PistoldPete Posted February 1, 2022 Share Posted February 1, 2022 26 minutes ago, kevinhectoring said: 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 ... because andrew hosking said this at his presentation on Sunday before the game… sitting out the timeline I described above. and I know from my own experience with questions to EFL they will not give a direct answer .. just giving answers to questions you haven’t asked .. and you can also see from EFL’s own statement which says legal clarification is needed. are Boro and Wycombe claims currently football creditors? And on what basis ? There is no amount currently due to BOro or Wycombe so they are not football creditors according to EFL definition in article 48. kevinhectoring 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Day Posted February 1, 2022 Author Share Posted February 1, 2022 38 minutes ago, kevinhectoring said: 1 hour 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? Probably the same way you know this? ??♂️ 12 hours ago, kevinhectoring said: until the EFl put them right, at that fateful Friday meeting, and sent them scurrying off for a legal opinion they could not obtain. kevinhectoring 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oldben Posted February 1, 2022 Share Posted February 1, 2022 A panel of 3 judges will meet, they will determine if there's an argument for determining if m/w can be legally be classed as football creditors. If there's a case, they will decide what amount is a fair amount. Gibson claimed he never asked for 45 million, that's possible as he would know that he can't just ask for an amount as the amount will be set by the arbitration panel and only then if the panel determines him to be a football creditor. Wycombes case is even weaker, but in any case they've claimed they are owed a certain amount, and they are not, unless the arbitration panel deterimes that they are football creditors. Wycombes owner being an American lawyer, operates in the murky world of the ambulance chasers ie they sue for just about anything in the usa. Their decision will can only be challenged on the reasons I mentioned above. Even though hmrc previously tried to challenge such decisions, since football creditors have creditor rights above hmrc. As for Derby, as mentioned we will be dependent on trial by 3 judges without a jury. Derby will be giving evidence and will listen to experts. As i mentioned above there is potential for unfairness in who is called as an expert, said experts come from the efls own expert listing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tamworthram Posted February 2, 2022 Share Posted February 2, 2022 @David. I’m being a bit dim here, and please excuse my laziness if this question has been addressed in the subsequent 19 pages of responses but: In your OP you say that article 48 says Boro’s claim cannot be a football creditor. Which section of the article leads you to that conclusion? Doesn’t the article list all of those that would be football creditors in the event of default and section 48.1.3 specifically mentions members. Am I misreading this (quite likely) or doesn’t this indicate that any debt to Boro, should their claim be upheld, WOULD be a football debt. kevinhectoring 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Red Ram Posted February 2, 2022 Share Posted February 2, 2022 (edited) 19 minutes ago, Tamworthram said: @David. I’m being a bit dim here, and please excuse my laziness if this question has been addressed in the subsequent 19 pages of responses but: In your OP you say that article 48 says Boro’s claim cannot be a football creditor. Which section of the article leads you to that conclusion? Doesn’t the article list all of those that would be football creditors in the event of default and section 48.1.3 specifically mentions members. Am I misreading this (quite likely) or doesn’t this indicate that any debt to Boro, should their claim be upheld, WOULD be a football debt. Your analysis is spot on as far as I can see Tamworthram. I think the premise of this thread was that because the Boro and Wycombe claims are currently unresolved, Derby don't owe them any money at the moment so therefore they are not football creditors at this particular point in time. Nevertheless I agree with you - they will be football creditors if they win their case. Unfortunately it's pretty much impossible to interpret article 48 in any other way. Despite all the noise about it, the whole debate about whether they're football creditors is therefore pretty much a red herring really. The real question is whether or not their claims have any merit as it is this that will determine whether or not they become football creditors in the near future. Edited February 2, 2022 by Red Ram Sparkle, Tamworthram, kevinhectoring and 1 other 3 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PistoldPete Posted February 2, 2022 Share Posted February 2, 2022 24 minutes ago, Red Ram said: Your analysis is spot on as far as I can see Tamworthram. I think the premise of this thread was that because the Boro and Wycombe claims are currently unresolved, Derby don't owe them any money at the moment so therefore they are not football creditors at this particular point in time. Nevertheless I agree with you - they will be football creditors if they win their case. Unfortunately it's pretty much impossible to interpret article 48 in any other way. Despite all the noise about it, the whole debate about whether they're football creditors is therefore pretty much a red herring really. The real question is whether or not their claims have any merit as it is this that will determine whether or not they become football creditors in the near future. It certainly is not a red herring, I think you miss the point completely. as things stand they are not football creditors. They are however creditors for the purposes of a CVA . So their claims can be compressed. if a tribunal subsequently makes an award it will have to allow for statutory deductions that would have applied to any claim . So the amounts due to be paid will be net of the statutory deduction. If Derby pay that net amount they will be paying 100% of the amounts due . .. so satisfying the football creditor requirement. Maharan and i-Ram 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tamworthram Posted February 2, 2022 Share Posted February 2, 2022 (edited) 27 minutes ago, PistoldPete said: It certainly is not a red herring, I think you miss the point completely. as things stand they are not football creditors. They are however creditors for the purposes of a CVA . So their claims can be compressed. if a tribunal subsequently makes an award it will have to allow for statutory deductions that would have applied to any claim . So the amounts due to be paid will be net of the statutory deduction. If Derby pay that net amount they will be paying 100% of the amounts due . .. so satisfying the football creditor requirement. I don’t quite understand your point. Either they’re creditors or they’re not (surely they’re not yet, just a potential future liability). If they were deemed to be creditors now then they would be football creditors. My knowledge of CVA’s and the impact of potential future creditors isn’t great. Edited February 2, 2022 by Tamworthram Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of Clough Posted February 2, 2022 Share Posted February 2, 2022 15 minutes ago, Tamworthram said: I don’t quite understand your point. Either they’re creditors or they’re not (surely they’re not yet, just a potential future liability). If they were deemed to be creditors now then they would be football creditors. My knowledge of CVA’s and the impact of potential future creditors isn’t great. As we all know by now, legal proceedings cannot commenced against a company in administration, so the claim is just that... a claim. However, the administrators (or a court) can give consent to allow those proceedings to go ahead. If the administrators accept the claim, this is usually taken on as an unsecured creditor. More importantly, if the application for a claim is rejected, it is down to the claimant to appeal the decision through insolvency courts. I believe this is where the disagreement with the EFL started. The administrators obviously rejected the claims but the EFL stepped in to say that's not right, leading the admins to state it is against statute. I think the arbitration could therefore be: 1. to determine if we are in the right to reject the claims, or 2. whether they would be football creditors or unsecured creditors RoyMac5 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PistoldPete Posted February 2, 2022 Share Posted February 2, 2022 25 minutes ago, Tamworthram said: I don’t quite understand your point. Either they’re creditors or they’re not (surely they’re not yet, just a potential future liability). If they were deemed to be creditors now then they would be football creditors. My knowledge of CVA’s and the impact of potential future creditors isn’t great. My understanding is that the "C" in CVA stands for creditor, as in Creditors Voluntary Agreement. Boro and Wycombe count as "indeterminate " (I think that was the phrase they used) creditors, according to Quantuma. As such they can be included within the CVA , which is what Quantuma want. Nothing to stop a CVA now, because they are not currently football creditors. After a CVA, Boro and Wycombe become entitled to only whatever the creditors voters agree to eg 25%. So a tribunal cannot subsequently award them any more than 25% of any loss of net profits they are claiming. That's how I see what Quantuma are arguing .. .and it seems like a very fair challenge to me. IF EFL are trying to use a rule to justify throwing us out of the League, that rule has to be clear otherwise , we as members and indeed founding members of the EFL can say that isn't what we agreed to. . Tamworthram 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Day Posted February 2, 2022 Author Share Posted February 2, 2022 1 hour ago, Red Ram said: they will be football creditors if they win their case. They can't pursue their claims as we're in administration, so that 'if' would never have been triggered. The EFL shouldn't be allowing clubs to given football creditor status on a if this happens, it should be a ruling based on the here and now. Why couldn't the administrators could turn round to the EFL and say well if you let us sell the club, your proof of funds will be there. If you let us renew Waghorn and Marriott's contracts we won't fail your P&S rules. If we get promoted next year into the Premier League, you won't have to deal with us again. An if shouldn't be given that much power to some clubs, and not others. As of now, we don't owe them a penny. Indyram and uttoxram75 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sparkle Posted February 2, 2022 Share Posted February 2, 2022 1 hour ago, Tamworthram said: @David. I’m being a bit dim here, and please excuse my laziness if this question has been addressed in the subsequent 19 pages of responses but: In your OP you say that article 48 says Boro’s claim cannot be a football creditor. Which section of the article leads you to that conclusion? Doesn’t the article list all of those that would be football creditors in the event of default and section 48.1.3 specifically mentions members. Am I misreading this (quite likely) or doesn’t this indicate that any debt to Boro, should their claim be upheld, WOULD be a football debt. It’s rather relevant as Gibson can sue Derby county on his own if he wants to but he isn’t he is using Middlesbrough football club as a vehicle to drive through the football creditor rule/opinion - in a court of law = very little chance of winning and costly vs using the EFL as a tool of inconsistency - the bloke has made a mockery of sport and probably should be looked at more closely by the EFL and FA for bringing the game into disrepute. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
i-Ram Posted February 2, 2022 Share Posted February 2, 2022 25 minutes ago, PistoldPete said: My understanding is that the "C" in CVA stands for creditor, as in Creditors Voluntary Agreement. Boro and Wycombe count as "indeterminate " (I think that was the phrase they used) creditors, according to Quantuma. As such they can be included within the CVA , which is what Quantuma want. Nothing to stop a CVA now, because they are not currently football creditors. After a CVA, Boro and Wycombe become entitled to only whatever the creditors voters agree to eg 25%. So a tribunal cannot subsequently award them any more than 25% of any loss of net profits they are claiming. That's how I see what Quantuma are arguing .. .and it seems like a very fair challenge to me. IF EFL are trying to use a rule to justify throwing us out of the League, that rule has to be clear otherwise , we as members and indeed founding members of the EFL can say that isn't what we agreed to.. When you don’t know that a CVA stands for a Company Voluntary Arrangement you lose all credibility. I didn’t read anything else after your first sentence. Maharan 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tamworthram Posted February 2, 2022 Share Posted February 2, 2022 18 minutes ago, Sparkle said: It’s rather relevant as Gibson can sue Derby county on his own if he wants to but he isn’t he is using Middlesbrough football club as a vehicle to drive through the football creditor rule/opinion - in a court of law = very little chance of winning and costly vs using the EFL as a tool of inconsistency - the bloke has made a mockery of sport and probably should be looked at more closely by the EFL and FA for bringing the game into disrepute. How could he sue Derby on a personal basis? It’s the club that he says has lost money not him personally. If the club losing money has resulted in him putting more of his money in then that is something he has chosen to do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Day Posted February 2, 2022 Author Share Posted February 2, 2022 Couple of things to drop in here. Now I'm no legal expert, far from it, does this not read to you that only the League can take action against clubs that fail P&S? Boro were also already been told they have no here business here when trying to get involved. Yet here they are....again....and the EFL are entertaining the idea Boro and Wycombe could be potentially football creditors. Why? When even if we move beyond that, 4.4 says only the league can bring action and they have been told already they have no business being involved. Sorry but it stinks. uttoxram75, Tamworthram and Indyram 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Day Posted February 2, 2022 Author Share Posted February 2, 2022 Source link: https://www.efl.com/contentassets/c9fc5dceaa7f4b62b81dca0b9e2f7c9d/2020.10.26---decision-on-mfc-redaction.pdf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sparkle Posted February 2, 2022 Share Posted February 2, 2022 2 minutes ago, Tamworthram said: How could he sue Derby on a personal basis? It’s the club that he says has lost money not him personally. If the club losing money has resulted in him putting more of his money in then that is something he has chosen to do. I believe it was the Sheffield United owner who took action against West Ham and not the football club - I may be wrong but the money received went into his bank account and not Sheffield United Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RoyMac5 Posted February 2, 2022 Share Posted February 2, 2022 8 minutes ago, i-Ram said: When you don’t know that a CVA stands for a Company Voluntary Arrangement you lose all credibility. I didn’t read anything else after your first sentence. Ah crap I'm getting all confused (again!). I'm believing everyone I read that sounds credible, even you @i-Ram! Do we know that we are 'going to Arbitration'? If yes, what the hell is it?! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Day Posted February 2, 2022 Author Share Posted February 2, 2022 11 minutes ago, i-Ram said: When you don’t know that a CVA stands for a Company Voluntary Arrangement you lose all credibility. I didn’t read anything else after your first sentence. Sorry, but you also lose credibility, it's a stroke. Ghost of Clough and i-Ram 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sparkle Posted February 2, 2022 Share Posted February 2, 2022 3 minutes ago, David said: Couple of things to drop in here. Now I'm no legal expert, far from it, does this not read to you that only the League can take action against clubs that fail P&S? Boro were also already been told they have no here business here when trying to get involved. Yet here they are....again....and the EFL are entertaining the idea Boro and Wycombe could be potentially football creditors. Why? When even if we move beyond that, 4.4 says only the league can bring action and they have been told already they have no business being involved. Sorry but it stinks. Shall we assume that the EFL haven’t read their rules ( that’s possible as we know) but even if they have they don’t seem to care which is one of the major problems we have encountered these past five years - there really should be a detailed inquiry into the actions and decisions made by this organisation and it’s effects Tamworthram 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tamworthram Posted February 2, 2022 Share Posted February 2, 2022 6 minutes ago, Sparkle said: I believe it was the Sheffield United owner who took action against West Ham and not the football club - I may be wrong but the money received went into his bank account and not Sheffield United Perhaps you’re right but it does seem very odd given Sheffield United are, and were, a separate legal entity. kevinhectoring 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts