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

[PistoldPete]

12 minutes ago, Oldben said:

Football creditors rule trumps hrmc rights to be preferential creditors.

Hmrc have previously legally challenged the football creditors rule and have failed.

 

But they are not football creditors. See the title of this thread.

[i-Ram]

24 minutes ago, Oldben said:

Hmrc will not be riding to the rescue on this.

https://www.lawinsport.com/topics/features/item/football-creditors-rule-is-the-football-league-s-new-insolvency-policy-a-step-in-the-right-direction

The efl have not categorically stated that boro and Wycombe are to be treated as football creditors.

They have stated that they want Derby to either take their case to court or to arbitration.

In my opinion, the only way forward is a legal challenge. 

Arbitration is cheaper, and might solve the issue.

In any case the Administrators must stop running away from the issue.

As things stand if Boro and Wycombe win their case, Derby will face liquidation.

Then Derby can reform as a new club.

Again you are referencing an out of dated (2016) article. Whilst some points within might be salient, 2020 legislation has changed the landscape. 

[Oldben]

https://www.realbusinessrescue.co.uk/advice-hub/the-football-creditors-rule-what-is-it-and-what-does-it-mean-for-all-creditors

[PistoldPete]

5 minutes ago, Oldben said:

https://www.realbusinessrescue.co.uk/advice-hub/the-football-creditors-rule-what-is-it-and-what-does-it-mean-for-all-creditors

Boro and Wycombe are not football creditors. we do not owe them a penny. 

[angieram]

 

[Elwood P Dowd]

When I read through the part of the EFL statement  below it reminds me of Alice in Wonderland the part where the Queen of Hearts wants to chop heads off before the trial

If the claims were proven and quantified then Football creditor would be reasonable

The only way forward, taking into consideration our lack of money and time, is Arbitration or some sort of payment for Boro and WW. The issue with payment is we have no money and payment may cause issues with real creditors.

Perhaps if we can come to an agreement and a settlement figure agreed,  the settlement figure, may be acceptable to one of the biders.

 

i n this case, Derby County is seeking to use insolvency legislation to avoid having to defend the claims of Middlesbrough FC (which commenced initially in January 2021) and Wycombe Wanderers FC. Derby County considers those claims should not be treated as football related debts and that it would be wrong for the EFL to require the Club to have to continue to defend the claims as a condition of continuing membership in circumstances where they have been compromised by way of a restructuring plan. The EFL does not agree with that analysis.

Edited February 3, 2022 by Elwood P Dowd

[strawhillram]

2 minutes ago, Elwood P Dowd said:

When I read through the part of the EFL statement  below it reminds me of Alice in Wonderland the part where the Queen of Hearts wants to chop heads off before the trial

If the claims were proven and quantified then Football creditor would be reasonable

The only way forward, taking into consideration our lack of money and time, is Arbitration or some sort of payment for Boro and WW. The issue with payment is we have no money and payment may cause issues with real creditors.

Perhaps if we can come to an agreement and a settlement figure agreed the figure, may be acceptable to one of the biders.

 

i n this case, Derby County is seeking to use insolvency legislation to avoid having to defend the claims of Middlesbrough FC (which commenced initially in January 2021) and Wycombe Wanderers FC. Derby County considers those claims should not be treated as football related debts and that it would be wrong for the EFL to require the Club to have to continue to defend the claims as a condition of continuing membership in circumstances where they have been compromised by way of a restructuring plan. The EFL does not agree with that analysis.

Sorry I don’t agree

[Elwood P Dowd]

1 minute ago, StrawHillRam said:

Sorry I don’t agree

Don’t stop there 

[RoyMac5]

8 minutes ago, Elwood P Dowd said:

If the claims were proven and quantified then Football creditor would be reasonable

The only way forward, taking into consideration our lack of money and time, is Arbitration or some sort of payment for Boro and WW. The issue with payment is we have no money and payment may cause issues with real creditors.

Perhaps if we can come to an agreement and a settlement figure agreed,  the settlement figure, may be acceptable to one of the biders.

Well are they?

Why on earth would you pay money to unproven claims?

Edited February 3, 2022 by RoyMac5

[The Scarlet Pimpernel]

The EFL statement says absolutely nothing new. All they have done is nailed their intransigence to a their mast. Hopefully they will be the architects of their own destruction. They are utterly disgusting. 

Edited February 3, 2022 by The Scarlet Pimpernel

[RoyMac5]

1 minute ago, The Scarlet Pimpernel said:

The EFL statement says absolutely nothing new.

Not true.

It finally comes out and says Boro and Wycombe are football debts.

[Elwood P Dowd]

3 minutes ago, RoyMac5 said:

Well are they?

Why on earth would you pay money to unproven claims?

I have no idea if the claims are proven or not,  the EFl statement doesn’t provide that information.

someone may take the pragmatic view that a reasonable settle figure may be worth paying in order to proceed with a takeover.

[Rambam]

5 minutes ago, Elwood P Dowd said:

I have no idea if the claims are proven or not,  the EFl statement doesn’t provide that information.

someone may take the pragmatic view that a reasonable settle figure may be worth paying in order to proceed with a takeover.

Pragmatism is to do with logic. These spurious claims are not logical. 

[The Scarlet Pimpernel]

9 minutes ago, RoyMac5 said:

Not true.

It finally comes out and says Boro and Wycombe are football debts.

I'm agreeing with you Roy. They have always held that view, only now are they admitting it. Disgusting delays. 

[Elwood P Dowd]

1 minute ago, Rambam said:

Pragmatism is to do with logic. These spurious claims are not logical. 

I would hope that one of the biders has their full share of logic. Neither the claims or the people that have presented them are worthy of consideration but perhaps out there is person of logic who can see past that and save our club

[PistoldPete]

12 minutes ago, RoyMac5 said:

Not true.

It finally comes out and says Boro and Wycombe are football debts.

Not quite. But it says they want the claims to progress despite the legal protection that exists in adminsitration. So either way they want to override statute, or are prepared to use the threat of expulsion to force the administrators to forego the legal protection they are entitled to.

[Elwood P Dowd]

13 minutes ago, PistoldPete said:

Not quite. But it says they want the claims to progress despite the legal protection that exists in adminsitration. So either way they want to override statute, or are prepared to use the threat of expulsion to force the administrators to forego the legal protection they are entitled to.

I think that’s a fair summary 

it is interesting that the EFL rules demand the parties to act in good faith, is the overriding of a statute and the threat to expulsion good faith on the EFLs part?

 

Edited February 3, 2022 by Elwood P Dowd

[RoyMac5]

7 minutes ago, PistoldPete said:

Not quite. But it says they want the claims to progress despite the legal protection that exists in adminsitration. So either way they want to override statute, or are prepared to use the threat of expulsion to force the administrators to forego the legal protection they are entitled to.

"In this case, Derby County is seeking to use insolvency legislation to avoid having to defend the claims of Middlesbrough FC (which commenced initially in January 2021) and Wycombe Wanderers FC. Derby County considers those claims should not be treated as football related debts and that it would be wrong for the EFL to require the Club to have to continue to defend the claims as a condition of continuing membership in circumstances where they have been compromised by way of a restructuring plan. The EFL does not agree with that analysis."

[TigerTedd]

“Over the last few weeks, the EFL has engaged proactively… as we seek to assist the Club in its efforts to exit from administration.”

Thanks for the assistance EFL, much appreciated. 

“‘that the starting point is that no Club should gain (or seek to gain) any advantage within the context of professional football over other Clubs by not paying all its creditors in full at all times.’”

The ‘spirit’ of this rule is that legitimate football money owed to competitor teams is paid first and foremost, so that the other teams don’t lose out. It’s mainly put in place regarding player sales. So you can’t just steal a player off someone else, promising to pay them the world, then go into admin and pay them 25%. It can also include things like owed gate receipts. EFL are citing this rule as a reason why Wycombe and boro claims are legit football creditors. But even if these were actual debts or live court cases, which they aren’t at this point, that is not in the spirit of these rules. Wycombe and Boro want money for nothing here, we haven’t bought anyone off them, we don’t owe them any football debt. Compensation for perceived wrong doing and damages is not what this rule and policy is all about. They’re not at a competitive disadvantage because we’re not paying this (non-existent) debt. They’re just not as rich as they would be if they won.

[TigerTedd]

Also, what I don’t get about these ‘claims’ is why do we have to take it to arbitration, why do we have to take it to caught. At the minute, they’re just claims and complaints. They’re standing in the corner of the playground saying ‘I think you owe me money.’ We’re saying ‘I don’t think we do, what are you going to do about it?’ And they’re just saying ‘we’re going to continue standing in this corner saying that we think you owe us money.’ Shouldn’t our response be, ‘okay, if you really feel that way, we’ll see you in court. Jog on mate.’

if someone thought I owed them money, I’d be saying ‘see you in the small claims court mate.’ And leave the next move up to them. If they don’t take us to court, then they can’t win the case, and we can’t possibly owe them anything. And they won’t take us to court, cos they know they won’t win.