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

[kevinhectoring]

4 hours ago, i-Ram said:

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

I think the question is the same. Are you paid in full if you are compromised, whether under an old fashioned scheme or CVA, or under a new fangled restructuring plan ? The question is the same 

[kevinhectoring]

5 hours ago, PistoldPete said:

EFL has confirmed now that we are exactly where I thought we were... and it will go to Court.  

as per my earlier post - how long would this take?  Far too long I expect. If EFL do not drag M/W into fast track arbitration (I'm not sure they can) then surely we need someone to take on the risk of the 2 claims. MM is one option. The other is the City, but I'd think there are any number of constitutional issues which would need to be overcome. 

[Oldben]

It's not that the efl could or couldn't drag m/w into arbitration, its that by doing so Derby would be faced by a panel of 3 judges.

A judge for m/w interests, a judge for efl interests and a judge for derbys interests.

The majority vote carries the day, so Derby unfairly end up paying a suggested 7 million to m/w.

Derby know that the potential buyers, are unlikely to want go pay that bill on top of the current debts, and Derby can only get that money from the potential buyers.

The efl suggest the arbitration includes a representative from hmrc, as if by doing so hmrc would reduce their debt to cover an unfair bill to hmrc.

At the moment we are going round in circles because the efl will not allow us to move forward with a potential buyer, until we have settled m/w claims.

I have no idea why the efl consider it acceptable to say that they consider the false claims of m/w as football creditors.

The last time I checked, the efl are just a football association so why should they be in a position to rule out insolvency law.

[kevinhectoring]

45 minutes ago, Oldben said:

A judge for m/w interests, a judge for efl interests and a judge for derbys interests.

The arbitrators are independent. They aren’t fighting the corner of the party who nominated them 

[Oldben]

42 minutes ago, kevinhectoring said:

The arbitrators are independent. They aren’t fighting the corner of the party who nominated them 

In an ideal world I'd agree with you.

That's semantics.

All im saying is that rhe efl doesn't lose many arbitrations.

From the efl statement, I've reason to believe that they've taken the side of m/w and an estimated thar 7 million will resolve things.

In my opinion, thats like saying that the judge has sat before the trial.

There's no jury in an efl arbitration, and any experts must be called from the efls own selective list.

If I were Derby I'd prefer a court case, but I'm guessing the reason that they haven't is because don't have the funds for that and in any case the only expedited route is via arbitration.

While it's possible to appeal the result of a court case, there are very few grounds under which the result of an arbitration car be appealed.

 

 

[Chris_D]

5 minutes ago, Oldben said:

In an ideal world I'd agree with you.

That's semantics.

All im saying is that rhe efl doesn't lose many arbitrations.

From the efl statement, I've reason to believe that they've taken the side of m/w and an estimated thar 7 million will resolve things.

In my opinion, thats like saying that the judge has sat before the trial.

There's no jury in an efl arbitration, and any experts must be called from the efls own selective list.

If I were Derby I'd prefer a court case, but I'm guessing the reason that they haven't is because don't have the funds for that and in any case the only expedited route is via arbitration.

While it's possible to appeal the result of a court case, there are very few grounds under which the result of an arbitration car be appealed.

 

 

There’s hardly ever a jury in civil court cases either and juries are generally far less able to understand complex financial claims anyway. No idea why people keep saying this as if it’s meaningful.  Also, HMRC are not invited/ a party to the arbitration, just the EFL’s suggested meeting.

And to accuse arbitration panels of bias is just ridiculous, they’re very experienced professionals who sit independently.

Also, where does it say the EFL has a list of experts that any expert witnesses must be chosen from? 

[DerbysLane]

14 hours 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.

 

A familiar name here https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2004/655.html

[Ghost of Clough]

2 hours ago, Oldben said:

The last time I checked, the efl are just a football association so why should they be in a position to rule out insolvency law.

The same way they thought they knew better than valuers with an expertise in stadiums?

Or when they thought they knew better than auditors, Chartered Accountants, Forensic Accountants and their own CFO?

Edited February 4, 2022 by Ghost of Clough

[Chris_D]

This £7m to “settle” the claims only seems to exist in that BBC web article, which also says “it has been suggested” - anyone know where / when this figure was otherwise reported/suggested? 

Edited February 4, 2022 by Chris_D

[kevinhectoring]

38 minutes ago, Oldben said:

From the efl statement, I've reason to believe that they've taken the side of m/w and an estimated thar 7 million will resolve things.

We’re not the EFL’s favourite club but EFL wants us to win this case  

What they have done in their statement is recited what the administrators have proposed to them. And recited what their own lawyers have told them is the effect of the insolvency policy. 
 

They can see what B/W are doing to us. We have had leniency out of them recently (the Feb extension) and given the pressure they are under from MPs etc, and B/W’s antics, I think that will continue 

[Oldben]

Win this case, they've sided with m/w.

 

[Oldben]

https://www.mfc.co.uk/news/mfc-response-to-efl-statement-on-Derby-county

[Premier ram]

17 minutes ago, Oldben said:

https://www.mfc.co.uk/news/mfc-response-to-efl-statement-on-Derby-county

yeah jog on Boro

[Day]

Their claim is more transparent now to us.

We sold the stadium 2 days before the 17/18 accounts were submitted, had we breached FFP we would have incurred a points deduction in 18/19.

The season we beat Boro to the play offs. So that's the bulk of it.

Having seen the charge against us dismissed, they tried to jump in on the EFL charge against us on amortisation, were told to piss off.

Now going back to their original point although the word "significant" suggests there is more to the claim, most likely will include our amortisation policy to try and add more weight.

Either way, what they and the EFL are saying, it's not a football debt, it can't be a football debt when it's yet to be proven, that's not how it works.

Insolvency law does rule in our favour, even the EFL regs do so nothing has really changed since yesterday other than making their claim more laughable.

[kevinhectoring]

1 hour ago, Oldben said:

https://www.mfc.co.uk/news/mfc-response-to-efl-statement-on-Derby-county

This is a disgusting statement. It is misleading, disingenuous and almost wholly irrelevant. Every day that passes puts us in more danger of liquidation and Gibson thinks this is a clever game to play. He is a vile man 

[PistoldPete]

23 minutes ago, kevinhectoring said:

This is a disgusting statement. It is misleading, disingenuous and almost wholly irrelevant. Every day that passes puts us in more danger of liquidation and Gibson thinks this is a clever game to play. He is a vile man 

And what's worse he is in cahoots with the EFL... sending out mutually appreciative and co-ordinated statements. Parasites the lot of them.  

[Elwood P Dowd]

30 minutes ago, David said:

Their claim is more transparent now to us.

We sold the stadium 2 days before the 17/18 accounts were submitted, had we breached FFP we would have incurred a points deduction in 18/19.

The season we beat Boro to the play offs. So that's the bulk of it.

Having seen the charge against us dismissed, they tried to jump in on the EFL charge against us on amortisation, were told to piss off.

Now going back to their original point although the word "significant" suggests there is more to the claim, most likely will include our amortisation policy to try and add more weight.

Either way, what they and the EFL are saying, it's not a football debt, it can't be a football debt when it's yet to be proven, that's not how it works.

Insolvency law does rule in our favour, even the EFL regs do so nothing has really changed since yesterday other than making their claim more laughable.

Time is not on our side, I think the EFL strategy is to keep running down the clock till eventually our Biders lose patience and withdraw. 

It has taken the EFL a week to issue statement which reaffirms their opinions from last week.

I do hope the MPs and Lord Pendry are keeping a close eye on the EFL.

[PistoldPete]

7 minutes ago, Elwood P Dowd said:

Time is not on our side, I think the EFL strategy is to keep running down the clock till eventually our Biders lose patience and withdraw. 

It has taken the EFL a week to issue statement which reaffirms their opinions from last week.

I do hope the MPs and Lord Pendry are keeping a close eye on the EFL.

Actually it took them at least a month to respond to Quantuma question about how they think their rules can override statute. .. only responding this week for the meeting and their statement. 
 

as far as I can tell they now seem to be saying you could do what you like under the statutory provisions but if we don’t like it we can throw you out of the League.

[Day]

29 minutes ago, Elwood P Dowd said:

Time is not on our side, I think the EFL strategy is to keep running down the clock till eventually our Biders lose patience and withdraw. 

It has taken the EFL a week to issue statement which reaffirms their opinions from last week.

I do hope the MPs and Lord Pendry are keeping a close eye on the EFL.

It’s not, but we should have proof of funds now secure for the next couple of months.

The administrators can jump the queue at the High Court to get a decision on the Football Creditor status which can be heard in a couple of days according to @Brailsford Ram.

If we win that, I’m not sure what the EFL can do other than allow us to proceed and cram down their claims. They could potentially drag out the new owner checks, try to make things difficult, but if they were to ignore a High Court ruling….

Arbitration over the claim itself would take longer, that concerns me more than the tribunal itself as we have seen these things dragged out over months.

Saying that, just how independent that arbitration would be also a concern.

[Elwood P Dowd]

17 minutes ago, David said:

It’s not, but we should have proof of funds now secure for the next couple of months.

The administrators can jump the queue at the High Court to get a decision on the Football Creditor status which can be heard in a couple of days according to @Brailsford Ram.

If we win that, I’m not sure what the EFL can do other than allow us to proceed and cram down their claims. They could potentially drag out the new owner checks, try to make things difficult, but if they were to ignore a High Court ruling….

Arbitration over the claim itself would take longer, that concerns me more than the tribunal itself as we have seen these things dragged out over months.

Saying that, just how independent that arbitration would be is a concern.

It is the patience of the biders that’s is a worry not only has the biders takeover being frustrated by the actions of the EFL but the biders now have an insight into how difficult the EFL might be in the future.

The EFL laugh at the word independent ?

Edited February 4, 2022 by Elwood P Dowd