The Administration Thread

[Dean (hick) Saunders]

So is if(when) money runs out we’re screwed if PB not in place. Little chance of raising money through sales (window shut and academy pillaged of all value already)

No one will want to lend as risk too high…

Vultures circle to pick carcass and grim reaper sharpens his scythe.

 

[PistoldPete]

9 minutes ago, kevinhectoring said:

Doesnt work for me. Main problem is, any rights the club has against him would be quantified by reference to the club’s loss. But we want Boro suing by reference to their own loss. Then they lose

The other thing is, MMisnt going to agree to an arrangement which involves an admission that he is liable to the club. 

I still think you underestimate the difficulties involved in suing a director. I saw your post about EFl undertakings but  one concern with that route is: these were board decisions. You’ll be suing Roy Macfarland next ? 

Oh no leave Roy out of this. I am sure his is just an honorary position. Even with Morris I don't think the club will want to sue him, as we need Morris to help us right now. 

The fact that MFC said they were alleging against the directors gave me hope but having read EFL Rules in more detail there doesn't seem much where the Directors are required to comply with the rules, only to ensure that the Club complies with the rules, which is too indirect for my liking.

So if they have claimed against the Directors that's probably a pile of poo much like almost everything else Boro have come up with. But at least that's something else to throw back at them and further discredits their case.

 

[24Charlie]

Morris has to indemnify Derby against any losses incurred in the high court defending the claims. That is all that needs to happen.

We then put our exit plan in front of the EFL saying it’s the same as last time but we have addressed the parasite issue.

Boro and Wycombe have two choices. They either take the indemnified Derby to court or they don’t. It has no effect on us coming out of admin.

Of course talk is cheap and it’s up to Morris to indemnify us which he hasn’t done yet.

[tinman]

8 minutes ago, BriggRam said:

Is this confirmed

It’s in the secret notes sent out to Ramstrust members last night

[Ram-Alf]

From someone who doesn't really get fussed...myself, This is getting very serious for DCFC, We're having the life choked out of us by the EFL/Boro and WW, Q are in an awfull position, Pay up and let it be known that DCFC "cheated" then creditors get less, Or Liquidation, There is no movement from from the 3 above, Impasse, Stalemate, Log jam, Intransigence, Complacent, Call it what you like I see no happy ending here.

For me, I'd pull the rug from under the EFL call them out and Liquidate...Now!

Sorry for those who would accept a payment to Boro/WW, But it goes against my upbringing, Don't give in to Bullies...Never!

Just to add.

If we're liquidated at the end of Febuary, Where does Q stand with getting payment?

Edited February 8, 2022 by Unlucky Alf

[Guest]

22 minutes ago, PistoldPete said:

32 minutes ago, kevinhectoring said:

 

Kevin is an alternative some form of assignment of a right of action? As I posted earlier it seems DCFC would have a cause for action against Morris for breach of contract. Could they not assign that right to Boro or Wycombe . I don't now if that is possible or advisable but there must be a way out of this logjam.  The indemnity from Morris may be fine if that worrks except it keeps DCFC in the loop and prolongs uncertainty.

Pete, can you please enlighten us on your breach of contract hypothesis for DCFC v MM? I always believed MM owned 100% of the shares in DCFC, so who would be suing him on behalf of himself? Am I missing a trick here? Boro and Wycombe already seem to think they have a claim against DCFC so why would DCFC feed them more ammunition to shoot DCFC if what you are suggesting is in anyway at all possible.

This has been a very trying few weeks for all of us Pete and there have been several warnings within the forum about monitoring our own mental health. I was doing okay until I read this but I fear I might be now be going into a downhill free fall. I have put a sticker on my computer screen to remind me that the 'Administration Thread Can Damage Your Health.' I am now going to lie down in a dark room for half an hour to see if I can pull myself out of this plunging spiral. If there is no rapid improvement I will seek urgent counselling.

Pete, if I am offline for a few days, best of luck with your new idea. I hope Q might understand it. Best Wishes from Brailsford.

[i-Ram]

Still a bit perplexed, along with @The Scarlet Pimperneland @David, as to what provision under EFL rules Boro were allowed to make their claim. Have either of the fan groups asked Quantuma on this point? It must be allowable to have got this far, but ......  

When the Hearing Committee did throw out the initial claim(s) of Boro, I do note that they said Boro were not estopped from making further claims after the appeal, but how did they get in the position in the first place that they were allowed to claim directly against Derby? 

[i-Ram]

3 minutes ago, tinman said:

It’s in the secret notes sent out to Ramstrust members last night

[Stive Pesley]

6 minutes ago, 24Charlie said:

Morris has to indemnify Derby against any losses incurred in the high court defending the claims. That is all that needs to happen.

We then put our exit plan in front of the EFL saying it’s the same as last time but we have addressed the parasite issue.

Boro and Wycombe have two choices. They either take the indemnified Derby to court or they don’t. It has no effect on us coming out of admin.

Of course talk is cheap and it’s up to Morris to indemnify us which he hasn’t done yet.

Again - EFL will want to see proof of funds for any indemnity

I can't see how the proof of funds can come from the ex-owner who but us in administration because of lack of funds - without it looking incredibly dodgy

 

[BriggRam]

11 minutes ago, tinman said:

It’s in the secret notes sent out to Ramstrust members last night

So if true we can "summise" The EFL, Gobson, and moonpig have had 48 ours to decide the HC is not, qoute  "doable".....how strange ?

Edited February 8, 2022 by BriggRam

[Day]

6 minutes ago, i-Ram said:

Still a bit perplexed, along with @The Scarlet Pimperneland @David, as to what provision under EFL rules Boro were allowed to make their claim. Have either of the fan groups asked Quantuma on this point? It must be allowable to have got this far, but ......  

When the Hearing Committee did throw out the initial claim(s) of Boro, I do note that they said Boro were not estopped from making further claims after the appeal, but how did they get in the position in the first place that they were allowed to claim directly against Derby? 

Was a question I put to Rick Parry yesterday morning in my email, yet to receive a reply.

If I get a reply I will share it.

[Gaspode]

7 minutes ago, Stive Pesley said:

Again - EFL will want to see proof of funds for any indemnity

I can't see how the proof of funds can come from the ex-owner who but us in administration because of lack of funds - without it looking incredibly dodgy

 

He put the club into Administration, not himself......

[PistoldPete]

13 minutes ago, tinman said:

It’s in the secret notes sent out to Ramstrust members last night

Oh. Why are they secret?

[tinman]

Just now, PistoldPete said:

Oh. Why are they secret?

Because they want to feel they are better than the rest of us?

[YouRams]

From the Quant Q&A;

There has been talk in the press about a possible insurance policy against the claims. Is this correct?

Yes, we have looked into it but currently feel the premiums are prohibitive and the legal costs of defending the claims would also have to be funded.

 

Surely they should be making moves to take this action for if Boro & Wycombe drag out their decision on MM, before we know it another month will pass they could say no and in this time Quant shouldve been looking at plan b. If they're confident in this policy a go fund me page would raise enough for legal costs from fans im sure of it.

[PistoldPete]

3 minutes ago, David said:

Was a question I put to Rick Parry yesterday morning in my email, yet to receive a reply.

If I get a reply I will share it.

Dear David.

we cannot comment on confidential matters. Unless your name is Alan Nixon or John Percy.

king regards

 

rick

[BriggRam]

Just now, PistoldPete said:

Dear David.

we cannot comment on confidential matters. Unless your name is Alan Nixon or John Percy.

king regards

 

rick/steve

fify

[Ghost of Clough]

So EFL sent out a public statement saying the High Court was an option. Not too long after, privately told Quantuma it's off the table.

Ties in with the MPs who spoke up which confused most of us who had read the public statement not long before. Utterly disgraceful of the EFL to behave in such a manner.

[Ghost of Clough]

15 minutes ago, i-Ram said:

Still a bit perplexed, along with @The Scarlet Pimperneland @David, as to what provision under EFL rules Boro were allowed to make their claim. Have either of the fan groups asked Quantuma on this point? It must be allowable to have got this far, but ......  

When the Hearing Committee did throw out the initial claim(s) of Boro, I do note that they said Boro were not estopped from making further claims after the appeal, but how did they get in the position in the first place that they were allowed to claim directly against Derby? 

They could be claiming becuase Mel sat in the wrong chair once and it would go all the way to arbitration. The EFL refuse to step in to dismiss spurious claims.

[Ghost of Clough]

13 minutes ago, BriggRam said:

So if true we can "summise" The EFL, Gobson, and moonpig have had 48 ours to decide the HC is not, qoute  "doable".....how strange ?

The EFL appear to have reneged on their public statement even before Mel made his