Day Posted January 21, 2022 Author Share Posted January 21, 2022 2 minutes ago, StrawHillRam said: Are the QCs in discussion with the efl or is it Quantuma? I suspect the latter Will be the latter, as of now it's just simply advice being given. There is no legal case. The current moratorium prevents this and any arbitration, would be no reason for the QC's to be in direct contact with the EFL. The EFL have however according to their statement offered independent legal mediation between Derby, Boro and Wycombe, whether or not that has been accepted we don't know. strawhillram 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rich84 Posted January 21, 2022 Share Posted January 21, 2022 One thing that's been bugging me, if the argument to support these claims as football creditors is based on the precedent of the Ziege claim (which is around an actual tangible monetary transaction between 2 clubs) then there is far far more precedent that has been set where claims haven't been sought by clubs for previous FFP infringements (which are as has now been labelled "fantasy football" claims and not tangible), where the EFL punishments have been the only penalty handed out. The EFL need to grow a pair and dismiss them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
i-Ram Posted January 21, 2022 Share Posted January 21, 2022 22 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 Dear Q. We have a question with regard to homophones; by which I mean words that sound the same but have different meanings and connotations. I know you might be a tad busy, but we are having problems, indeed hilarious confusion, on our forum with the words they, their and they're. Might you have any useful insight please on how these words might be best applied? Thank you in advance. Yours sincerely i Day and Leeds Ram 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheresOnlyWanChope Posted January 21, 2022 Share Posted January 21, 2022 1 minute ago, Rich84 said: One thing that's been bugging me, if the argument to support these claims as football creditors is based on the precedent of the Ziege claim (which is around an actual tangible monetary transaction between 2 clubs) then there is far far more precedent that has been set where claims haven't been sought by clubs for previous FFP infringements (which are as has now been labelled "fantasy football" claims and not tangible), where the EFL punishments have been the only penalty handed out. The EFL need to grow a pair and dismiss them. Also, if they are if they are somehow football creditors claims, what is stopping Leeds and Sheffield Wednesday claiming too? It’s unbelievable this hasn’t been shut down by now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris_D Posted January 21, 2022 Share Posted January 21, 2022 1 minute ago, David said: Will be the latter, as of now it's just simply advice being given. There is no legal case. The current moratorium prevents this and any arbitration, would be no reason for the QC's to be in direct contact with the EFL. The EFL have however according to their statement offered independent legal mediation between Derby, Boro and Wycombe, whether or not that has been accepted we don't know. I think the EFL position is that the arbitration is outside the moratorium as it is brought under the EFL’s rules and therefore separate to insolvency law, meaning the arbitration can continue (they also blame the admins for not resolving it sooner). This is per RT update following meeting with EFL held this week. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
duncanjwitham Posted January 21, 2022 Share Posted January 21, 2022 Just now, Rich84 said: The EFL need to grow a pair and dismiss them. The problem is, the EFL rules have no process to allow them to just dismiss claims. They just say all intra-club disputes need to be settled by arbitration. That's why they're so paralyzed by this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Scarlet Pimpernel Posted January 21, 2022 Share Posted January 21, 2022 I've run out of things to ask. I think we can only wait and see what develops now. i-Ram 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Day Posted January 21, 2022 Author Share Posted January 21, 2022 10 minutes ago, Chris_D said: I think the EFL position is that the arbitration is outside the moratorium as it is brought under the EFL’s rules and therefore separate to insolvency law, meaning the arbitration can continue (they also blame the admins for not resolving it sooner). This is per RT update following meeting with EFL held this week. You do sense that whilst that maybe their position, they are being very careful not to publicly choose a side even with yesterdays statement. Could EFL regs trump insolvency laws? I'm not so sure. However, any resolution achieved cannot ignore or sidestep EFL Regulations or UK law and any solution needs to be found that satisfies the competition regulations and the terms of the EFL’s Insolvency Policy that was set and agreed by all 72 members, including Derby County. RoyMac5 and RamuelLJackson 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
strawhillram Posted January 21, 2022 Share Posted January 21, 2022 6 minutes ago, The Scarlet Pimpernel said: I've run out of things to ask. I think we can only wait and see what develops now. Likewise. I am powerless and in the dark. Only rely on statements that contradict each other. i don’t know what’s right and wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Day Posted January 21, 2022 Author Share Posted January 21, 2022 23 minutes ago, David said: You do sense that whilst that maybe their position, they are being very careful not to publicly choose a side even with yesterdays statement. Could EFL regs trump insolvency laws? I'm not so sure. However, any resolution achieved cannot ignore or sidestep EFL Regulations or UK law and any solution needs to be found that satisfies the competition regulations and the terms of the EFL’s Insolvency Policy that was set and agreed by all 72 members, including Derby County. Just on this, by the EFL's own regs they will follow and be bound by any changes to the Insolvency Act, such as those in 2020 which they acknowledge they cannot sidestep. RoyMac5 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BaaLocks Posted January 21, 2022 Share Posted January 21, 2022 (edited) 51 minutes ago, TheresOnlyWanChope said: Also, if they are if they are somehow football creditors claims, what is stopping Leeds and Sheffield Wednesday claiming too? It’s unbelievable this hasn’t been shut down by now. And the precedent that is set should a claim be paid - every club in the division could claim based on whether or not they weren't promoted, didn't make the play offs, got relegated, finished below us in the league, lost attendances because we were above them so less people came to the game because they thought we would beat them. Clubs that we knocked out of the cups, players who didn't get win bonuses, clubs who claimed they would have been on Sky instead of us, fans who felt cheated and are left with PTSD over it all (tbf - I think a couple are still getting over the announcement of the team sheet at Wembley). Back to some sort of sensibility, there is no direct reason why Boro's claim is any more valid than one that could be made by any other club in the division and any award of a claim would open up the floodgates, not just for us but against Aston Villa, Birmingham, QPR and others. Edited January 21, 2022 by BaaLocks ariotofmyown and Red Ram 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevinhectoring Posted January 21, 2022 Share Posted January 21, 2022 1 hour ago, PistoldPete said: Clarify what? I am in no doubt that q are getting legal advice. And that the advice would support David interpretation I’ve thought deeply about your post PdP, for about 2 seconds. You see the problem is: - there is little doubt Q would have asked the triumvirate of QCs about the football creditors point (as well as asking about the merits of the claim) - there is little doubt that if the QCs had supported @David’s analysis, and said M/W we’re not football creditors, then Q would have said so. And the note would have reflected that with deepest respect KH’ing i-Ram and RoyMac5 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RoyMac5 Posted January 21, 2022 Share Posted January 21, 2022 1 minute ago, kevinhectoring said: - there is little doubt that if the QCs had supported @David’s analysis, and said M/W we’re not football creditors, then Q would have said so. And the note would have reflected that with deepest respect KH’ing How much doubt is little doubt? I can see why you picked your username now. ? kevinhectoring 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris_D Posted January 21, 2022 Share Posted January 21, 2022 1 hour ago, David said: You do sense that whilst that maybe their position, they are being very careful not to publicly choose a side even with yesterdays statement. Could EFL regs trump insolvency laws? I'm not so sure. However, any resolution achieved cannot ignore or sidestep EFL Regulations or UK law and any solution needs to be found that satisfies the competition regulations and the terms of the EFL’s Insolvency Policy that was set and agreed by all 72 members, including Derby County. I think their position is ridiculous and probably unlawful given whole point of laws around insolvency is to give breathing space to struggling companies (which would mean you can’t just say “well our rules mean you can still sue so there”), but would probably need a court to decide here. EFL not willing to decide how their own rules work - also think EFL would interpret their regs very broadly to say they have had regard to the insolvency act but arbitration is needed to protect integrity of league etc Day 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Red Ram Posted January 21, 2022 Share Posted January 21, 2022 4 hours 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. Exactly Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Red Ram Posted January 21, 2022 Share Posted January 21, 2022 2 hours ago, kevinhectoring said: I’ve thought deeply about your post PdP, for about 2 seconds. You see the problem is: - there is little doubt Q would have asked the triumvirate of QCs about the football creditors point (as well as asking about the merits of the claim) - there is little doubt that if the QCs had supported @David’s analysis, and said M/W we’re not football creditors, then Q would have said so. And the note would have reflected that with deepest respect KH’ing To be fair that makes a lot of sense on the face of it but only on the assumption that QCs would have specific expertise regarding the rules governing Football Creditor status. Not sure they would though, as they're a matter of Football League regulations rather than the law. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leeds Ram Posted January 21, 2022 Share Posted January 21, 2022 5 hours 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. The way I read it is 'they' is referring to the administrators because of the discussions with the EFL. The latter point is surely related to the principle if they were unlikely to succeed then they would not stand as football creditors at this time? I don't think it's drafted brilliantly and it could have been worded more clearly leaving no room for different interpretations. Even though I'm a big fan of what is called 'close reading' (am a political theory PhD student) I wouldn't be applying a similar process to these documents that are after-all likely to be written up quickly. Such a process can lead you to overinterpret these documents in my book. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PistoldPete Posted January 21, 2022 Share Posted January 21, 2022 34 minutes ago, Red Ram said: To be fair that makes a lot of sense on the face of it but only on the assumption that QCs would have specific expertise regarding the rules governing Football Creditor status. Not sure they would though, as they're a matter of Football League regulations rather than the law. So you don’t think they have experts in football law to look at it as well? With Derby’s very existence depending on it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RamsfanJim Posted January 21, 2022 Share Posted January 21, 2022 5 hours 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. Interesting - these minutes WERE written by Quantuma (or the club secretary). I used to write them (then get reviewed), but since I haven't (personally) been at last 2 mtgs, Quantuma has written them (which may explain some delays in release...). I read this as Quantuma as *they*. One other point that has been raised with me. As they (Quantuma) have 3 QCs opionions - which is that the cases have no merit - than legally they CANNOT use funds from club to pay a settlement. That would be an incorrect use of funds from a business in administration and would be against the law for an administrator (they could be disbarred). This hasn't been formally said by the admins, but they have hinted at it reading between the lines. That makes their negotiating position pretty clear cut... Red Ram, RoyMac5, San Fran Van Rams and 2 others 2 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevinhectoring Posted January 21, 2022 Share Posted January 21, 2022 3 hours ago, RoyMac5 said: I can see why you picked your username now. ? David wouldn’t allow Kevin the tos$er RoyMac5, i-Ram and Mucker1884 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts