kevinhectoring Posted January 28, 2022 Share Posted January 28, 2022 1 minute ago, StrawHillRam said: I hope you are wrong The fact we are now ‘fast tracking’ the 2 claims suggests not Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Day Posted January 28, 2022 Share Posted January 28, 2022 11 minutes ago, kevinhectoring said: If you look carefully at their weasel like words you will see that Q has tried but failed to persuade a small army of QCs that the 2 are not football creditors. No matter how many times you say this, it just isn't true. Indyram, Rev, GenBr and 13 others 11 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DCFC1388 Posted January 28, 2022 Share Posted January 28, 2022 (edited) 15 minutes ago, kevinhectoring said: Read the statement (‘minutes’) that Q handed out at the last supporters group meeting. If you look carefully at their weasel like words you will see that Q has tried but failed to persuade a small army of QCs that the 2 are not football creditors. You don’t need to be a lawyer to know that M and W are football clubs and therefore - if they are awarded damages - they are football creditors. All the EFl has done on this issue is to point out to Q how the EFl rules work. We can blame the EFL for plenty of things over the past couple of years but this is not one of them. Q has been sleepwalking towards this quicksand for 4 months Q tried to blame the EFL by saying the EFL rules go ‘against statute’. Fans have adopted that as gospel truth. But that claim sent the EFl into orbit and no one either on here or in the press has explained how they go against statute. Q certainly has not and now you will notice they have gone very very quiet on the point because they have finally understood it Just because they're football clubs it doesnt mean they will be football creditors? They havent provided any service etc to us unlike usual football creditors which usually relates to transfers etc Edited January 28, 2022 by DCFC1388 Andicis, r_wilcockson, GB SPORTS and 4 others 5 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gritstone Ram Posted January 28, 2022 Share Posted January 28, 2022 14 minutes ago, kevinhectoring said: Read the statement (‘minutes’) that Q handed out at the last supporters group meeting. If you look carefully at their weasel like words you will see that Q has tried but failed to persuade a small army of QCs that the 2 are not football creditors. You don’t need to be a lawyer to know that M and W are football clubs and therefore - if they are awarded damages - they are football creditors. All the EFl has done on this issue is to point out to Q how the EFl rules work. We can blame the EFL for plenty of things over the past couple of years but this is not one of them. Q has been sleepwalking towards this quicksand for 4 months Q tried to blame the EFL by saying the EFL rules go ‘against statute’. Fans have adopted that as gospel truth. But that claim sent the EFl into orbit and no one either on here or in the press has explained how they go against statute. Q certainly has not and now you will notice they have gone very very quiet on the point because they have finally understood it Pal good efforts but no cigar. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevinhectoring Posted January 28, 2022 Share Posted January 28, 2022 59 minutes ago, MACKWORTHRAM said: I honestly cannot see how they can. The precedent it would set and the can of worms it would open would be ridiculous. They won’t win. We lost the amortisation case on ‘policy grounds’. We win this one for the same reason Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gritstone Ram Posted January 28, 2022 Share Posted January 28, 2022 4 minutes ago, kevinhectoring said: They won’t win. We lost the amortisation case on ‘policy grounds’. We win this one for the same reason It depends on who the EFL put on the panel Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 28, 2022 Share Posted January 28, 2022 (edited) 17 minutes ago, kevinhectoring said: The fact we are now ‘fast tracking’ the 2 claims suggests not I think the administrators have decided to fast track this due to the obstinacy of the EFL in allowing the matter to drag on. We need resolution sooner rather than later. Q say that three separate senior counsel have looked at this on our behalf. The EFL are not moving on the matter so we have to force the issue. Fast tracking an arbitration hearing seems our most sensible course. We have to move forward because we seem to have made no progress since the parliamentary questions. The EFL, Boro and Wycombe all have time on their side. We do not have that luxury. So let's get it done now. Time to ATTACK, ATTACK, ATTACK. Edited January 28, 2022 by Guest Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chester40 Posted January 28, 2022 Share Posted January 28, 2022 18 minutes ago, StrawHillRam said: I hope you are wrong Fortunately .... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Comrade 86 Posted January 28, 2022 Share Posted January 28, 2022 35 minutes ago, Scott129 said: It's arbitration, not mediation. Sincerely, someone who works for a mediation provider ? Well check you out! ? Rather handy having an inhouse expert, we all know who to grill now! So... As someone who works for a mediation provider, can you confirm the difference please? My rudimental understanding is that arbitration actually delivers a binding agreement, whereas mediation merely seeks to do so. Also, has it been confirmed it will be arbitration as yet? I thought oftentimes mediation preceded arbitration with the latter being implemented only if mediation failed to secure an mutual agreement. The reason I ask is that the difference in respective timeframes might be critical given our current precarious state. If it has already been confirmed that we will move straight to arbitration then I for one would welcome that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevinhectoring Posted January 28, 2022 Share Posted January 28, 2022 22 minutes ago, Gritstone Ram said: Pal good efforts but no cigar. Well I’ll look on the bright side. No angry faces so far, so better than my usual trawl But why not explain WHY my post wins no cigars ?? Apart from the obvious point that you want to shoot the messenger Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevinhectoring Posted January 28, 2022 Share Posted January 28, 2022 24 minutes ago, Gritstone Ram said: It depends on who the EFL put on the panel The EFL needs us to win this !! angieram, Gritstone Ram and The Scarlet Pimpernel 1 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chester40 Posted January 28, 2022 Share Posted January 28, 2022 17 minutes ago, 86 Hair Islands said: Well check you out! ? Rather handy having an inhouse expert, we all know who to grill now! So... As someone who works for a mediation provider, can you confirm the difference please? My rudimental understanding is that arbitration actually delivers a binding agreement, whereas mediation merely seeks to do so. Also, has it been confirmed it will be arbitration as yet? I thought oftentimes mediation preceded arbitration with the latter being implemented only if mediation failed to secure an mutual agreement. The reason I ask is that the difference in respective timeframes might be critical given our current precarious state. If it has already been confirmed that we will move straight to arbitration then I for one would welcome that. As you say, surely mediation would just be supporting/ encouraging the parties to agree on something. Arbitration is the two parties giving the power of the decision to them to decide. Comrade 86 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevinhectoring Posted January 28, 2022 Share Posted January 28, 2022 36 minutes ago, DCFC1388 said: Just because they're football clubs it doesnt mean they will be football creditors? They havent provided any service etc to us unlike usual football creditors which usually relates to transfers etc But (from memory) the EFL articles state that creditors who are clubs are football creditors. End of, that’s the way it’s written. So it doesn’t matter what the claim is for Honest to God, Q has tried to persuade 3 QCs that the claimants are not football creditors and has failed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Day Posted January 29, 2022 Share Posted January 29, 2022 1 minute ago, kevinhectoring said: Honest to God, Q has tried to persuade 3 QCs that the claimants are not football creditors and has failed Still not true. MaltRam, Ramarena and Andicis 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gritstone Tup Posted January 29, 2022 Share Posted January 29, 2022 3 hours ago, Needlesh said: Never seen debts of £60m in tge Championship? Well, QPR spring to mind... I’m sure Leicester were running at £120million in debt before Mandaric took them on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevinhectoring Posted January 29, 2022 Share Posted January 29, 2022 54 minutes ago, David said: No matter how many times you say this, it just isn't true. Hang on you were the guy who didn’t even realise the minutes were written by Q. Which they obviously were. What makes you think it’s a good idea not to stay in that hedge ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gritstone Tup Posted January 29, 2022 Share Posted January 29, 2022 All this talk of going to court next week to resolve the Boro WW claims. That’s the last thing I want to see. The MP pushing for this is fffing brainless, if the court rule for Boro we’re done for. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Day Posted January 29, 2022 Share Posted January 29, 2022 What you want us all to believe @kevinhectoring is that Quantuma failed to persuade 3 QC's that Boro and Wycombe are not football creditors, so with that they have decided that they will get a ruling on this through arbitration, presumedly represented by the QC's that were failed to be persuaded by Quantuma. In what world would that make any sense at all? It doesn't. Quantuma's best move if told that would be to settle with Boro and Wycombe, rather than allow them to win football creditor status legally, would it not? What would make sense is that Quantuma have been told that Boro and Wycombe have no case at all, do not payout, see if you can get the EFL to jump down off the fence, if not secure the funding and just go get this squashed legally, then there is nothing the EFL, Boro or Wycombe can do. Ramfambo 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Comrade 86 Posted January 29, 2022 Share Posted January 29, 2022 15 minutes ago, Chester40 said: As you say, surely mediation would just be supporting/ encouraging the parties to agree on something. Arbitration is the two parties giving the power of the decision to them to decide. Do we know it'll be definitely be arbitration as yet? I can't find anything from non-media sources to confirm this. Nixon alludes to mediation AND arbitration in separate tweets / articles which ain't terribly helpful! But if, as @Scott129 suggests, it's definitely arbitration, then this is potentially really good news, no? A guaranteed resolution, one way or t'other... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevinhectoring Posted January 29, 2022 Share Posted January 29, 2022 16 minutes ago, David said: Still not true. Homer ! Get back in that hedge and give a deeper read to those minutes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account.
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now