HERE NOT THERE THAT THEY ARE FOOTBALL CREDITORS   

SUGGEST YOU SEND THE HEDGE THING ROUND AGAIN 

 

It’s not here or there though. 
Irrespective of the claims likeliness of succeeding, the EFLs reluctance to rule either way is having an impact. 

And yes, I have read the minutes. Given my record over the last few weeks, I may have been one of the first to post them ?

[Ghost of Clough]

16 minutes ago, kevinhectoring said:

READ THE BLOOD¥ MINUTES !!!

THE QCs REFUSED TO SAY THEY ARE NOT FOOTBALL CREDITORS. BUT WHAT THEY DID SAY IS WHAT WE ALL KNOW : THE CLAIMS WILL FAIL 

SO YES OF COURSE Q WILL BE WILLING TO TAKE THEM ON. BECAUSE THEY HAVE BEEN ADVISED THE CLAIMS WILL FAIL. IT’S NEITHER HERE NOT THERE THAT THEY ARE FOOTBALL CREDITORS   

SUGGEST YOU SEND THE HEDGE THING ROUND AGAIN 

 

[Day]

1 minute ago, kevinhectoring said:

No one cares who ‘usually’ writes the minutes !  We wanted to know who wrote THOSE minutes. And you ridiculed me, I-ram style, for saying it was obviously Q and when that was confirmed (duh) you got into the hedge (only in your dreams is it a bush by the way). 

It would seem you care, as you're bringing it up again now.

Having been on the Supporters Charter Group myself, I'm fully aware of the process of official minutes as oppose to minutes written by each individual supporters group. As you was told, on the rare occasion Quantuma wrote the minutes. 

So yes, I was wrong on that particular point, however it does not change the fact what you are trying to claim is not there. If you are so sure of this, write to Quantuma and have this verified. 

[Animal is a Ram]

1 minute ago, Ghost of Clough said:

Words cannot express how much I love this gif. Bring back Shooting Stars.

[Ramslad1992]

25 minutes ago, David said:

What you want us all to believe @kevinhectoring is that Quantuma failed to persuade 3 QC's that Boro and Wycombe are not football creditors, so with that they have decided that they will get a ruling on this through arbitration, presumedly represented by the QC's that were failed to be persuaded by Quantuma.

In what world would that make any sense at all?

It doesn't.

Quantuma's best move if told that would be to settle with Boro and Wycombe, rather than allow them to win football creditor status legally, would it not?

What would make sense is that Quantuma have been told that Boro and Wycombe have no case at all, do not payout, see if you can get the EFL to jump down off the fence, if not secure the funding and just go get this squashed legally, then there is nothing the EFL, Boro or Wycombe can do.

100% this ?? If they have a legitimate claim to compensation I’ll eat my hat. Absolute vultures the pair of them, football is absolutely broken from top to bottom. A complete overhaul is needed.

[kevinhectoring]

7 minutes ago, David said:

You also do realise that this arbitration is to settle the argument, are they football creditors or not, don't you?

I must confess I had not read that. Can you share a link? It’s very bad news if it’s true and my strong suspicion is that it is wrong. 
 

The reason I think it’s untrue is this: we need the substance of the claims ruled on. It’s not enough to be told the claims are not football claims. Because purchasers need to know that our FFP peccadillos will not result in further claims from other clubs along the same lines. And because the admins need to deal with all claims (whether or not they are football claims) in order to exit administration  

[kevinhectoring]

4 minutes ago, David said:

It would seem you care, as you're bringing it up again now.

Having been on the Supporters Charter Group myself, I'm fully aware of the process of official minutes as oppose to minutes written by each individual supporters group. As you was told, on the rare occasion Quantuma wrote the minutes. 

So yes, I was wrong on that particular point, however it does not change the fact what you are trying to claim is not there. If you are so sure of this, write to Quantuma and have this verified. 

Ok I’m off to bed 

[Day]

5 minutes ago, Animal is a Ram said:

It’s not here or there though. 
Irrespective of the claims likeliness of succeeding, the EFLs reluctance to rule either way is having an impact. 

And yes, I have read the minutes. Given my record over the last few weeks, I may have been one of the first to post them ?

From the author of the article that broke the story we are taking it to arbitration.

I know you are aware, just posting for those who are not. 

[i-Ram]

12 minutes ago, kevinhectoring said:

No one cares who ‘usually’ writes the minutes !  We wanted to know who wrote THOSE minutes. And you ridiculed me, I-ram style, for saying it was obviously Q and when that was confirmed (duh) you got into the hedge (only in your dreams is it a bush by the way). 

[Day]

10 minutes ago, kevinhectoring said:

I must confess I had not read that. Can you share a link? It’s very bad news if it’s true and my strong suspicion is that it is wrong. 
 

The reason I think it’s untrue is this: we need the substance of the claims ruled on. It’s not enough to be told the claims are not football claims. Because purchasers need to know that our FFP peccadillos will not result in further claims from other clubs along the same lines. And because the admins need to deal with all claims (whether or not they are football claims) in order to exit administration  

The link is in the daily updates topic.

If arbitration rules that Boro and Wycombe are not football creditors, on what grounds would other clubs try to take us on in the future?

Precedent would be set and you can bet that the EFL will have a new rule passed that prevents any kind of claims between clubs in future to avoid this mess.

If arbitration rules in our favour, they would find themselves at the bottom of the pile, squashed alongside myself that will get 25p in the pound, do you think Boro and Wycombe would continue to pursue their claims or just drop it?

I know what the sensible move would be.