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

[SaffyRam]

@Davidis someone making sure Q are aware of Article 48?

[TheresOnlyWanChope]

Someone needs to tell Quantuma about this before Tom Lawrence gets sold for the price of a Skoda. 

[Wignall12]

40 minutes ago, Rich84 said:

Wondered why you'd been quiet on here for the last day....@David

get that sent to the MPs, Savage etc.

Margaret Becket needs to know asap !

[PistoldPete]

1 hour ago, David said:

Three parties have made offers, any one of which would allow the club to exit administration with a substantial payment to creditors.

These offers need clarity, that the claim by Boro and the potential claim by Wycombe do not qualify as Football Creditors.

The football creditor rule is not defined in the EFL regulations, it is part of the Articles of Association of the Football League Limited, of which all clubs are minority shareholders (the golden share).

The football creditor rule is in Article 48, which clearly defines what constitutes a football creditor, copied below from Companies House.

The rule clearly states that it is to cover payments of "debts due". How possibly, can an unproven, unquantified claim such as Boro's be consider a debt due?

If the EFL is suggesting that any claim by a football club or employee, which is unproven, should be classified as a football creditor it would create mayhem. And, bona fide football creditors with debts due, and other preferential and unsecured creditors would lose out as a result.

The EFL can't have this both ways. If they choose to say Article 48 does not qualify Boro's claim as a football creditor the EFL are suggesting they might be sued by Boro.

However, if they choose to say that Article 48 should be interpreted (which is a wild stretch) in a way that Boro should be classed as a football creditor then it is almost certain that the EFL would be sued by the Administrators and the creditors including genuine football creditors, and HMRC for their easily quantified losses. 

The EFL also risk being sued under section 994 of the companies act for acting prejudicially against the interests of a minority shareholder of the football league ie. DCFC.

We need to apply pressure on the EFL to get off the fence, see that their actions alone are preventing the Administrators from getting a deal agreed. 

Article 48 says that Boro's claim cannot be a football creditor and the EFL must state that and stop this nonesense.
"48         FOOTBALL CREDITORS
48.1      Where a Member Club defaults in making any payment due to any of the following persons, 
the Member  Club ('Defaulting  Club')  shall be subject to such penalty  as the Board may decide 
and subject also to Article 48.2:

48.1.1        The League, The FA Premier League and the Football Association;
48.1.2        any of the Pension Schemes;
48.1.3        any Member Club and any Club of The FA Premier League;
48.1.4        any holding company  of The League and any subsidiary  company  of that holding 
company;
48.1.5        any sums due to any full-time employee or former full-time employee of the Member 
Club by  way  of arrears  of remuneration  up to the date on which that contract  of employment is 
terminated. This excludes for these purposes all and any claims for redundancy,   unfair   or  
wrongful   dismissal   or  other   claims   arising   out   of  the termination  of  the  contract  
or  in  respect  of  any  period  after  the  actual  date  of termination;
48.1.6        any  sums  due  to  the  Professional  Footballers  Association  in  repayment  of  
an interest  free loan together with such reasonable  administration and legal costs as have been 
approved by the Board;
48.1.7        The Football Foundation;
48.1.8        The Football Conference Limited trading as "the National League";
48.1.9        The Northern Premier League Limited;
48.1.1O      The Isthmian League Limited;
48.1.11      The Southern League Limited;
48.1.12      Any member club of the League or organisations listed in Articles 48.1.8 to 48.1.11 
inclusive;
48.1.13      Any County Football Association affiliated to The Football Association; and
48.1.14      Any Leagues  affiliated to The Football Association  and any clubs affiliated to any 
County Football Association recognised by The Football Association.

48.2      Subject to the provisions of Articles 48.3 and 48.4, the Board shall apply any sums 
standing to the  credit  of  the  Pool  Account  which  would  otherwise  be  payable  to  a  
Defaulting  Club,  in discharging  the  creditors  in Article  48.1.  As  between  the Football  
Creditors,  the  priority  for payment shall be in accordance with the order in which those 
Football Creditors are listed in Article 48.1.

48.3      If,  having  discharged  all Football  Creditors  in  any  preceding  class  of  Football 
 Creditor  (as
· required by Article 48.2) the sum then available is not suffident to discharge in full the 
Football Creditors listed in Articles 48.1.1, 48.1.2 or 48.1.4 the Board will decide the 
allocation.

48.4      If,  having  discharged  all Football  Creditors  in  any  preceding  class  of  Football 
 Creditor  (as required by Article 48.2) the sum then available is not sufficient to discharge in 
full the Football Creditors listed in Article 48.1.3, 48.1.5, 48.1.12, 48.1.13 or 48.1.14 the sum 
will be allocated pro rata amongst the creditors of the same class.

Note - Clubs are reminded that any assignment of future entitlements from the pool account are 
subject to Article 45 and this must be brought to the attention of the other party. Furthermore 
assignments must be in legal form and registered with the office. Assignments are given priority 
according to the date and time of registration."

But if its  a debt that could become due no buyer wants to take that on. 

[IslandExile]

10 minutes ago, Wignall12 said:

Margaret Becket needs to know asap !

Pauline Latham even more urgently.
Can't you emailers/Twitterati feed her the information ASAP and before 2:30pm

[Rammeister]

45 minutes ago, SirBrian said:

No that would give them time to twist the truth best to catch them unawares

I’m sure he knows this already. Parry just needs to know that everyone else does too.

[Sussex Ram]

14 minutes ago, JuanFloEvraTheCocu'sNesta said:

This was going to be my point.

How is it possible that the administrators have not figured this out? Are they lazy, incompetent or both? Or is there some other explanation in which they have figured this out and the EFL are simply ignoring them?

Another big thanks to @David for pulling this together.

In response to the above, and other similar comments, is this the point referred to in response 5 of the EFL’s most recent statement? Quote:

”…Middlesbrough and Wycombe Wanderers consider their claims should be protected under the terms of the Insolvency Policy. The Administrators disagree.”

I wonder if our new expert ? @David could comment on whether this is one and the same issue? Basically, are Boro and Wycombe arguing they are football creditors, and therefore protected under the insolvency policy? And the administrators are arguing the opposite? I would be absolutely stunned if the administrators aren’t aware of this.

[PistoldPete]

50 minutes ago, David said:

Currently talking with various members and fan groups privately to compile key points that can be pinned on the forum to be shared with the media and MP's.  

Can you maybe raise another point David. Gibson has said (in his rant to your Boro forum equivalent) he could have spent the £45 million on his family. Since when has his family been a football creditor?  

I'm serious. Gibson is funding Boro via soft loans. So really any losses Boro make are being absorbed by him, they are not losses to Boro.Its Gibson's personal loss, not Boro's he is trying to claim for.

Also he is saying Derby cheated. Well if so then it was Morris that cheated not Derby. If Morris really knew he wa sbreaking th erules, none of us did. So wouldnt Morris lose his protcetion of limited liability? So Gibson could go after Morris.

Basically it should be Gibson v Morris. Not Derby v Boro.

 
 

 

[MackworthRamIsGod]

31 minutes ago, Curtains said:

I thought i did ok lol .

I really got the point over about Middlesbrough claim and clubs claiming off each other  and counter claims and amortization etc.

Simon doesn’t want to listen as he has entrenched views 

 

 

 

To back track slightly ? ....

I actually didn't think you were 'bad', I thought the interview was bad.

I actually didn't think Simon allowed you to talk and both he and his mate ganged up on you at one point to defend Birch.

It made for painful listening. But I absolutely commend you for going on and trying to tell them our predicament.

Unfortunately that interview told me how the world beyond Derby County are perceiving this.

[TheresOnlyWanChope]

13 minutes ago, PistoldPete said:

But if its  a debt that could become due no buyer wants to take that on. 

But it would only be a debt if they take it to court and win (which no one really thinks would be possible) as opposed to a football creditor debt which would need to be settled first. Is this correct? 

[Bluedogmaz]

While that all makes perfect sense but what if all three potential buyers have said they will ONLY pay the price subject to not having to potentially deal with these claims later. Which could of course potentially add hefty sum on top of purchase price.

[Boycie]

Can’t believe @David copied all my homework again!!

[Day]

22 minutes ago, Sussex Ram said:

Another big thanks to @David for pulling this together.

In response to the above, and other similar comments, is this the point referred to in response 5 of the EFL’s most recent statement? Quote:

”…Middlesbrough and Wycombe Wanderers consider their claims should be protected under the terms of the Insolvency Policy. The Administrators disagree.”

I wonder if our new expert ? @David could comment on whether this is one and the same issue? Basically, are Boro and Wycombe arguing they are football creditors, and therefore protected under the insolvency policy? And the administrators are arguing the opposite? I would be absolutely stunned if the administrators aren’t aware of this.

Not an expert, far from it.

The administrators who are, will be fully aware as this is the key point that is preventing a takeover.

Boro and Wycombe should not be seen to be football creditors, this is where the pressure needs to be applied on the EFL. 

[duncanjwitham]

Unfortunately I'm not sure this is the smoking gun some of you think it is. Under that rule, *if* we were to lose an arbitration, there's no doubt in my mind that the money would be classed as a football creditor. The rule is just a list of which entities count as football creditors, it makes no real attempt to classify different types of debts or anything, it simply says that all money owed to other clubs is a football creditor debt, full stop.  The fact that the amount owing is as yet unresolved (and may well be zero) doesn't change the fact we would owe it.

The way to attack their claims are their rights to bring them in the first place, covering the illegality of taking action against clubs in admin, the fact 'Boro's claim has already been looked at and basically kicked out, the fact they're trying to re-run EFL disciplinary cases because they didn't agree with the outcomes, and probably plenty of other things too.

And if it does come to an actual hearing, we have precedent on our side anyway:

and

Both taken from the DC2 hearing against us, but are quoting the judgments against Birmingham and Sheff Weds respectively.  You cannot take evidence of overspending and convert it into any quantifiable measure of actual performance gain.

https://www.efl.com/contentassets/873a8914e09740d3b3a8848131ea10b8/210630---efl-v-Derby-county---decision-on-sanction-final.pdf

[jono]

16 minutes ago, TheresOnlyWanChope said:

But it would only be a debt if they take it to court and win (which no one really thinks would be possible) as opposed to a football creditor debt which would need to be settled first. Is this correct? 

I still don’t see how it can be a debt between DCFC and Boro. Both teams operate in the EFL. It is the EFL who make and enforce the rules - they have done via points deductions and fines. 

If Boro have a claim about the size and timing of those sanctions then by definition it has to be against the EFL. 

DCFC only followed “due process” in challenging fines and deductions 

If Boro don’t like this, then yet again the claim has to be against the EFL 
 

[Curtains]

28 minutes ago, MackworthRamIsGod said:

To back track slightly ? ....

I actually didn't think you were 'bad', I thought the interview was bad.

I actually didn't think Simon allowed you to talk and both he and his mate ganged up on you at one point to defend Birch.

It made for painful listening. But I absolutely commend you for going on and trying to tell them our predicament.

Unfortunately that interview told me how the world beyond Derby County are perceiving this.

Mate it’s fine.  
 
I was surprised by a Burnley fan yesterday when he was talking about Burnley vs Watford fixture and I said you have it easy it’s harder for Derby and he said yes but they deserve it to which I put him right.  Buts that how it’s perceived by many. 
 

DET article on Simon Jordan 

https://www.derbytelegraph.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/Derby-county-simon-jordan-efl-6509895.amp

[Woodley Ram]

1 hour ago, TheresOnlyWanChope said:

Someone needs to tell Quantuma about this before Tom Lawrence gets sold for the price of a Skoda. 

Probably a second hand one at that

[PistoldPete]

49 minutes ago, MackworthRamIsGod said:

To back track slightly ? ....

I actually didn't think you were 'bad', I thought the interview was bad.

I actually didn't think Simon allowed you to talk and both he and his mate ganged up on you at one point to defend Birch.

It made for painful listening. But I absolutely commend you for going on and trying to tell them our predicament.

Unfortunately that interview told me how the world beyond Derby County are perceiving this.

I haven't heard it but maybe the presenters were worried about anything libellous.  And they probably like him leaking stuff to the press, that's how they get stories. 

[Day]

29 minutes ago, duncanjwitham said:

Unfortunately I'm not sure this is the smoking gun some of you think it is. Under that rule, *if* we were to lose an arbitration, there's no doubt in my mind that the money would be classed as a football creditor. The rule is just a list of which entities count as football creditors, it makes no real attempt to classify different types of debts or anything, it simply says that all money owed to other clubs is a football creditor debt, full stop.  The fact that the amount owing is as yet unresolved (and may well be zero) doesn't change the fact we would owe it.

The way to attack their claims are their rights to bring them in the first place, covering the illegality of taking action against clubs in admin, the fact 'Boro's claim has already been looked at and basically kicked out, the fact they're trying to re-run EFL disciplinary cases because they didn't agree with the outcomes, and probably plenty of other things too.

And if it does come to an actual hearing, we have precedent on our side anyway:

and

Both taken from the DC2 hearing against us, but are quoting the judgments against Birmingham and Sheff Weds respectively.  You cannot take evidence of overspending and convert it into any quantifiable measure of actual performance gain.

https://www.efl.com/contentassets/873a8914e09740d3b3a8848131ea10b8/210630---efl-v-Derby-county---decision-on-sanction-final.pdf

 

The administrators will have filed a moratorium, which means Boro or Wycombe cannot pursue their cases against us through arbitration/court.

Once we exit the administration process, all claims are settled, dead, they cannot be resurrected.

If they are not football creditors, they will be at the bottom of the pile, get nothing.

If we are liquidated, they will get nothing.

The only way they will get paid is if seen to be football creditors, which is the point we need to push, they are not football creditors.

[PistoldPete]

47 minutes ago, TheresOnlyWanChope said:

But it would only be a debt if they take it to court and win (which no one really thinks would be possible) as opposed to a football creditor debt which would need to be settled first. Is this correct? 

It would be come a debt if a LAP made an award in favour of Boro or Wycombe.