The Administration Thread

[LazloW]

4 minutes ago, Ramos said:

The same Mel who spent almost two years trying to get rid of us. He doesn’t want that and the EFL won’t allow it. The more this goes on the more I’m convinced Mike Ashley will takeover. 

TBF Simon Jordan did say that he didn’t think the EFL would allow it (which made his suggestion that this might be happening all the more odd).

He also reckoned Gibson would settle for something like £2 or £3 million.  As I said, complete baseless speculation, but a change from the speculation around the EFL rules ?

[duncanjwitham]

The admins are funded by taking a share of any proceeds from a sale or liquidation, are they not?

[PistoldPete]

2 minutes ago, Mary Hindge said:

Anyone just hear Simon "Big words" Jordon on talks sport? Said that Dell might be the ones paying the administrators but funding them might still be Mel? 

 

Went over my simple head a bit but what I got from it was Mel might want some involvement in the club he doubts he would ever be allowed by the EFL to be a majority shareholder but he might still be holding it up? 

 

Only sharing this as not read anything like that on this thread regarding Mel still wanting/having some say on what happens to us, could explain why the administrators are taking so long with everything

It’s garbled but almost right. MSD provide loan to the Rams which in the event of a default is charged against PPS ( which is still owned by Mel). So in a way he is still funding us by allowing this to happen.  But likely that when he sells PPS he will want at least to cover the MSD loan so it can be paid off. 
 

I don’t think he wants any more involvement than that, apart from dealing with pubehead and yank. 

[Addingham Ram]

5 minutes ago, LazloW said:

TBF Simon Jordan did say that he didn’t think the EFL would allow it (which made his suggestion that this might be happening all the more odd).

He also reckoned Gibson would settle for something like £2 or £3 million.  As I said, complete baseless speculation, but a change from the speculation around the EFL rules ?

I despise everything about Steve Gibson, and if a small settlement would do the trick, then I think any of the bidders would have swallowed it and we'd have had a new owner some time ago.

Furthermore, it would be proof that he has deliberately frustrated the whole saga to suit his own agenda.

[Cook1988]

1 hour ago, Brailsford Ram said:

But to be fair, Reading had shifted n Andy Carroll's wages to WBA before they took Ince on loan.

He was only on 1k a week 

[Sparkle]

13 minutes ago, Ramos said:

The same Mel who spent almost two years trying to get rid of us. He doesn’t want that and the EFL won’t allow it. The more this goes on the more I’m convinced Mike Ashley will takeover. 

It’s an interesting one though - I am not sure the EFL could stop him - after allowing him in the first place to take over. If he came back in with I am going to pay all the outstanding debts and then sell the entire package debt free - who would stop him? - he could then defend his position within the many aspects of the EFL guidelines 

[kevinhectoring]

1 hour ago, David said:

Earlier you said:

"The clubs are in contract with each other under the rules" 

That's not true, even the piece you have quoted doesn't back that up.

Paragraph 13:

Multi-party agreement. Not multi lateral agreement. You're literally adding words in now that are not there to back up your argument, in the hope that nobody actually checks, no different to the Boro lawyers that omitted lines from 4.4

Multi-party agreement....

EFL and Derby

EFL and Boro

EFL and Blackpool

EFL and Preston

And on and on.

You are describing a series of bilateral contracts, each between the EFl and one club. Under that sort of arrangement, you would be right to say clubs can’t sue each other in contract  (But they might have other grounds to sue each other obviously) 

Para 13, which I quoted from, states that the EFl rules have a different effect.  It confirms they give rise to a multilateral or multi party agreement (these two things are the same). This is one single contract involving multiple parties, in this case the EFl and all of the clubs. So each club is party to the same contract.  Hence the starting point is they can sue each other in contract. 
 

BTW I still think the MFC claim fails entirely so not suggesting we should be worried by this. But it gives MFC a better chance of success than under your analysis 

[angieram]

1 hour ago, Arsene Titman said:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/sportsnews/article-10501877/Derby-Countys-former-owner-Mel-Morris-Boros-chairman-Steve-Gibson-FINALLY-open-talks.html
 

According to the Daily Mail, Gibson and Mel are talking

This is another quite well-balanced article from the Daily Mail. What is the world coming to? 

[duncanjwitham]

2 minutes ago, Addingham Ram said:

I despise everything about Steve Gibson, and if a small settlement would do the trick, then I think any of the bidders would have swallowed it and we'd have had a new owner some time ago.

Furthermore, it would be proof that he has deliberately frustrated the whole saga to suit his own agenda.

The risk of other claimants crawling out of the woodwork renders the actual size of any payoff moot IMO.  If we settle at all, or a tribunal finds in 'Boro's favour, then what's to stop Leeds or Bristol City, or any other team that finished in or around us in previous seasons, from claiming?

[May Contain Nuts]

2 minutes ago, duncanjwitham said:

The risk of other claimants crawling out of the woodwork renders the actual size of any payoff moot IMO.  If we settle at all, or a tribunal finds in 'Boro's favour, then what's to stop Leeds or Bristol City, or any other team that finished in or around us in previous seasons, from claiming?

Common decency

[Sparkle]

7 minutes ago, Cook1988 said:

He was only on 1k a week 

Fair enough we wouldn’t know anyway 

[mozza]

Only a grand a week, shame..

[i-Ram]

3 minutes ago, kevinhectoring said:

You are describing a series of bilateral contracts, each between the EFl and one club. Under that sort of arrangement, you would be right to say clubs can’t sue each other in contract  (But they might have other grounds to sue each other obviously) 

Para 13, which I quoted from, states that the EFl rules have a different effect.  It confirms they give rise to a multilateral or multi party agreement (these two things are the same). This is one single contract involving multiple parties, in this case the EFl and all of the clubs. So each club is party to the same contract.  Hence the starting point is they can sue each other in contract. 
 

BTW I still think the MFC claim fails entirely so not suggesting we should be worried by this. But it gives MFC a better chance of success than under your analysis 

Get him Dave!!!!! @David

 

[Day]

9 minutes ago, kevinhectoring said:

You are describing a series of bilateral contracts, each between the EFl and one club. Under that sort of arrangement, you would be right to say clubs can’t sue each other in contract  (But they might have other grounds to sue each other obviously) 

Para 13, which I quoted from, states that the EFl rules have a different effect.  It confirms they give rise to a multilateral or multi party agreement (these two things are the same). This is one single contract involving multiple parties, in this case the EFl and all of the clubs. So each club is party to the same contract.  Hence the starting point is they can sue each other in contract. 
 

BTW I still think the MFC claim fails entirely so not suggesting we should be worried by this. But it gives MFC a better chance of success than under your analysis 

So you're going to continue this, despite not even taking a direct quote and adding in words to suit what you're saying?

At this point there is not much point in continuing any kind of discussion with you when that's how you want to play this.

[Day]

2 minutes ago, i-Ram said:

Get him Dave!!!!! @David

 

Not much point at this stage. 

[Guest]

38 minutes ago, Gee SCREAMER !! said:

This assumes that whilst having 6 points deducted for 19 million of FFP breaches  they should have had Carroll and Drinkwater on loan the day after in the first place mind.  In the meantime, we lose Jagielka whose already here on 4.5 k a week, despite shifting in all likelihood, over 120k in wages per month and more since.  

I just don't think it furthers our cause to try to make unfavourable comparisons with the penalties and restrictions placed on Reading as opposed to Derby. Reading chose to go down a different route to Derby in the agreements they arrived at with the EFL. Reading agreed to being subjected to a business plan which extends to the end of the 2022-23 season. If they breach that plan they will be subjected to a further six points penalty, which means in effect that their penalty was 12 points but with six suspended. I seem to recall that in reaching our own agreement, DCFC declined the option of a two year plan, which I think was sensible in our position because it could restrict the plans of our new owners who will hopefully be in place for next season.

Our focus on Reading should be on the football field because I think we are all agreed that if we can pull clear of them then we have every chance of making the great escape. We have a manager who has shocked the football world with the outstanding motivational skills he has displayed this season. I have been warmed by what I have seen of the Reading and Hull managers in recent weeks because they seem hopelessly lacking the ability to motivate a team in a relegation dog fight, in my opinion.

So in a nutshell, I think we should concentrate on the battles we can win off the field, i.e. removing the parasite clubs claims and leave it to the team to win our battles on the pitch with the backing of us all. We're not doing badly at that so far.

[PistoldPete]

12 minutes ago, angieram said:

This is another quite well-balanced article from the Daily Mail. What is the world coming to? 

It really depends who writes them. Matt Hughes was one who used to write absolute garbage. Martin Samuel wrote one excellent one piece and other useful snippets. It varies a lot… mostly the dAily mail is only fit for loo paper.

[kevinhectoring]

58 minutes ago, TomBustler1884 said:

Trying to be positive, I would hope this week has gone as follows - 

1. Mel makes his public offer, knowing it's not as simple as he says it is

2. Gibson responds saying it's not possible to transfer his claim and he should indemnify the club.

3. EFL tell all parties they would prefer to have the claim settled between Mel and Gibson so a preferred bidder can be named.

4. Mel and Gibson have been in discussions with their lawyers and each other to see if there is a way forward they can agree to. That's what everyone is waiting to hear.

I know that "Team Derby" met with the admins yesterday.

Really, really hope I'm right!!

Good post. It’s like dealing with the EU, nothing difficult is agreed without a deadline. It’s just possible that the impending visit of thousands of Rams fans to M tomorrow is seen as a deadline 

[kevinhectoring]

8 minutes ago, i-Ram said:

Get him Dave!!!!! @David

 

Is @Davidthe pussy or the rabid dog?

[RoyMac5]

21 minutes ago, Addingham Ram said:

I despise everything about Steve Gibson, and if a small settlement would do the trick, then I think any of the bidders would have swallowed it and we'd have had a new owner some time ago.

Furthermore, it would be proof that he has deliberately frustrated the whole saga to suit his own agenda.

Don't think that would be possible as the money would have been 'diverted' from other creditors of the Club, ie HMRC etc. But if Mel funds a Gibbon pay-off that's different.