The Administration Thread

[RadioactiveWaste]

Surely regards football creditors, that's only a factor in insolvency, nothing to do with the validity of the claims or clubs ability to raise claims?

It's an issue in our case because of the administration, but hypothetically if we weren't we'd still presumably have to fight or settle the claims?

 

[Day]

17 minutes ago, RadioactiveWaste said:

Surely regards football creditors, that's only a factor in insolvency, nothing to do with the validity of the claims or clubs ability to raise claims?

It's an issue in our case because of the administration, but hypothetically if we weren't we'd still presumably have to fight or settle the claims?

Correct.

Football creditor ruling would just decide if we could potentially be £50m or 25% of that which is a huge issue, not a neither here or there as suggested.

If we weren't in administration, arbitration would be just on the claim itself, we would have no choice but to fight it if brought against us, but don't think for a second this will ever happen again.

The very next EFL meeting you can bet your life they will pass a new rule that prevents a repeat of this in future. 

[Yani P]

That's exactly my thoughts..they will hang us out to dry then change the rules to make sure no one else can do it again, claiming it's for the benefit of all clubs.

[Comrade 86]

36 minutes ago, RadioactiveWaste said:

Surely regards football creditors, that's only a factor in insolvency, nothing to do with the validity of the claims or clubs ability to raise claims?

It's an issue in our case because of the administration, but hypothetically if we weren't we'd still presumably have to fight or settle the claims?

Hypothetically, do you see the claimants ever actually seeking redress through the civil courts? Or do you think the risk profile might rather flip in that scenario?

In effectively getting the EFL to do the 'dirty work', they mitigate all risk bar to their reputations. Most of the blow-back too. In a court of law, their potential exposure heightens dramatically. I don't mean just in terms of costs either. To my way of seeing it, MFC/WWFC would prefer just about any avenue to proceeding through the civil courts. 

Edited January 29, 2022 by 86 Hair Islands
TYPOS

[WhiteHorseRam]

5 hours ago, David said:

Correct.

Football creditor ruling would just decide if we could potentially be £50m or 25% of that which is a huge issue, not a neither here or there as suggested.

If we weren't in administration, arbitration would be just on the claim itself, we would have no choice but to fight it if brought against us, but don't think for a second this will ever happen again.

The very next EFL meeting you can bet your life they will pass a new rule that prevents a repeat of this in future. 

I think the  Boro Wycombe claims are completely spurious.

Martin Samuels' article nailed it - Boro were simply not good enough leading up to the end of that season.

They dropped 64 other points but expect us to give them £40 million for one point.

I think they are  arrogant in imagining that they would have definitely beaten Bielsa's Leeds and Smith's Villa.

They are behaving as if we have done them out of their Granny's bungalow.

Wycombe's claim is even dodgier. they only got promoted due to the Covid aggregate thing. They dropped 95 pts out of a possible 138. 43 pts from 46 games .....

If you decide the table does lie - football is ruined.

You are right though -  the door will be shut once we have been screwed.

[Carnero]

[Ram-Alf]

8 hours 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

 

Detatchment, Regiment, Division, Platoon, Company, Battalion, Brigade?

[Oldben]

49 minutes ago, WhiteHorseRam said:

I think the  Boro Wycombe claims are completely spurious.

Martin Samuels' article nailed it - Boro were simply not good enough leading up to the end of that season.

They dropped 64 other points but expect us to give them £40 million for one point.

I think they are  arrogant in imagining that they would have definitely beaten Bielsa's Leeds and Smith's Villa.

They are behaving as if we have done them out of their Granny's bungalow.

Wycombe's claim is even dodgier. they only got promoted due to the Covid aggregate thing. They dropped 95 pts out of a possible 138. 43 pts from 46 games .....

If you decide the table does lie - football is ruined.

You are right though -  the door will be shut once we have been screwed.

Absolutely agree here.

I don't trust efl arbitration, I do trust a court of law.

I think in a court of law these claims are ruled out, however it needs a great lawyer to make that happen.

Arbitration is the first step though, with no agreement its in to court fast.

I agree that there's zero chance boro would have beaten Villa, thar season Boros hopes were killed by a number of teams.

Boro can't blame Derby after spending a lot more money than Derby did that season.

Agreed on wycombe.

I'm disappointed that Derby didn't go to court soon on this, was it delayed to make more money for the administrators.

Yes there's a cost in going to court and a possible loss but it would seem to resolve a lot of the club's potential future

[ariotofmyown]

Don't think this has been posted anywhere else.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/jan/28/the-guardian-view-on-football-governance-there-must-be-no-more-derbys

[Guest]

7 hours ago, kevinhectoring said:

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 

How do you know that counsel have said this?

If at arbitration it is found that Boro and Wycombe do not have a claim then they are removed from the equation completely and so is the EFL standpoint that the proceeds of a future claim is a football debt because that opinion is then superfluous.

I hope that only Q and their counsel know the advice they have received and that only Gibson and his advisors know what he has been told about the strength and/or weakness of his position.

Q face a cost of going to arbitration which they could do without. If they have made Gibson an offer then I suspect it is a token offer of what their cost of going to arbitration amounts to. It could be that Gibson has been advised that his claim is weak but because we are vulnerable he has stayed at the table. If so, in terms of a poker game, at this stage he is bluffing. If so, when he knows we are going to arbitration he may well throw his hand in and we can move forward with exit from administration.

If the arbiters find against us what are they likely to award Boro? Given that Boro's claim is largely built on the fantasy football strategy then the only certain thing that can be concluded is that they lost out on TV and gate receipts re two legs of a play-off semi-final against Leeds. Nothing more because beyond that it is fantasy. If I am anywhere near right the amount is then reduced way down from the ridiculous amount of £45m.

[PistoldPete]

3 minutes ago, ariotofmyown said:

Don't think this has been posted anywhere else.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/jan/28/the-guardian-view-on-football-governance-there-must-be-no-more-derbys

Well at last The Guardian wakes up to this. Although like Neville misses the point of why an indpendent  regulator is needed. EFL's failings are not just that they failed to stop Morris.. but also the fact they are trying to punish the club and the fans to cover for their own failings.

[YouRams]

I can’t see an arbitration ruling against us with all the pressure being applied by media and MP’s, the days of doing what they like against us are numbered. I suspect it’s just getting dragged out for the transfer window so we can’t sign anyone, after Rooneys comments about bringing in players that would be seen as a **** take with all the millions we owe. 

[CBRammette]

27 minutes ago, Oldben said:

Absolutely agree here.

I don't trust efl arbitration, I do trust a court of law.

I think in a court of law these claims are ruled out, however it needs a great lawyer to make that happen.

Arbitration is the first step though, with no agreement its in to court fast.

I agree that there's zero chance boro would have beaten Villa, thar season Boros hopes were killed by a number of teams.

Boro can't blame Derby after spending a lot more money than Derby did that season.

Agreed on wycombe.

I'm disappointed that Derby didn't go to court soon on this, was it delayed to make more money for the administrators.

Yes there's a cost in going to court and a possible loss but it would seem to resolve a lot of the club's potential future

Agree re Villa. Think it also makes mockery of their claim that they have not gone after them legally as they did gain a huge advantage and have funds. Claiming against us with no money only means liquidation

[PistoldPete]

Nixon saying aribtration is meaningless unless legally binding.  That's nonsense.

Mediation is an important way of resolving disputes that can make the need for formal process unnecessary. So by al means go ahead with that.

But there is no way that the admin team should allow the risk (however small) of losing a legally binding process. That would  prejudice the interests of the other creditors. Boro and Wycombe are not allowed to pursue their claims through the administration process and yet that is what Nixon is suggesting here.  

 

[The Scarlet Pimpernel]

Arbitration is legally binding without appeal. Mediation is an agreed position but not legally binding. We are going down the arbitration rote. 

[i-Ram]

Other than Nixon or that prat Dorsett, has anyone of actual standing - by which I mean Q, the EFL, or an MP within the 9am meeting yesterday - actually confirmed the next step in terms of mediation, arbitration or high court. Or is everyone speculating based on the rumours of a couple of hacks? Genuine question, as I would have thought Q would want to go to the high court to have the claims simply quashed under insolvency proceedings. There needs to be a judgment that comes to a conclusion one way or another whether the EFL’s membership rules are out of step with statute. It shouldn’t be just a matter about Derby V Boro/Wycombe it should also sort out forever the stance that the EFL have been taking that “it isn’t our problem, we simply implement the rules agreed by our membership clubs”.

[kevinhectoring]

45 minutes ago, Brailsford Ram said:

How do you know that counsel have said this?

It’s written in capital letters between the lines in the minutes. David explains why in his inappropriately titled thread about football creditors (in fact he explained it better than I did)

[G STAR RAM]

For me, the arbitration panel has got 5 questions to answer:-

1 - Did DCFC knowingly break the rules?

2 - Did breaking the rules give them any sort of sporting advantage?

3 - Did this advantage stop Boro reaching the play offs?

4 - Would Boro have won the play offs?

5 - What NET amount did Boro not being promoted realistically deprive them of?

Unless answers 1 to 4 are all yes, there is no large claim for Boro. 

If answers 1 to 3 are all yes but 4 no, then there may be a claim for the play off gate receipts.

[Ram-Alf]

4 minutes ago, i-Ram said:

Other than Nixon or that prat Dorsett, has anyone of actual standing - by which I mean Q, the EFL, or an MP within the 9am meeting yesterday - actually confirmed the next step in terms of mediation, arbitration or high court. Or is everyone speculating based on the rumours of a couple of hacks? Genuine question, as I would have thought Q would want to go to the high court to have the claims simply quashed under insolvency proceedings. There needs to be a judgment that comes to a conclusion one way or another whether the EFL’s membership rules are out of step with statute. It shouldn’t be just a matter about Derby V Boro/Wycombe it should also sort out forever the stance that the EFL have been taking that “it isn’t our problem, we simply implement the rules agreed by our membership clubs”.

Non of the above that i'm aware have said anything of note, All coming from the media ie Dorset, Percy, Nixon, Pretty sure the EFL use those 3 as an outlet for information, Just as Parry did with his "we are working night and day for the Derby County cause" which to me said they're on the back foot after the meeting with MPs, Very different to the interview last weekend when Parry said "we have 72 members and rules to follow"

 

 

[Gritstone Tup]

8 hours ago, Van der MoodHoover said:

True but this was always the risk and how else can we move on? 

By doing a deal out of court. It’s really not worth the risk at all!!!

Anyone thinking this is a cut and dried case is in cloud cuckoo land. There is a reason why all these millionaires with legal teams have been put off you know!

So here we are 60% chance we’ll win and 40% we’re getting liquidated at a guess.