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

[kevinhectoring]

1 hour ago, Ramitupper said:

I am sure the administrators said that the efl consider them football debts and that they cannot be compromised. No?

Haha. 

yes that’s what the administrators said the EFL said

what the EFl actually said was: you can do whatever company law allows you to do with these claims. But if they are not paid in full, you know the consequences under our rules. 

Q trying to blame the EFl thereby excusing themselves from blame 

[Crewton]

3 minutes ago, kevinhectoring said:

Haha. 

yes that’s what the administrators said the EFL said

what the EFl actually said was: you can do whatever company law allows you to do with these claims. But if they are not paid in full, you know the consequences under our rules. 

Q trying to blame the EFl thereby excusing themselves from blame 

Or the EFL hiding behind their rules knowing full well that they will have the effect of forcing DCFC into liquidation. Because only an idiot would think that there's another idiot around who's going to buy DCFC with these claims lurking unresolved. 

[Maharan]

31 minutes ago, i-Ram said:

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. 

Goodness me. I hope your back is healing. Lucky break eh!

[RoyMac5]

20 minutes ago, kevinhectoring said:

Haha. 

yes that’s what the administrators said the EFL said

what the EFl actually said was: you can do whatever company law allows you to do with these claims. But if they are not paid in full, you know the consequences under our rules. 

Q trying to blame the EFl thereby excusing themselves from blame 

Where did they say that? There haven't been many statements from Q.

[PistoldPete]

33 minutes ago, kevinhectoring said:

Haha. 

yes that’s what the administrators said the EFL said

what the EFl actually said was: you can do whatever company law allows you to do with these claims. But if they are not paid in full, you know the consequences under our rules. 

Q trying to blame the EFl thereby excusing themselves from blame 

There is nothing to pay if the admin team follows Company Law. So how go they become football creditors if there is nothing due to be paid?

[WestStandStartTheBounce]

18 minutes ago, PistoldPete said:

There is nothing to pay if the admin team follows Company Law. So how go they become football creditors if there is nothing due to be paid?

Exactly this. As it stands we owe Middlesbrough and Wycombe £0

[kevinhectoring]

38 minutes ago, PistoldPete said:

There is nothing to pay if the admin team follows Company Law. So how go they become football creditors if there is nothing due to be paid?

That reminds me of Tommy Cooper saying ‘just like that’ 

[Day]

Both the EFL and Quantuma statements have pretty much confirmed this topic to be the case.

What we have is the EFL desperately trying to avoid making the decision on whether or not Boro and Wycombe are football creditors, knowing which ever way they go with this it will bury them.

Sorry Rick, Trevor, but it's time to step up and pick your poison. 

[kevinhectoring]

@David

i know your support for our club and its interests is unparalleled. But you should read the EFL’s latest statement and close this thread down. The bad guys here are M and W. They have put the EFl in a bad place and us on the precipice. MM spent two fruitless years slagging off the EFl and it damaged us. We should learn from that.
 

Suggesting the EFL can waive a magic wand and fix the ‘football creditors’ point is naive and - along with other posts on here, which they DO monitor - it has pi$$ed them off. Not least because it doubtless contravenes ALL the legal advice they are getting and that’s what they need to act on. 

We need their help. The fans - especially those on here - have worked wonders getting MPs, councillors, media people involved. More of that is what we need 

[Day]

1 minute ago, kevinhectoring said:

@David

i know your support for our club and its interests is unparalleled. But you should read the EFL’s latest statement and close this thread down. The bad guys here are M and W. They have put the EFl in a bad place and us on the precipice. MM spent two fruitless years slagging off the EFl and it damaged us. We should learn from that.
 

Suggesting the EFL can waive a magic wand and fix the ‘football creditors’ point is naive and - along with other posts on here, which they DO monitor - it has pi$$ed them off. Not least because it doubtless contravenes ALL the legal advice they are getting and that’s what they need to act on. 

We need their help. The fans - especially those on here - have worked wonders getting MPs, councillors, media people involved. More of that is what we need 

Strongly disagree, this topic highlight the main sticking point in allowing the club to move forward. 

I will not hide this and pretend it is not happening whilst our clubs very existence is on the line, and to be honest, I couldn't care less if they are pissed off, they put themselves in this position and must accept responsibility for their own actions starting with deciding if Middlesbrough and Wycombe are football creditors or not. 

I urge any fan reading this to continue to pressure local MP's, the media, anyone with a voice on this specific point as until they make this decision, we will remain in a stalemate. 

 

[kevinhectoring]

7 minutes ago, David said:

Strongly disagree, this topic highlight the main sticking point in allowing the club to move forward. 

I will not hide this and pretend it is not happening whilst our clubs very existence is on the line, and to be honest, I couldn't care less if they are pissed off, they put themselves in this position and must accept responsibility for their own actions starting with deciding if Middlesbrough and Wycombe are football creditors or not. 

I urge any fan reading this to continue to pressure local MP's, the media, anyone with a voice on this specific point as until they make this decision, we will remain in a stalemate. 

 

So explain please why you think the EFL’s latest statement supports your topic highlight 

[Day]

18 minutes ago, kevinhectoring said:

So explain please why you think the EFL’s latest statement supports your topic highlight 

1) The League is similarly concerned by recent claims that suggests a broader resolution to ongoing issues is solely dependent on the claims from Middlesbrough and Wycombe Wanderers being resolved, which are merely one part of a complex puzzle.

Correct.

2) At present, the EFL is not in a position to make a determination as to the status of compensation claims by Middlesbrough and Wycombe under the terms of the EFL’s Articles of Association and/or Insolvency policy, as it could lead to additional action from those already interested parties and the wider membership of Clubs. 

These claims have been in for 12 months now, and yet they are still not in the position to decide if Boro and Wycombe are football creditors. 12 months!

3) Whilst clarity is also required as to the status of the claims from both Middlesbrough and Wycombe Wanderers, it is also critical that progress on two fronts urgently be made:

Funding – The Administrator as a matter of urgency needs to clarify how it plans to fund Derby County for the remainder of the season. By the Administrator’s own forecasting, the Club will run out of cash by February, and therefore sourcing funds is of paramount importance to ensure they can compete for the rest of the season. This is not an artificial EFL deadline, but the reality of when we have been informed the money runs out.

Preferred Bidder – The EFL needs urgent clarification from the Administrator as to who the preferred bidder is. Without this clarification, no tangible progress can be made into solving the challenges associated with the claims.

This goes back to 1) in this post where I said correct, however: 

- A preferred bidder cannot be made until the EFL have made a decision on if Boro and Wycombe are football creditors for obvious reasons.

- Funding is a side issue to this, Quantuma have confirmed they have 3 options with regards to providing proof of funds for the remainder of the season. Whilst it's not been decided which way they will go, it does not appear to be a major issue.

- The EFL did not detail any other pieces in this "complex puzzle", why? There isn't any.

This is all nothing but a deflection of the main issue at play here, if you don't share that view that's fine, however 2 MP's now have focused in on this point to raise with the Sports Minister so I am very comfortable in leaving this topic on the forum.

[kevinhectoring]

25 minutes ago, David said:

Strongly disagree, this topic highlight the main sticking point in allowing the club to move forward. 

I will not hide this and pretend it is not happening whilst our clubs very existence is on the line, and to be honest, I couldn't care less if they are pissed off, they put themselves in this position and must accept responsibility for their own actions starting with deciding if Middlesbrough and Wycombe are football creditors or not. 

I urge any fan reading this to continue to pressure local MP's, the media, anyone with a voice on this specific point as until they make this decision, we will remain in a stalemate. 

 

Q just said this: “We have maintained cordial and business-like relations with the EFL and are committed to continue with those.”  I think that’s an indication that they see how foolish they were to antagonise them 

[Day]

Just now, kevinhectoring said:

Q just said this: “We have maintained cordial and business-like relations with the EFL and are committed to continue with those.”  I think that’s an indication that they see how foolish they were to antagonise them 

They did and I'm pleased to hear it, we do not want to make the EFL an enemy, in my email to Rick Parry this morning I was extremely polite as all fans should be in their correspondence with both himself and Trevor Birch.

We do have an issue here though, I'm afraid the EFL must come out and make a decision, that is not an attempt to antagonise, it's recognising the fact we are in a stalemate and to move forward they must now get involved without delay.

 

[RoyMac5]

9 minutes ago, kevinhectoring said:

Q just said this: “We have maintained cordial and business-like relations with the EFL and are committed to continue with those.”  I think that’s an indication that they see how foolish they were to antagonise them 

Antagonise who? You think the EFL were without bias? ?

 

14 minutes ago, David said:

This is all nothing but a deflection of the main issue at play here, if you don't share that view that's fine, however 2 MP's now have focused in on this point to raise with the Sports Minister so I am very comfortable in leaving this topic on the forum.

All of their comments and Gibson's gibbering rant of a letter are to deflect the main issue(s). (I hope someone asks him to state how much he's willing to accept as a compromise!)

Both claims would not have a leg to stand on in a court of law - but we can't go there and those two know it. The EFL know it too. We found a way to resolve it - class cram compress!  

[Red Ram]

7 minutes ago, David said:

Strongly disagree, this topic highlight the main sticking point in allowing the club to move forward. 

I will not hide this and pretend it is not happening whilst our clubs very existence is on the line, and to be honest, I couldn't care less if they are pissed off, they put themselves in this position and must accept responsibility for their own actions starting with deciding if Middlesbrough and Wycombe are football creditors or not. 

I urge any fan reading this to continue to pressure local MP's, the media, anyone with a voice on this specific point as until they make this decision, we will remain in a stalemate. 

 

The defintion of a football creditor is, as you say in the title of this thread, fairly simple.

As per section 48.1.3 Football creditors include "any Member Club and any Club of The FA Premier League". We don't currently owe Middlesborough or Wycombe any money so neither are currently football creditors but if they won their respective cases, they would be. Derby currently aren't a football creditor of Newcastle United but they would be if we sold them Jason Knight until such time as the fee us paid in full. So all this is just about is the timing of football creditor status rather than whether it applies to the claims per se. Quite simply, it would because Middlesborough and Wycombe are both EFL football clubs.

So as @kevinhectoringsuggests, there is nothing for the EFL to decide in relation to this and nor can they change the rules to help resolve the impasse because as per your post "the football creditor rule is not defined in the EFL regulations, it is part of the Articles of Association of the Football League Limited".

The decision the EFL appear to have been asked to make is an entirely different one - whether to accept Quantuma's Restructuring Plan as per https://www.derbytelegraph.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/Derby-county-efl-middlesbrough-wycombe-6502288 

The problem for the EFL though, is that if they did accept it, it would, assuming that the Black and White together analysis presented in the link below is broadly correct, render both Middlesborough and Wycombe's clams null and void with no further prospect of legal remedy (because the current company that owns Derby count would cease to exist).

https://www.dcfcbawt.org/post/efl-quantuma-s-position-here-s-bawt-s-ian-redfern-s-view 

This appears to be what Quantuma actually mean when they talk about the Middlesborough and Wycombe claims being 'compromised' - permanently and irrevocably eliminated!

Whilst we would obviously all welcome this outcome, it's clearly unrealistic to expect the EFL to agree to this course of action because, as their statement says, they have a responsilbility to all 72 of their members, not just Derby County. In addition, they would have take the same risk of being sued by Middlesborough and Wycombe that none of our prospective bidders are prepared to take. This is why the EFL are (reportedly) only prepared to accept the CVA route out of Administration but that would transfer the financial risk to the preferred bidder rather than the EFL, hence the impasse.

We all want to find a silver bullet but unfortunately this isn't it. The concern I have is that Quantuma may have bet the future of the club on an option that the EFL were simply never going to be able to accept. The best hope we have is that Middlesborough and Wycombe can be prevailed upon to drop their claims or to accept a token settlement. The most the EFL can do is try and broker that so as @kevinhectoringwe need their help.

[Day]

3 minutes ago, Red Ram said:

Whilst we would obviously all welcome this outcome, it's clearly unrealistic to expect the EFL to agree to this course of action because, as their statement says, they have a responsilbility to all 72 of their members, not just Derby County. In addition, they would have take the same risk of being sued by Middlesborough and Wycombe that none of our prospective bidders are prepared to take. This is why the EFL are (reportedly) only prepared to accept the CVA route out of Administration but that would transfer the financial risk to the preferred bidder rather than the EFL, hence the impasse.

We all want to find a silver bullet but unfortunately this isn't it. The concern I have is that Quantuma may have bet the future of the club on an option that the EFL were simply never going to be able to accept. The best hope we have is that Middlesborough and Wycombe can be prevailed upon to drop their claims or to accept a token settlement.

I would argue it's far more unrealistic that Boro and Wycombe would drop their claims or accept a token settlement, listening to Couhig on RD and reading Gibson's statements, I think I have more chance of waking up in the morning as a multi millionaire female pop star.

You are correct in that they have a responsibility for all 72 clubs, do you really think other clubs would want Boro and Wycombe to be successful in these claims? It would change the game, there would be lawsuits left right and centre.

It would be in the best interests for all 72 clubs for the EFL to come out and shut this thing down and take whatever comes their way. If Boro go for the EFL in court, who do you think pays for that?......Championship clubs, and given the losses incurred during the pandemic, I highly doubt they will receive much support if they were to go down that path.

[MaltRam]

1 hour ago, David said:

Sorry Rick, Trevor, but it's time to step up and pick your poison. 

The only way these bar stewards can avoid taking any poison is to let us die. Then the problem dies with us.

This is why they are actively murdering our club.

[Red Ram]

8 minutes ago, David said:

I would argue it's far more unrealistic that Boro and Wycombe would drop their claims or accept a token settlement, listening to Couhig on RD and reading Gibson's statements, I think I have more chance of waking up in the morning as a multi millionaire female pop star.

You are correct in that they have a responsibility for all 72 clubs, do you really think other clubs would want Boro and Wycombe to be successful in these claims? It would change the game, there would be lawsuits left right and centre.

It would be in the best interests for all 72 clubs for the EFL to come out and shut this thing down and take whatever comes their way. If Boro go for the EFL in court, who do you think pays for that?......Championship clubs, and given the losses incurred during the pandemic, I highly doubt they will receive much support if they were to go down that path.

No the other clubs wouldn't want that but I don't see how that's particularly likely to stop it happening given that Gibson has threatened it once already.

Anyway, fingers crossed for a major transformation in your appearance and lifestyle from tomorrow morning onwards David - hope you wake up wealthy enough to buy Derby County.?

 

[kevinhectoring]

11 minutes ago, David said:

the EFL must come out and make a decision,

 
In the statement, EFl goes some way to explaining why they can’t do this. In more detail: 

1 The claims are imho rubbish. But EFL can’t declare that they think M and W’s claims are going to fail on the merits because the two clubs are, under the rules, entitled to their day in court. If EFl were to say: “Gibbo, you just didn’t win enough matches”, he’d shrug his shoulders and - after our restructuring - engage us in arbitration.  The EFl can’t stop him doing that, so far as I can see  

2 Nor can the EFl state that M and W fail because contingent creditors can’t be football creditors. Similar to 1, the interpretation of the EFl articles is not down to the EFl, not least because those articles are a contract between all the members. So if EFl made a pronouncement ruling out contingent creditors, Gibbo is still entitled to engage us in arbitration. And he would tell the arbitrator he doesn’t care what the EFl says, it’s for the arbitrator to determine the meaning of the contract. And if, surprisingly, the arbitrator agreed with the EFl, M would likely sue the EFl arguing they had interfered with M’s claim, their contractual rights 

3 The other reason against EFl ruling out contingent claims (putting aside that it’s almost definitely wrong as a legal matter), is that there may be other contingent claims that could arise between clubs and that the clubs at large would not want to be ruled out. 
 

David, on this point the EFl is between a rock and a hard place. For you to say the rule is ‘explicit’ is probably wrong because these complicated points of interpretation are often settled by implication. And you only need to read this thread to understand that the point is very far from ‘simple’