The Football Creditor rule is explicit, simple, and solves all of Derby's issues

[Day]

Three parties have made offers, any one of which would allow the club to exit administration with a substantial payment to creditors.

These offers need clarity, that the claim by Boro and the potential claim by Wycombe do not qualify as Football Creditors.

The football creditor rule is not defined in the EFL regulations, it is part of the Articles of Association of the Football League Limited, of which all clubs are minority shareholders (the golden share).

The football creditor rule is in Article 48, which clearly defines what constitutes a football creditor, copied below from Companies House.

The rule clearly states that it is to cover payments of "debts due". How possibly, can an unproven, unquantified claim such as Boro's be consider a debt due?

If the EFL is suggesting that any claim by a football club or employee, which is unproven, should be classified as a football creditor it would create mayhem. And, bona fide football creditors with debts due, and other preferential and unsecured creditors would lose out as a result.

The EFL can't have this both ways. If they choose to say Article 48 does not qualify Boro's claim as a football creditor the EFL are suggesting they might be sued by Boro.

However, if they choose to say that Article 48 should be interpreted (which is a wild stretch) in a way that Boro should be classed as a football creditor then it is almost certain that the EFL would be sued by the Administrators and the creditors including genuine football creditors, and HMRC for their easily quantified losses. 

The EFL also risk being sued under section 994 of the companies act for acting prejudicially against the interests of a minority shareholder of the football league ie. DCFC.

We need to apply pressure on the EFL to get off the fence, see that their actions alone are preventing the Administrators from getting a deal agreed. 

Article 48 says that Boro's claim cannot be a football creditor and the EFL must state that and stop this nonesense.
"48         FOOTBALL CREDITORS
48.1      Where a Member Club defaults in making any payment due to any of the following persons, 
the Member  Club ('Defaulting  Club')  shall be subject to such penalty  as the Board may decide 
and subject also to Article 48.2:

48.1.1        The League, The FA Premier League and the Football Association;
48.1.2        any of the Pension Schemes;
48.1.3        any Member Club and any Club of The FA Premier League;
48.1.4        any holding company  of The League and any subsidiary  company  of that holding 
company;
48.1.5        any sums due to any full-time employee or former full-time employee of the Member 
Club by  way  of arrears  of remuneration  up to the date on which that contract  of employment is 
terminated. This excludes for these purposes all and any claims for redundancy,   unfair   or  
wrongful   dismissal   or  other   claims   arising   out   of  the termination  of  the  contract  
or  in  respect  of  any  period  after  the  actual  date  of termination;
48.1.6        any  sums  due  to  the  Professional  Footballers  Association  in  repayment  of  
an interest  free loan together with such reasonable  administration and legal costs as have been 
approved by the Board;
48.1.7        The Football Foundation;
48.1.8        The Football Conference Limited trading as "the National League";
48.1.9        The Northern Premier League Limited;
48.1.1O      The Isthmian League Limited;
48.1.11      The Southern League Limited;
48.1.12      Any member club of the League or organisations listed in Articles 48.1.8 to 48.1.11 
inclusive;
48.1.13      Any County Football Association affiliated to The Football Association; and
48.1.14      Any Leagues  affiliated to The Football Association  and any clubs affiliated to any 
County Football Association recognised by The Football Association.

48.2      Subject to the provisions of Articles 48.3 and 48.4, the Board shall apply any sums 
standing to the  credit  of  the  Pool  Account  which  would  otherwise  be  payable  to  a  
Defaulting  Club,  in discharging  the  creditors  in Article  48.1.  As  between  the Football  
Creditors,  the  priority  for payment shall be in accordance with the order in which those 
Football Creditors are listed in Article 48.1.

48.3      If,  having  discharged  all Football  Creditors  in  any  preceding  class  of  Football 
 Creditor  (as
· required by Article 48.2) the sum then available is not suffident to discharge in full the 
Football Creditors listed in Articles 48.1.1, 48.1.2 or 48.1.4 the Board will decide the 
allocation.

48.4      If,  having  discharged  all Football  Creditors  in  any  preceding  class  of  Football 
 Creditor  (as required by Article 48.2) the sum then available is not sufficient to discharge in 
full the Football Creditors listed in Article 48.1.3, 48.1.5, 48.1.12, 48.1.13 or 48.1.14 the sum 
will be allocated pro rata amongst the creditors of the same class.

Note - Clubs are reminded that any assignment of future entitlements from the pool account are 
subject to Article 45 and this must be brought to the attention of the other party. Furthermore 
assignments must be in legal form and registered with the office. Assignments are given priority 
according to the date and time of registration."

[Rev]

Who wrote that for you?

[RadioactiveWaste]

1 minute ago, Rev said:

Who wrote that for you?

Buy em a beer.

[StarterForTen]

Great piece of digging David; we've all become amateur sleuths, old school journos or bar room barristers in the last few weeks haven't we!

While this points to the claims as they stand not being admissible as football creditors within the administration process, it wouldn't necessary make them go away further down the line would it? The new club owners could still face the claims, and after due process, should they be found to have merit and value, be liable to meet those costs in full.

Edited January 18, 2022 by StarterForTen

[Rich84]

Wondered why you'd been quiet on here for the last day....@David

get that sent to the MPs, Savage etc.

[Chellaston Ram]

Are the people that matter aware of this ?

[Day]

7 minutes ago, Rev said:

Who wrote that for you?

Currently talking with various members and fan groups privately to compile key points that can be pinned on the forum to be shared with the media and MP's.  

[SirBrian]

David no doubt you have, however if not send it to all the MPs asap for it will save them time, also Pauline Latham is bringing up Derby in Parliment today, may be of use to her.

[Rammeister]

Great work @David.

That’s the content that should be sent in an email to Rick Parry to ‘call him’ and his organisation ‘out’.

[SirBrian]

3 minutes ago, Rammeister said:

Great work @David.

That’s the content that should be sent in an email to Rick Parry to ‘call him’ and his organisation ‘out’.

No that would give them time to twist the truth best to catch them unawares

[strawhillram]

21 minutes ago, David said:

Three parties have made offers, any one of which would allow the club to exit administration with a substantial payment to creditors.

These offers need clarity, that the claim by Boro and the potential claim by Wycombe do not qualify as Football Creditors.

The football creditor rule is not defined in the EFL regulations, it is part of the Articles of Association of the Football League Limited, of which all clubs are minority shareholders (the golden share).

The football creditor rule is in Article 48, which clearly defines what constitutes a football creditor, copied below from Companies House.

The rule clearly states that it is to cover payments of "debts due". How possibly, can an unproven, unquantified claim such as Boro's be consider a debt due?

If the EFL is suggesting that any claim by a football club or employee, which is unproven, should be classified as a football creditor it would create mayhem. And, bona fide football creditors with debts due, and other preferential and unsecured creditors would lose out as a result.

The EFL can't have this both ways. If they choose to say Article 48 does not qualify Boro's claim as a football creditor the EFL are suggesting they might be sued by Boro.

However, if they choose to say that Article 48 should be interpreted (which is a wild stretch) in a way that Boro should be classed as a football creditor then it is almost certain that the EFL would be sued by the Administrators and the creditors including genuine football creditors, and HMRC for their easily quantified losses. 

The EFL also risk being sued under section 994 of the companies act for acting prejudicially against the interests of a minority shareholder of the football league ie. DCFC.

We need to apply pressure on the EFL to get off the fence, see that their actions alone are preventing the Administrators from getting a deal agreed. 

Article 48 says that Boro's claim cannot be a football creditor and the EFL must state that and stop this nonesense.
"48         FOOTBALL CREDITORS
48.1      Where a Member Club defaults in making any payment due to any of the following persons, 
the Member  Club ('Defaulting  Club')  shall be subject to such penalty  as the Board may decide 
and subject also to Article 48.2:

48.1.1        The League, The FA Premier League and the Football Association;
48.1.2        any of the Pension Schemes;
48.1.3        any Member Club and any Club of The FA Premier League;
48.1.4        any holding company  of The League and any subsidiary  company  of that holding 
company;
48.1.5        any sums due to any full-time employee or former full-time employee of the Member 
Club by  way  of arrears  of remuneration  up to the date on which that contract  of employment is 
terminated. This excludes for these purposes all and any claims for redundancy,   unfair   or  
wrongful   dismissal   or  other   claims   arising   out   of  the termination  of  the  contract  
or  in  respect  of  any  period  after  the  actual  date  of termination;
48.1.6        any  sums  due  to  the  Professional  Footballers  Association  in  repayment  of  
an interest  free loan together with such reasonable  administration and legal costs as have been 
approved by the Board;
48.1.7        The Football Foundation;
48.1.8        The Football Conference Limited trading as "the National League";
48.1.9        The Northern Premier League Limited;
48.1.1O      The Isthmian League Limited;
48.1.11      The Southern League Limited;
48.1.12      Any member club of the League or organisations listed in Articles 48.1.8 to 48.1.11 
inclusive;
48.1.13      Any County Football Association affiliated to The Football Association; and
48.1.14      Any Leagues  affiliated to The Football Association  and any clubs affiliated to any 
County Football Association recognised by The Football Association.

48.2      Subject to the provisions of Articles 48.3 and 48.4, the Board shall apply any sums 
standing to the  credit  of  the  Pool  Account  which  would  otherwise  be  payable  to  a  
Defaulting  Club,  in discharging  the  creditors  in Article  48.1.  As  between  the Football  
Creditors,  the  priority  for payment shall be in accordance with the order in which those 
Football Creditors are listed in Article 48.1.

48.3      If,  having  discharged  all Football  Creditors  in  any  preceding  class  of  Football 
 Creditor  (as
· required by Article 48.2) the sum then available is not suffident to discharge in full the 
Football Creditors listed in Articles 48.1.1, 48.1.2 or 48.1.4 the Board will decide the 
allocation.

48.4      If,  having  discharged  all Football  Creditors  in  any  preceding  class  of  Football 
 Creditor  (as required by Article 48.2) the sum then available is not sufficient to discharge in 
full the Football Creditors listed in Article 48.1.3, 48.1.5, 48.1.12, 48.1.13 or 48.1.14 the sum 
will be allocated pro rata amongst the creditors of the same class.

Note - Clubs are reminded that any assignment of future entitlements from the pool account are 
subject to Article 45 and this must be brought to the attention of the other party. Furthermore 
assignments must be in legal form and registered with the office. Assignments are given priority 
according to the date and time of registration."

Great piece of work

[Half fan]

Why haven't the Administrators spotted this? Are you asking them? If they sell Jason Knight beforehand - which I think will condemn us to League 1 - it will be inexcusable.

Also, has anyone read the Daily Telegraph's expose of the Everton Chairman? Hopefully, Wayne has read it and will add it to the reaosns why he should reject Everton now and at the end of the season. Forewarned is forearmed.

[TooFarInToTurnRed]

20 minutes ago, StarterForTen said:

Great piece of digging David; we've all become amateur sleuths, old school journos or bar room barristers in the last few weeks haven't we!

While this points to the claims as they stand not being admissible as football creditors within the administration process, it wouldn't necessary make them go away further down the line would it? The new club owners could still face the claims, and after due process, should they be found to have merit and value, be liable to meet those costs in full.

I agree and think that is exactly what the EFL said, they would be football creditors if found in their favour. 

[Ted McMinn Football Genius]

32 minutes ago, David said:

Three parties have made offers, any one of which would allow the club to exit administration with a substantial payment to creditors.

These offers need clarity, that the claim by Boro and the potential claim by Wycombe do not qualify as Football Creditors.

The football creditor rule is not defined in the EFL regulations, it is part of the Articles of Association of the Football League Limited, of which all clubs are minority shareholders (the golden share).

The football creditor rule is in Article 48, which clearly defines what constitutes a football creditor, copied below from Companies House.

The rule clearly states that it is to cover payments of "debts due". How possibly, can an unproven, unquantified claim such as Boro's be consider a debt due?

If the EFL is suggesting that any claim by a football club or employee, which is unproven, should be classified as a football creditor it would create mayhem. And, bona fide football creditors with debts due, and other preferential and unsecured creditors would lose out as a result.

The EFL can't have this both ways. If they choose to say Article 48 does not qualify Boro's claim as a football creditor the EFL are suggesting they might be sued by Boro.

However, if they choose to say that Article 48 should be interpreted (which is a wild stretch) in a way that Boro should be classed as a football creditor then it is almost certain that the EFL would be sued by the Administrators and the creditors including genuine football creditors, and HMRC for their easily quantified losses. 

The EFL also risk being sued under section 994 of the companies act for acting prejudicially against the interests of a minority shareholder of the football league ie. DCFC.

We need to apply pressure on the EFL to get off the fence, see that their actions alone are preventing the Administrators from getting a deal agreed. 

Article 48 says that Boro's claim cannot be a football creditor and the EFL must state that and stop this nonesense.
"48         FOOTBALL CREDITORS
48.1      Where a Member Club defaults in making any payment due to any of the following persons, 
the Member  Club ('Defaulting  Club')  shall be subject to such penalty  as the Board may decide 
and subject also to Article 48.2:

48.1.1        The League, The FA Premier League and the Football Association;
48.1.2        any of the Pension Schemes;
48.1.3        any Member Club and any Club of The FA Premier League;
48.1.4        any holding company  of The League and any subsidiary  company  of that holding 
company;
48.1.5        any sums due to any full-time employee or former full-time employee of the Member 
Club by  way  of arrears  of remuneration  up to the date on which that contract  of employment is 
terminated. This excludes for these purposes all and any claims for redundancy,   unfair   or  
wrongful   dismissal   or  other   claims   arising   out   of  the termination  of  the  contract  
or  in  respect  of  any  period  after  the  actual  date  of termination;
48.1.6        any  sums  due  to  the  Professional  Footballers  Association  in  repayment  of  
an interest  free loan together with such reasonable  administration and legal costs as have been 
approved by the Board;
48.1.7        The Football Foundation;
48.1.8        The Football Conference Limited trading as "the National League";
48.1.9        The Northern Premier League Limited;
48.1.1O      The Isthmian League Limited;
48.1.11      The Southern League Limited;
48.1.12      Any member club of the League or organisations listed in Articles 48.1.8 to 48.1.11 
inclusive;
48.1.13      Any County Football Association affiliated to The Football Association; and
48.1.14      Any Leagues  affiliated to The Football Association  and any clubs affiliated to any 
County Football Association recognised by The Football Association.

48.2      Subject to the provisions of Articles 48.3 and 48.4, the Board shall apply any sums 
standing to the  credit  of  the  Pool  Account  which  would  otherwise  be  payable  to  a  
Defaulting  Club,  in discharging  the  creditors  in Article  48.1.  As  between  the Football  
Creditors,  the  priority  for payment shall be in accordance with the order in which those 
Football Creditors are listed in Article 48.1.

48.3      If,  having  discharged  all Football  Creditors  in  any  preceding  class  of  Football 
 Creditor  (as
· required by Article 48.2) the sum then available is not suffident to discharge in full the 
Football Creditors listed in Articles 48.1.1, 48.1.2 or 48.1.4 the Board will decide the 
allocation.

48.4      If,  having  discharged  all Football  Creditors  in  any  preceding  class  of  Football 
 Creditor  (as required by Article 48.2) the sum then available is not sufficient to discharge in 
full the Football Creditors listed in Article 48.1.3, 48.1.5, 48.1.12, 48.1.13 or 48.1.14 the sum 
will be allocated pro rata amongst the creditors of the same class.

Note - Clubs are reminded that any assignment of future entitlements from the pool account are 
subject to Article 45 and this must be brought to the attention of the other party. Furthermore 
assignments must be in legal form and registered with the office. Assignments are given priority 
according to the date and time of registration."

Outstanding piece that @David ??????

[MackworthRamIsGod]

All of this great work...

Then you get absolute Rick's on talksport in Jim (Mels Mate) and Simon ripping into a fan so desperately trying to make his point (badly probably through passion) and the world of football point and say "well done Simon, Derby are I'm the position through cheating".

The only way we get out of this is by us fans sticking together and fighting.

Great work.

[Curtains]

1 minute ago, MackworthRamIsGod said:

All of this great work...

Then you get absolute Rick's on talksport in Jim (Mels Mate) and Simon ripping into a fan so desperately trying to make his point (badly probably through passion) and the world of football point and say "well done Simon, Derby are I'm the position through cheating".

The only way we get out of this is by us fans sticking together and fighting.

Great work.

I thought i did ok lol .

I really got the point over about Middlesbrough claim and clubs claiming off each other  and counter claims and amortization etc.

Simon doesn’t want to listen as he has entrenched views 

 

 

 

Edited January 18, 2022 by Curtains

[TheresOnlyWanChope]

Why aren’t the administrators putting this forward or if they are and if the EFL members subscribe to this, there is no basis for the EFL considering Wycombe and Boro as football creditors. There is no basis. This is crazy 

[Grumpy Git]

The administrators are making a poor fist of this. Strikes me they are as bad as the EFL in wanting this to magically  "all go away"?

Christ we all have some lazy buggers ruining (sic) our lives ATM?

[Ram1988]

38 minutes ago, David said:

Currently talking with various members and fan groups privately to compile key points that can be pinned on the forum to be shared with the media and MP's.  

Thank you David. We are all very greatful ?

[JuanFloEvraTheCocu'sNesta]

Just now, Grumpy Git said:

The administrators are making a poor fist of this. Strikes me they are as bad as the EFL in wanting this to magically  "all go away"?

Christ we all have some lazy buggers ruining (sic) our lives ATM?

This was going to be my point.

How is it possible that the administrators have not figured this out? Are they lazy, incompetent or both? Or is there some other explanation in which they have figured this out and the EFL are simply ignoring them?