The Administration Thread

[kevinhectoring]

2 hours ago, PistoldPete said:

think what's happening is that EFL do not like the idea of the "claims" being compressed now , even though they are not football creditors. Nor

But EFl accepts we can pay just 25% to unsecureds  

[Guest]

10 minutes ago, Sparkle said:

If you have a non contract dispute for money the administrators are not allowed to pay anything it really is that simple - the EFL ability to totally ignore that reality is what is not solving this impasse and nothing will change until the administrators go down the legal route to enforce the process and when that happens the EFL will probably say oh you have broken our guidelines as we choose to interpret them. 
I would even consider 30,000 different Derby county supporters going to the small claims court against the EFL for not following their own rules on allowing inter club disputes as David has highlighted, yes I do not know what aspect for damages we could claim for but it means the EFL actually have to defend the claims or lose so it may well focus their attention 

While I love your sentiments Sparkie, multiple claims on this issue to the SCC would take years to consider. Also, simply lodging a claim there costs an initial c.£250 and further attendance at the court risks further costs being awarded against the claimant. It could end up being very expensive for each of us who chose to engage in this way. I think any help we can make to further the cause would be better placed nearer to home.

[ossieram]

1 hour ago, kevinhectoring said:

 I can’t even find a copy of the EFL’s insolvency policy  !! 

Gibson hasn't wrote it yet.

[kevinhectoring]

25 minutes ago, TheresOnlyWanChope said:

True. Mel has to indemnify the club. However would Q then take this to court with whose lawyers? Morris would want his own lawyers on this. But they would need to represent DCFC. I mentioned this before. Surely this is a new potential issue?

it’s a common issue. The parties need to negotiate a clause that gives MM ‘conduct of the action’ to reflect that DCFC is the defendant whilst he calls the shots   But you’re right there is a fair bit of detail to be agreed 

[ollycutts1982]

50 minutes ago, Curtains said:

 

Club representatives

Nicholas Randall QC - Championship - Nottingham Forest

Peter Ridsdale - Championship - Preston North End

Neil Bausor - Championship - Middlesbrough

Jez Moxey - League One – Burton Albion

Steven Curwood - League One - Fleetwood Town

John Nixon - League Two – Carlisle United
 

What sway do these people have !

Has Nixon been replaced in one of his roles 

https://www.newsandstar.co.uk/news/19493887.carlisle-united-co-owner-john-nixon-replaced-efl-trust-chairman-lincoln-city-man/

I have said it before and will continue to do so. The EFL have Peter Ridsdale on their board. The same Peter Ridsdale who was banned from being a director of any company from 2012-2020 for siphoning £350k into his personal bank account not a business account. 

The EFL ladies and gentlemen, rotten to the core. 

[kevinhectoring]

2 hours ago, PistoldPete said:

So isn't that clear that EFL rules do not encourage club to club disputes of the kind contemplated by Boro and Wycombe? I don't know what other reasonable interpretation there can be.  

The rules don’t encourage or discourage disputes between clubs  They simply regulate whether those disputes are or are not subject to arbitration. As to whether the EFL itself encourages club to club disputes, there’s every reason to think it’s the last thing they would do 

[Sparkle]

11 minutes ago, Brailsford Ram said:

While I love your sentiments Sparkie, multiple claims on this issue to the SCC would take years to consider. Also, simply lodging a claim there costs an initial c.£250 and further attendance at the court risks further costs being awarded against the claimant. It could end up being very expensive for each of us who chose to engage in this way. I think any help we can make to further the cause would be better placed nearer to home.

Yep I know but lodging a few with a valid claim will be rolling some marbles under their feet ?

[Sparkle]

7 minutes ago, ollycutts1982 said:

I have said it before and will continue to do so. The EFL have Peter Ridsdale on their board. The same Peter Ridsdale who was banned from being a director of any company from 2012-2020 for siphoning £350k into his personal bank account not a business account. 

The EFL ladies and gentlemen, rotten to the core. 

Well that at least is the standard they are willing to operate with ?

[Bobby]

36 minutes ago, Curtains said:

I wonder if this has always been applied by the EFL 

 

5              Clubs Ceasing to be Members of the Championship

5.1          If a Club is promoted or relegated out of the Championship Division that Club shall, notwithstanding promotion or relegation, remain bound by these as if it were still a Championship Club, until such time as it has complied with all of its obligations relating to its last Season as a Championship Club.

What did we see of the 40 Million or so allegedly paid by QPR 

Sweet FA because Derby. Ever threatened legal action against QPR and we lost in a Final.  
 
Boro might have not got even to the final 

The 40 million was actually about 20 million cash and the balance being transferred into equity by the owners ( so they effectively pick the tab up for half the amount) the actual remaining 20 million gets paid to charity and I believe QPR gave it to the Grenfell trust. 

[atherstoneram]

19 minutes ago, Sparkle said:

Yep I know but lodging a few with a valid claim will be rolling some marbles under their feet ?

What valid claim would that be?

[Mucker1884]

2 hours ago, Unlucky Alf said:

Silence is Golden...the shadows...

*Tremeloes!  

[Ewetube]

I wonder why the EFL are either unable or unwilling to respond to Rams fans seeking clarification on rules 3.5 and 4.4.

Surely that should be the easiest job in the world for a sport's governing body to provide clarity on its own rules.

[Crewton]

33 minutes ago, Bobby said:

The 40 million was actually about 20 million cash and the balance being transferred into equity by the owners ( so they effectively pick the tab up for half the amount) the actual remaining 20 million gets paid to charity and I believe QPR gave it to the Grenfell trust. 

I know QPR have done allot for the victims of the Grenfell fire, but that last bit is made-up isn't it? The money is being paid to the EFL over a 10 year period (your club has tried to have the balance written-off - see below) and as far as I know the club that's been fined doesn;t get a say in where it goes?

Please provide evidence for such a bold claim.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-9165339/QPR-CEO-Lee-Hoos-sends-letter-fellow-Championship-clubs-request-cut-42m-FFP-fine.html

[i-Ram]

48 minutes ago, kevinhectoring said:

I-ram,  I posted an abbreviated version of the arbitration provision to try to stay on point. If you look at the provision (95.2) it sets out in chapter and verse exactly what does and does not fall within the scope of the arbitration requirement. This is the list:  

95.2.1    subject to Regulation 95.3 below, disputes arising from a decision of The League or the Board (‘Board Disputes’);

95.2.2    Disciplinary Appeals;

95.2.3    ‘Force Majeure’ appeals pursuant to Regulation 12.3 (Sporting Sanction Appeal);

95.2.4    applications pursuant to Rule 6 of Appendix 3 (Appeal Application and/or Review Applications under the Owners’ and Directors’ Test);

95.2.5    other disputes between The League and Clubs and between each Club arising from these Regulations or otherwise (‘Other Disputes’)

All noted Kevin, thank you. Tied up at the mo. Busy day at the office, but I will revert later with any additional observations I have ?

All I would say for now is that if there are EFL rules/regs established whereby the Club (Derby in this case) go through a fully independent disciplinary process, LAP appeals, etc., and a decision is made as to penalties, awards, etc., it seems absolutely ridiculous that another part of the rules/regs might allow another member club (Boro in this case) to say we are not happy with the decision EFL, and we want to enter into an arbitration hearing with Derby to try to get an extra award on top.  There should be no need for any further abitration, the EFL's decision should be full, final and binding.  Yes there might be grounds for Boro to go after the EFL, but not Derby. And Boro could reveal further information that might mean another disciplinary hearing needs to be held, but again that should be the EFL v Derby. The fact that the EFL are saying they dont know the substance of Boro's claims is an absoilutely ridiculous position to take, especially as we are under the impression that Boro's gripe seems to be limited to the fact that the LAP decisions didn't help them in anyway.

[Ghost of Clough]

4 hours ago, G STAR RAM said:

Yes get the feeling it is better just to ask one question so they cant sweep everything else under the carpet.

I did that - sent several emails each with one question. ?

They then gave a generic response to all questions in just one email.

[chipperram]

As is already being said, the silence is deafening. However, as has gone on before somebody will break cover, say something crass/wrong/misleading which will create a backlash, further reciprocal communications etc. Gibson’s silence is likely due to the double edged sword MM served him on Friday, he is trying to think of his next move, get his ducks in a row as anything else he says needs to be unpickable, it won’t be though as it is a baseless claim.

It would be great if on Friday he claims to backdown or go to court within MM, it may stop the inevitable issues which follow this kind of thing to football grounds with the wastrels of the world kicking off. Currently the WWFC “claim” is just a distraction and will only be visited if Gibson can prove his claim is legit, I would concern myself with the Gibson claim and not even entertain WWFC until they actually table a claim. 

[kevinhectoring]

2 minutes ago, i-Ram said:

if there are EFL rules/regs established whereby the Club (Derby in this case) go through a fully independent disciplinary process, LAP appeals, etc., and a decision is made as to penalties, awards, etc., it seems absolutely ridiculous that another part of the rules/regs might allow another member club (Boro in this case) to say we are not happy with the decision EFL, and we want to enter into an arbitration hearing with Derby to try to get an extra award on top

Exactamente  

[PistoldPete]

1 hour ago, kevinhectoring said:

But EFl accepts we can pay just 25% to unsecureds  

Boro and Wycombe claims are unsecured. And they are not football creditors . So why can’t they be compressed?

[The Scarlet Pimpernel]

58 minutes ago, kevinhectoring said:

The rules don’t encourage or discourage disputes between clubs  They simply regulate whether those disputes are or are not subject to arbitration. As to whether the EFL itself encourages club to club disputes, there’s every reason to think it’s the last thing they would do 

How come the EFL encouraged Boro to claim against us to stay legal action against themselves then?

[kevinhectoring]

Just now, chipperram said:

As is already being said, the silence is deafening.

Someone on here said there will be pressure on all parties to sort this out before the Boro game for obvious reasons. Could be bad for Gibbo and us if there’s trouble. 
So perhaps we’ll have good news before Saturday