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

[strawhillram]

Just now, RoyMac5 said:

Oh crap! Still they are independent and professional.

And will be subject to scrutiny hopefully

[duncanjwitham]

4 hours ago, RoyMac5 said:

Oh crap! Still they are independent and professional.

I think, given the qualifications needed to sit on a panel, it’s very unlikely they’re going to be biased. No one is going to risk a 10 year legal career to do a favour for the EFL or ‘Boro. I’m far more worried about their ability to understand highly technical accounting arguments etc, given there’s no requirement for specialists on there.

[Oldben]

https://www.hcrlaw.com/blog/powers-of-deduction-insolvency-in-football/

I hope that Boro and Wycombe are not classed as Creditors under this.

 

[i-Ram]

1 hour ago, Oldben said:

https://www.hcrlaw.com/blog/powers-of-deduction-insolvency-in-football/

I hope that Boro and Wycombe are not classed as Creditors under this.

Ben, I know you like to try help and inform, but posting random Internet snippets without having any proper understanding isn’t helpful to anyone. There are a lot of posters on here unnecessarily spooked. I call it the Curtains Syndrome.

What you have posted is a 2019 article which is unrelated to the specific log jam we are in. Indeed the insolvency legislation was changed in 2020. It has been mentioned on here many times that whilst the position of football creditors is clear, what isn’t clear is if Boro or Wycombe can claim any football creditor status, based on the unsubstantiated claims they are making. Unless there is any significant change of heart by the EFL or the two clubs involved, the matter will only be settled by judgment coming from an arbitration. We are awaiting details on dates and terms of reference on that, and therefore until further notice I would urge you torestrict your Googling because there really isn't any legal precedent on this matter.

[Rev]

1 hour ago, i-Ram said:

Ben, I know you like to try help and inform, but posting random Internet snippets without having any proper understanding isn’t helpful to anyone. There are a lot of posters on here unnecessarily spooked. I call it the Curtains Syndrome.

What you have posted is a 2019 article which is unrelated to the specific log jam we are in. Indeed the insolvency legislation was changed in 2020. It has been mentioned on here many times that whilst the position of football creditors is clear, what isn’t clear is if Boro or Wycombe can claim any football creditor status, based on the unsubstantiated claims they are making. Unless there is any significant change of heart by the EFL or the two clubs involved, the matter will only be settled by judgment coming from an arbitration. We are awaiting details on dates and terms of reference on that, and therefore until further notice I would urge you torestrict your Googling because there really isn't any legal precedent on this matter.

I thought one part of the article was quite enlightening. 

I've always wondered quite how football creditors had first dibs, and at 100% to boot, that's the first thing I've read that sets out how they're compatible with the law.

Added paragraph.

The court’s decision was premised on the fact that the money that the football club was entitled to receive from the EFL (including revenues from television rights etc) was not due to the football club as of right and was a discretionary benefit payable if the club completed each season. The ‘pot’ was available for the EFL to meet the debts of the football creditors and this was in the interests of ensuring that each club could fulfil its obligations to the other teams and the organisers, such that the particular rule of the EFL fulfilled a legitimate purpose.

Edited January 31, 2022 by Rev

[kevinhectoring]

1 hour ago, i-Ram said:

Ben, I know you like to try help and inform, but posting random Internet snippets without having any proper understanding isn’t helpful to anyone. There are a lot of posters on here unnecessarily spooked. I call it the Curtains Syndrome.

What you have posted is a 2019 article which is unrelated to the specific log jam we are in. Indeed the insolvency legislation was changed in 2020. It has been mentioned on here many times that whilst the position of football creditors is clear, what isn’t clear is if Boro or Wycombe can claim any football creditor status, based on the unsubstantiated claims they are making. Unless there is any significant change of heart by the EFL or the two clubs involved, the matter will only be settled by judgment coming from an arbitration. We are awaiting details on dates and terms of reference on that, and therefore until further notice I would urge you torestrict your Googling because there really isn't any legal precedent on this matter.

I-ram   (cc @Oldben)

Me again I’m afraid old friend. Well I’m glad I’m not the only one whom you unjustifiably subject to ritual humiliation on here.   The section below, from Ben’s linked article, is undeniably completely apposite. It will be of considerable interest to @PistoldPeteand of course to our fearless leader in the bushes 

“To many, the words ‘paid in full’ seem out of step with insolvency processes where creditors generally receive at best a percentage of their debts, but football is a peculiar beast in this respect ... “

[PistoldPete]

25 minutes ago, kevinhectoring said:

I-ram   (cc @Oldben)

Me again I’m afraid old friend. Well I’m glad I’m not the only one whom you unjustifiably subject to ritual humiliation on here.   The section below, from Ben’s linked article, is undeniably completely apposite. It will be of considerable interest to @PistoldPeteand of course to our fearless leader in the bushes 

“To many, the words ‘paid in full’ seem out of step with insolvency processes where creditors generally receive at best a percentage of their debts, but football is a peculiar beast in this respect ... “

It's of no interest to me at all.

I am more intersted in whether our two goalscorers  from yesterday will play again for us. 

[kevinhectoring]

22 minutes ago, PistoldPete said:

It's of no interest to me at all.
 

But you’ve launched about 25 posts on the topic   Some of them quite lengthy 

(On the other topic, what I read was that if Plange is sold he will be loaned back pronto.  Have you heard different ? ) 

[PistoldPete]

46 minutes ago, kevinhectoring said:

But you’ve launched about 25 posts on the topic   Some of them quite lengthy 

(On the other topic, what I read was that if Plange is sold he will be loaned back pronto.  Have you heard different ? ) 

I heard it could be til end of season or even 18 months. Either way we lose a significant talent to a Premier league team for peanuts, AGAIN.

 

[i-Ram]

2 hours ago, kevinhectoring said:

I-ram   (cc @Oldben)

Me again I’m afraid old friend. Well I’m glad I’m not the only one whom you unjustifiably subject to ritual humiliation on here.   The section below, from Ben’s linked article, is undeniably completely apposite. It will be of considerable interest to @PistoldPeteand of course to our fearless leader in the bushes 

“To many, the words ‘paid in full’ seem out of step with insolvency processes where creditors generally receive at best a percentage of their debts, but football is a peculiar beast in this respect ... “

Lovely to hear from you Kevin. You are taking me far too seriously, and are of course once again mistaken, if you think I unjustifiably subject posters to ritual humiliation on here.

The bit I have highlighted in your post, which you say is completely apposite, is of course correct, but our Administrators have never, ever challenged the position that they need to account to football creditors at anything other than 100% if our Club is to retain the Golden Share. They have more simply been stating that they have QC opinion that neither Boro or Wycombe, and their spurious claims, have achieved anything to be awarded football creditor status as yet.

[kevinhectoring]

33 minutes ago, i-Ram said:

our Administrators have never, ever challenged the position that they need to account to football creditors at anything other than 100% if our Club is to retain the Golden Share.

Oh yes they did ... 
 

... until the EFl put them right, at that fateful Friday meeting, and sent them scurrying off for a legal opinion they could not obtain. Q compounded the error by accusing the EFl of acting ‘contrary to statute’ which coming from officers of the court was a crass and grossly unprofessional ruse to get the fans onside. And it quite understandably made the EFl livid because it incited hatred against them from our twittering fan base. It also made WR livid, because once again he made statements on Q’s say-so one day, and looked foolish the next 
 

You missed all this because you were for the Nth time broadcasting on Radio Hobbyhorse that Q’s problem was in fact little to do with the poison Gibbo dwarf, but more the fault of MM and his stadium antics.
 

Sadly, Amanda Solloway, Tim Thingey MP and Q have all confirmed the stadium is not the issue of the day, thereby consigning your exhausted and long suffering nag to the knackers yard. I say sadly, but it’s good news for the club, because it’s one less problem that Q has to deal with. But I’m not certain you will share that sentiment 

 

Edited January 31, 2022 by kevinhectoring

[Rev]

34 minutes ago, kevinhectoring said:

Oh yes they did ... 
 

... until the EFl put them right, at that fateful Friday meeting, and sent them scurrying off for a legal opinion they could not obtain. Q compounded the error by accusing the EFl of acting ‘contrary to statute’ which coming from officers of the court was a crass and grossly unprofessional ruse to get the fans onside. And it quite understandably made the EFl livid because it incited hatred against them from our twittering fan base. It also made WR livid, because once again he made statements on Q’s say-so one day, and looked foolish the next 
 

You missed all this because you were for the Nth time broadcasting on Radio Hobbyhorse that Q’s problem was in fact little to do with the poison Gibbo dwarf, but more the fault of MM and his stadium antics.
 

Sadly, Amanda Solloway, Tim Thingey MP and Q have all confirmed the stadium is not the issue of the day, thereby consigning your exhausted and long suffering nag to the knackers yard. I say sadly, but it’s good news for the club, because it’s one less problem that Q has to deal with. But I’m not certain you will share that sentiment 

 

If I'm reading this right, your argument is Boro and Wycombe are football creditors, and Mel Morris will bend over backwards to help any deal when it comes to the Stadium?

[i-Ram]

42 minutes ago, kevinhectoring said:

Oh yes they did ... 
 

... until the EFl put them right, at that fateful Friday meeting, and sent them scurrying off for a legal opinion they could not obtain. Q compounded the error by accusing the EFl of acting ‘contrary to statute’ which coming from officers of the court was a crass and grossly unprofessional ruse to get the fans onside. And it quite understandably made the EFl livid because it incited hatred against them from our twittering fan base. It also made WR livid, because once again he made statements on Q’s say-so one day, and looked foolish the next 
 

You missed all this because you were for the Nth time broadcasting on Radio Hobbyhorse that Q’s problem was in fact little to do with the poison Gibbo dwarf, but more the fault of MM and his stadium antics.
 

Sadly, Amanda Solloway, Tim Thingey MP and Q have all confirmed the stadium is not the issue of the day, thereby consigning your exhausted and long suffering nag to the knackers yard. I say sadly, but it’s good news for the club, because it’s one less problem that Q has to deal with. But I’m not certain you will share that sentiment 

I really think you are losing the plot. You in particular highlight my comment: our Administrators have never, ever challenged the position that they need to account to football creditors at anything other than 100% if our Club is to retain the Golden Share.

Q has never disputed the football creditor status. They have been abundantly clear throughout that contractual debts that we might have had outstanding to the likes of Wigan, Arsenal and Lech Poznan need to be paid at 100% to retain our EFL status.

The meeting where “EFL put them right” was to say that you must include the claims of Boro and Wycombe in the Football Creditors column, even though their ludicrous claims have been made up on the back of a fag packet, and had supposedly never been supplied in any great detail to the EFL (according to Parry’s equally ludicrous assertions). They are not even a creditor under the provisions of insolvency statute.

As a by the way, my argument relating to Mel and the stadium, was to initially challenge your bombastic view that you had that MSD had control of the stadium under a fixed charge. You took a lot of convincing, although you wouldn’t know it tonight, that not only does Morris still own the stadium, but he remains in a position whereby he can call some shots as to what might be paid to him in order for the transfer of the stadium to a purchaser. He might be doing broadly the right thing at last, but if you think I am going to give him any significant acknowledgement after his total mismanagement of our club, which has left us in a perilous state, then you are mistaken. Morris will forever in my view be a football charlatan. 

[kevinhectoring]

28 minutes ago, Rev said:

If I'm reading this right, your argument is Boro and Wycombe are football creditors, and Mel Morris will bend over backwards to help any deal when it comes to the Stadium?

We know they are football creditors if they win. Because they are football clubs. (I agree they shouldn’t win, and I’m sure the EFL agree with us on that, indeed the EFl is completely on our side in these disputes. But it has no standing to intervene in the dispute. There is nothing the EFL can do to help us, except lobby the extortionists, which they are undoubtedly doing) 

And on the stadium, yes the tea leaves indicate that MM is making it clear that he will not allow his ‘ownership’ to get in the way of a deal.  It’s been expressed in different ways by different people but it is clear that as things stand he is playing ball. Indeed, Q are on record as saying he has written an option on the stadium to any PB 

[kevinhectoring]

58 minutes ago, i-Ram said:

The meeting where “EFL put them right” was to say that you must include the claims of Boro and Wycombe in the Football Creditors column, even though their ludicrous claims have been made up on the back of a fag packet, and had supposedly never been supplied in any great detail to the EFL (according to Parry’s equally ludicrous assertions). They are not even a creditor under the provisions of insolvency statute.

comments on 2 of your assertions:

”The meeting where “EFL put them right” was to say that you must include the claims of Boro and Wycombe in the Football Creditors column, even though their ludicrous claims have been made up on the back of a fag packet, and had supposedly never been supplied in any great detail to the EFL (according to Parry’s equally ludicrous assertions). “

No. The EFl of course did not say “Gibbo wants £45m, that is his FC claim.”  Of course they did not, because the EFL has gone blue in the face saying they can’t comment on the substance of the claims. What they said was: “ you can compress these claims as much as you want. But they still need to be paid in full if you want to avoid sanction. It’s what @Oldben’s article was on about. 
 

They are not even a creditor under the provisions of insolvency statute.

If you’re saying contingent claims are to be disregarded in insolvency, that is simply wrong. 

[uttoxram75]

53 minutes ago, kevinhectoring said:

We know they are football creditors if they win. Because they are football clubs. (I agree they shouldn’t win, and I’m sure the EFL agree with us on that, indeed the EFl is completely on our side in these disputes. But it has no standing to intervene in the dispute. There is nothing the EFL can do to help us, except lobby the extortionists, which they are undoubtedly doing) 

And on the stadium, yes the tea leaves indicate that MM is making it clear that he will not allow his ‘ownership’ to get in the way of a deal.  It’s been expressed in different ways by different people but it is clear that as things stand he is playing ball. Indeed, Q are on record as saying he has written an option on the stadium to any PB 

We know they are football creditors if they win. - No we don't, there's no precedence for clubs claiming against other clubs in administration.

I’m sure the EFL agree with us on that, indeed the EFl is completely on our side in these disputes. - Parry has made it blatantly obvious that he wants Gibsons pathetic claim to become a football debt.

There is nothing the EFL can do to help us, except lobby the extortionists, which they are undoubtedly doing) - Not true, the EFL could have made the call ages ago that any claim Gibson made would not be classed as a football debt. He didn't because he was scared that Gibson would sue the EFL instead.

If we go out of business, if our club dies, it will be Morris who put us in the dock, but it will be Parry and Gibson who have acted as judge and jury and carried out the execution.

They will not be forgiven.

[kevinhectoring]

26 minutes ago, uttoxram75 said:

We know they are football creditors if they win. - No we don't, there's no precedence for clubs claiming against other clubs in administration.

I’m sure the EFL agree with us on that, indeed the EFl is completely on our side in these disputes. - Parry has made it blatantly obvious that he wants Gibsons pathetic claim to become a football debt.

There is nothing the EFL can do to help us, except lobby the extortionists, which they are undoubtedly doing) - Not true, the EFL could have made the call ages ago that any claim Gibson made would not be classed as a football debt. He didn't because he was scared that Gibson would sue the EFL instead.

If we go out of business, if our club dies, it will be Morris who put us in the dock, but it will be Parry and Gibson who have acted as judge and jury and carried out the execution.

They will not be forgiven.

The FC rule is explicit and simple. If the creditor is a football club, the debt is held by a football creditor. There’s unfortunately nothing in the EFl articles to indicate our current circumstances make a jot of difference 

 

seen no evidence at all that Parry wants Gibbo’s claim to succeed.  Have you ? 
 

 

If EFl are advised, these will be football debts if the claims are successful, then the EFl simply can’t make a call on this. You suggest they can help us by saying, yes these are crap claims, they must be ignored. The problem is, they can’t stop m/W bringing the claims and it is for the arbitration panel to decide the merits. There is nothing EFl can do, except lobby M and W   

[PistoldPete]

7 hours ago, kevinhectoring said:

The FC rule is explicit and simple. If the creditor is a football club, the debt is held by a football creditor. There’s unfortunately nothing in the EFl articles to indicate our current circumstances make a jot of difference 

 

seen no evidence at all that Parry wants Gibbo’s claim to succeed.  Have you ? 
 

 

If EFl are advised, these will be football debts if the claims are successful, then the EFl simply can’t make a call on this. You suggest they can help us by saying, yes these are crap claims, they must be ignored. The problem is, they can’t stop m/W bringing the claims and it is for the arbitration panel to decide the merits. There is nothing EFl can do, except lobby M and W   

Kevin you are trying to make events fit your narrative.

Situation has not changed in the last month.

q had a plan to proceed with CVA or restructuring to compress creditors including Boro and Wycombe . As of xmas Eve they had a preferred bidder in mind who had outbid Kirchner. But Efl then threw a wobbly by saying if they included Boro and Wycombe in the CVA that would be in breach of their football creditor (fc) rule. q asked them on what basis Boro and Wycombe are fc and how can that interfere with the statutory process of emerging from insolvency didn’t get a reply. 
 

as of the January 13 meeting ( actually a Thursday) Efl  didn’t provide an answer on the fc question but still insisted that q couldn’t proceed with the CVA as planned , due them Insisting that Boro and Wycombe are fcs. 
 

and that’s where we still are . Efl not answering the question. .. just saying legal clarification is needed on how to apply their own rules. 

which is not my definition of being helpful. 

[Oldben]

Arbitration has several flaws.

An arbitral award may be contested in domestic courts only in the following cases:

A major irregularity affecting the tribunal, procedures, or decision has caused or will cause some injustice; and the appeal is on a matter of law resulting from the award (although this basis for appeal may be omitted in the arbitration agreement.)

Each person must assess the benefits and downsides of arbitration. As a result, the following points are ambiguous.

Regardless of the outcome of arbitration on Derby, the decision is binding, that means Derby's administrators could absolve themselves from any decision by the arbitration panel, simply by saying that they did not agree with the verdict but had no choice but to go through arbitration to resolve the claims (regardless of whether those claims are fair).

Many decisions by the efl arbitration process have been considered unfair.

The efl arbitration panel will consist of 3 QC's but no jury, and although experts are called to give evidence, there is no guarantee that football insolvency specialists will be called. The review will be against the efls own rules, which some might argued require might not be entirely fit for purpose.

HMRC do not like the football arbitration panels as these rule football creditors as more important than they are, they have challenged this, but failed in the process.

Its possible Middlesbrough and Wycombe could receive significant payment awards via the process, and that doesnt mean that other creditors would reduce their demands, ergo Derby would cease to exist.

See the list below.

 

Arbitration Pros

 

Arbitration helps.

Arbitration is cheaper than court. This isn't always the case.

Other dispute settlement methods take longer since arbitrators have less work and time.

Either the parties or a system pick arbitrators. A neutral arbiter may be chosen by both parties (or arbitrators).

Even if an arbitrator errs, the award stands. This may assist settle a dispute.

There may be a lot of paperwork, hearings, and depositions during litigation. Arbitration may save time and money by avoiding court.

They are not public, nor are their transcripts. This might be useful for collecting.

 

Arbitration Cons

Arbitration does not always save money. Arbitration may be more costly than litigation in certain situations. It's up to you whether they're One only. This increases the expenses of the arbitration.

Some say a little dispute may be resolved in small claims court. Arbitration may be more known to businesses.

Arbitration isn't always faster, cheaper, or better. A lot of people, arbitrators, and legal conflicts might cause this.

A contract's small language may require customers to arbitrate conflicts. Other states may need more funds and time off.

Not even clearly erroneous arbitrator judgments may be reversed. The court has little power to overturn an unfair result.

Most customers and people respect a peer jury. No judge. One arbitrator may be both judge and jury.

[kevinhectoring]

41 minutes ago, PistoldPete said:

q asked them on what basis Boro and Wycombe are fc and how can that interfere with the statutory process of emerging from insolvency didn’t get a reply. 

Didn’t get a reply ?

1 how can you possibly know this? 

2 anyway, no reply is needed, the EFL’s analysis is obvious and if anyone is in any doubt what it is, they can go to @Oldben’s link to understand it. 
 

Yes, Thursday, sorry about that. I was so enjoying writing fateful Friday ...