The Administration Thread

[PistoldPete]

18 minutes ago, StarterForTen said:

Other than for a few exceptions - or the imposition of a so-called Super Injunction - the High Court is an open forum

Should be fun.

[Chris_D]

3 minutes ago, PistoldPete said:

A good question . 

But if, as  I think , Morris has already been claimed against personally by Boro then  he isn’t conceding anything actually. 
 
Whereas the other debts as owner he can legally swerve unfortunately as others have observed.. due to limited liability protection. 

Where has this been said re: Mel being claimed against personally already?

[RoyMac5]

7 minutes ago, The Big One said:

We need a complete reset.  I am done.  Its an utter mess.  Lets do a Rangers or a Aldershot, rise from the Ashes.  Northern Premier League be fun.

No thanks.

 

[Sparkle]

It’s worth commenting on that bit in the mail about what Ashley was allegedly saying about the value of the club reducing by selling off talented youngsters because any bidder must know they are buying debt for a badge name and very few players under contract. For me as time goes on I would be offering less and less which would obviously mean no CVA and a 15 point deduction and so again I would be offering less and less.

[Eatonram]

The problem is this. Boros strongest weapon is to simply do nothing and make us wait. Is it possible to get a court to impose a time limit on hearing the case? 

[Sparkle]

3 minutes ago, Indy said:

I think Team Derby, and Margaret Beckett in particular, would have some very strong opinions on if transparency in this proceeding is in the public interest. 

I want it televised and not just rams TV 

[Topram]

Pretty sure the supporters group meeting with admins is today at 4

[Ian Buxton's Bat]

15 minutes ago, The Big One said:

We need a complete reset.  I am done.  Its an utter mess.  Lets do a Rangers or a Aldershot, rise from the Ashes.  Northern Premier League be fun.

Be careful what you wish for.

I'm very close to the 'don't give Gibson a penny - and sod it if we have to start again' position...... but I did go to watch a Northern Premier League game on Saturday. The occasion, ambience etc was great but the the game was utter, utter rubbish.

High court with Mel or high court for the club, underwritten by Mel, is the only sensible option.

[Sparkle]

One poster mentioned about joining another league  if things get really silly here with the EFL, and whilst the national league is most likely on demotion and a premiership 2 is unlikely anytime soon ( which would actually be a good thing for football) where we were invited to join along with the likes of Sunderland Sheffield Wednesday etc. Are there any other options ? Well actually the MLS option is not so stupid and maybe a possibility, why? Well the Americans don’t mind teams traveling all over, they like the commercial exposure and the TV exposure. The MLS has very good attendances with an awful lot of European/ Latino population who love and watch real football. Whilst still unlikely for us it would be a heck of a lot better than being 17 leagues lower down if we started again and a new owner might just say let’s have a look at it.

[Indy]

2 hours ago, Curtains said:

According to the EFL the EFL rules are their law supervised by them .

 

There are many things that are “according to the EFL” that are total nonsense though! If their stance disadvantages HMRC, I think treasury and revenue would have a view. And if our punishment for following the law is a restraint of trade in a monopolised market that they regulate, I think the Competition and Markets Authority would like to get involved. 

[kevinhectoring]

1 hour ago, duncanjwitham said:

I agree with those 2 things, but I think it's also saying a third.  It's a very public statement of why he won't ever agree to indemnify the club against arbitration losses, because he (rightly or wrongly) doesn't believe in the EFL's arbitration process. He's convinced it's corrupt, so he wants no part of it.

Ok but here’s the thing. EFl disputes are decided against the backdrop of the league,  and the panel should be expected to have regard to the impact on the league of its decisions. 
I understand why accountants on here were  incensed by the amortisation decision. But the panel probably asked itself ‘is an accounting free-for-all good for the league?’ And knew the answer. From a legal point of view the judgement was a mess.  

The position with the 2 claims is different. The league would be a vipers nest if the claims proceed. So the EFl - and the policy arguments - are on our side 

Cant see any basis for saying the EFL disputes process is bent 

[i-Ram]

2 hours 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.

You seem to be claiming MFC are including Morris (and presumably Pearce and McFarland) in their claims against Derby based on one statement on the MFC Webpage. Both Gibson’s open letter type pronouncements have been erratic, so why hang your hat on that one point. Look at all the EFL Hearing/Appeal documentation on the stadium and amortisation points. It’s just EFL DCFC & MFC being named as the participants in the hearings and appeals.  MFC’s continuing claim is really very unlikely to have now been changed to drag in Morris, and Pearce and McFarland. Be interesting if they did drag in Pearce who was on the EFL board at the time ?

You mention Chansiri above, and yes I do see that the EFL did try to include him, and other directors, in the Sheffield Wednesday Stadium Hearing. However they did soon drop that, presumably under some legal pressure. I suspect the EFL were taking the view that their actions were fraudulent (not that they had the legal powers, nor for that matter anything within their rules ?) in that Chansiri and Co. had deliberately (and perhaps unlawfully) changed the date of the Stadium sale, and also therefore deliberately filed incorrect P&S figures too.  Nothing within DCFC’s hearings, and the recorded outcomes, suggested Morris was committing fraud or any other unlawful wrongdoing. 

 

[Ghost of Clough]

27 minutes ago, AndyinLiverpool said:

Could Morris buy the club? Clear the debt, pay off the stadium etc. Is there anything to stop that?

There's a rule regarding unfair advantages. Going into admin to wipe out a significant amount of debt could be considered an unfair advantage.

Did Sisu do that with Coventry? Not sure if anything came of it.

[duncanjwitham]

1 minute ago, kevinhectoring said:

Ok but here’s the thing. EFl disputes are decided against the backdrop of the league,  and the panel should be expected to have regard to the impact on the league of its decisions. 
I understand why accountants on here were  incensed by the amortisation decision. But the panel probably asked itself ‘is an accounting free-for-all good for the league?’ And knew the answer. From a legal point of view the judgement was a mess.  

The position with the 2 claims is different. The league would be a vipers nest if the claims proceed. So the EFl - and the policy arguments - are on our side 

Cant see any basis for saying the EFL disputes process is bent 

I'm having real trouble reconciling your last sentence with the previous ones, where you openly say that the panels are deciding cases based on what they think the best outcome for the league would be, not the actual facts at hand...

And anyway, I don't think it actually matters if they are corrupt or not, because as long as Morris thinks they are (which he clearly does, based on his statement the other day), there's no way he's going anywhere near one again.

[i-Ram]

44 minutes ago, Stive Pesley said:

Has anyone pointed out that MM offering to take on the legal challenges from MFC and WWFC rather files in the face of him being so broke that he had to put the club into administration?

Something doesn't add up

Maybe he’s taking the money out of that Charitable Company you identified? 

[Sparkle]

3 minutes ago, kevinhectoring said:

Ok but here’s the thing. EFl disputes are decided against the backdrop of the league,  and the panel should be expected to have regard to the impact on the league of its decisions. 
I understand why accountants on here were  incensed by the amortisation decision. But the panel probably asked itself ‘is an accounting free-for-all good for the league?’ And knew the answer. From a legal point of view the judgement was a mess.  

The position with the 2 claims is different. The league would be a vipers nest if the claims proceed. So the EFl - and the policy arguments - are on our side 

Cant see any basis for saying the EFL disputes process is bent 

That should be the case but the commentary and disputed processes of the EFL suggest mistrust and a lack of impartiality and with reported claims of £51 million on the line you can see the problem. 

[Ghost of Clough]

3 minutes ago, duncanjwitham said:

I'm having real trouble reconciling your last sentence with the previous ones, where you openly say that the panels are deciding cases based on what they think the best outcome for the league would be, not the actual facts at hand...

And anyway, I don't think it actually matters if they are corrupt or not, because as long as Morris thinks they are (which he clearly does, based on his statement the other day), there's no way he's going anywhere near one again.

Not necessarily corrupt, but certainly not fit for purpose

[JuanFloEvraTheCocu'sNesta]

49 minutes ago, Stive Pesley said:

Has anyone pointed out that MM offering to take on the legal challenges from MFC and WWFC rather files in the face of him being so broke that he had to put the club into administration?

Something doesn't add up

As soon as he piped up I thought this. As far as I can tell we are in administration because he decided to do it, not because he 'needed' to do it.

[Bald Eagle's Barmy Army]

40 minutes ago, Sparkle said:

I assume he had a budget to use for Derby county and he had used it up and failed to sell on the club when the budget had or nearly had expired 

His missus changed the pin number 

[Ghost of Clough]

51 minutes ago, Stive Pesley said:

Has anyone pointed out that MM offering to take on the legal challenges from MFC and WWFC rather files in the face of him being so broke that he had to put the club into administration?

Something doesn't add up

c£18m cash needed to get through the season.
A mountain of debt which he would have had to pay off himself.
HMRC days away from issuing a winding up petition.
1 claim and 1 potential claim sitting in his desk drawer (believed to be £51m at the time)
Total = c£140m

Maybe he's taken out than £2.5m insurance policy to cover himself? Worst case is the £7m settlement.
Total = £7m