The Administration Thread

[Alan Ramage 4 EVA]

1 hour ago, PistoldPete said:

I think the game on the 12 February should be postponed. EFL has  now lit the blue touchpaper  and the atmosphere next week will be incendiary I fear.

Yes  I think everyone should be switched on ,on the way to and from the ground be aware .

Im still going .

I went through the 70s and 80s following the RAMS ! LOL!

[StaffsRam]

2 minutes ago, RoyMac5 said:

But this is where I think they haven't come off the fence.

They have said the debts would be football debts. They have not said their claims are debts.

Agree. They’ve said they would be football debts if they ARE debts. Let’s take it to court to see if debts can be proven.

[Tamworthram]

10 hours ago, Brailsford Ram said:

Your point is very good and I can see where you are coming from. If you look, I was answering quite a few points in a short period of time and doing it quickly off the top of my head. I was conscious that my responses should be understandable but short and simple. If it is Boro who have to establish the claim and I think you are right on that, then they would have great difficulty in proving it beyond reasonable doubt. So I agree with you.

However we are still left with balance of probabilities and I still think that we will win quite easily with that threshold because there are so many conundrums that can be raised around those issues. We could talk all night of arguments that might be raised around the fantasy football argument and how on earth do you arrive at judgements based on fantasy?

I'll quickly just throw one conundrum in because it's getting late. Gibson seems very irked that Mel Morris gazumped him to sign Waghorn and that seems to suggest he will argue that if Boro had signed him they would have finished above Derby. How do you come to decide on that? Who knows how Waghorn would have done at Boro and would he he have performed as a negative or positive benefit for them? Equally if we had not signed Waghorn, who would we have signed? The answer is "we'll never know (WNK)." Then ask how would WNK have performed for Derby. Because WNK who he was then WNK how well he would have done. We could go on and on with puzzles like that. So how is a court going to decide on them? And could we really expect a court to be able to find on the conundrums? I hope not.

I think we'll be okay in defending the claims because they are simply based on fantasy. A court has to decide on facts.

In terms of a civil case, I reckon the court needs to determine the facts or balance of probability for the following:

1) Did Derby attempt to gain an unfair advantage by breaching the rules? - Absolutely 

2) Did Derby gain more points as a result? - Debatable but, on the balance of probability I think an independent court would probably say yes.

All good for Boro so far but this is where the balance changes 

3) If Boro had finished sixth would they have reached the play off final? - Although we did it (by “cheating” don’t forget), by definition the team that scrapes into 6th place (don’t forget Boro’s end of season form) must be weaker than the team that finished 4th. So, on the balance of probability the answer has to be no

4) If they had reached the final would they have won? - As above, the team finishing 6th is, on paper, the weakest team and has only won the play off final in 10% of cases over the the last 20 years. So, on the balance of probability, the answer has to be no.

You could then go on to debate whether Boro would actually have gained financially or spent or the money if they had been promoted but it gets a bit complicated especially with parachute payments if they’d been relegated.

The Wycombe case shouldn’t even get to court. Yes, we avoided a points deduction last season by delaying submitting our amended P&S figures but, we complied with the extended deadline determined by the EFL so, no case to answer.

[Jayram]

1 hour ago, AndyinLiverpool said:

So threats now is it?

I’m not talking about physical violence Andy; I'm talking more about direct action - protests at EFL HQ, Gibsons businesses etc. Remember, these people are driving our club to extinction - why shouldn’t they be made to suffer or feel uncomfortable for their actions? They are not being reasonable in their approach so why should we? 

[Curtains]

3 minutes ago, RoyMac5 said:

But this is where I think they haven't come off the fence.

They have said the debts would be football debts. They have not said their claims are debts.

The difference is between 100% and 25 % 

It effectively means we have to pay them off in full or come to a deal .

Thats why the want them all in a room and so effectively the EFL  have given credence to the claims. 

[Ram a lamb a ding dong]

I must say that out of everything I have seen posted on all media, @Brailsford Ramhas been by far the most considered in terms of law protocol. I feel sure that Q will now go all guns blazing to get arbitration out of the way and then crack on. 

If it were I, now EFL have made it abundantly clear on their stance I would go straight to the law men and get the matter resolved. There is no way on earth I would give 1 dime to the parasites so I am in full agreement with them there.

 

Edited February 4, 2022 by Ram a lamb a ding dong

[Curtains]

2 minutes ago, StaffsRam said:

Agree. They’ve said they would be football debts if they ARE debts. Let’s take it to court to see if debts can be proven.

Taking things to court costs loads of money 

Also it drags on and on .

 

 

 

[i-Ram]

3 minutes ago, CBRammette said:

You are right. I want to have faith in Q but they are making me very nervous. However last night's statement shows us what they are dealing with. If only the real Q was battling for us! What a day - that statement, dad escaped in the night, pouring with rain and hubby didnt have enough miles to get to work and I am trying to find a quick charging point in Cambridge that is working and isnt taken. Is it 13th?

I hope you get your car charged, and that you can have a bit of a recharge over the weekend too. Sorry to learn that your Dad’s cruel condition continues to add to your worries. I still think this is going to be ok. Unless the Law is a complete @rse Q should now use the full powers available in their statutory armoury and take this to Court. I can’t but believe it will bring a successful outcome in respect of quashing the claims, and additionally hopefully guiding the EFL they would be in contempt to not allow the Court’s decision to be applied without detriment to the Club’s continuing status as a member of the football league.

[strawhillram]

2 minutes ago, Tamworthram said:

In terms of a civil case, I reckon the court needs to determine the facts or balance of probability for the following:

1) Did Derby attempt to gain an unfair advantage by breaching the rules? - Absolutely 

2) Did Derby gain more points as a result? - Debatable but, on the balance of probability I think an independent court would probably say yes.

All good for Boro so far but this is where the balance changes 

3) If Boro had finished sixth would they have reached the play off final? - Although we did it (by “cheating” don’t forget), by definition the team that scrapes into 6th place (don’t forget Boro’s end of season form) must be weaker than the team that finished 4th. So, on the balance of probability the answer has to be no

4) If they had reached the final would they have won? - As above, the team finishing 6th is, on paper, the weakest team and has only won the play off final in 10% of cases over the the last 20 years. So, on the balance of probability, the answer has to be no.

You could then go on to debate whether Boro would actually have gained financially or spent or the money if they had been promoted but it gets a bit complicated especially with parachute payments if they’d been relegated.

The Wycombe case shouldn’t even get to court. Yes, we avoided a points deduction last season by delaying submitting our amended P&S figures but, we complied with the extended deadline determined by the EFL so, no case to answer.

Would Gibson have a case against Villa - didn’t they break the rules too?

[RoyMac5]

1 minute ago, StaffsRam said:

Agree. They’ve said they would be football debts if they ARE debts. Let’s take it to court to see if debts can be proven.

I think the big sticking point (amongst many, lol) is that if Q go to Court and ask to be able to apply Insolvency Laws then the EFL could respond by saying they'd take away our Golden Share as we're not playing by their Rules?

[Curtains]

1 minute ago, i-Ram said:

I hope you get your car charged, and that you can have a bit of a recharge over the weekend too. Sorry to learn that your Dad’s cruel condition continues to add to your worries. I still think this is going to be ok. Unless the Law is a complete @rse Q should now use the full powers available in their statutory armoury and take this to Court. I can’t but believe it will bring a successful outcome in respect of quashing the claims, and additionally hopefully guiding the EFL they would be in contempt to not allow the Court’s decision to be applied without detriment to the Club’s continuing status as a member of the football league.

So how in effect do the Administrators take it to court .

You sound like it’s just shelling peas 

[Cook1988]

 

[RoyMac5]

3 minutes ago, Curtains said:

The difference is between 100% and 25 % 

It effectively means we have to pay them off in full or come to a deal .

Thats why the want them all in a room and so effectively the EFL  have given credence to the claims. 

No we don't. What right do Gibson and Couhig have to know our financial arrangements - none.

They aren't debts, is the point. The EFL seemed to rule on them being debts, not claims.

[Loftyhites]

I feel like it’s coming to a point now where those interested in the purchasing the club will start to withdraw their bids. The bidders are already in a battle with the other parties interested in buying the club without the additional complications. Even to maintain interest in buying will be costing potential bidders time and money - perhaps minimal to them but nonetheless a ball ache with no guarantee in actually achieving preferred bidder status. 
 

Added to the ridiculous compensation claims from the two clubs (of which we know that the EFL will change the rules immediately after resolution to ensure that the entire league doesn’t collapse through unsubstantiated ‘what if’ scenarios resulting in legal action from dozens of clubs towards other clubs) and the fact that MM wants the bidders to pay off his debts and also walk away with a ‘golden handshake’ from them for the ground - as a bidder, I’d be thinking: ‘Is it worth it?’

These bidders are not like us. They don’t have DCFC tattooed on their hearts. They are business people that I’m sure have a lot more going on than Derby County which, from the outside, is sure beginning to look like a lot of hard work for increasingly little gain as time goes on, particularly if the club ends up in League One. 

Time is certainly ticking and months in from the start of the admin process, rather than seeing some light at the end of the tunnel, there seems to be more and more loose ends with no-one willing to budge on their current stances despite a lot of sitting around tables. Hopefully, I’m wrong and the bidders will continue to remain competitive with their interest and a new era for the club begins.

However, I know that from my point of view, I ordered an item from Amazon in September from which I’ve just had another email explaining that they’re still trying to obtain it. I’ve just cancelled the order and moved on - I hope that the bidders have more perseverance than me!
 

[StaffsRam]

Just now, RoyMac5 said:

I think the big sticking point (amongst many, lol) is that if Q go to Court and ask to be able to apply Insolvency Laws then the EFL could respond by saying they'd take away our Golden Share as we're not playing by their Rules?

I’m sure that’s where they’ll intimate they’ll go, but in reality good luck to the EFL choosing that hill to die on - “Our own made up rules trump the laws of the land” - if we die as a result of that then the EFL won’t be far behind us.

[Curtains]

1 minute ago, RoyMac5 said:

I think the big sticking point (amongst many, lol) is that if Q go to Court and ask to be able to apply Insolvency Laws then the EFL could respond by saying they'd take away our Golden Share as we're not playing by their Rules?

Exactly the EFL don’t play by any rules.

It’s their domain and they have no regulators 

We need OFFFOOT 

[Animal is a Ram]

 

[Eatonram]

5 minutes ago, Curtains said:

The difference is between 100% and 25 % 

It effectively means we have to pay them off in full or come to a deal .

Thats why the want them all in a room and so effectively the EFL  have given credence to the claims. 

To even be 25% it would have to be a debt, which by all the definitions I have seen, it isn't.

[Curtains]

1 minute ago, RoyMac5 said:

No we don't. What right do Gibson and Couhig have to know our financial arrangements - none.

They aren't debts, is the point. The EFL seemed to rule on them being debts, not claims.

We are on the same page .

As I say the EFL are a rule unto themselves.

They have their own rule books 

[StaffsRam]

4 minutes ago, Curtains said:

Taking things to court costs loads of money 

Also it drags on and on .

I don’t think £££ would be an issue. I think we have enough to see out the season, and this would be settled well before we get anywhere near the end of the season. Administrators can prioritise court listings and once we’re in court the parasite claims aren’t going to hold water for more than 5 minutes. They’ll probably spend more time laughing at the claims than deciding to chuck them out.