The Administration Thread

[Sparkle]

1 minute ago, PistoldPete said:

Free agents on limited wages I think... Ince will be on very high wages. We've been under embargo even before we were found to have broken FFP. Some restrictions were needed for us , but not allowing us to renew contracts now is just outrageous. 

 

We are in administration - if we weren’t we would be treated differently - being deliberately kept in administration  is another matter entirely 

[PistoldPete]

3 minutes ago, David said:

The Club has also agreed to adhere to a Business Plan focused on a number of financial targets, including controlling player-related expenditure, with the objective of moving the Club towards P&S compliance in forthcoming reporting periods.

https://www.efl.com/news/2021/november/efl-statement-reading-football-club/

Here you go @PistoldPete

Nah you're not going to convince me. It's an EFL plot to get us relegated by letting Reading have Tom Ince. I'm only slighly joking.   

[PistoldPete]

2 minutes ago, Sparkle said:

We are in administration - if we weren’t we would be treated differently - being deliberately kept in administration  is another matter entirely 

Even when  we we are in admin it's  a false economy not to let us renew contracts. We can work to a business recovery plan sure, but what kind of plan is that where you are forced to let your best talent go for nothing?  

[Jimbo Ram]

Any new news, any developments???

[StaffsRam]

8 hours ago, ollycutts1982 said:

So does anyone have any idea how long the EFL will let this impasse go on for.

I wouldn’t put it past either the EFL or Pube-head to leave it until tonight before releasing a negative statement with the aim of provoking some of our fans into doing something stupid tomorrow. 

[Day]

8 hours ago, kevinhectoring said:

I think it’s quite different - it’s not about duties, it’s about contractual rights.  The clubs are in contract with each other under the rules and if there’s a breach of contract (ie a breach of the rules) then other parties to the contract can sue. The ordinary rules of contract would apply to ascertain whether losses have been suffered and whether they are recoverable by way of damages, subject to terms implied into the contract. The EFL rules are a mess 

Yet again fans are looking for answers to questions and you’re trying to shut those down with information that you can’t prove, having caught up with the topic there is multiple examples of this.

You attempted to shut down my Football Creditor topic, an issue which is clearly relevant and been picked up on both by MP’s and the media, even yesterday one MP telling the EFL to tread very carefully as they could remove the Football Creditor status for everyone and forced to operate like a usual business. A threat that has come from the EFL’s insistence on us treating both Boro and Wycombe’s claims of football debt.

Regulation 4.4, a regulation which Middlesbrough’s lawyers sent to Mel Morris, omitting a key line that says only the EFL can take action, yet you believe the regulation to be a non issue as it’s just on good faith. Please explain why the Middlesbrough lawyers used that in their letters to Mel Morris to form their claim if it’s not relevant, have you seen the claim and have a better understanding of it than the clubs lawyers?

And here we are again, trying to say bilateral contracts exist between clubs, which again just isn’t true. This is true in the Premier League hence why it’s written for all to see, it’s also been seen in court with cases between clubs. Yet you will not find a single line of proof this exists from the EFL, nor will you have any examples of clubs suing each other in the EFL because it just does not exist.

Please, please, stop spreading misinformation whilst we as a community of fans within the fanbase are trying to find answers from the EFL, it’s not helpful and completely counter productive as we try to help save our club.

[LazloW]

4 minutes ago, Jimbo Ram said:

Any new news, any developments???

Nah. 

[Eatonram]

8 minutes ago, David said:

Yet again fans are looking for answers to questions and you’re trying to shut those down with information that you can’t prove, having caught up with the topic there is multiple examples of this.

You attempted to shut down my Football Creditor topic, an issue which is clearly relevant and been picked up on both by MP’s and the media, even yesterday one MP telling the EFL to tread very carefully as they could remove the Football Creditor status for everyone and forced to operate like a usual business. A threat that has come from the EFL’s insistence on us treating both Boro and Wycombe’s claims of football debt.

Regulation 4.4, a regulation which Middlesbrough’s lawyers sent to Mel Morris, omitting a key line that says only the EFL can take action, yet you believe the regulation to be a non issue as it’s just on good faith. Please explain why the Middlesbrough lawyers used that in their letters to Mel Morris to form their claim if it’s not relevant, have you seen the claim and have a better understanding of it than the clubs lawyers?

And here we are again, trying to say bilateral contracts exist between clubs, which again just isn’t true. This is true in the Premier League hence why it’s written for all to see, it’s also been seen in court with cases between clubs. Yet you will not find a single line of proof this exists from the EFL, nor will you have any examples of clubs suing each other in the EFL because it just does not exist.

Please, please, stop spreading misinformation whilst we as a community of fans within the fanbase are trying to find answers from the EFL, it’s not helpful and completely counter productive as we try to help save our club.

Needed saying. Some solidarity needed here.

[May Contain Nuts]

11 hours ago, G STAR RAM said:

Surely it just means we would have breached extremely heavily on a later period though?

Probably but that's one of the perversions of the system. You get treated worse for lots of smaller breaks than one large one.

10 hours ago, Tombo said:

By no means do I lend credibility to the idea our amortisation charge in the first place was by any means right or fair

But it was acceptable, as found by the panel of accountants on the first panel before they were forcibly overruled by the very existence of an expert witness (even though he knew less about what he was talking about than they did) and multiple other accounting professionals along the way.

 

Edited February 11, 2022 by Coconut's Beard

[TomTom92]

Probably been the quietest week for news since admin begun. At the stage now where I don’t know whether that’s a good thing or bad. Out of sight out of mind? Not quite ?

[Crewton]

As long as Reading are paying less wages per week for Ince than they were to Moore, it's usually permissible under the type of Business Plan that the EFL implement post-sanction. 

They loaned Rahman and Drinkwater from Chelsea at the start of the season and the pair of them are reckoned to be on £140k/wk combined. There's embargoes, and then there are Derby County embargoes..... ? 

Edited February 11, 2022 by Crewton

[Addingham Ram]

31 minutes ago, StaffsRam said:

I wouldn’t put it past either the EFL or Pube-head to leave it until tonight before releasing a negative statement with the aim of provoking some of our fans into doing something stupid tomorrow. 

This is my concern. Any statement issued today, other than one which moves things forward in a positive way, can only be seen as deliberately stoking up the potential for trouble, and as such bringing the game into disrepute.

Surely now is the time for someone like the MPs, or the police, to request that all parties refrain from any such action, and anyone failing to do so should be threatened with some serious consequences.

Let's just please get this game over, and out of the way.

The circus can re-open at 6pm tomorrow evening.

[PistoldPete]

40 minutes ago, Addingham Ram said:

This is my concern. Any statement issued today, other than one which moves things forward in a positive way, can only be seen as deliberately stoking up the potential for trouble, and as such bringing the game into disrepute.

Surely now is the time for someone like the MPs, or the police, to request that all parties refrain from any such action, and anyone failing to do so should be threatened with some serious consequences.

Let's just please get this game over, and out of the way.

The circus can re-open at 6pm tomorrow evening.

How about pubehead coming out and saying anyone who sings we’re having a party … will be banned. 

[kevinhectoring]

2 hours ago, PistoldPete said:

Kevin you seem to see things that aren’t there. What contract is this you speak of? 

Don’t understand why you still ask this question. I’m speaking about the contract referred to in para 13 of the LAP MFC decision 

I quote: 

“The EFl regulations constituted a multi party agreement between (amongst others) the EFL and the clubs”

So the main thrust of MFC’s claim will be a breach of contract claim 

[Premier ram]

i will be there tomorrow and my hope is that all Rams fans attending can rise above the inevitable goading from the home fans , i know it will be hard , and show once again our superb support for our team , the usual non stop backing that has earned us plaudits from clubs and individuals around the football map , lets show the EFL and Boro that we are the bigger person COYR

[NottsRammy]

57 minutes ago, TomTom92 said:

Probably been the quietest week for news since admin begun. At the stage now where I don’t know whether that’s a good thing or bad. Out of sight out of mind? Not quite ?

Dont agree the silence is deafening . The silence means there isnt a cat in hells chance gibbo is going for Mels deal and their not declining it before the match as for fear of causing trouble . 

I suspect the Monday following for gibbo to announce publicly that he declines and i think those in Derby already know they have just agreed to put it off till after the match prob at the request of the police . 

Think about it if he was going to agree to it , it would actually be a good thing and would be seen in a good light by all rams fans .So the fact we have the silence means only one thing...............the saga continues im afraid . 

Edited February 11, 2022 by NottsRammy

[Ram a lamb a ding dong]

1 minute ago, Premier ram said:

i will be there tomorrow and my hope is that all Rams fans attending can rise above the inevitable goading from the home fans , i know it will be hard , and show once again our superb support for our team , the usual non stop backing that has earned us plaudits from clubs and individuals around the football map , lets show the EFL and Boro that we are the bigger person COYR

Tbf I fear the worst. What goes on, on the pitch is secondry  

[kevinhectoring]

1 hour ago, David said:

And here we are again, trying to say bilateral contracts exist between clubs, which again just isn’t true.

MFC can sue DCFC in contract under the EFl rules. It’s not under a bilateral contract between clubs (which I’ve never mentioned). It’s under the contract described in para 13 of the MFC LAP judgement: 

“The EFL Regulations constitute a multi lateral agreement between (amongst others) the EFL and the clubs”

[Sparkle]

9 minutes ago, kevinhectoring said:

Don’t understand why you still ask this question. I’m speaking about the contract referred to in para 13 of the LAP MFC decision 

I quote: 

“The EFl regulations constituted a multi party agreement between (amongst others) the EFL and the clubs”

So the main thrust of MFC’s claim will be a breach of contract claim 

I spent a working career dealing with people with fixed beliefs that bore little reality to the real world, the most simple way of dealing with them was to accept their right to have those beliefs and ignore the recurring nonsense whilst getting on with the real reality that exists. I will leave you to place yourself into the category that you wish to be in whilst most of the members on this board have already formed their opinion. 

[RammingStone66]

18 minutes ago, NottsRammy said:

Dont agree the silence is deafening . The silence means there isnt a cat in hells chance gibbo is going for Mels deal and their not declining it before the match as for fear of causing trouble . 

I suspect the Monday following for gibbo to announce publicly that he declines and i think those in Derby already know they have just agreed to put it off till after the match prob at the request of the police . 

Think about it if he was going to agree to it , it would actually be a good thing and would be seen in a good light by all rams fans .So the fact we have the silence means only one thing...............the saga continues im afraid . 

What is there for gibbo to agree to?

I gathered from Radio Derby's conversations with the two solicitors that boro/WW can't accept Mel's offer as there in "no mechanism in the law" for them to claim against Mel personally. And if Mel is indemnifying the club then Gibbo has nothing to accept or refuse because it's nothing to do with him.

Gibson can't agree to something that isn't legally possible?? (Unless I'm missing something, apologies if so)