The Administration Thread

[PistoldPete]

14 minutes ago, Brailsford Ram said:

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 certainly agree with the mental health bit. 
 

which is why I was desperately trying to find a way out if this logjam. Maybe too desperate it’s true. 
 

morris is not 100% owner of the club now. And he would be be in breach of his employment contract and any undertakings given to the club or to the league not to cause the club to break Efl rules. 
 

I can’t see why they wouldn’t have a cause for action against him , but also good reasons why the club wouldn’t act against him when we owe him £100m plus need his help with the stadium sale. 

[IslandExile]

Just now, Ghost of Clough said:

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

Wasn't that a point made by one of the MPs? Pauline Latham, I think.

[Steve How Hard?]

5 minutes ago, Ghost of Clough said:

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.

Correct but totally in line with their behaviour throughout this whole process. 

[Elwood P Dowd]

8 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

 

Normaly an  indemnity is a relatively simple undertaking usually made in a contract, to pay money or hold a company\person free from the happening of a specified event or claim. If proof of funds were to be required, I doubt it would, it would be a simple matter of Mel placing a sum of money into escrow. 

[PistoldPete]

2 minutes ago, IslandExile said:

Wasn't that a point made by one of the MPs? Pauline Latham, I think.

Amanda Salloway.

[Guest]

1 minute ago, PistoldPete said:

I certainly agree with the mental health bit. 
 

which is why I was desperately trying to find a way out if this logjam. Maybe too desperate it’s true. 
 

morris is not 100% owner of the club now. And he would be be in breach of his employment contract and any undertakings given to the club or to the league not to cause the club to break Efl rules. 
 

I can’t see why they wouldn’t have a cause for action against him , but also good reasons why the club wouldn’t act against him when we owe him £100m plus need his help with the stadium sale. 

He was never employed by DCFC, He owned it. He has no liability for his actions since he appointed Q as administrators unless Q discover some wrongdoing on his part while he owned the club for which he can then be held liable.

[one_chop]

So we are at stalemate, we just run down whatever is in the bank and board up the place, enter liquidation.

 

[Kenavo]

3 minutes ago, Elwood P Dowd said:

Normaly an  indemnity is a relatively simple undertaking usually made in a contract, to pay money or hold a company\person free from the happening of a specified event or claim. If proof of funds were to be required, I doubt it would, it would be a simple matter of Mel placing a sum of money into escrow.

[i-Ram]

25 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

There are no legal obligations for a shareholder/director to keep pumping personal cash into a failing business. At some point, irrespective of personal wealth, enough has to be enough (although I do remain critical of Morris in this regard, as DCFC are not simply a trading business, but an historic community asset, and as a fan I have expectations that any custodian of the club with abundant wealth should never put it in a position where it can wither and die).

The only reason it might be dodgy for Morris, not the Club, is if he was at any point considered to be unlawfully trading; incurring liabilities for others if/when the club was insolvent. I think we might have heard something by now if there was a case for action against Morris personally. Anyway, I dont think there is anything that currently that could stop Morris putting funds in an Escrow Account to cover any indemnity he offers to the Club / Boro.

Edited February 8, 2022 by i-Ram
Before Pete/Kevin jump on me; no legal obligations as long as his shares are fully paid up, which I suspect they will be (without looking).

[Curtains]

Mel needs to indemnify against any Boro or Wycombe claims .

He also needs to take a hit on Pride Park regarding price .

CK was right 

 

[MackworthRamIsGod]

We are on day 4 since Mels statement.

Not so much as an acknowledgement from Middlesbrough.

Nothing will come of Mels statement, all it is doing once and for all, demonstrating to the footballing world the true intentions of Gibson.

He is clearly livid, to this day, because we stole Waghorn from under their noses. This isn't about money, this is about revenge.

If we are dealing with a sane man, Gibson would take Mel up on his offer and allow the club, it's fans and the whole City to move on.

I don't think we are dealing with a sane man. I think Mels statement will have played into Gibsons hands. I have a feeling he doesn't care how this is reflecting on him, this is about how it makes HIM feel and its making HIM feel good knowing he has the whole club, the whole city and more importantly, Mel on strings.

If the EFL are the equivalent of a corrupt police force, Gibson is a corrupt cop, but one of those ones that over step the mark time and time again, not even the EFL agree with his antics, but Gibson has so much dirt on them, they can't do a sodding thing about it.

I still feel we are heading for liquidation as things stand and Ashley's PR stunt last night tells me even he is getting to the end of his tether with certain parties.

"The time is ticking" to quote his PR man.

 

Edited February 8, 2022 by MackworthRamIsGod

[Elwood P Dowd]

6 minutes ago, Kenavo said:

There are no corvids involved in an escrow .......honest?

Edited February 8, 2022 by Elwood P Dowd

[BriggRam]

I feel like I'm playing chess against the Gurkha I played against in the semi final of the inter company chess competition we held in Macedonia in 2001.....every move I made, his return move was followed by an annoying "check"......torture

[RoyMac5]

Have the administrators been asked if the Club can be sold and the claims dealt with afterwards - I seem to remember something when the Binnies bid was put forward. I get the problem is possible result of claims but all legal advice seems to suggest they have no chance. 

Is this going to be the only way out, say if Ashley takes them on after buying us?

[i-Ram]

4 minutes ago, MackworthRamIsGod said:

We are on day 4 since Mels statement.

Not so much as an acknowledgement from Middlesbrough.

Nothing will come of Mels statement, all it is doing once and for all, demonstrating to the footballing world the true intentions of Gibson.

He is clearly livid, to this day, because we stole Waghorn from under their noses. This isn't about money, this is about revenge.

If we are dealing with a sane man, Gibson would take Mel up on his offer and allow the club, it's fans and the whole City to move on.

I don't think we are dealing with a sane man. I think Mels statement will have played into Gibsons hands. I have a feeling he doesn't care how this is reflecting on him, this is about how it makes HIM feel and its making HIM feel good knowing he has the whole club, the whole city and more importantly, Mel on strings.

If the EFL are the equivalent of a corrupt police force, Gibson is a corrupt cop, but one of those ones that over step the mark time and time again, not even the EFL agree with his antics, but Gibson has so much dirt on them, they can't do a sodding thing about it.

I still feel we are heading for liquidation as things stand and Ashley's PR stunt last night tells me even he is getting to the end of his tether with certain parties.

"The time is ticking" to quote his PR man.

Bring me the head of Martyn Waghorn!

 

[tinman]

2 minutes ago, Tamworthram said:

There are some Q&A’s on the Rams Trust website from the meeting that have been added this morning but, as far as I can see, there is no mention of the EFL ruling out going to the high court (maybe I’ve missed it). Did you access your version from a reliable source?

The most relevant question and answer I can see is the one below. Maybe the final four words of the question are important if arbitration addresses “EFL rules”:

 

How would the Boro and Wycombe claims be dealt with in a normal company insolvency where EFL rules don’t exist?

Creditors are invited to submit claims for debts owed. The Insolvency Practitioner would then adjudicate on whether the claims should be accepted in full, rejected in part or rejected in full. The creditors can then challenge the Insolvency Practitioner’s decision through the Court if all or part of their claim has been rejected.

It was emailed direct from Ramstrust. So decide for yourself if you think they’re a reliable source!

I really don’t  get why that piece about “normal” businesses was left out of the minutes. 

Edited February 8, 2022 by tinman

[Curtains]

4 minutes ago, MackworthRamIsGod said:

We are on day 4 since Mels statement.

Not so much as an acknowledgement from Middlesbrough.

Nothing will come of Mels statement, all it is doing once and for all, demonstrating to the footballing world the true intentions of Gibson.

He is clearly livid, to this day, because we stole Waghorn from under their noses. This isn't about money, this is about revenge.

If we are dealing with a sane man, Gibson would take Mel up on his offer and allow the club, it's fans and the whole City to move on.

I don't think we are dealing with a sane man. I think Mels statement will have played into Gibsons hands. I have a feeling he doesn't care how this is reflecting on him, this is about how it makes HIM feel and its making HIM feel good knowing he has the whole club, the whole city and more importantly, Mel on strings.

If the EFL are the equivalent of a corrupt police force, Gibson is a corrupt cop, but one of those ones that over step the mark time and time again, not even the EFL agree with his antics, but Gibson has so much dirt on them, they can't do a sodding thing about it.

I still feel we are heading for liquidation as things stand and Ashley's PR stunt last night tells me even he is getting to the end of his tether with certain parties.

"The time is ticking" to quote his PR man.

 

No liquidation is unlikely now .

Boro / Wycombe claims have n o Validity in a Court where Mel could push them if he guaranteed against the claims .

I think Mel will do this and a preferred bidder will be presented provided the Stadium is no obstacle 

[BriggRam]

1 minute ago, i-Ram said:

Bring me the head of Martyn Waghorn!

 

He looks very angry there......is it because he is stood in front of Readings badge, a team found guilty of failings ffp, the same season they have got Carroll and drinkwater on loan

[i-Ram]

2 minutes ago, Tamworthram said:

There are some Q&A’s on the Rams Trust website from the meeting that have been added this morning but, as far as I can see, there is no mention of the EFL ruling out going to the high court (maybe I’ve missed it). Did you access your version from a reliable source?

The most relevant question and answer I can see is the one below. Maybe the final four words of the question are important if arbitration addresses “EFL rules”:

 

How would the Boro and Wycombe claims be dealt with in a normal company insolvency where EFL rules don’t exist?

Creditors are invited to submit claims for debts owed. The Insolvency Practitioner would then adjudicate on whether the claims should be accepted in full, rejected in part or rejected in full. The creditors can then challenge the Insolvency Practitioner’s decision through the Court if all or part of their claim has been rejected.

It would seem to me that the final paragraph is exactly the action Q propsed to the EFL on that fateful Thursday in mid-Jan. The EFL said something like, go-ahead with your statutory powers, but dont be surprised if the Rams won't have a league to play in if you proceed on that basis.

[TuffLuff]

I was only listening on an AM radio last night so only really half caught why the first solicitor said, so I’ve had a relisten this morning and just to be clear with what he said and he does point out the Morris proposal” is sound”. But I think what he’s saying is high court judges and lawyers would throw the case out so Boro and Wycombe won’t go for it, which ‘Mel and his lawyers fully well know’. So it’s not that Mel can’t necessarily do it (I’m ignoring the bit he mentions about the corporate veil, because I’m not sure it’s relevant if Morris tells them to sue him and not the club), it’s putting the ball back into the court of the EFL/Boro/Wycombe, which is exactly what everyone is saying before everyone became a legal expert. It will probably end up with indemnity yes, but also Mel is the big loser in that case and Gibson/Couhig have nothing on the line, so if arbitration isn’t until May and we have funds to survive then Mel is technically within his rights to atleast try this first.

Ie, this ain’t PR but probably the first step in the process.