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

[PistoldPete]

37 minutes ago, kevinhectoring said:

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)

Nobody is asking EFL to do anything except to allow the due process of emerging from admin  to take place, managed by the appointed administrator who is acting on behalf of al of the creditors.

At the moment this is being blocked because EFL says it needs legal clarification on how to interpret its own rules.That is not a sustainable or defendable position by EFL.   

 

Edited January 20, 2022 by PistoldPete

[Curtains]

10 minutes ago, David said:

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)

Thanks David appreciate that .

I’m listening now. 

[RoyMac5]

16 minutes ago, PistoldPete said:

Nobody is asking EFL to do anything except to allow the due process of emerging from admin  to take place, managed by the appointed administrator who is acting on behalf of al of the creditors.

At the moment this is being blocked because EFL says it needs legal clarification on how to interpret its own rules.That is not a sustainable or defendable position by EFL.   

Is this scenario if we go via the new Insolvency Law route of 'compressing' their debts? Otherwise no-one will commit to buy unknown debts. 

Edited January 20, 2022 by RoyMac5

[Ramism]

28 minutes ago, David said:

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)

It’s when there’s around 20mins left

[Addingham Ram]

34 minutes ago, David said:

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)

Thanks for the link.

By the way, works perfectly well on my crappy Samsung device ?

[i-Ram]

16 minutes ago, PistoldPete said:

Nobody is asking EFL to do anything except to allow the due process of emerging from admin  to take place, managed by the appointed administrator who is acting on behalf of al of the creditors.

At the moment this is being blocked because EFL says it needs legal clarification on how to interpret its own rules.That is not a sustainable or defendable position by EFL.   

That isn’t really true though Pete. The preferred bidder is insisting that we emerge out of admin without there being any hangover of claims with Boro and Wycombe, and therefore Q are pursuing the class cram restructuring option as way of exit. The EFL are not apparently against a CVA exit.

My understanding, well my belief, is that we have the 2020 statute on our side here. Therefore where I believe we are, is that the EFL may change its stance (and its rules) after taking in the groundswell of public and legal opinion, or Q or perhaps MSD will pursue injunctive type action through the High Court to enable a legal pathway to be established.

I remain confident that the arbitrary 1 February cut-off date will pass without issue; and I hope Q in the meantime continue to rub the EFL and Boro’s noses in the mud by not selling Knight or Bird or Lawrence before that date.

[duncanjwitham]

27 minutes ago, PistoldPete said:

Nobody is asking EFL to do anything

Seriously, I think they need to make some kind of formal statement as to what is actually allowed under their Arbitration rules. Whether that involves changing the rules, issuing a guidance document or whatever.  And if they need independent legal advice on it then OK. It might not help us in time, but for the sake of the game, it needs to happen. 

At the very least there needs to be clear rules on 3rd parties and disciplinary cases. It's genuinely insane that other clubs can just re-run disciplinary cases because they didn't like the outcome, or even the timing of the outcome.

[RoyMac5]

17 minutes ago, i-Ram said:

That isn’t really true though Pete. The preferred bidder is insisting that we emerge out of admin without there being any hangover of claims with Boro and Wycombe, and therefore Q are pursuing the class cram restructuring option as way of exit. The EFL are not apparently against a CVA exit.

My understanding, well my belief, is that we have the 2020 statute on our side here. Therefore where I believe we are, is that the EFL may change its stance (and its rules) after taking in the groundswell of public and legal opinion, or Q or perhaps MSD will pursue injunctive type action through the High Court to enable a legal pathway to be established.

I remain confident that the arbitrary 1 February cut-off date will pass without issue; and I hope Q in the meantime continue to rub the EFL and Boro’s noses in the mud by not selling Knight or Bird or Lawrence before that date.

This is my hope too, can I ask what your prescription is?

[TheresOnlyWanChope]

1 hour ago, 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 .

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 

Collusion, corruption, unfair. Whatever that is shows the ineptitude of the system at protecting clubs fairly. 

[WhiteHorseRam]

On 18/01/2022 at 11:59, 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."

Is this work the result of locking @DarkFruitsRam7 in a cupboard for a week and feeding him just Haribo?

 

[PistoldPete]

49 minutes ago, i-Ram said:

That isn’t really true though Pete. The preferred bidder is insisting that we emerge out of admin without there being any hangover of claims with Boro and Wycombe, and therefore Q are pursuing the class cram restructuring option as way of exit. The EFL are not apparently against a CVA exit.

My understanding, well my belief, is that we have the 2020 statute on our side here. Therefore where I believe we are, is that the EFL may change its stance (and its rules) after taking in the groundswell of public and legal opinion, or Q or perhaps MSD will pursue injunctive type action through the High Court to enable a legal pathway to be established.

I remain confident that the arbitrary 1 February cut-off date will pass without issue; and I hope Q in the meantime continue to rub the EFL and Boro’s noses in the mud by not selling Knight or Bird or Lawrence before that date.

But it’s not up to Efl to decide what’s best for creditors. As I say they should allow the due process to take place. I am sure Q would prefer CVA too but if that isn’t possible a restructuring arrangement is better for creditors than nothing.

I don’t see why Efl should interfere.

[PistoldPete]

24 minutes ago, TheresOnlyWanChope said:

Collusion, corruption, unfair. Whatever that is shows the ineptitude of the system at protecting clubs fairly. 

Is it the podcast with the athletic? 

[i-Ram]

33 minutes ago, RoyMac5 said:

This is my hope too, can I ask what your prescription is?

?

l remember laughing at my parents when I was in my early 40’s about their prescriptions, and the amount of pills they kept in their larder. I used to call it the Boots Cupboard. Having just turned 60 I too have followed the family trait, and yes of the pills I am taking daily one is to ensure the happy juices keep flowing. Stay strong Roy, or at least stay medicated ?

[RoyMac5]

1 minute ago, i-Ram said:

?

l remember laughing at my parents when I was in my early 40’s about their prescriptions, and the amount of pills they kept in their larder. I used to call it the Boots Cupboard. Having just turned 60 I too have followed the family trait, and yes of the pills I am taking daily one is to ensure the happy juices keep flowing. Stay strong Roy, or at least stay medicated ?

Is that how come you're so handsome as well, or is that not your picture? ? ??

[i-Ram]

4 minutes ago, RoyMac5 said:

Is that how come you're so handsome as well, or is that not your picture? ? ??

 

[Phuket Ram]

1 hour 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, 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.

I am sure the administrators said that the efl consider them football debts and that they cannot be compromised. No? Otherwise why would the efl had said anything at all if they weren’t aware of the detail of the claims? They are 100% aware, and in dcfc’s case the efl caused the claims to be brought in the first place!  Don’t get me wrong, I am with you brother ✊

[Maharan]

On 19/01/2022 at 07:35, PistoldPete said:

Ripping off the taxpayer is what Gibson likes to do. It was pointed out by one of the MPs in the Government debate yesterday that Gibson and Couhig were trying to jump to the head of the queue … ahead of Hmrc . And maybe this Government wouldn’t be happy about that.

I don’t think we want to go down that route given the size of the HMRC bill asit stands. That’s Derby’s doing.

[Maharan]

1 hour ago, i-Ram said:

That isn’t really true though Pete. The preferred bidder is insisting that we emerge out of admin without there being any hangover of claims with Boro and Wycombe, and therefore Q are pursuing the class cram restructuring option as way of exit. The EFL are not apparently against a CVA exit.

My understanding, well my belief, is that we have the 2020 statute on our side here. Therefore where I believe we are, is that the EFL may change its stance (and its rules) after taking in the groundswell of public and legal opinion, or Q or perhaps MSD will pursue injunctive type action through the High Court to enable a legal pathway to be established.

I remain confident that the arbitrary 1 February cut-off date will pass without issue; and I hope Q in the meantime continue to rub the EFL and Boro’s noses in the mud by not selling Knight or Bird or Lawrence before that date.

So you think there is some possibility of an an injunctive action? Genuine question, as I’d assumed that the fact it’s the EFL rules of membership, not the law that was causing the problem. 
I’d honestly welcome the thoughts of those more informed than me. 

[i-Ram]

25 minutes ago, Maharan said:

So you think there is some possibility of an an injunctive action? Genuine question, as I’d assumed that the fact it’s the EFL rules of membership, not the law that was causing the problem. 
I’d honestly welcome the thoughts of those more informed than me. 

I am not professing to be more informed Maharan, but yes if Insolvency Law does support the actions proposed by Q, and they can cross cram under statute, and can disregard/eliminate arbitration claims, then yes I think they can injunct and/or obtain High Court adjudication that should let them proceed, and force the EFL to accept that their rules are not fit for current legal purpose.

l was involved in a similar situation a few years back. I was a member of a Gentleman’s Club, and l inadvertently had reason, all very innocuous, to bump into a waitress and we fell to the ground. Fortunately she broke my fall, but something went in my back, and I couldn’t get off her for about 5 or 10 minutes. Anyway there was this great legal kerfuffle where it would seem that despite me not doing anything that broke membership rules, indeed l could argue that my inadvertent actions were within the spirit of Club rules, it was decided that in the real world, under statute, she would have some claim (for wear and tear, or something, I forget) but fortunately in the end she agreed a few pounds would make the matter go away. 

[Ghost of Clough]

43 minutes ago, Maharan said:

I don’t think we want to go down that route given the size of the HMRC bill asit stands. That’s Derby’s doing.

The only way for HMRC to get anything is for the Boro/Wycombe claims to be removed from the equation.