TooFarInToTurnRed Posted January 30, 2022 Share Posted January 30, 2022 What all football fans need to ask is do you want all leagues to become bi-annual. We have a year of football then a year of litigation to adjust the placings based on who did what. This is what is coming if claims such as there are allowed. Feel the EFL might rue their interchangeable fixture list idea this summer as there could be lots of teams involved. Rammiesdad, i-Ram, archram and 4 others 4 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of Clough Posted January 30, 2022 Share Posted January 30, 2022 7 minutes ago, kevinhectoring said: 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 that a substantive hearing is being fast tracked. If one is, I believe we win hands down and the FC issue turns into an ghost that haunts Gibbo relentlessly for the rest of his days I'll be surprised if there haven't been private discussions with the two parasite clubs to get an idea of the true figures theyre claiming for. Identifying the status then gives the bidders an idea of the risk and the maximum cost to buy the club. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RoyMac5 Posted January 30, 2022 Share Posted January 30, 2022 10 hours 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 didn't Boro spend more than us, or have I got confused? SaffyRam, Indy and Tamworthram 1 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevinhectoring Posted January 30, 2022 Share Posted January 30, 2022 6 minutes ago, Ghost of Clough said: I'll be surprised if there haven't been private discussions with the two parasite clubs to get an idea of the true figures theyre claiming for. Identifying the status then gives the bidders an idea of the risk and the maximum cost to buy the club. I’m sure you’re right that there have been discussions on this. But this doesn’t offer a solution unless (possibly) the claims are paid off by third parties eg MM or the City. Because: - the admins have no money to pay off the claims and anyway their legal advice on the merits precludes them from paying them off except in peanuts - HMRC is (possibly) saying “we’ve done a deal with you but that deal is contingent on no other creditors doing better than we do (so Gibbo needs cramming down) - all the signals are that it’s unlikely a buyer will pay enough to avoid liquidation if the claims remain. And are there other clubs that could claim in future ? Gritstone Tup and Crewton 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
i-Ram Posted January 30, 2022 Share Posted January 30, 2022 26 minutes ago, kevinhectoring said: 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 ? “ kevinhectoring 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crewton Posted January 30, 2022 Share Posted January 30, 2022 1 hour ago, DarkFruitsRam7 said: I prefer that one to the ones that have Club 84’s slogan. “No Ordinary Ethics”. What a load of pretentious waffle. Yeah, I thought that was up there with "Our Forest Kingdom" as crappy slogans go. DarkFruitsRam7 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Day Posted January 30, 2022 Share Posted January 30, 2022 2 hours 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" Surprised nobody has mentioned this before....they probably would have been shot down and accused of antagonising the EFL with an inappropriate topic title or something though I guess. i-Ram, PistoldPete, kevinhectoring and 1 other 1 1 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gritstone Tup Posted January 30, 2022 Share Posted January 30, 2022 31 minutes ago, TooFarInToTurnRed said: What all football fans need to ask is do you want all leagues to become bi-annual. We have a year of football then a year of litigation to adjust the placings based on who did what. This is what is coming if claims such as there are allowed. Feel the EFL might rue their interchangeable fixture list idea this summer as there could be lots of teams involved. What all football fans need to ask is that their chairman dosent act like an arrogant fool and think he can break every rule in the book and piss off all the other chairman who can then change the rules to hang him and destroy their club!!!!!! Maharan 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Comrade 86 Posted January 30, 2022 Share Posted January 30, 2022 Not often I agree with much Jordan has to say these days, but... Ghost of Clough and Tyler Durden 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elwood P Dowd Posted January 30, 2022 Share Posted January 30, 2022 5 minutes ago, David said: Surprised nobody has mentioned this before....they probably would have been shot down and accused of antagonising the EFL with an inappropriate topic title or something though I guess. Isnt that the reason why the EFL has the Football Creditor status a Football Creditor is first on the list for payment and payment is, payment in full. My veiw is Boro and WW cannot be a creditor as they have not extended credit to Derby, their claim might be a liabilty within the accounts Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tyler Durden Posted January 30, 2022 Share Posted January 30, 2022 48 minutes ago, kevinhectoring said: 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 Sounds like we need Brian Cox on the case to sort things out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Day Posted January 30, 2022 Share Posted January 30, 2022 2 minutes ago, Elwood P Dowd said: Isnt that the reason why the EFL has the Football Creditor status a Football Creditor is first on the list for payment and payment is, payment in full. My veiw is Boro and WW cannot be a creditor as they have not extended credit to Derby, their claim might be a liabilty within the accounts You are correct. Although some are led to believe that... Football Club = Football Creditor. Which just isn't true. I heard Article 48 or something clears this up and shows they are not football creditors. DCFC1388 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jimbo Ram Posted January 30, 2022 Share Posted January 30, 2022 5 minutes ago, David said: You are correct. Although some are led to believe that... Football Club = Football Creditor. Which just isn't true. I heard Article 48 or something clears this up and shows they are not football creditors. Who is going to represent us at the Tribunal? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Curtains Posted January 30, 2022 Share Posted January 30, 2022 2 minutes ago, David said: You are correct. Although some are led to believe that... Football Club = Football Creditor. Which just isn't true. I heard Article 48 or something clears this up and shows they are not football creditors. The problem is and has been all along that the EFL won’t determine on Boro/Wycombe because they say they have to look after all their clubs not just Derby County . They may think the Boro case has no validity but they are afraid to determine on it as they allegedly didn’t enforce their own rules on Derby and therefore could leave themselves open to lawsuits Foxy Ram 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 30, 2022 Share Posted January 30, 2022 22 minutes ago, David said: Surprised nobody has mentioned this before....they probably would have been shot down and accused of antagonising the EFL with an inappropriate topic title or something though I guess. I suspect that this is why Q is said to be planning to go to the High Court if needs be following arbitration. If the claims fail at arbitration there won't be a need. But if a claim is held against DCFC, they will want a court to rule on where the claim should stand on the creditors list because the EFL will undoubtedly 'rule' that it is a football debt and must be paid in full. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DerbyRam! Posted January 30, 2022 Share Posted January 30, 2022 (edited) In case we do manage to pull off the impossible and survive all this. Can we please add Boro to our official list of rivals? Checking their forum, complete bunch of ***** and *********, hopefully what goes around, comes around. Wonder if they will fail FFP anytime soon? Edited January 30, 2022 by DerbyRam! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rammiesdad Posted January 30, 2022 Share Posted January 30, 2022 1 hour ago, TooFarInToTurnRed said: What all football fans need to ask is do you want all leagues to become bi-annual. We have a year of football then a year of litigation to adjust the placings based on who did what. This is what is coming if claims such as there are allowed. Feel the EFL might rue their interchangeable fixture list idea this summer as there could be lots of teams involved. And god help any minnows daring to win an fa cup tie against one of the big teams !they will be sued for bumpy pitches! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
duncanjwitham Posted January 30, 2022 Share Posted January 30, 2022 1 hour ago, RoyMac5 said: But didn't Boro spend more than us, or have I got confused? IIRC, we spent slightly more in the specific season they’re moaning about, but they spent significantly more in the 3-year FFP window. So you can argue it either way. RoyMac5 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PistoldPete Posted January 30, 2022 Share Posted January 30, 2022 1 hour ago, kevinhectoring said: 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 I have said this before Kevin. Once the Boro and Wycombe claims take a haircut then the Lap can only award them the amount they have lost less any statutory reductions already applied. so Efl rules apply to the debts when they fall due… but by the time they fall due they will have already been reduced. So the due payments are net of the haircut. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Donnyram Posted January 30, 2022 Share Posted January 30, 2022 58 minutes ago, David said: Surprised nobody has mentioned this before....they probably would have been shot down and accused of antagonising the EFL with an inappropriate topic title or something though I guess. I think that is right………. Minutes came across as highly “politically correct” and very carefully written 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