The Administration Thread

[RoyMac5]

27 minutes ago, Eatonram said:

Lets say for the sake of arguement that Boro would "accept" £3m (how kind of them). This overlooks the fact that, in insolvency law, this does not represent a "debt" that the administrators can legally pay, particularly if it had to be Paid as a football debt at 100% when other creditors (like HMRC) are likely to be forced to accept 25%. It is just not possible for the Admins to bung Gibson cash to go away. Can you not get this??? Seriously??

Obviously doesn't understand you or the law. #COYR

Edited February 8, 2022 by RoyMac5

[RoyMac5]

9 minutes ago, duncanjwitham said:

You'll never guess which club's 2017 accounts this comes from:

Oh, oh, ask @BoroWillperhaps he'll know which club?

[On the Ram Page]

22 minutes ago, Indy said:

I’m sure we must’ve discussed this at some point, but I’ve just re-read the judgement on Middlesbrough’s application to join as an affected party in our original case (covering both stadium valuation and amortisation). I remembered that their request to join as a party (and therefore be considered to be awarded compensation by the panel) had failed. What I had forgotten was that the ruling also said that they could not commence their own arbitration regarding these matters. That being the case - why can we not just point at this finding and say an independent panel has already ruled that this current action is not permissible?

https://www.efl.com/contentassets/c9fc5dceaa7f4b62b81dca0b9e2f7c9d/2020.10.26---decision-on-mfc-redaction.pdf

 

 

Indy: Excellent work. I would be interested if you sent this to Rick Parry for his comments!

[PistoldPete]

1 hour ago, BoroWill said:

It is making allegations against directors in their roles as directors, not pursuing them in a court of law after they have stepped down from a limited company. There really is no connection whatsoever.

So what has Roy Mcfarland done wrong? It’s scandalising and false and unnecessary. Why mention the directors at all in that statement if the claim is against the Company? 

[kevinhectoring]

51 minutes ago, Crewton said:

Yes, I acknowledge that it could be a mad idea, but I'd like to know if it's feasible.

Your other scenario is pretty much what I'm suggesting anyway, isn't it?

I don’t think Mel’s proposal is feasible, not in the way he describes it 

Yes, the other version (MFC sues the club in the HC, Mel foots the bill) is not really that different from your idea. The only difficult thing is this: the requirement to arbitrate is an EFL requirement so the proposal might need EFL consent. They will not be keen to grant it because Mm’s insistence on the High Court comes from his lack of faith in the EFL system. 

[Gritstone Ram]

1 hour ago, BoroWill said:

I think we'll probably finish top 6, then it's pot luck from that point.

If only you had as much faith as your owner in 2019 who clearly thinks you were certain to go up.

[Ghost of Clough]

1 hour ago, scout's dad said:

As I previously mentioned both claims are about different times for when points deduction should have been implemented. Will it come to a time when MFC and WWFC think about suing each other if either one is successful with their respective claim?

Sort of but not really. Both are more or less for the same thing - we overspent in the period of which they missed out on the playoffs or were relegated.

Boro
We exceeded the limits in the 3 years to 2019 (16/17, 17/18 and 18/19) so Boro feels wronged.
 

Wycombe
I'm not sure which of the following two options they'll be pushing for:

1. We exceeded the limits in the 4 years to 2021 (17/18, 18/19, 19/20, 20/21). But, Wycombe feel we should have had an unprecedented in season deduction. This is the option similar to Boro's.
2. The punishment for exceeding the limits in the 2017 and 2019 periods should have been applied to the 20/21 season, whilst the deduction for the 2021 period should be in the 21/22 season

[scout's dad]

3 minutes ago, On the Ram Page said:

Indy: Excellent work. I would be interested if you sent this to Rick Parry for his comments!

Hopefully he will read it

[kevinhectoring]

3 hours ago, Tamworthram said:

I’m struggling to think of any scenario whereby a bank would guarantee payment of Mel’s liability in the event that he would lose the case

But why? Assuming he’s still worth 100s of millions, he gives security to the bank and the bank issues the guarantee. We have struggles enough please don’t go looking for more 

[Gaspode]

17 minutes ago, PistoldPete said:

So what has Roy Mcfarland done wrong? It’s scandalising and false and unnecessary. Why mention the directors at all in that statement if the claim is against the Company? 

Almost certainly because the Gibbon wanted money directly from Mel - but now Morris has called him out, he's stuck with trying to get it from a company that is effectively bust.....as has been suggested previously, it seems he doesn't get his pronouncements sanity checked before making them public - hope it comes back to bite him on the ardvaark when the main threat to our existence is over....

[scout's dad]

8 minutes ago, Ghost of Clough said:

Sort of but not really. Both are more or less for the same thing - we overspent in the period of which they missed out on the playoffs or were relegated.

Boro
We exceeded the limits in the 3 years to 2019 (16/17, 17/18 and 18/19) so Boro feels wronged.
 

Wycombe
I'm not sure which of the following two options they'll be pushing for:

1. We exceeded the limits in the 4 years to 2021 (17/18, 18/19, 19/20, 20/21). But, Wycombe feel we should have had an unprecedented in season deduction. This is the option similar to Boro's.
2. The punishment for exceeding the limits in the 2017 and 2019 periods should have been applied to the 20/21 season, whilst the deduction for the 2021 period should be in the 21/22 season

Hi GoC thanks for clarifying - I was only relaying what the first solicitor mentioned on last nights talk in

[TooFarInToTurnRed]

20 minutes ago, RoyMac5 said:

Oh, oh, ask @BoroWillperhaps he'll know which club?

I would prefer to ask him how Derby with revenue of £29.1m and a loss of £47m gained an unfair advantage over Boro with a revenue of £55.6m and a loss of £28m.

Derby spent £76.1m and Boro spent £83.6 yet we cheated according to them by actually spending less due to an arbitrary limit on losses. The reason they do not want this heard in a proper court is that on the rules do not make sense in the real world.

[RoyMac5]

 

[Ghost of Clough]

1 hour ago, BoroWill said:

Gibson isn't on the board of the EFL. No, I don't think any collusion has gone on. Of course there is a connection, Gibson threatened to sue the EFL if they didn't enforce their own rules properly, they then enforced their own rules properly. No, I don't want a situation where league tables are player out in court, I also don't want a situation where one clubs cheating potentially costs another club money/a shot at promotion. I'd think go for it.

If the EFL enforced their own rules they would dismiss these frivolous claims which breach EFL regulations (clubs cannot pursue action against another club for P&S breaches)

[cosmic]

Keep going everyone, once we convince @BoroWill we'll have the rest of the Middlesbrough fan base on strings.

[Gaspode]

Just now, Ghost of Clough said:

If the EFL enforced their own rules they would dismiss these frivolous claims which breach EFL regulations (clubs cannot pursue action against another club for P&S breaches)

Ah, but then Gibson and the yank would sue them instead - and they can't be having that when there's a sacrifice lying there ready to be finished off instead....

[RoyMac5]

Just now, cosmic said:

Keep going everyone, once we convince @BoroWill we'll have the rest of the Middlesbrough fan base on strings.

It's more than tedious having to go over and over old ground, just so some Boro fan can convince himself that Gibbon and Boro aren't the bad guys. Well they are the bad guys.

[scout's dad]

3 minutes ago, RoyMac5 said:

 

[Ghost of Clough]

1 hour ago, BoroWill said:

Your submissions up to that period could have been recalculated by an independent set of accountants using the standard amortisation policy used by other clubs in the league at that point though, which would have provided basis for a claim if the other party felt that these were not in line with the rules.

P&S submissions are confidential so are not to be shared with other clubs. As of January 2019, only accoutns made up to June 2017 had been shared with public. As such, it was impossible for anyone outside of the club or the EFL to reliably estimate what the P&S figures would be. So much so, the EFL charged us with failing the 2018 period, but when finally resolved, 2018 was actually a period which we passed.

[Ghost of Clough]

1 hour ago, BoroWill said:

The only realistic claim we'd have any chance of winning is on the lost ticket and TV revenue from the playoff semi finals, however much that is. I'd guess that is much closer to the £5-6m number that I saw the Sunday Times claiming.

Why?

We failed the 3 year period to 2017 = points deduction in 17/18
We failed the 3 year period to 2019 = points deduction in 19/20

Under EFL regulations, Derby still would have finished 6th in 18/19 due to no points deductions in that season.