The Scarlet Pimpernel Posted January 19, 2022 Share Posted January 19, 2022 18 minutes ago, Geoff Parkstone said: I admire your optimism David, but cant help but agree with simmo. The conflicts of interest within the EFL may pull them down in the eyes of those wanting to introduce proper and fair regulation into football, but we could be the victim to prove that point They will crack imo. Too much publicity and political pressure to be ignored. Norman, Day and kevinhectoring 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RoyMac5 Posted January 19, 2022 Share Posted January 19, 2022 17 minutes ago, Crewton said: If we die, so do they - I reckon Parliament will finish them off. Not a fan of Pyrrhic victories. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crewton Posted January 19, 2022 Share Posted January 19, 2022 25 minutes ago, RoyMac5 said: Not a fan of Pyrrhic victories. Me neither. RoyMac5 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PistoldPete Posted January 19, 2022 Share Posted January 19, 2022 26 minutes ago, RoyMac5 said: Not a fan of Pyrrhic victories. No but if we are expelled from EFL and then the EFL is scrapped, we can get apply for re-instatemnet as the previous regime wa sso corrupt. Not ideal but better than nothing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phuket Ram Posted January 19, 2022 Share Posted January 19, 2022 8 hours ago, David said: You have put forward a case that suggests Boro and Wycombe are not football creditors, which article 48 confirms. Which is also exactly the purpose of this topic to highlight this. Boro and Wycombe are not football creditors, remove them and all this goes away. The entire point (and what this is all about) is that article 48 states that if and when a financial settlement or award is determined it will be treated by the EFL under Article 48 as a football debt. That's the problem... not whether it's a football debt right now, but later...... Nothing goes away until either: 1) the EFL goes back on the deal they made with Middlesbrough (which I can't see happening - as I said, the EFL would be sued by Middlesbrough), or 2) a judicial ruling is made that overrules the EFL's stance, or 3) Somebody agrees a settlement (and it is not going to be DCFC) Simple? Not really. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yani P Posted January 19, 2022 Share Posted January 19, 2022 Have we actually got a 1 or 2 page short concise bullet list of facts? Just thinking people could use that consistently across social media to keep calling out some of the BS currently in circulation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dabber Posted January 19, 2022 Share Posted January 19, 2022 4 minutes ago, Yani P said: Have we actually got a 1 or 2 page short concise bullet list of facts? Just thinking people could use that consistently across social media to keep calling out some of the BS currently in circulation. Totally agree, post one every hour with the #corruptefl Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Day Posted January 20, 2022 Author Share Posted January 20, 2022 5 hours ago, Ramitupper said: That's the problem... not whether it's a football debt right now, but later...... I hear you, however we are talking about now as right now this is the key obstacle preventing the sale. The EFL must decide right now if it's a football debt, clarify their position on this, and right now they must use Article 48 to make this decision. You cannot have the EFL using a crystal ball or visiting palm readers at the circus. If they say yes it is, Derby have grounds to drag them into court as it's yet to be a proven football debt under article 48 as of today, which I suspect would happen as the alternative is pay them off or fold. Any prospective buyer will be looking to pay bare minimum to get the keys. Would be a very ballsy move to say it is, what could they possibly base that on? They really have backed themselves into a corner on this one through poor handling of the situation, whichever way they turn now puts them in a huge hole. How watertight is this deal with Boro that prevented them from being sued, sat on the fence suggests not very. Crewton 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mucker1884 Posted January 20, 2022 Share Posted January 20, 2022 On 18/01/2022 at 16:36, simmoram1995 said: The thing that stinks about the situation is before we go into boro and wycombes claims you have the following. • out of everything the stadium sale to me is far more dodgy compared with the amortisation policy but nothing has been done about it • Mel passed the fit and proper test • EFL agreed on our accounting policy in the first place • left mel to go unchallenged these points without mentioning the current things shows how totally inept the organisation is Stand to be corrected, but as understand it, the EFL's stance on the amortisation thing is not so much that they agreed to it, but more that they didn't disagree. They subsequently "pleaded ignorance", and we actually got punished for not fully explaining it to them, as opposed to actually using that method. ?♂️ Indy 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mucker1884 Posted January 20, 2022 Share Posted January 20, 2022 20 hours ago, i-Ram said: Lot of hopefullys there. Let's all hope the hope comes to fruition, before it kills us! ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phuket Ram Posted January 20, 2022 Share Posted January 20, 2022 3 hours ago, David said: I hear you, however we are talking about now as right now this is the key obstacle preventing the sale. The EFL must decide right now if it's a football debt, clarify their position on this, and right now they must use Article 48 to make this decision. You cannot have the EFL using a crystal ball or visiting palm readers at the circus. If they say yes it is, Derby have grounds to drag them into court as it's yet to be a proven football debt under article 48 as of today, which I suspect would happen as the alternative is pay them off or fold. Any prospective buyer will be looking to pay bare minimum to get the keys. Would be a very ballsy move to say it is, what could they possibly base that on? They really have backed themselves into a corner on this one through poor handling of the situation, whichever way they turn now puts them in a huge hole. How watertight is this deal with Boro that prevented them from being sued, sat on the fence suggests not very. Hi David, they already decided that, when and if it becomes an amount of money, it will be classified as a football debt. Urm that’s the issue. That’s why nobody will take in the risk. They took this approach because Middlesbrough said they will sue the EFL otherwise. That was their deal with boro. so there is no way in gods earth the efl will reclassify. Hence my post… get a judicial decision…. Waste of time trying to convince the efl that they should be sued instead of us…… ? Crewton 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PistoldPete Posted January 20, 2022 Share Posted January 20, 2022 4 hours ago, David said: I hear you, however we are talking about now as right now this is the key obstacle preventing the sale. The EFL must decide right now if it's a football debt, clarify their position on this, and right now they must use Article 48 to make this decision. You cannot have the EFL using a crystal ball or visiting palm readers at the circus. If they say yes it is, Derby have grounds to drag them into court as it's yet to be a proven football debt under article 48 as of today, which I suspect would happen as the alternative is pay them off or fold. Any prospective buyer will be looking to pay bare minimum to get the keys. Would be a very ballsy move to say it is, what could they possibly base that on? They really have backed themselves into a corner on this one through poor handling of the situation, whichever way they turn now puts them in a huge hole. How watertight is this deal with Boro that prevented them from being sued, sat on the fence suggests not very. Also if admin paid off any significant amounts to Boro or Wycombe when the advice they have received is they are if no merit , they would face legal challenge by other creditors. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevinhectoring Posted January 20, 2022 Share Posted January 20, 2022 9 hours ago, Ramitupper said: The entire point (and what this is all about) is that article 48 states that if and when a financial settlement or award is determined it will be treated by the EFL under Article 48 as a football debt. That's the problem... not whether it's a football debt right now, but later...... Nothing goes away until either: 1) the EFL goes back on the deal they made with Middlesbrough (which I can't see happening - as I said, the EFL would be sued by Middlesbrough), or 2) a judicial ruling is made that overrules the EFL's stance, or 3) Somebody agrees a settlement (and it is not going to be DCFC) Simple? Not really. brave of you to stick your neck out agree with you. The reason the claims are addressed in q’s restructuring plan is that contingent claims need to be addressed in restructurings. This argument in this thread goes like this: although contingencies are obviously relevant in insolvency situations, they are irrelevant in the context of a provision (article 80) that is aimed at insolvency situations. A big stretch, to quote that MP the other day our problems will be solved somehow, I’m pretty sure, but not this way. Indeed it’s not even in the power of the EFl to dismiss the claims on this basis. What the EFl could do however is assess the claims, decide they are highly remote, and so ignore them for purposes of our funding plan. Pragmatism, in other words (to quote another MP) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elwood P Dowd Posted January 20, 2022 Share Posted January 20, 2022 (edited) 1 hour ago, Ramitupper said: Hi David, they already decided that, when and if it becomes an amount of money, it will be classified as a football debt. Urm that’s the issue. That’s why nobody will take in the risk. They took this approach because Middlesbrough said they will sue the EFL otherwise. That was their deal with boro. so there is no way in gods earth the efl will reclassify. Hence my post… get a judicial decision…. Waste of time trying to convince the efl that they should be sued instead of us…… ? If the Wycombe and Boro cases were proven then the amount of compensation would be known, it is the unknown that is the problem as it makes planning for the future difficult for the bidders. A creditor is someone\an entity who extends credit and neither Wycombe or Boro have extended credit to Derby, having Wycombe and Boro's claim as a Football Creditor makes no sense as the amount "owed" is unknown as is the validity of their claims. The EFL's instance in making Wycombe and Boro's claim a Football Creditor looks very much like prejudgement by the EFL, we would be wise to be very concerned about the outcome if we went to EFL arbitration. It would be interesting to see a time line of Boro actions for compensation, first they appear to make a claim to the EFL and then switch to Derby perhaps the timeline might force someone to ask the question "What made Boro change their mind regarding who might be responsible the payment of compensation” Edited January 20, 2022 by Elwood P Dowd Phuket Ram and Day 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Day Posted January 20, 2022 Author Share Posted January 20, 2022 1 hour ago, Ramitupper said: Hi David, they already decided that, when and if it becomes an amount of money, it will be classified as a football debt. Urm that’s the issue. That’s why nobody will take in the risk. They took this approach because Middlesbrough said they will sue the EFL otherwise. That was their deal with boro. so there is no way in gods earth the efl will reclassify. Hence my post… get a judicial decision…. Waste of time trying to convince the efl that they should be sued instead of us…… ? Has it been decided? As per their statement a couple of days ago they said that they didn't even know the details of the claims brought against us. They have invited the clubs to submit details and are said to be going through them now. As far as we're aware, the EFL have yet to decide where they stand on it, however they are looking for the clubs to resolve it before allowing us to move to the next step, basically staying out of it for fear of upsetting either party. I have personally emailed Rick Parry this morning on the issue as to where they stand on this, if what you're saying is true that they have decided, they shouldn't have any problem sharing that with us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Curtains Posted January 20, 2022 Share Posted January 20, 2022 (edited) 4 minutes ago, David said: Has it been decided? As per their statement a couple of days ago they said that they didn't even know the details of the claims brought against us. They have invited the clubs to submit details and are said to be going through them now. As far as we're aware, the EFL have yet to decide where they stand on it, however they are looking for the clubs to resolve it before allowing us to move to the next step. I have personally emailed Rick Parry this morning on the issue as to where they stand on this, if what you're saying is true that they have decided, they shouldn't have any problem sharing that with us. Rick Parry was interviewed and I heard it in on RD a day ago and he said that Boro were going to sue the EFL but the EFL persuaded him to sue Derby instead if they tightened their own rules . I thought I heard it wrong but it was clarified on here in another thread and I was astonished. This to me is very significant Edited January 20, 2022 by Curtains Added Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crewton Posted January 20, 2022 Share Posted January 20, 2022 Just now, Curtains said: Rick Parry was interviewed and I heard it in on RD a day ago and he said that Boro were going to sue the EFL but the EFL persuaded him to sue Derby instead if they tightened their own rules . It was from a football podcast some time ago. Chris Coles played the clip on RD Sportscene on Monday. Curtains 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Curtains Posted January 20, 2022 Share Posted January 20, 2022 Just now, Crewton said: It was from a football podcast some time ago. Chris Coles played the clip on RD Sportscene on Monday. It is incredible and must be a slip by Rick Parry admitting that on air . Its potentially a deal breaker Crewton and ThePrisoner 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Day Posted January 20, 2022 Author Share Posted January 20, 2022 5 minutes ago, Crewton said: It was from a football podcast some time ago. Chris Coles played the clip on RD Sportscene on Monday. Full episode is here if anyone wants to listen https://podcasts.apple.com/gb/podcast/business-of-sport-efl-chair-rick-parry-on-regulating/id1488521447?i=1000544393162 (If you don't have an Apple device, sort yourself out) Crewton and Curtains 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RoyMac5 Posted January 20, 2022 Share Posted January 20, 2022 31 minutes ago, kevinhectoring said: ...our problems will be solved somehow, I’m pretty sure, but not this way. Indeed it’s not even in the power of the EFl to dismiss the claims on this basis. What the EFl could do however is assess the claims, decide they are highly remote, and so ignore them for purposes of our funding plan. Pragmatism, in other words (to quote another MP) Is it dismissing the claims to say they are not debts of 'football creditors'? But ignoring them for the funding plan isn't the point. No buyer will take on an unquantifiable debt. Crewton 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts