The Administration Thread

[kevinhectoring]

5 hours ago, Sparkle said:

Clearly needs the agreement of MFC and WWFC - what a cop out ! - why can’t the EFL make a decision on their own without being told what happening by Gibson - remember the EFL insolvency policy is called  guidelines as per their latest statement 

Well of course MM’s hairbrained distraction of a proposal needs M/W consent to proceed.  Because it’s they who are being asked to sue MM in the High Court. The EfL can’t compel a club to sue an individual in the High Court. Anyway the whole thing is two angry vain rich men slugging it out in the court of public opinion. It’s a complete waste of time and everyone should instead be focusing on a solution, before we run out of time. MM needs to indemnify the club against the claims 

Edited February 6, 2022 by kevinhectoring

[curb]

17 minutes ago, vonwright said:

The EFL needs to put very public pressure on them to accept this as the 'pragmatic' solution everyone claims to want. 

But of course they won’t, this is the EFL we’re talking about after all.

[vonwright]

10 minutes ago, curb said:

But of course they won’t, this is the EFL we’re talking about after all.

Well perhaps but we (and the MPs) at least need to put focused pressure on the EFL on this point. Even if we accept there are a number of obstacles to a sale, this removes a massive one at a stroke. MFC and WW get their claims heard in an impeccable legal forum. And Morris is potentially liable, not the ruined club he left behind. We need to push them on this because (assuming it is at all legally possible) then explaining why it's a bad idea is going to be very, very hard for them.

Edited February 6, 2022 by vonwright

[curb]

14 minutes ago, vonwright said:

Well perhaps but we (and the MPs) at least need to put focused pressure on the EFL on this point. Even if we accept there are a number of obstacles to a sale, this removes a massive one at a stroke. MFC and WW get their claims heard in an impeccable legal forum. And Morris is potentially liable, not the ruined club he left behind. We need to push them on this because (assuming it is at all legally possible) then explaining why it's a bad idea is going to be very, very hard for them.

I agree with you 100%, but the only way they’ll have a chance of winning is in their kangaroo court.

[uttoxram75]

6 hours ago, Inverurie Ram said:

d) The Anglo Italian Final Defeat.

Feel any better?

Still got a Cremonese scarf that we swapped for a Rams one outside the ground.

[ilkleyram]

45 minutes ago, vonwright said:

That's my understanding, too. They are willing to let the court consider: 'Is the EFL entitled to have rules stating that it can kick out a club that fails to respect 'football debts', or in this case 'football claims' - ie claims that would become 'football debts' if substantiated at an EFL hearing? Can it do this even though it basically means treating these claims differently to how claims like this are treated by law?' And the court might say they are fine to do that: this is a members' club which can have whatever membership rules they want. In which case the company (Derby County) could still push ahead with a sale and ignore the claims (as per law), but the EFL could then kick them out (for breaching EFL rules). As long as that is the case, no one is going to buy the club. 

It might be worth seeking a ruling on that, but we might well lose. In any case, the issue we really need settled is: 'Do these specific claims have any merit and are Middlesbrough and/or Wycombe owed any damages?'

I don't think the EFL were offering to have that heard in court. They like to keep such things house. 

To which I would say: okay EFL, but these are unique circumstances. Derby's very existence is as stake and if Morris is willing to take the financial risk if the matter is heard in court, then why not? Doesn't it give everyone what they want, while also (crucially) actually giving Derby some chance or survival? Isn't it putting the potential financial burden where you want it to be (on the reckless former owner) and not on the stricken club? If the EFL is serious about being flexible and 'pragmatic', if it is serious about wanting to save Derby, and if Middlesbrough and Wycombe don't want to kill the club either - they should agree. 

If M&W refuse because 'these things are usually dealt with in house' - not good enough. We will all suspect they basically mean 'It is easier for us to control the process and keep squeezing until you burst'.

The EFL needs to put very public pressure on them to accept this as the 'pragmatic' solution everyone claims to want. 

Yes, except private members clubs cannot ignore the law of the land, can they (genuine question).  They’re not allowed to discriminate on grounds of sex or race, or pay lower than the minimum wage, or sack people unfairly or not pay their income taxes or the duty on cigarettes or alcohol. So where lies the difference?

[Curtains]

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-10483113/Mike-Ashley-feels-Derby-Countys-administrators-NOT-want-buy-crisis-club.html
 

 

[uttoxram75]

10 hours ago, kevinhectoring said:

 6 months ago I was complaining repeatedly about the EFL’s failure to control Gibson and his cronies

But it’s no good complaining about what they are doing now. Their backs are against the wall and they’ll do nothing involving Derby without legal sign off. They have an insolvency policy, we approved it I believe. It’s designed to be applied when clubs are insolvent. Their lawyers have obviously told them how it applies in our case and we’re saying they should ignore it? 

I take it you DO work for the EFL then, otherwise you would have just said no.

[vonwright]

38 minutes ago, ilkleyram said:

Yes, except private members clubs cannot ignore the law of the land, can they (genuine question).  They’re not allowed to discriminate on grounds of sex or race, or pay lower than the minimum wage, or sack people unfairly or not pay their income taxes or the duty on cigarettes or alcohol. So where lies the difference?

They can't do any of those things. I suppose the difference is, they would say, is that the are not preventing Derby exiting administration as per law. They are only saying if they do that they won't be welcome in the club. And they'd say that doing that isn't breaking discrimination law, for example, or tax law or minimum wage law. It's just enforcing membership rules. I think the onus would be on us to name a specific law they were breaking. 

I mean, is the 'football debt' rule itself written into law, or is it just something clubs agree to abide by? 

I have no idea who would win a case, by the way, and have no expertise. I also feel it is ridiculous that 'footballing claims' like this would be given the same status as 'footballing debts'. And I believe the EFL should update its rules to better fit both administration law, and the fact clubs in administration shouldn't face such potentially crippling, speculative 'damages' claims that act as a massive barrier to them ever getting sold.

Just feel it might be a bit of a red herring and that settling the status of the debts (or better still passing that responsibility to Morris) is the priority. 

 

Edited February 7, 2022 by vonwright

[Ram1988]

3 hours ago, G STAR RAM said:

Absolutely bizarre that the EFL have said they should be defended as football debts without even seeing the cases.

Does anyone actually believe any of the tripe that they come out with?

This is why it has to go to the high court. The EFL has an agenda and the case needs to heard in a fair and neutral setting.

 

[PistoldPete]

3 hours ago, i-Ram said:

You do keep saying lots of things Pete, but it doesn’t mean they are right.

As GOC pointed out earlier Morris selling the Club wouldn’t have made any difference to past P&S indiscretions. And you keep banging on about MFC’s most recent statement making reference to Directors. As @Brailsford Ram has informed you twice, MFC cannot claim against the Directors because they are protected by Limited Liability. Only if the Directors agree to strip themselves of such protections is such action available, which Morris has offered.

Limited Liability protection applies to the owners of a Company not being responsible for that Company’s debts.

it doesn’t necessarily prevent an employee of that Company being responsible for their own misconduct , thereby creating a debt for themselves.

especially where as you say Morris is publicly stating he is willing to accept that responsibility. 

[BramcoteRam84]

6 hours ago, Curtains said:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-10483113/Mike-Ashley-feels-Derby-Countys-administrators-NOT-want-buy-crisis-club.html
 

 

Classic Mike Ashley. How many times when he has bought businesses have we heard the same story played out in the media, it’s a power play. It’s now on the administrators to make one of the other bids work. Ashley’s bid is probably in the best interests of the club, but that’s not administrators main concern. If the administrators start begging him back to the table then he’ll probably bid even lower as it will show the other bids won’t work.

Alongside the Boro and Wycombe claims, it’s clear despite what everyone says there is an issue with the stadium. Mel will say it’s no problem, I’m not making any money back on it just need £20m to pay off MSD, but no one wants to pay that with all the other debts. 

I really hope the Wycombe/Boro element can be fixed as a result of Mel’s intervention and quickly, one because we need it to and two because I now want to see just how ready Quantuma are to name a preferred bidder and start moving this forward. 

[PistoldPete]

And yes banging on about the Directors being charged again.

it is by no means unusual , despite the corporate veil, for employees to be charged for misconduct.

Discrimination claims are a case in point .. an employee may be implicated for sexist, racist or homophobic conduct. A claim may be made against them at the Employment Tribunal. Often a claim is also made against the employer as well, and there is the principle of vicarious liability ie employer responsible for the misconduct of the employee as well. A useful thing to have as the employer  are likely to have deeper pockets.

so in that case either or both the employee or their Company can be claimed against. 

Similarly in DCFC case , the Directors undertake to abide by EFL rules , and if they don’t they can be charged with misconduct too. That’s what happened in the Sheffield Wednesday case Chansiri was charged as well as Wednesday .

as the MFC statement says they allege against DCFC Directors as well , it seems Morris is already being claimed against by them. 
 

and there seems no point in going after the DCFC Company using the “deeper pockets” principle as reportedly Morris has much more money than DCFC right now. Also DCFC has protection under insolvency law , Morris doesn’t. 
 

i still think EFL will prefer the LAP route to the High Court .. but why should the venue make that much difference . I hope that isn’t the sticking point.. take Morris through the LAP if necessary but leave DCFC out of it.

[Curtains]

 Derby went to administration on 22 September 2021

Has anything moved on .

Its a bloody disgrace 

[Van der MoodHoover]

4 minutes ago, Curtains said:

 Derby went to administration on 22 September 2021

Has anything moved on .

Its a bloody disgrace 

Now now Curtains.... 

I'm sure the admins have made a spreadsheet with some names on it.... ?

[Curtains]

What has really moved on .

The fans have been put through the ringer but a solution seems far away .

Bidders falling by the wayside and no preferred bidder named. 
 

Action needed not just platitudes.

Get on with it 

[Curtains]

https://www.skysports.com/football/news/11696/12413408/Derby-county-enter-administration-amid-ongoing-financial-problems

[ilkleyram]

8 minutes ago, PistoldPete said:

And yes banging on about the Directors being charged again.

it is by no means unusual , despite the corporate veil, for employees to be charged for misconduct.

Discrimination claims are a case in point .. an employee may be implicated for sexist, racist or homophobic conduct. A claim may be made against them at the Employment Tribunal. Often a claim is also made against the employer as well, and there is the principle of vicarious liability ie employer responsible for the misconduct of the employee as well. A useful thing to have as the employer  are likely to have deeper pockets.

so in that case either or both the employee or their Company can be claimed against. 

Similarly in DCFC case , the Directors undertake to abide by EFL rules , and if they don’t they can be charged with misconduct too. That’s what happened in the Sheffield Wednesday case Chansiri was charged as well as Wednesday .

as the MFC statement says they allege against DCFC Directors as well , it seems Morris is already being claimed against by them. 
 

and there seems no point in going after the DCFC Company using the “deeper pockets” principle as reportedly Morris has much more money than DCFC right now. Also DCFC has protection under insolvency law , Morris doesn’t. 
 

i still think EFL will prefer the LAP route to the High Court .. but why should the venue make that much difference . I hope that isn’t the sticking point.. take Morris through the LAP if necessary but leave DCFC out of it.

If, as Parry claims, the LAP is on a par with the High Court with its retired judges and stuff, then there’s no real reason not to go to the HC. Speed is clearly not a reason given its taken 12 months to get to this point and WW haven’t even made their claim yet. 

And the efl have specifically offered the HC as a route out of the impasse. The only thing that’s changed is that Mel has offered to step in for Dcfc as the target.

As Mel might be slightly more solvent than Dcfc and is still directly involved that would appear to be a good way forward and offer the claimant (s) a more likely way of recovering their supposed losses. 

[hintonsboots]

In before merged. But I agree it’s been a torturous period in Rams history. Let’s hope Mel’s intervention produces results.

Edited February 7, 2022 by hintonsboots

[Curtains]

Just now, ilkleyram said:

If, as Parry claims, the LAP is on a par with the High Court with its retired judges and stuff, then there’s no real reason not to go to the HC. Speed is clearly not a reason given its taken 12 months to get to this point and WW haven’t even made their claim yet. 

And the efl have specifically offered the HC as a route out of the impasse. The only thing that’s changed is that Mel has offered to step in for Dcfc as the target.

As Mel might be slightly more solvent than Dcfc and is still directly involved that would appear to be a good way forward and offer the claimant (s) a more likely way of recovering their supposed losses. 

Mel need to offer the Stadium.