The Administration Thread

[PistoldPete]

25 minutes ago, Maharan said:

Actually, to a certain extent I do.I don’t think it’s 100% their fault, but if they’ve chosen to ignore the claims, then they have missed a trick. Yes the claims may be nonsense to anyone who can see, but surely they should have made some efforts to address or discuss with the EFL / boro / Wycombe. 
 

if they haven’t, and have just ignored them, then I do think some of the blame sits with them

The admin teams comments suggest that  they did offer a settlement with Boro and Wycombe. They were not ignored.

[Crewton]

My contention about the EFL's position is that just because Boro and Wycombe are football clubs it shouldn't mean that they should be treated as Football Creditors in respect of these claims. 

The Football Creditor rule was designed to protect players wages and transfer fees owed to other clubs, not to protect non-debts. The EFL appear to think that any sums claimed by another club should override actual debts owed to charities, local authorities and local traders - it's a bunch of elitists protecting an elite to the detriment of ordinary people. It's shameful. 

[strawhillram]

22 minutes ago, Unlucky Alf said:

If I was to come round to your house and complain your car has scratched my car while in a car park but there is no evidence it was you, But i'm demanding £1000 damages for the repair.

Would you pay me?

Damn you found me. Would you accept £999

[PistoldPete]

10 minutes ago, Crewton said:

My contention about the EFL's position is that just because Boro and Wycombe are football clubs it shouldn't mean that they should be treated as Football Creditors in respect of these claims. 

The Football Creditor rule was designed to protect players wages and transfer fees owed to other clubs, not to protect non-debts. The EFL appear to think that any sums claimed by another club should override actual debts owed to charities, local authorities and local traders - it's a bunch of elitists protecting an elite to the detriment of ordinary people. It's shameful. 

Exactly. And according to Quantuma, EFL may be acting against statute. Either way it's immoral. 

[Ram-Alf]

14 minutes ago, Maharan said:

No, but I’d certainly try and discuss it with you to find out why you thought I owed you, and in the event you kept insisting, I’d probably discuss with the authorities too. 
 

I believe talks have/had been made, An offer I am not aware of, The authorrity...EFL would appear to be on the side of the claiment who has no valid claim, And yet we are alledgedly being told to settle before we can move forward.

I always thought innocent before proven guilty was what we have been told for years and years

 

[Sparkle]

13 minutes ago, Crewton said:

My contention about the EFL's position is that just because Boro and Wycombe are football clubs it shouldn't mean that they should be treated as Football Creditors in respect of these claims. 

The Football Creditor rule was designed to protect players wages and transfer fees owed to other clubs, not to protect non-debts. The EFL appear to think that any sums claimed by another club should override actual debts owed to charities, local authorities and local traders - it's a bunch of elitists protecting an elite to the detriment of ordinary people. It's shameful. 

Exactly - if the receptionist employed at Burton Albion helps out at Derby county occasionally and usually Derby pay pay Burton for those hours worked but miss a payment are Burton Albion a football creditor? 
it has to be Middlesbrough football club and Wycombe football club taking action against us and not the owners then? 

[RoyMac5]

DerbyshireLive piece, culled from the Athletic article

https://www.derbytelegraph.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/Derby-county-efl-middlesbrough-wycombe-6502288

 

[Sparkle]

4 minutes ago, Unlucky Alf said:

I believe talks have/had been made, An offer I am not aware of, The authorrity...EFL would appear to be on the side of the claiment who has no valid claim, And yet we are alledgedly being told to settle before we can move forward.

I always thought innocent before proven guilty was what we have been told for years and years

 

This whole two years has taught us that with the EFL that you are guilty of everything accused and suggested regardless of the law of the land and the wording in the so so called EFL rules and it’s regardless of when it was and what the EFL have previously passed judgement on - why do you think the EFL never wants to go the court of the land ! 

[Sparkle]

3 minutes ago, RoyMac5 said:

DerbyshireLive piece, culled from the Athletic article

https://www.derbytelegraph.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/Derby-county-efl-middlesbrough-wycombe-6502288

 

This is a circus if true - how can you only just find something - what are you actually being paid to do? 

[Derbados]

2 minutes ago, Sparkle said:

This is a circus if true - how can you only just find something - what are you actually being paid to do? 

This was my thoughts exactly, why have they only just discovered this?? 

[Norman]

I don't think they have just discovered it. I think they went into the meeting with it. The EFL threw it out and the administrators thought the EFL were not complying with law, hence the statement on Friday. 

Since then, I'm guessing they have found out that the EFL rules haven't changed since the law was, and this is why the meeting went so badly on Friday. Challenge the rule, with fan power meaning it has to be done quickly, and it all falls into place. 

[PistoldPete]

12 minutes ago, RoyMac5 said:

DerbyshireLive piece, culled from the Athletic article

https://www.derbytelegraph.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/Derby-county-efl-middlesbrough-wycombe-6502288

 

Can someone translate what the hell Couhig is talking about? Pond Life. 

[StarterForTen]

8 minutes ago, Sparkle said:

This is a circus if true - how can you only just find something - what are you actually being paid to do? 

To be fair, I doubt the Administrators have only just found this. Didn't they go into last week's meeting with the EFL on exactly this presumption?

More likely they have just opened the EFL's eyes to the current statute!

[Sparkle]

2 minutes ago, StarterForTen said:

To be fair, I doubt the Administrators have only just found this. Didn't they go into last week's meeting with the EFL on exactly this presumption?

More likely they have just opened the EFL's eyes to the current statute!

I hope so but I am very cautious 

[roboto]

Perhaps Mr Ashley, with his record of buying businesses in trouble, knows the ins and outs of these laws very well and has had his team going over the issues over the last week and this is the hand he is now playing to get best value for the club.

[Bald Eagle's Barmy Army]

If I had to trust Quanatuma or the EFL - I know which side I'd be on.

The EFL haven't got a clue what they're doing and IMO have started digging themselves into a hole. Time to come down hard on them and no better accomplice than Mike Ashley. 

[Crewton]

33 minutes ago, Sparkle said:

Exactly - if the receptionist employed at Burton Albion helps out at Derby county occasionally and usually Derby pay pay Burton for those hours worked but miss a payment are Burton Albion a football creditor? 
it has to be Middlesbrough football club and Wycombe football club taking action against us and not the owners then? 

I assume the claims have been submitted in the names of the football clubs, but I still think that it's a perversion of the Football Creditors rule, because there is no debt and therefore no creditor, no contract, no obligation and no consideration, no service performed for which payment is due - no-one would be left "out of pocket".

[PistoldPete]

24 minutes ago, Derbados said:

This was my thoughts exactly, why have they only just discovered this?? 

I think it’s more like journalistic licence.

[RadioactiveWaste]

Apparently the"new" move from quantuma is basically a restructuring proposal, which has problematic elements (eg starting next season with points deducted, screws creditors even harder) but sidesteps some barriers and has the well, it beats liquidation, doesn't it logic.

It might resolve things, but isn't necessarily a good outcome for anyone (except mike Ashley perhaps)

 

[RammingStone66]

3 minutes ago, RadioactiveWaste said:

Apparently the"new" move from quantuma is basically a restructuring proposal, which has problematic elements (eg starting next season with points deducted, screws creditors even harder) but sidesteps some barriers and has the well, it beats liquidation, doesn't it logic.

It might resolve things, but isn't necessarily a good outcome for anyone (except mike Ashley perhaps)

 

Could this be a tactic to put pressure on the EFL via the creditors. By telling the creditors were going to screw you on the money might they then pressure the EFL to get Boro etc to bog off and try and get a better deal for the creditors???