The Administration Thread

[SillyBilly]

8 minutes ago, Jimbo Ram said:

I am not convinced the Gibbon is worried about the money…more concerned with continuing the chaos as long as possible is what he is after…

Precisely so draw him out publicly. 

Option A: State what we already know, absolutely and unequivocally: Our bidders are prepared to settle a % of the debts of club and take us out of admin but not prepared to entertain paying a penny to Boro and Wycombe. So they pursue their claim in court knowing if they win we have no preferred bidder and we are liquidated. They get no money.

Option B: They pursue their claim in court and they lose. They get no money.

Put it to Gibson that these are the options, in full view of the media. So we'll then know what his game is when the money is well and truly off the table.

Edited February 3, 2022 by SillyBilly

[SinceIWasntSoYoung]

9 minutes ago, IslandExile said:

We're not playing poker; this is more like Russian Roulette.

Given our financial debt, it feels more like Squid Game.

[alexxxxx]

The efl arent really helping us, because it isn't their mandate. All they care about is upholding their rules, regardless of who they impact (efl is run to the benefit of club owners not supporters/customers).

The only reason they have some sort of interest in Derby staying in the league is to protect the integrity of this season's competition. 

I personally think mediation is a waste of time to find a solution.. Particularly if the efl are to act as a mediator.

I think Derby are (rightfully) weary of arbitration. A big loss at arbitration in regard to amounts owed to boro, WWFC and the method of exiting administration could spell the end of the club. There's no prospect of appeal and 2/3 arbitors will likely be appointed by the efl and WWFC/Boro. It

I guess the first question is 'Can the EFL restrict Derby on the way they exit administration?' - seems to be precedent for this in the football creditor rule being found ok. Seems like this can go to the high court. 

The second question is on amounts owed (if any) to WWFC/Boro. Now I thought that this has to go through arbitration.... 

[PistoldPete]

28 minutes ago, StaffsRam said:

And throwing out a club for complying with the law would be the last thing the EFL ever did.

Actually throwing them out becaus the admin team are trying to fulfil their statutory duty to protect the genuine creditors. 

Edited February 3, 2022 by PistoldPete

[duncanjwitham]

2 minutes ago, CBRammette said:

Yes agree also - why would MSD attend? Do they expect them to give up some of their secured debt ????

If I was HMRC, I’d be very tempted to attend, and bring a couple of senior auditors, a bailiff or 2 and maybe one of their enhanced interrogation experts (HMRC have those, right?). Make sure everyone is fully aware of what HMRC losing their share might mean.

[PistoldPete]

1 minute ago, alexxxxx said:

The efl arent really helping us, because it isn't their mandate. All they care about is upholding their rules, regardless of who they impact (efl is run to the benefit of club owners not supporters/customers).

The only reason they have some sort of interest in Derby staying in the league is to protect the integrity of this season's competition. 

I personally think mediation is a waste of time to find a solution.. Particularly if the efl are to act as a mediator.

I think Derby are (rightfully) weary of arbitration. A big loss at arbitration in regard to amounts owed to boro, WWFC and the method of exiting administration could spell the end of the club. There's no prospect of appeal and 2/3 arbitors will likely be appointed by the efl and WWFC/Boro. It

I guess the first question is 'Can the EFL restrict Derby on the way they exit administration?' - seems to be precedent for this in the football creditor rule being found ok. Seems like this can go to the high court. 

The second question is on amounts owed (if any) to WWFC/Boro. Now I thought that this has to go through arbitration.... 

Admin team are wary of anything that continues with legal claims that have no legal right to continue. In fact the admin team have statutory duty to protect the actual creditors, which they are doing.

Football creditor rule may or may not be ok.. but Boro and Wycombe claims are not football creditors.

[WestKentRam]

1 hour ago, Maharan said:

one point I found interesting is that the statement says that the process commenced in January 2021, before the club went into administration. I think that’s a pertinent point. 

Boro's statement of 18/1/22 says 'MFC first intimated a claim against Derby County in May 2019 immediately following the end of the 2018/19 season. The claim was held in abeyance whilst the EFL Disciplinary Proceedings against Derby County were followed through to a conclusion. MFC then sent Derby County a Letter Before Action in the autumn of 2020 and started arbitration proceedings against Derby County in January 2021.'

As I've pointed out before, Boro initially announced their claim three days before our play-off final against Villa in May 19, no doubt to try and cause maximal disruption to us in that game.

The EFL now putting out a statement saying that Boro's claim against us 'commenced initially in January 2021' doesn't quite give the whole story when compared to Boro's.

I must admit to not quite understanding the complicated timeline of the whole process of MM's tenure and the EFL cases against us, appeals etc and would very much like to see this set out. My grasp of it is that, intertwined with what the EFL seem to set out as a matter of fact date when Boro started their claim against us in January 21, is Boro wanted to make a claim against the EFL, were told not to but to do so against Derby directly, but to hold off while disciplinary proceedings were held against us. We won the case the EFL brought concerning sale of the stadium. and all but wording to be made clearer on amortisation, then lost on appeal by the EFL that had no accountant on the panel that we then could not appeal against.

So essentially most of the delay in the case, from May 19 until now, has been due to EFL processes and not MM or Quantuma dragging their feet over it.

[RandomAccessMemory]

This situation is just completely maddening, it’s the first thing I think about, it’s the last thing I think about, and it’s there the whole time in between for good measure. I’m sure I’m only one of many people feeling this way.

I saw this tweet and thought it was interesting and a good idea.

I’ve looked myself on street view, there’s actually 2 billboards (if they’re still there) and they both face EFL House one says ‘ClearChannel’ one says ‘primesight’.

I think tomorrow one thing we could do is look to find out how much it would cost to advertise on them both and crowdfund it? Make it crystal clear we’re not going away quietly and they can’t ignore us as it’s right in front of them.

[europia]

On 01/02/2022 at 22:51, atherstoneram said:

I am not on about something which may happen in the future.

Until it is proven that DCFC owe Boro and Wycombe money, they are NOT creditors. The decision has not yet been reached, so if the case is ever presided over in a tribunal or civil court, it is a future event. 

[PistoldPete]

17 minutes ago, David said:

Before I sign off the night and listen to the missus woes from work, just going to say this, don’t be angry at the EFL’s statement tonight, it’s a positive one for us and it clearly states their position which allows us to move forward with a high court judgment.

Whilst we might disagree on the side they fell into, it wasn’t totally unexpected and we’ve been desperate for them to come down off the fence for a while now, this is better than to continue stalling. 

Quantuma have what they need now, the EFL’s position and proof of funds to see us through the next couple of months, time for court. 

EFl have just tied their own noose round their neck. 

 

[europia]

On 01/02/2022 at 22:35, atherstoneram said:

Surely if they win the arbitration claim and we owe Boro money that makes them football creditors

I highlighted the key word. 

[PistoldPete]

4 minutes ago, WestKentRam said:

Boro's statement of 18/1/22 says 'MFC first intimated a claim against Derby County in May 2019 immediately following the end of the 2018/19 season. The claim was held in abeyance whilst the EFL Disciplinary Proceedings against Derby County were followed through to a conclusion. MFC then sent Derby County a Letter Before Action in the autumn of 2020 and started arbitration proceedings against Derby County in January 2021.'

As I've pointed out before, Boro initially announced their claim three days before our play-off final against Villa in May 19, no doubt to try and cause maximal disruption to us in that game.

The EFL now putting out a statement saying that Boro's claim against us 'commenced initially in January 2021' doesn't quite give the whole story when compared to Boro's.

I must admit to not quite understanding the complicated timeline of the whole process of MM's tenure and the EFL cases against us, appeals etc and would very much like to see this set out. My grasp of it is that, intertwined with what the EFL seem to set out as a matter of fact date when Boro started their claim against us in January 21, is Boro wanted to make a claim against the EFL, were told not to but to do so against Derby directly, but to hold off while disciplinary proceedings were held against us. We won the case the EFL brought concerning sale of the stadium. and all but wording to be made clearer on amortisation, then lost on appeal by the EFL that had no accountant on the panel that we then could not appeal against.

So essentially most of the delay in the case, from May 19 until now, has been due to EFL processes and not MM or Quantuma dragging their feet over it.

Boros claim against the EFL was "stayed".. meaning put on hold. What happened after that? any progress with that then stevie boy? did you manage to sue the EFL as well? They have more money than DCFC I would think. 

[Ghost of Clough]

2 hours ago, uttoxram75 said:

They know we haven't got the time to challenge them in the High Court. Anyway, isn't it up to Parrysite/Gibson to take us to court?

Legally, the administrators can reject the claims and it would then be down to those two clubs to appeal in court.

The EFL say they'll kick us out the League if we do reject them.q

[bimmerman]

11 minutes ago, RandomAccessMemory said:

This situation is just completely maddening, it’s the first thing I think about, it’s the last thing I think about, and it’s there the whole time in between for good measure. I’m sure I’m only one of many people feeling this way.

I saw this tweet and thought it was interesting and a good idea.

I’ve looked myself on street view, there’s actually 2 billboards (if they’re still there) and they both face EFL House one says ‘ClearChannel’ one says ‘primesight’.

I think tomorrow one thing we could do is look to find out how much it would cost to advertise on them both and crowdfund it? Make it crystal clear we’re not going away quietly and they can’t ignore us as it’s right in front of them.

Had to look into this with work...around 10k we were quoted for 2x billboards,including printing and placing. Granted timeframe would be longer then required

[PistoldPete]

18 minutes ago, WestKentRam said:

Boro's statement of 18/1/22 says 'MFC first intimated a claim against Derby County in May 2019 immediately following the end of the 2018/19 season. The claim was held in abeyance whilst the EFL Disciplinary Proceedings against Derby County were followed through to a conclusion. MFC then sent Derby County a Letter Before Action in the autumn of 2020 and started arbitration proceedings against Derby County in January 2021.'

As I've pointed out before, Boro initially announced their claim three days before our play-off final against Villa in May 19, no doubt to try and cause maximal disruption to us in that game.

The EFL now putting out a statement saying that Boro's claim against us 'commenced initially in January 2021' doesn't quite give the whole story when compared to Boro's.

I must admit to not quite understanding the complicated timeline of the whole process of MM's tenure and the EFL cases against us, appeals etc and would very much like to see this set out. My grasp of it is that, intertwined with what the EFL seem to set out as a matter of fact date when Boro started their claim against us in January 21, is Boro wanted to make a claim against the EFL, were told not to but to do so against Derby directly, but to hold off while disciplinary proceedings were held against us. We won the case the EFL brought concerning sale of the stadium. and all but wording to be made clearer on amortisation, then lost on appeal by the EFL that had no accountant on the panel that we then could not appeal against.

So essentially most of the delay in the case, from May 19 until now, has been due to EFL processes and not MM or Quantuma dragging their feet over it.

Funny how their statement doesn't mention Boro trying to sue EFL first. then coming to a cosy deal with EFL to sue Derby instead.

[SaffyRam]

16 minutes ago, RandomAccessMemory said:

This situation is just completely maddening, it’s the first thing I think about, it’s the last thing I think about, and it’s there the whole time in between for good measure. I’m sure I’m only one of many people feeling this way.

I saw this tweet and thought it was interesting and a good idea.

I’ve looked myself on street view, there’s actually 2 billboards (if they’re still there) and they both face EFL House one says ‘ClearChannel’ one says ‘primesight’.

I think tomorrow one thing we could do is look to find out how much it would cost to advertise on them both and crowdfund it? Make it crystal clear we’re not going away quietly and they can’t ignore us as it’s right in front of them.

I’ll definitely chip in for this. Blackpool fans did the same thing previously 

https://www.blackpoolgazette.co.uk/sport/football/english-fans-let-down-blackpool-fans-install-billboard-outside-efl-hq-1035135?amp
 

[PistoldPete]

8 minutes ago, Ghost of Clough said:

Legally, the administrators can reject the claims and it would then be down to those two clubs to appeal in court.

The EFL say they'll kick us out the League if we do reject them.q

They can't do that. Its tantamount to blackmail.

[Bris Vegas]

48 minutes ago, Unlucky Alf said:

And how many of those fans are delighted that their owners are trying to screw the coffin lid down?

Probably the same number as Derby fans who claimed Mel had the EFL on strings.

There will be some imbeciles.

But most will be just like us.

[R@M]

2 hours ago, TomTom92 said:

Time to start storming the pitch every match. Ruin the season if the EFL don’t sort things out. We’ve not got much left to lose.

Yes…but not our club. They will fine us. We need a coordinated across the country demonstration with many pitch invasions. Same time. Let sky sports ignore that! 

[whiteroseram]

Just got home from work, looks like I've missed things! Could anyone breifly sum up where we're at?