Day Posted January 21, 2022 Author Share Posted January 21, 2022 Just now, kevinhectoring said: Sadly if @Davidstarts this sort of thread, it drives opinion and the result is 250 posts insulting the EFl. You can be absolutely sure that the EFL has a team monitoring Twitter and this site and that their latest statement is a response not only to Q’s accusations but also to the invective on here M and W are fair game for sure and we are winning that PR battle - see the latest awesome Daily Mail article. But attack the EFl and you risk damaging the club’s interests. As MM learned to his considerable cost I was under the impression we had agreed to disagree after I explained the timeline of events. Now you're here mentioning me again, trying to claim I am antagonising the EFL again? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
i-Ram Posted January 21, 2022 Share Posted January 21, 2022 7 minutes ago, kevinhectoring said: Sorry to come back again. As much for @i-Ram as you I just saw this, from the Q BAWT minutes today, carefully crafted : 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 written very carefully. It’s telling you that their QC’s - 3 of them !! - have told them that the claims are rubbish. As we know. It’s also telling you that the QCs were unable to support Q’s position that the claims should not stand as football creditors I am off to sleep buddy, but I think you are reading far too much into BAWT minutes. You stress ‘written very carefully’ and ‘carefully crafted’ sentences, but what evidence do you have, other than reading between the lines, that the QCs were unable to support Q’s position that the claims should not stand as football creditors ? RamuelLJackson, ThePrisoner, Day and 2 others 3 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Day Posted January 21, 2022 Author Share Posted January 21, 2022 5 minutes ago, kevinhectoring said: I have quoted the paragraph. It all needs to be read and then it needs to be understood It is from the minutes of today’s meeting between BAWT and others, and Q I have read it and understood it, but at no point does it ever suggest they would be unable to support Quantuma's position. I'm truly baffled as to how you have taken that from the paragraph. GB SPORTS, ThePrisoner, RamuelLJackson and 5 others 1 7 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PistoldPete Posted January 21, 2022 Share Posted January 21, 2022 3 hours ago, Rev said: What ultimatum? Show proof of funds or we will expel you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oldben Posted January 21, 2022 Share Posted January 21, 2022 Department of business, insolvency service, leaders email ... dean.beale@insolvency.gov.uk I could be wrong but as head of the governments insolvency service, I wonder if he has any influence in terms of dismissing middlesbrough and wycombes crazy claims against Derby. Is it worth mass emailing him for a response or at least asking mps involved with trying to save our club, to contact him requesting his insight. i-Ram 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PistoldPete Posted January 21, 2022 Share Posted January 21, 2022 7 hours ago, David said: I have read it and understood it, but at no point does it ever suggest they would be unable to support Quantuma's position. I'm truly baffled as to how you have taken that from the paragraph. I agree David. They have got three QCs opinions on the merits of the claim because when they go to Court with their recovery proposals they will want to show they have considered that point. A Court will not be needed to decide on whether they are football creditor claims or not. Once they are dealt with by the insolvency Court there should be no further legal process unless it is to challenge EFL on anything. But in any case I think you are right , they are not a football creditor and I doubt they would ever have become one even without the current insolvency situation. RoyMac5 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevinhectoring Posted January 21, 2022 Share Posted January 21, 2022 7 hours ago, kevinhectoring said: 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. Well for the last time of asking : What this statement by q reveals it that - Q instructed not 2 but 3 QCs on this after the famous meeting with EFl Three QCs !!! - there were 2 questions that the QCs needed to be asked after the q/EFL meeting: 1 please confirm these claims are ill founded 2 please confirm the claimants are not ‘football creditors’ under our plan - the QCs confirmed the claims are rubbish - the QCs could not give q the confirmation they needed on the football creditors point. These kinds of statements need a deep read to be understood, especially when the people making them are looking to find their way out of a corner. As q are here It’s highly likely the EFl have got very similar legal advice from their own advisers. They will also have been advised that if they do as this thread suggests, not only do they misinterpret their articles, they open themselves to claims from other clubs. And they have told us this in their own release of yesterday (Thursday) Continuing to push this point in the face of all this evidence is not in our club’s interests Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PistoldPete Posted January 21, 2022 Share Posted January 21, 2022 (edited) 17 minutes ago, kevinhectoring said: Well for the last time of asking : What this statement by q reveals it that - Q instructed not 2 but 3 QCs on this after the famous meeting with EFl Three QCs !!! - there were 2 questions that the QCs needed to be asked after the q/EFL meeting: 1 please confirm these claims are ill founded 2 please confirm the claimants are not ‘football creditors’ under our plan - the QCs confirmed the claims are rubbish - the QCs could not give q the confirmation they needed on the football creditors point. These kinds of statements need a deep read to be understood, especially when the people making them are looking to find their way out of a corner. As q are here It’s highly likely the EFl have got very similar legal advice from their own advisers. They will also have been advised that if they do as this thread suggests, not only do they misinterpret their articles, they open themselves to claims from other clubs. And they have told us this in their own release of yesterday (Thursday) Continuing to push this point in the face of all this evidence is not in our club’s interests For the last time of asking Kevin give it up. I think you are reading stuff into things that just isn’t there. As I see it Efl know full well that what q are doing is both legal and within the EFL rules . But they, and Gibson, think of it as another Morris style dodge of the EFL rules like the stadium sale. Within the rules but against the spirit of them , as the EFL see it. They are wrong about that too I think. Edited January 21, 2022 by PistoldPete Crewton and ThePrisoner 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Day Posted January 21, 2022 Author Share Posted January 21, 2022 23 minutes ago, kevinhectoring said: - there were 2 questions that the QCs needed to be asked after the q/EFL meeting: 1 please confirm these claims are ill founded 2 please confirm the claimants are not ‘football creditors’ under our plan - the QCs confirmed the claims are rubbish - the QCs could not give q the confirmation they needed on the football creditors point. This is not a deep read, you have made a baseless assumption that the QC's were asked 2 questions. It's quite possible that the QC's opinion that this will never succeed in a court of law includes the fact they are not football creditors if we go deep into this. Assumptions aside, the administrators have confirmed that they are looking to clarify this point with the EFL, so if you're concerned that this is not in the best interests of the club, contact Quantuma as they clearly believe it is. Crewton, Hector was the best and kevinhectoring 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
i-Ram Posted January 21, 2022 Share Posted January 21, 2022 27 minutes ago, kevinhectoring said: Well for the last time of asking : What this statement by q reveals it that - Q instructed not 2 but 3 QCs on this after the famous meeting with EFl Three QCs !!! - there were 2 questions that the QCs needed to be asked after the q/EFL meeting: 1 please confirm these claims are ill founded 2 please confirm the claimants are not ‘football creditors’ under our plan - the QCs confirmed the claims are rubbish - the QCs could not give q the confirmation they needed on the football creditors point. These kinds of statements need a deep read to be understood, especially when the people making them are looking to find their way out of a corner. As q are here It’s highly likely the EFl have got very similar legal advice from their own advisers. They will also have been advised that if they do as this thread suggests, not only do they misinterpret their articles, they open themselves to claims from other clubs. And they have told us this in their own release of yesterday (Thursday) Continuing to push this point in the face of all this evidence is not in our club’s interests “These kinds of statements need a deep read to be understood” ThePrisoner and kevinhectoring 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevinhectoring Posted January 21, 2022 Share Posted January 21, 2022 14 minutes ago, PistoldPete said: For the last time of asking Kevin give it up. Ok I will If you have further need of my translation services (standard English <—————-> dissembling by expensive professionals) just let me know. I have wasted a large part of a lifetime achieving fluency (i only do this because I care as much as you do) i-Ram 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, kevinhectoring said: Ok I will If you have further need of my translation services (standard English <—————-> dissembling by expensive professionals) just let me know. I have wasted a large part of a lifetime achieving fluency (i only do this because I care as much as you do) Can I just point out, what you are trying to dissemble is brief points taken from the meeting and written by RamsTrust. Crewton, Hector was the best, RoyMac5 and 1 other 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThePrisoner Posted January 21, 2022 Share Posted January 21, 2022 Me seeing things that Quantuma didn’t say. Crewton 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Red Ram Posted January 21, 2022 Share Posted January 21, 2022 (edited) 45 minutes ago, kevinhectoring said: Well for the last time of asking : What this statement by q reveals it that - Q instructed not 2 but 3 QCs on this after the famous meeting with EFl Three QCs !!! - there were 2 questions that the QCs needed to be asked after the q/EFL meeting: 1 please confirm these claims are ill founded 2 please confirm the claimants are not ‘football creditors’ under our plan - the QCs confirmed the claims are rubbish - the QCs could not give q the confirmation they needed on the football creditors point. These kinds of statements need a deep read to be understood, especially when the people making them are looking to find their way out of a corner. As q are here It’s highly likely the EFl have got very similar legal advice from their own advisers. They will also have been advised that if they do as this thread suggests, not only do they misinterpret their articles, they open themselves to claims from other clubs. And they have told us this in their own release of yesterday (Thursday) Continuing to push this point in the face of all this evidence is not in our club’s interests Kevin, whilst I broadly agree with your argument re football creditor status and also think it's pretty clear (based on the first post in this thread and the precedent of Middlesborough Vs Liverpool) that Middlesborough and Wycombe would be football creditors if they won their cases, I'm not clear why you're so certain regarding your interpretation of RamsTrust's minutes of Quantuma's statement. The paragraph you have quoted in support of your assertion is this one. "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." This has been written by RamsTrust not Quantuma so it's not necessarily carefully constructed legalistic language. It is certainly open to the interpretation you have given it but reading it purely literally, it's not even explicitly stated that Quantuma have actually asked the QCs for an opinion on the football creditor status issue. This reads to me like two related but independent sentences about the same underlying issue. I wouldn't make the implicit assumption you have that the QCs were asked their opinion on both issues but only concurred with the administrators on the first of the two. There's just not enough evidence for that, especially given that this report has been put together by supporters groups rather than lawyers. I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm just confused as to why you're so certain you're right and wonder whether you might be over interpreting this particular paragraph? Edited January 21, 2022 by Red Ram ThePrisoner, PistoldPete, Hector was the best and 3 others 6 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gaspode Posted January 21, 2022 Share Posted January 21, 2022 6 minutes ago, David said: Can I just point out, what you are trying to dissemble is brief points taken from the meeting and written by RamsTrust. Give up mate - you'll never win when atttempting to apply logic with some of the posters on here..... Premier ram 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevinhectoring Posted January 21, 2022 Share Posted January 21, 2022 5 minutes ago, Red Ram said: This has been written by RamsTrust not Quantuma Very unlikely imho. Very very unlikely ThePrisoner 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Red Ram Posted January 21, 2022 Share Posted January 21, 2022 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PistoldPete Posted January 21, 2022 Share Posted January 21, 2022 12 minutes ago, Red Ram said: Kevin, whilst I broadly agree with your argument re football creditor status and also think it's pretty clear (based on the first post in this thread and the precedent of Middlesborough Vs Liverpool) that Middlesborough and Wycombe would be football creditors if they won their cases, I'm not clear why you're so certain regarding your interpretation of RamsTrust's minutes of Quantuma's statement. The paragraph you have quoted in support of your assertion is this one. "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." This has been written by RamsTrust not Quantuma so it's not necessarily carefully constructed legalistic language. It is certainly open to the interpretation you have given it but reading it purely literally, it's not even explicitly stated that Quantuma have actually asked the QCs for an opinion on the football creditor status issue. This reads to me like two related but independent sentences about the same underlying issue. I wouldn't make the implicit assumption you have that the QCs were asked their opinion on both issues but only concurred with the administrators on the first of the two. There's just not enough evidence for that, especially given that this report has been put together by supporters groups rather than lawyers. I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm just confused as to why you're so certain you're right and wonder whether you might be over interpreting this particular paragraph? Very polite Red Ram. In short Kevin is seeing things that aren't there. kevinhectoring 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Day Posted January 21, 2022 Author Share Posted January 21, 2022 ThePrisoner and Hector was the best 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CBRammette Posted January 21, 2022 Share Posted January 21, 2022 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!) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts