The Administration Thread

[BramcoteRam84]

If it was that easy Curtains it would’ve been sorted. Average time of football clubs in admin is 6 months and it’s not even been 5 months for Derby yet.

Mel has left one hell of a mess unfortunately and some of the doom articles from the likes of Matt Slater in the Athletic have proven to be absolutely spot on.

[Curtains]

2 minutes ago, hintonsboots said:

In before merged. But I agree it’s been a torturous period in Rams history. Let’s hope Mel’s intervention produces results.

I think Mel needs to make a concrete offer like give the Stadium back .

Its his mess he needs to sort it. 

[hintonsboots]

If it does go to arbitration the EFL should be setting a date immediately not asking Boro when is convenient. 

[Curtains]

5 minutes ago, BramcoteRam84 said:

If it was that easy Curtains it would’ve been sorted. Average time of football clubs in admin is 6 months and it’s not even been 5 months for Derby yet.

Mel has left one hell of a mess unfortunately and some of the doom articles from the likes of Matt Slater in the Athletic have proven to be absolutely spot on.

I think the Stadium is the stumbling block particularly for Ashley.

Allegedly he offered less for the Stadium and it wasn’t excepted.

Mel Morris needs to offer something concrete like the Stadium 

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-10483113/Mike-Ashley-feels-Derby-Countys-administrators-NOT-want-buy-crisis-club.html

Edited February 7, 2022 by Curtains
Added

[The Scarlet Pimpernel]

Looking at it realistically you would think that buying the stadium for £20m is a bargain isn't it? You get an asset of arguably £80m.

[Curtains]

5 minutes ago, The Scarlet Pimpernel said:

Looking at it realistically you would think that buying the stadium for £20m is a bargain isn't it? You get an asset of arguably £80m.

That’s not the point .

No one has the money or doesn’t want to take it all on and Morris needs to compromise 

 

“Ashley was willing to pay around £25million, then offer stadium owner Mel Morris and admins Quantuma less than their respective £20m and £3m.

But with Middlesbrough and Wycombe still to be dealt with, it became too big a cost — and Derby sold top kids Luke Plange and Omari Kellyman.”

https://www.thesun.co.uk/sport/football/17560348/mike-ashley-withdraws-Derby-county-bid/

 

Edited February 7, 2022 by Curtains
Added

[Curtains]

If Quantuma leave it too late and we lose all our bidders 3 Million fees allegedly seem a bit steep 

[Indy]

7 hours ago, vonwright said:

They can't do any of those things. I suppose the difference is, they would say, is that the are not preventing Derby exiting administration as per law. They are only saying if they do that they won't be welcome in the club. And they'd say that doing that isn't breaking discrimination law, for example, or tax law or minimum wage law. It's just enforcing membership rules. I think the onus would be on us to name a specific law they were breaking. 

I mean, is the 'football debt' rule itself written into law, or is it just something clubs agree to abide by? 

I have no idea who would win a case, by the way, and have no expertise. I also feel it is ridiculous that 'footballing claims' like this would be given the same status as 'footballing debts'. And I believe the EFL should update its rules to better fit both administration law, and the fact clubs in administration shouldn't face such potentially crippling, speculative 'damages' claims that act as a massive barrier to them ever getting sold.

Just feel it might be a bit of a red herring and that settling the status of the debts (or better still passing that responsibility to Morris) is the priority. 

 

But the difference is that their punishment would be a restraint of trade. If I get my membership revoked from a gym because their rules say so, I can go elsewhere. DCFC can’t trade elsewhere in another league, so are being punished for trying to follow the law. 

[Curtains]

2 minutes ago, Indy said:

But the difference is that their punishment would be a restraint of trade. If I get my membership revoked from a gym because their rules say so, I can go elsewhere. DCFC can’t trade elsewhere in another league, so are being punished for trying to follow the law. 

According to the EFL the EFL rules are their law supervised by them .

 

[kevinhectoring]

7 hours ago, uttoxram75 said:

I take it you DO work for the EFL then, otherwise you would have just said no.

I don’t work for the EFL 

[Day]

4 minutes ago, Curtains said:

Just had to be merged didn’t it .

The forum is like the EFL 

Rule unto themselves 

 

3 minutes ago, Curtains said:

Deleted and so frustrating 

Not entirely sure why we need a separate topic on the fact we went into administration in September, in what direction was you wanting that topic to go?

[Curtains]

Just now, kevinhectoring said:

I don’t work for the EFL 

No but you are more intelligent than most right 

[Tamworthram]

56 minutes ago, PistoldPete said:

And yes banging on about the Directors being charged again.

it is by no means unusual , despite the corporate veil, for employees to be charged for misconduct.

Discrimination claims are a case in point .. an employee may be implicated for sexist, racist or homophobic conduct. A claim may be made against them at the Employment Tribunal. Often a claim is also made against the employer as well, and there is the principle of vicarious liability ie employer responsible for the misconduct of the employee as well. A useful thing to have as the employer  are likely to have deeper pockets.

so in that case either or both the employee or their Company can be claimed against. 

Similarly in DCFC case , the Directors undertake to abide by EFL rules , and if they don’t they can be charged with misconduct too. That’s what happened in the Sheffield Wednesday case Chansiri was charged as well as Wednesday .

as the MFC statement says they allege against DCFC Directors as well , it seems Morris is already being claimed against by them. 
 

and there seems no point in going after the DCFC Company using the “deeper pockets” principle as reportedly Morris has much more money than DCFC right now. Also DCFC has protection under insolvency law , Morris doesn’t. 
 

i still think EFL will prefer the LAP route to the High Court .. but why should the venue make that much difference . I hope that isn’t the sticking point.. take Morris through the LAP if necessary but leave DCFC out of it.

All of the misconduct examples you have listed are criminal offences committed by an individual and are irrelevant of the position they held in the company they worked for. Breaching EFL rules is not a criminal offence. So, I’m not sure you’re comparing apples with apples.

An employee/owner/director can never hide behind the principle of the company being a separate legal entity in these cases.

Maybe the EFL can charge the owners (I don’t know enough about the Sheffield Wednesday case) but that’s a bit different to Middlesbrough and/or Wycombe suing him.

 

Edited February 7, 2022 by Tamworthram

[Curtains]

3 minutes ago, David said:

 

Not entirely sure why we need a separate topic on the fact we went into administration in September, in what direction was you wanting that topic to go?

I’ve also deleted the first post as out of order .

Having a bad day sorry 

So fed up with the whole thing .

It’s heartbreaking what’s happening and was trying to make the point it’s getting worse not better. 

I want it to go more in the direction of the Stadium being the problem to any sale 

Edited February 7, 2022 by Curtains
Added

[RadioactiveWaste]

Here's a left field idea - the EFL's leverage is there's not another league we could play in.

But ..is there.....

In the same way the NFL wanted a UK team for years, could we join the MLS?!

We could get our Jonny Russell back.

[CBRammette]

13 minutes ago, Curtains said:

I’ve also deleted the first post as out of order .

Having a bad day sorry 

So fed up with the whole thing .

It’s heartbreaking what’s happening and was trying to make the point it’s getting worse not better. 

I want it to go more in the direction of the Stadium being the problem to any sale 

Its horrendous. If it makes you feel better we all feel the same at different times - mine was Friday ahead of Mel's statement.  I think it will get worse before it gets better though and we just need to hang on to some hope. One thing about it getting bad is that at least Mel is now out of hiding obviously recognising that this wont go anywhere without something from him. 

[RoyMac5]

24 minutes ago, Curtains said:

I’ve also deleted the first post as out of order .

Having a bad day sorry 

So fed up with the whole thing .

It’s heartbreaking what’s happening and was trying to make the point it’s getting worse not better. 

I want it to go more in the direction of the Stadium being the problem to any sale 

It's more than heart-breaking, it's mentally draining!

BUT it's not necessarily getting worse, we're getting to the point were moves are becoming limited and the denouement is closer.

There's still two bidders interested Binnies and Appleby, but we need rid of those parasites Boro and Wycombe. Ignore the stadium issue, it doesn't matter to the Club where we play!

Edited February 7, 2022 by RoyMac5

[Day]

I have sent another email to the EFL, despite taking yesterday off it’s hard not to let it play on your mind, the more it plays on your mind the more you start to see the bigger picture here and what the EFL mean when they talk about the best interests of the league….

Boro tried to sue the EFL first, Parry confirmed this himself on the Athletic podcast, why did Boro stop those proceedings?

It’s in the EFL’s best interests that Boro are successful in their case against us, why? 

If Boro were to win a legal case against the EFL, where would compensation be paid from? The EFL’s only revenue stream is TV deal, so it would come out the pockets of the clubs, understandable why there is so much silence from other clubs on this.

(Sidenote, we all know that once this is over they will all unanimously vote in new rules that cannot be argued and prevent any kind of legal action.)

If the EFL enforced their own regulations and prevented this action (reg 4.4), or followed insolvency law by ruling they were not football creditors would Boro turn their attentions back on the EFL instead?

When you read the EFL’s “disappointment” when we was cleared on the stadium sale, it’s easy to see why that disappointment would be, found guilty it would have opened the door for Boro to easily claim compensation.

If Derby were to be liquidated, Boro wouldn’t receive a penny of what they believe they are owed, again not a great outcome for the EFL, so what is their best option?…..Try to push Derby into a financial settlement with Boro.

The problem with that is the administrators will simply refuse, their job is to get the best deal for it’s creditors, paying off unproven claims out the creditor pot just isn’t an option for Quantuma despite how much the EFL try to push this.

Clear as day right?

Mel’s offer of taking the legal action on himself is an alternative escape route, one of which the EFL must be desperate to take up now, but can they convince Boro and Wycombe to take this on?

Given we were cleared on the stadium deal, despite the “independent” valuation from the EFL putting Pride Park on par with Fleetwood Towns ground, it’s difficult to see how they could win the case in the high court, especially when Sheffield Wednesday, Reading and Villa all sold their stadiums as well.

Final interesting point, Boro beat Sheffield Wednesday at Hillsborough at the beginning of the season, yet Wednesday went up to the Riverside and beat them 1-0…..a Sheffield Wednesday team that were clearly financially advantaged by selling their stadium right? You could argue those 3 points cost Boro their place in the play offs yet no legal action…..why?

Personal vendetta.

(Now breathe David) 

[Bald Eagle's Barmy Army]

25 minutes ago, Curtains said:

I’ve also deleted the first post as out of order .

Having a bad day sorry 

So fed up with the whole thing .

It’s heartbreaking what’s happening and was trying to make the point it’s getting worse not better. 

I want it to go more in the direction of the Stadium being the problem to any sale 

If it makes you feel any better, there’s only 15 hours left of it. 

[kevinhectoring]

1 hour ago, PistoldPete said:

And yes banging on about the Directors being charged again.

it is by no means unusual , despite the corporate veil, for employees to be charged for misconduct.

Discrimination claims are a case in point .. an employee may be implicated for sexist, racist or homophobic conduct. A claim may be made against them at the Employment Tribunal. Often a claim is also made against the employer as well, and there is the principle of vicarious liability ie employer responsible for the misconduct of the employee as well. A useful thing to have as the employer  are likely to have deeper pockets.

so in that case either or both the employee or their Company can be claimed against. 

Similarly in DCFC case , the Directors undertake to abide by EFL rules , and if they don’t they can be charged with misconduct too. That’s what happened in the Sheffield Wednesday case Chansiri was charged as well as Wednesday .

as the MFC statement says they allege against DCFC Directors as well , it seems Morris is already being claimed against by them. 
 

and there seems no point in going after the DCFC Company using the “deeper pockets” principle as reportedly Morris has much more money than DCFC right now. Also DCFC has protection under insolvency law , Morris doesn’t. 
 

i still think EFL will prefer the LAP route to the High Court .. but why should the venue make that much difference . I hope that isn’t the sticking point.. take Morris through the LAP if necessary but leave DCFC out of it.

Confused by your posts and  @i-Ram’s on this topic 

you’re right of course, limited liability protects shareholders not directors. 
 

But suing directors is very difficult and MM has not offered to be sued as a director. 
 

His offer makes little sense but I think it’s intended to be read as saying two things:

1 “you’re saying I’ve been a cheat, so put your money where your mouth is and agree to sue me in the High Court. “
 

This is a PR exercise - it’s highly unlikely  that a claim by MFC against MM personally would stick 

2 “you’re victimising DCFC, let them be sold and instead bring your actions against the club against me in the High Court. “

I have no idea what the High Court would do with this bizarre proposal. I’m sure MM doesn’t either and that M/W would be advised it is a whacky ruse more aimed at public opinion than resolution

MM needs to indemnify the club against the claims to allow the club to be sold