RoyMac5 Posted January 21, 2022 Share Posted January 21, 2022 41 minutes ago, CBRammette said: If Administrators are ignoring advice from three QCs and experts in their area they are clearly not following their own professional standards. Unlikely and incredibly foolish in such a high profile scrutinised case. (Or perhaps we asked best 3 so none left for the dark side as all conflicted out!) What? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevinhectoring Posted January 21, 2022 Share Posted January 21, 2022 1 hour ago, Red Ram said: I have checked as I'm a member of the trust (I did not attend the meeting). They are agreed minutes. Nevertheless it is still open to either interpretation. Agreed minutes indeed. Drafted by Q? I think so RoyMac5 and ThePrisoner 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RoyMac5 Posted January 21, 2022 Share Posted January 21, 2022 2 minutes ago, kevinhectoring said: Agreed minutes indeed. Drafted by Q? I think so Even if so what is to argue about, I think I'm missing your clearly (sic) obtuse point? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CBRammette Posted January 21, 2022 Share Posted January 21, 2022 12 minutes ago, RoyMac5 said: What? Someone suggested that admins have received advice from QCs that does not back up their stance on the claims. If this was the case that they have received expert advice and ignore such that they are acting against it then they are in turn acting against their own governing body's professional standards i-Ram 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Day Posted January 21, 2022 Author Share Posted January 21, 2022 16 minutes ago, kevinhectoring said: Agreed minutes indeed. Drafted by Q? I think so Let's just say you are correct for arguments sake. Here is a line which is important to this topic from the meeting which you believe to be written by Quantuma. They also stand by the view that the claims should not stand as Football Creditors and are working with the EFL to confirm/clarify this. The purpose of this topic to draw attention to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
duncanjwitham Posted January 21, 2022 Share Posted January 21, 2022 1 minute ago, David said: Let's just say you are correct for arguments sake. Here is a line which is important to this topic from the meeting which you believe to be written by Quantuma. They also stand by the view that the claims should not stand as Football Creditors and are working with the EFL to confirm/clarify this. The purpose of this topic to draw attention to. I *think* what is being got at is the "they" that starts that sentence is ambiguous. The pair of lines is: "The administrators have received 3 QC opinions to the effect that the claims are unlikely to ever succeed in a court of law. They also stand by the view that the claims should not stand as Football Creditors and are working with the EFL to confirm/clarify this." It's not totally clear whether that "they" who are standing by the claims, is the administrators or the 3 QCs. You could read it either way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris_D Posted January 21, 2022 Share Posted January 21, 2022 RT draft minutes which are then reviewed for accuracy by Q and comments fed back. Day 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Day Posted January 21, 2022 Author Share Posted January 21, 2022 3 minutes ago, duncanjwitham said: I *think* what is being got at is the "they" that starts that sentence is ambiguous. The pair of lines is: "The administrators have received 3 QC opinions to the effect that the claims are unlikely to ever succeed in a court of law. They also stand by the view that the claims should not stand as Football Creditors and are working with the EFL to confirm/clarify this." It's not totally clear whether that "they" who are standing by the claims, is the administrators or the 3 QCs. You could read it either way. "They" is the administrators in this instance. If you read it fully it's easy to understand that's it's written by RamsTrust, not Quantuma as has been suggested. https://ramstrust.org.uk/wp/scg-quantuma-meeting-thursday-20th-january-2022-11am-via-ms-teams/ To save pages of deeply analysing every word, @RamsfanJim (Jim Wheeler) I'm sure would be able to confirm this. RamuelLJackson 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RoyMac5 Posted January 21, 2022 Share Posted January 21, 2022 23 minutes ago, CBRammette said: Someone suggested that admins have received advice from QCs that does not back up their stance on the claims. If this was the case that they have received expert advice and ignore such that they are acting against it then they are in turn acting against their own governing body's professional standards It says 'unlikely' well we all knew that. But lots of things happen that are unlikely. That will not be enough for potential buyers is still the problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
duncanjwitham Posted January 21, 2022 Share Posted January 21, 2022 2 minutes ago, David said: "They" is the administrators in this instance. If you read it fully it's easy to understand that's it's written by RamsTrust, not Quantuma as has been suggested. https://ramstrust.org.uk/wp/scg-quantuma-meeting-thursday-20th-january-2022-11am-via-ms-teams/ To save pages of deeply analysing every word, @RamsfanJim (Jim Wheeler) I'm sure would be able to confirm this. Ok, I'm confused because you're now basically agreeing with @kevinhectoring... I initially read it as the QCs had said the claims were unlikely and the QCs had also said they weren't football creditors. A closer reading definitely makes me agree that it's the admins saying that. Which does kind of beg @kevinhectoring's question... If the admins had a firm legal opinion that they were not football creditors, why not just say that in the statement, rather than say they were standing by their own judgement? It does suggest they don't have one. (I'm not sticking the knife into anyone here, it may well be that they feel they don't need a legal opinion as it's clear from statute, or that the legal opinion on chance-of-success renders the second point moot, or something else. I don't know enough about the insolvency process to know.) kevinhectoring 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dingleram Posted January 21, 2022 Share Posted January 21, 2022 10 minutes ago, David said: "They" is the administrators in this instance. If you read it fully it's easy to understand that's it's written by RamsTrust, not Quantuma as has been suggested. https://ramstrust.org.uk/wp/scg-quantuma-meeting-thursday-20th-january-2022-11am-via-ms-teams/ To save pages of deeply analysing every word, @RamsfanJim (Jim Wheeler) I'm sure would be able to confirm this. Also, if THEY are standing by the view they are not football creditors then that means THEY have had a view previously. The QCs don't appear to have had a view before, Q have. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CBRammette Posted January 21, 2022 Share Posted January 21, 2022 Just now, RoyMac5 said: It says 'unlikely' well we all knew that. But lots of things happen that are unlikely. That will not be enough for potential buyers is still the problem. That wasnt my point. Admins shouldnt ignore exert advice was what i was getting at as someone (ithink who knows any more) suggested QCs may not be in support of their stance somehow from the minutes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premier ram Posted January 21, 2022 Share Posted January 21, 2022 1 hour ago, kevinhectoring said: Very unlikely imho. Very very unlikely Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RoyMac5 Posted January 21, 2022 Share Posted January 21, 2022 Just now, CBRammette said: That wasnt my point. Admins shouldnt ignore exert advice was what i was getting at as someone (ithink who knows any more) suggested QCs may not be in support of their stance somehow from the minutes Nope still not getting it. Where are Admin ignoring their QCs advice? It says "They also stand by the view that the claims should not stand as Football Creditors and are working with the EFL to confirm/clarify this." So that's not ignoring advice is it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CBRammette Posted January 21, 2022 Share Posted January 21, 2022 2 minutes ago, RoyMac5 said: Nope still not getting it. Where are Admin ignoring their QCs advice? It says "They also stand by the view that the claims should not stand as Football Creditors and are working with the EFL to confirm/clarify this." So that's not ignoring advice is it? Yes exactly I agree but someone suggested it earlier in the thread RoyMac5 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Day Posted January 21, 2022 Author Share Posted January 21, 2022 11 minutes ago, duncanjwitham said: Ok, I'm confused because you're now basically agreeing with @kevinhectoring... I initially read it as the QCs had said the claims were unlikely and the QCs had also said they weren't football creditors. A closer reading definitely makes me agree that it's the admins saying that. Which does kind of beg @kevinhectoring's question... If the admins had a firm legal opinion that they were not football creditors, why not just say that in the statement, rather than say they were standing by their own judgement? It does suggest they don't have one. (I'm not sticking the knife into anyone here, it may well be that they feel they don't need a legal opinion as it's clear from statute, or that the legal opinion on chance-of-success renders the second point moot, or something else. I don't know enough about the insolvency process to know.) I'm not sure what is so confusing about this, the administrators have told RamsTrust that they have consulted with 3 QC's who have said that it would unlikely to ever succeed in a court of law. And RamsTrust go on to say: They also stand by the view that the claims should not stand as Football Creditors and are working with the EFL to confirm/clarify this. "They" clearly being the administrators, as the QC's would not be in discussions with the EFL. Kevin has read "deep" into this and came up with the administrators must have asked 2 questions, with one of the answers excluded, which would suggest the administrators are ignoring their QC's by pushing ahead with trying to get the EFL to clarify...oh and according to Kevin, Quantuma wrote the whole thing. So no, we do not agree and I'm finding it hard to believe how this is all being twisted this morning. I'm off to put the kettle on and find the paracetamol. Hector was the best, kevinhectoring, RamuelLJackson and 3 others 1 1 2 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RoyMac5 Posted January 21, 2022 Share Posted January 21, 2022 2 minutes ago, David said: Kevin has read "deep" into this and came up with the administrators must have asked 2 questions, with one of the answers excluded, which would suggest the administrators are ignoring their QC's by pushing ahead with trying to get the EFL to clarify...oh and according to Kevin, Quantuma wrote the whole thing. So no, we do not agree and I'm finding it hard to believe how this is all being twisted this morning. I'm off to put the kettle on and find the paracetamol. I wonder what else Q excluded to say? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dean (hick) Saunders Posted January 21, 2022 Share Posted January 21, 2022 Can’t someone just ask Q to clarify? Maybe a simple email would get a response as it should be black or white Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
strawhillram Posted January 21, 2022 Share Posted January 21, 2022 20 minutes ago, David said: I'm not sure what is so confusing about this, the administrators have told RamsTrust that they have consulted with 3 QC's who have said that it would unlikely to ever succeed in a court of law. And RamsTrust go on to say: They also stand by the view that the claims should not stand as Football Creditors and are working with the EFL to confirm/clarify this. "They" clearly being the administrators, as the QC's would not be in discussions with the EFL. Kevin has read "deep" into this and came up with the administrators must have asked 2 questions, with one of the answers excluded, which would suggest the administrators are ignoring their QC's by pushing ahead with trying to get the EFL to clarify...oh and according to Kevin, Quantuma wrote the whole thing. So no, we do not agree and I'm finding it hard to believe how this is all being twisted this morning. I'm off to put the kettle on and find the paracetamol. Are the QCs in discussion with the efl or is it Quantuma? I suspect the latter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PistoldPete Posted January 21, 2022 Share Posted January 21, 2022 17 minutes ago, Dean (hick) Saunders said: Can’t someone just ask Q to clarify? Maybe a simple email would get a response as it should be black or white Clarify what? I am in no doubt that q are getting legal advice. And that the advice would support David interpretation RoyMac5 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts