The Administration Thread

[vonwright]

40 minutes ago, kevinhectoring said:

Looked at the Parry comments - they confirm Gibbo bullied EFl into bringing the proceedings against us. That’s why I posted this morning that EFl was woeful in allowing Gibbo and his vendetta to drive their policy. That was then. Now is now 

Really struggling to follow Parry's "logic" about how the two things are connected.

"You [the EFL] failed to impose your rules well enough or quickly enough." 

This may be true, I have no idea, but the rules were eventually applied, Derby taken to a hearing, and appeal launched when Derby won, and ultimately a points sanction applied. If Boro are honestly saying "All this should have happened the same year! We would have been promoted!" well good luck with that, but your beef is clearly with the EFL.

"You [Derby] cheated and therefore won more points that you would have done otherwise, denying us a place in the play-offs as a result."

This may be true, I have no idea (although I suspect its hard to prove in a court of law), but how on earth is it connected with the first claim? 

If the EFL's "slowness" in enforcing its rules cost Boro promotion, what's changed? Why aren't they proceeding with the claim against the EFL as well as suing us for "damages"? Surely the legitimacy of one claim doesn't depend in any way on the legitimacy of the other?

In why case, why exactly have Boro dropped their claim against the EFL? Would the EFL have prevented them going after us otherwise? Was this a formal condition? And isn't that morally and/or legally a bit ropey?

Think they should be pushed on this point - forced to say out loud the implicit part.

Edited February 10, 2022 by vonwright

[Crewton]

1 hour ago, Bobby said:

https://www.bbc.com/sport/football/44980113.amp
 

last paragraph seems to say that it goes towards community football projects, so I would guess that each yearly payment does go to charity rather than the EFL

Yes perhaps, but not specifically in the community of the club that gets fined - it goes to projects across the country in general, that's my understanding. Fining clubs and then allowing them to get credit with the general public by allowing them to name their own charities would be a rather odd kind of penalty.

[TooFarInToTurnRed]

3 hours ago, WestKentRam said:

Of course I understand where a lot of posters are coming from, but I'm just conscious I don't want Boro and the EFL to actually be playing the long game, hoping we make a load of libellous comments on here so they will actually come after us fans for compo rather than the club!

I'm trying to deal in the facts of this whole sorry affair, but it's become so tortuous and complicated that I find it hard to get my head around the timeline and how exactly we have arrived at this current situation. So while awaiting Mr Gibson's yay or nay to Mel's offer I'm piecing together such a timeline for my own benefit, to try and counter those who just come out with ridiculous statements such as 'well you cheated so you deserve to be liquidated', with reference to what the club has actually done compared to others in the league, and how we were found guilty in what feels like a very unfair process.

On reflection, I do wonder if Mel is actually such a villain in all this that he is portrayed as.

He was pursued by the EFL and Boro over a number of years with an ongoing transfer embargo and the sense that a huge points deduction was looming with likely relegation and possible successive relegations on the cards. There was a massive financial claim outstanding making a sale of the club by him very unlikely. So cutting his losses by entering administration would seem like the next step to give administrators a chance of resolving these issues by removing himself, as it had become very personal between him, the EFL and Boro.

Of course I understand this does not factor in the terrible cost to staff, businesses and charities owed money by the club, but would be interested to know if an owner has ever personally settled a businesses' debts first then put it into administration, as this would seem to be a most unusually altruistic thing to do from a business and personal finance point of view.

With regard to the money owed to HMRC an accountant I know has had a preliminary look at the club's audited accounts accessible on the Companies House website just to informally try to answer a question for me. They only extend up to 2018 but I am told that up to this point there was no money owed to HMRC. The £26-£29m owed is not from trading ie it is from PAYE, NI and VAT. When did the club start getting behind with these payments after 2018? How much can be explained by going into administration and amounts owed over the course of a year due to this?

Thought some of this the tax due on the sale of the ground which was in effect a paper exercise.

Could explain why they would be likely to accept a low settlement as realistically it’s not money they have really lost out on. 

[FlyBritishMidland]

1 hour ago, EnigmaRam said:

This guy reminds me of a stereotypical car salesman. Apologies to car salesman everywhere 

 

[Ghost of Clough]

1 hour ago, G STAR RAM said:

P&S figures are not available in the accounts, so I would suggest getting your facts correct first. 

I don't think I'm entitled to know anything and not sure how the administrators would know how the EFL calculated Readings points deduction?

I asked the EFL the question and you would think that with them keen to stress that they are treating DCFC fairly that they would want to be transparent on such a matter which should clearly demonstrate they are treating all teams equally and in line with their rules.

 

£18.809m overspend

[Anag Ram]

.

 

Edited February 10, 2022 by Anag Ram
Error

[Anag Ram]

Just now, Anag Ram said:

 

 

 

9 minutes ago, FlyBritishMidland said:

 

Coming out of administration is like making love to a beautiful woman.

You have to satisfy every point, keep your assets for as long as possible and get others on board to make sure she’s there for the long haul.

Edited February 10, 2022 by Anag Ram
Error

[atherstoneram]

Just now, Anag Ram said:

Coming out of administration is like making love to a beautiful woman.

You have to satisfy every point, keep your assets for as long as possible and get others on board to make sure she’s there for the long haul.

 

One indiscretion on your part and she is off like a shot never to be seen again.

[kevinhectoring]

52 minutes ago, The Scarlet Pimpernel said:

So isn't that against 4.4? By allowing Boro to bring claims about another club? 

No

4.4 is limited to the duty of good faith, it says that only the EFL can sue a club for a breach of the good faith duty. Boro’s claim against us was different. They claimed we had breached the P&S rules and they had suffered loss. Nothing to do with good faith 
 

I’d not looked at the Boro decision before. It contains a confirmation in para 13 that the EFl rules constitute a multilateral agreement between clubs and that breach by a club of the rules is actionable by other clubs if they can prove loss. I can’t reconcile this with what @PistoldPeteand @Davidhave been saying on here

[Guest]

7 minutes ago, kevinhectoring said:

No

4.4 is limited to the duty of good faith, it says that only the EFL can sue a club for a breach of the good faith duty. Boro’s claim against us was different. They claimed we had breached the P&S rules and they had suffered loss. Nothing to do with good faith 
 

I’d not looked at the Boro decision before. It contains a confirmation in para 13 that the EFl rules constitute a multilateral agreement between clubs and that breach by a club of the rules is actionable by other clubs if they can prove loss. I can’t reconcile this with what @PistoldPeteand @Davidhave been saying on here

Yes agreed this is what I have been trying to explain on here this morning 

[PistoldPete]

16 minutes ago, Monty said:

Yes agreed this is what I have been trying to explain on here this morning 

And what I have been trying to explain is that that is almost the only club to club duty that exists under the Efl rules. Almost All other duties are club to Efl. 

Edited February 10, 2022 by PistoldPete

[G STAR RAM]

1 hour ago, atherstoneram said:

Why the need to ask the EFL, your question should be directed towards the administrators if you have any concerns. If you had a contract with the ELF that would be different but you don't no fan does.

As already stated, why would the administrator know how the EFL have calculated the points deduction for Reading?

[G STAR RAM]

38 minutes ago, Ghost of Clough said:

£18.809m overspend

For Reading?

Compared to what for DCFC?

[maxjam]

Doesn't really say anything new

 

[PistoldPete]

29 minutes ago, kevinhectoring said:

No

4.4 is limited to the duty of good faith, it says that only the EFL can sue a club for a breach of the good faith duty. Boro’s claim against us was different. They claimed we had breached the P&S rules and they had suffered loss. Nothing to do with good faith 
 

I’d not looked at the Boro decision before. It contains a confirmation in para 13 that the EFl rules constitute a multilateral agreement between clubs and that breach by a club of the rules is actionable by other clubs if they can prove loss. I can’t reconcile this with what @PistoldPeteand @Davidhave been saying on here

What do you know about Boro claim? All I know is that they allege we cheated. And according to MM they refer to 4.4 in their claim. Well cheating is acting in bad faith I would say. 
 

so the only claim we know about should fail straightaway. 

[WestKentRam]

40 minutes ago, TooFarInToTurnRed said:

Thought some of this the tax due on the sale of the ground which was in effect a paper exercise.

Could explain why they would be likely to accept a low settlement as realistically it’s not money they have really lost out on. 

I had asked this question of my accountancy snout, but was told the accounts to 2018 show the club made £40m when it sold the ground. There was no tax payable as the club had brought forward tax losses from prior years.

I would be intrigued to know over what time period following 2018 the sum owed to HMRC accrued. If it was mainly due to the change in amortisation procedure, that had initially been agreed with the EFL who then changed their minds after it had been used for some time, then this essentially would mean the EFL directly led to our financial difficulties by their retrospective rule change. I am hoping this is the case and am awaiting further accountancy advice... If not, it rather stuffs my narrative up!

 

[PistoldPete]

7 minutes ago, maxjam said:

Doesn't really say anything new

 

It’s quite a good piece. Shame no one watches Gb News. 

[Guest]

13 minutes ago, PistoldPete said:

And what I have been trying to explain is that that is almost the only club to club duty that exists under the Efl rules. Almost All other duties are club to Efl. 

Not sure what you mean by ‘duty/duties’ but my reading of the clause is that it does not preclude clubs taking action against each other except in the utmost good faith requirement where only the efl can take action
 

some postings (not necessarily yours) seem to suggest that rule 4.4 stops clubs taking action against each other and this is where my reading of the rule differs 

but as I said earlier this needs professional legal interpretation - I am only putting forward my personal opinion and that’s all it is an opinion 

[Ghost of Clough]

4 minutes ago, G STAR RAM said:

For Reading?

Compared to what for DCFC?

Yes.

Reading
4Y to 2021 - £18.809m

Derby
3Y to 2017 - £7.76m
3Y to 2019 - £11.72m
4Y to 2021 - £1.96m

 

If all breaches were treated independently, and as per the point deduction guidelines, it would be 12 points for Reading vs 17 (6+8+3) points for Derby.

[vonwright]

1 hour ago, vonwright said:

Really struggling to follow Parry's "logic" about how the two things are connected.

"You [the EFL] failed to impose your rules well enough or quickly enough." 

This may be true, I have no idea, but the rules were eventually applied, Derby taken to a hearing, and appeal launched when Derby won, and ultimately a points sanction applied. If Boro are honestly saying "All this should have happened the same year! We would have been promoted!" well good luck with that, but your beef is clearly with the EFL.

"You [Derby] cheated and therefore won more points that you would have done otherwise, denying us a place in the play-offs as a result."

This may be true, I have no idea (although I suspect its hard to prove in a court of law), but how on earth is it connected with the first claim? 

If the EFL's "slowness" in enforcing its rules cost Boro promotion, what's changed? Why aren't they proceeding with the claim against the EFL as well as suing us for "damages"? Surely the legitimacy of one claim doesn't depend in any way on the legitimacy of the other?

In why case, why exactly have Boro dropped their claim against the EFL? Would the EFL have prevented them going after us otherwise? Was this a formal condition? And isn't that morally and/or legally a bit ropey?

Think they should be pushed on this point - forced to say out loud the implicit part.

A far quicker way of saying all this:

Do Middlesbrough considered themselves to have dropped their claim against the EFL, or settled their claim against the EFL?

If the former: why?

If the latter: what were the terms of the settlement? To be given permission to do something (seek damages from Derby) they wouldn't otherwise have been allowed to do (sounds dodgy)? To receive tacit support for their claim (sounds dodgy)?