The Administration Thread

[Ramslad1992]

43 minutes ago, RadioactiveWaste said:

Compromise solution:

Boro drop their claim against DCFC, however, to remove any lingering bad blood, outstanding matters are resolved with a.....

bare knuckle boxing match between Mel Morris and Steve Gibson.

Venue: Pride Park

Rules:

Figth club standard

Tickets:

£25 (£15 con) - All proceeds go to save DCFC funds.

Prize:

The satisfaction of the beaten man in front of you

Referee:

Stephen Pearce

 

Could even cut Mel out totally and auction off who gets to beat up pubebead! 

[Rev]

Just chatting poo now, but Gibson's beef seems to be with Morris, not Derby.

Here's a solution.

Morris walks away from Derby without a penny for the stadium, instead allowing that money to go to the creditors he's left high and dry, obviously excluding the baseless claims of the two opposing clubs.

Mel is also trustee/director of a sporting charity, which at last look had over £10m quid sat in its account, ready for sporting good causes, yet it hasn't been active for some time.

Offer up a donation of £100k to each and every member of the FL72's community trusts, in return for Boro and Wycombe dropping their claims, and publicise the offer.

Everyone's a winner.

 

[rammieib]

Have DCFC refused to go to arbitration at any point in the last few months on either claim?

I assume there is a formal claim process and Boro/WW have put a case in?

Assuming this has happened, why on earth haven’t the EFL organised the Arbitration panel unless we have refused to attend or go to it? (Or submit a name for it - cannot remember if we needed to do that on the previous claim against us)

[Van der MoodHoover]

19 minutes ago, Tyler Durden said:

This is what concerns me about the burden of proof in a civil case, more often than not a team whom spends more than a rival will then accrue a greater points total which would then uphold Boros case. 

But we didn't spend more than a rival (Boro) . We spent more than some arbitrary rule. 

 

[Van der MoodHoover]

26 minutes ago, Ghost of Clough said:

Birmingham case. DC stated something along the lines of overspending likely had a positive impact on points earned.

Bonkers. 

We could point to our overspending being anya, blackman and shackell who won us the square root of tap all in points...... 

[ram59]

It's a joke really that Gibson is blaming Derby for them not getting in the play offs. The very same 'cheating' Derby that got them automatic promotion in the 15/16 season when they finished level on points with Brighton, having taken 4 points off Derby, whilst Brighton only managed 2 points.

[Ghost of Clough]

10 minutes ago, Tyler Durden said:

This is what concerns me about the burden of proof in a civil case, more often than not a team whom spends more than a rival will then accrue a greater points total which would then uphold Boros case. 

Arbitration will be to decide if they'd be football creditors or not.

6th place. I have no doubt Derby wouldn't have placed 6th if we didn't exceed the limits under straight-line amortisation. It's debatable whether that would be Boro, Bristol or any other side - only 1 result over the entire season had to differ for Bristol to finish 6th.

Points deductions. Boro's claim in 2019 was because they felt we should have had a points deduction in 18/19. Having exceeded the limits in the 14/15-16/17 period, the points deduction would have ordinarily be applied to the 17/18 season. We also exceeded the limits in the 16/17-18/19 period which would have resulted in a deduction in 19/10, and the 17/18-20/21 period giving a deduction in the current season.

Year of overspend. The 18/19 season fell within 2 failed periods. But, why does one season matter when it falls inside a 3 or 4 year period? Would they still feel entitled to claim if the first 2 seasons saw £26m losses but a £2m profit in the third? The third being the season they missed out onnthe playoffs.

Right to claim. Do clubs have a right to claim against clubs who have been found guilty of P&S breaches? If the punishment under EFL regs aren't sufficient, then perhaps they need amending instead?

[duncanjwitham]

30 minutes ago, Ghost of Clough said:

Birmingham case. DC stated something along the lines of overspending likely had a positive impact on points earned.

I assume you’re referring to this bit:

”Under that approach financial fair play rules operate by reference to the failure to comply with financial restrictions, not by any analysis of the degree to which any overspending by clubs has had the effect of improving the performance of an offending club in competition. Excessive spending on players is clearly designed to achieve an enhancement of sporting performance, but whether in practice it does enable a particular club at a particular point in time to achieve better results than it would have achieved if it had complied with the rules is practically impossible to assess. Even more difficult to assess would be the other counter-factual, namely whether competitor clubs would have performed better if they too had been permitted to overspend to the same degree. The principle of fairness and equal treatment can only be applied in this context by measuring the degree of overspending, recognising that any substantial breach may directly affect the competitive position of the offending club, to the detriment of other clubs in the same competition.”

Which honestly, I reckon is in our favour. The argument is basically that overspending is designed to increase points totals, but there’s no way you can actually prove it has in practice.  So you just give them a penalty proportionate to the amount of overspend. And we have the comments from DC2 about us having no reason to think we weren’t allowed to use our amortisation policy in our favour too.  So basically we have no reason for us to think we were actually overspending at the time, and no ability to actually correlate any overspending to increased points totals.  Check and mate, I think.

[Ghost of Clough]

12 minutes ago, duncanjwitham said:

I assume you’re referring to this bit:

”Under that approach financial fair play rules operate by reference to the failure to comply with financial restrictions, not by any analysis of the degree to which any overspending by clubs has had the effect of improving the performance of an offending club in competition. Excessive spending on players is clearly designed to achieve an enhancement of sporting performance, but whether in practice it does enable a particular club at a particular point in time to achieve better results than it would have achieved if it had complied with the rules is practically impossible to assess. Even more difficult to assess would be the other counter-factual, namely whether competitor clubs would have performed better if they too had been permitted to overspend to the same degree. The principle of fairness and equal treatment can only be applied in this context by measuring the degree of overspending, recognising that any substantial breach may directly affect the competitive position of the offending club, to the detriment of other clubs in the same competition.”

Which honestly, I reckon is in our favour. The argument is basically that overspending is designed to increase points totals, but there’s no way you can actually prove it has in practice.  So you just give them a penalty proportionate to the amount of overspend. And we have the comments from DC2 about us having no reason to think we weren’t allowed to use our amortisation policy in our favour too.  So basically we have no reason for us to think we were actually overspending at the time, and no ability to actually correlate any overspending to increased points totals.  Check and mate, I think.

I was too lazy to check and it turns out that passage wasn't quite how I remembered it ? 

[duncanjwitham]

1 minute ago, Ghost of Clough said:

I was too lazy to check and it turns out that passage wasn't quite how I remembered it ? 

There are like half a dozen EFL v Birmingham hearings, so I can’t rule out there being any other passages buried away somewhere, but that one suits our position so I reckon we stick with it.

[kevinhectoring]

11 hours ago, Sparkle said:

I don’t think you can legally stop a club owner taking legal action against another club in all reality but the EFL can expel a club taking such action if it wanted to.

The EFl don’t want to expel Boro any more than they want us to go bust   

[kevinhectoring]

1 hour ago, Ghost of Clough said:

Arbitration will be to decide if they'd be football creditors or not.

Don’t see how this can be right. And if it is, what good does arbitration do for us ? we can see the admins can’t sell the club with these claims in it and that is the case whether or not they are football creditors. No we need the substantive claim adjudicated 

[uttoxram75]

14 minutes ago, kevinhectoring said:

The EFl don’t want to expel Boro any more than they want us to go bust   

The EFL would let us go under just to pacify Gibson. Keep the pressure up, we've got them on the run....

[kevinhectoring]

2 hours ago, duncanjwitham said:

It’s either going to take like 5 minutes to kick the claims out on procedural grounds (lack of jurisdiction, standing etc), or it’s going to drag on for days while they all argue about how on earth you figure out a sensible financial penalty.

I think the panel will simply say: “if you breach FFP, it’s for the EFL to punish you. It’s not a matter that can give rise to claims between clubs.” If they don’t say this, all roads lead to Armageddon 

[Carl Sagan]

It's hard to keep up with all the goings on, but as far as I can tell:

1. Administrators are going to court to have a ruling on the Boro and Wycombe claims, to show they cannot be football debt.
2. Administrators have had overwhelming legal advice that the claims are entirely without merit.
3. The claims are what are preventing us naming a preferred bidder and exiting administration.
4. The Administrators don't want to upset the EFL and Boro and Wycombe so are trying to reach a compromise agreement to be able to move forward.

If I'm right, points 1-3 I can understand. However, point 4 is morally wrong. Instead, surely the Administrators should counter sue Boro and Wycombe for bringing baseless claims to prevent us exiting administration. That's got to be worth millions. This is no time to pussyfoot around. Once it becomes apparent to the EFL that every club can start suing every other club for everything, they will have to step in and shut it down. In the meanwhile, if Gibson is threatened with a £50m lawsuit because of his vindictive claim, perhaps he will cease and desist? Nothing else seems to be making him, so I say fight fire with fire.

[PistoldPete]

18 hours ago, Leeds Ram said:

I am sure the administrators have tried mediation but to me that seems like the less risky route. If they can get Boro and Wycombe to a number that satisfies them and one of our preferred bidders is willing to pay. On the assessment of whether we'd win in court or not I don't think you nor I are qualified to make any claim on that, except that there is a chance we can lose. If Gibson is suing is for lost revenue then he can attempt to try and fit in claims of lost Premier league revenue, how their side is going to present that case none of us really know. I agree with you, according to my eye at least the claims are baseless and of a predatory nature but this still sounds like a potentially risky route to go down to me. 

As I said a few times my assessment of Boro prospects was based on the financials not the legals although neither seem favourable to them.

Just to confirm the financial position from BAWT minutes:

"Notwithstanding any offer that Boro or Wycombe may make to settle, it is very unlikely that there will be sufficient funds to settle either claim as it currently stands 2/2".

and the legals:

"The Administrators, as officers of the court, have statutory responsibilities which prevent them from simply setting aside monies to settle the claims, especially when they have received overwhelming professional advice that the claims have no merit"

So as I say the prospects of Boro getting £1m or more, whatever they think the merits are, or whatever the merits may be, is pretty much nil.  

[Ghost of Clough]

6 hours ago, kevinhectoring said:

Don’t see how this can be right. And if it is, what good does arbitration do for us ? we can see the admins can’t sell the club with these claims in it and that is the case whether or not they are football creditors. No we need the substantive claim adjudicated 

Rams Trust minutes specifically refer to needing the creditor status specified, rather than the size of the claim.

"The reason it is key to ascertain whether either claim ranks as a football creditor or not is because it impacts on where they rank as creditors within the payment waterfall from administration"

[DarkFruitsRam7]

12 hours ago, angieram said:

I notice that one of the fans groups have made banners criticising Quantuma for tomorrow.  Disappointing.

My main beef with Quantuma has been their lack of communication. I think these minutes summarise what that has been so difficult for them.

I prefer that one to the ones that have Club 84’s slogan.

“No Ordinary Ethics”. What a load of pretentious waffle.

Edited January 30, 2022 by DarkFruitsRam7

[Sparkle]

7 hours ago, kevinhectoring said:

The EFl don’t want to expel Boro any more than they want us to go bust   

I didn’t say they did, I was saying the EFL can make its own judgement within its so called rules 

[kevinhectoring]

1 hour ago, Ghost of Clough said:

Rams Trust minutes specifically refer to needing the creditor status specified, rather than the size of the claim.

"The reason it is key to ascertain whether either claim ranks as a football creditor or not is because it impacts on where they rank as creditors within the payment waterfall from administration"

Yes I saw this language in the minutes and it puzzles me a lot. Not least because I believe it’s inaccurate to refer to the statutory waterfall - the EFl status does not impact on the waterfall, instead it determines what penalties might subsequently arise under EFl rules if FCs take a haircut. I hope I’ve not misunderstood. The Wolves case from 2011 is interesting on this, because there the problem was avoided because FCs had a makewhole from third parties, ie not from the insolvent estate. A nifty ruse that finesses the tension between the EFL rules and the statutory waterfall. I don’t think that tension is a new thing. 

So obviously the creditor ‘status’ is very important but without knowing the outcome of the dispute the buyer has half a loaf. Not least because they have no idea about quantum, and because given the prominence these claims now have, any buyer is going to ask  “well what other claims of this sort are there ? “
 

I am really hoping it is a substantive hearing that is being fast tracked, one that addresses the claim itself not the FC issue.  If one is, I believe we win hands down and the FC issue turns into a ghost that haunts Gibbo relentlessly for the rest of his days 

Edited January 30, 2022 by kevinhectoring