Jump to content
oneBoro Forum

'Other Boro stuff'


Recommended Posts

The guy from Wycombe gave a fair summary of legalities.  

If he and MFC  did not think they had a case with a good chance of winning then they'd not have started.  I conclude therefore that we have a reasonable case.   Is that a £45M case ?  I'd doubt that but my expectation would be for £8-10M as a mimimum

The administrators not getting to grips with it is surprising if it is the "key" to getting out of Administration.  Are the Administrators trying to maximise their fees ?  It is rumoured to have been done before but the creditors are  fairly disgruntled bunch at the best of times

If Machin is the rougue and villan that he is portrayed as being  why are Derby not giving him a hard time ?  Is he not their Charlie Amer

If you can answer those questions then you'll be a clever man and potentionally a rich one

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 22.3k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  •  

    1179

  •  

    1111

  •  

    998

  •  

    814

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

A great Athletic article on our youth recruitment in London (copied from the other site): Saturday afternoon in the north London postcode of N22: on White Hart Lane a steady stream of fans make t

Superb article from The Athletic published today... Gives you a real sense that something special is being built. We've been crying out for this for so long.   Michael Walker 2h ago  2 

The Times interview today with Chuba. I’ve missed all the pics out as I don’t know how to get the whole article across and it’s behind a firewall, but you get a good feeling of what he thinks.  

Posted Images

No ground, owe £24m to HMRC, current owner has given up but another of his companies own the ground, EFL want confirmation the club is able to complete the season.

Derby should have been an easy case to deal with for any administrator as they are well supported have decent playing assets, and are in the championship. The above is haggling but any competent administrator would be well versed in how to do this and what sort of figures are involved.

When they took over the EFL asked them for proof of solvency for the season, they couldn’t fully provide this but EFL let them carry on as a future buyer would be expected to cover this.

They have 3 consortiums wanting them but they haven’t given exclusivity to any group yet.

The EFL after 4 months of administration ask for clear plans from the administrators as to funds to finish the season. The administrators say they cannot do this. Their plan had always been to get a quick sale and then let the new owners deal with the future.

So we come to the elephant in the room of this case, “ what exactly is stopping any bidder from bidding, if the case that Boro and Wycombe have is so weak. If it was so weak and could and would easily be dismissed any buyer would adjust his offer to cover the legal fees to get it chucked out. This hasn’t happened, 3 groups of potential buyers have looked at the figures decided they were good, then got the pertinent info about the Boro/Wycombe claims and not one has submitted a bid yet.

Now it could be that the cases are a grey area and need to be studied further, if they were as weak as reported then their own independent legal advice would have said bid this as those claims are rubbish and don’t stand up.

So when 3 consortiums decide not to bid it shows that the financial benefits of buying the club are not there. Or everything is good to go but what the administrators want is too high. Or the claims made against Derby are not as flimsy frivolous or fanciful as reported.

 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Naisby said:

No ground, owe £24m to HMRC, current owner has given up but another of his companies own the ground, EFL want confirmation the club is able to complete the season.

Derby should have been an easy case to deal with for any administrator as they are well supported have decent playing assets, and are in the championship. The above is haggling but any competent administrator would be well versed in how to do this and what sort of figures are involved.

When they took over the EFL asked them for proof of solvency for the season, they couldn’t fully provide this but EFL let them carry on as a future buyer would be expected to cover this.

They have 3 consortiums wanting them but they haven’t given exclusivity to any group yet.

The EFL after 4 months of administration ask for clear plans from the administrators as to funds to finish the season. The administrators say they cannot do this. Their plan had always been to get a quick sale and then let the new owners deal with the future.

So we come to the elephant in the room of this case, “ what exactly is stopping any bidder from bidding, if the case that Boro and Wycombe have is so weak. If it was so weak and could and would easily be dismissed any buyer would adjust his offer to cover the legal fees to get it chucked out. This hasn’t happened, 3 groups of potential buyers have looked at the figures decided they were good, then got the pertinent info about the Boro/Wycombe claims and not one has submitted a bid yet.

Now it could be that the cases are a grey area and need to be studied further, if they were as weak as reported then their own independent legal advice would have said bid this as those claims are rubbish and don’t stand up.

So when 3 consortiums decide not to bid it shows that the financial benefits of buying the club are not there. Or everything is good to go but what the administrators want is too high. Or the claims made against Derby are not as flimsy frivolous or fanciful as reported.

 

There a lot if “ifs” there.

The long and short of it is 

1. If the administrator doesn’t do a deal before end of month, Derby go out of existence

2.If Boro and Wycombe don’t do a deal, before end of month, they get nothing when Derby go bust

3. if any buyer doesn’t do a deal before end of month, there will be nothing to buy.

All that suggests either total incompetence and intransigence, or bluffing between the parties to see who blinks first. You would hope for Derbys sake it is the latter,  but if it is true what Boro and Wycombe are saying, the administrators are running a fine line between bluffing and incompetence, given that supposedly they haven’t responded to any offer or put in a counter offer. If they wait too long, there may be no buyer left, or time may just run out on them.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Derby County are safe, they won’t die and won’t go down.

They are a well supported team with decent players and facilities so a buyer will buy them.

To me-the interesting part of all this is the total clarity of what exactly are Boro claiming.

All we have are reactions to what Boro have claimed and of the many views out there only 3 know exactly what it is and what the ramifications are.

EFL... They have a good point, but until we are asked to adjudicate that’s all it can be to us.

Administrators......Frivilous, no justification in law, if it had merit then act on it. 

Boro.... We have an issue with Derby County and have been actively pursuing this for some considerable time.

Those are paraphrases of the official responses all 3 have given to the issues of Derby in the last 72 hours

This response is describing what is holding up 3 independent bidders from buying a very attractive footballing asset.

Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Naisby said:

Derby County are safe, they won’t die and won’t go down.

They are a well supported team with decent players and facilities so a buyer will buy them.

To me-the interesting part of all this is the total clarity of what exactly are Boro claiming.

All we have are reactions to what Boro have claimed and of the many views out there only 3 know exactly what it is and what the ramifications are.

EFL... They have a good point, but until we are asked to adjudicate that’s all it can be to us.

Administrators......Frivilous, no justification in law, if it had merit then act on it. 

Boro.... We have an issue with Derby County and have been actively pursuing this for some considerable time.

Those are paraphrases of the official responses all 3 have given to the issues of Derby in the last 72 hours

This response is describing what is holding up 3 independent bidders from buying a very attractive footballing asset.

What facilities mate? They don't own their own ground or training ground. 

Suggestions from Kieran Maguire that the top admin firms wouldn't touch this job with a 10 foot pole because Derby are anything BUT an attractive purchase.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Jamie-H said:

Derby County Football Club owe HMRC somewhere in the region of £28 million yet somehow none of today's MP statements or news reports make mention of it...

The biggest disgrace to football wouldn't be Derby getting liquidated it would be them wriggling out of a £28 million tax bill it would make a mockery out of every club and every individual in this country who does pay their taxes. I don't care if we get a penny out of Derby but the new owner will need to pay that tax bill in full anything less would be an absolute disgrace.

Indeed. I can't wait for BBC Radio Derby's interview with the Queen to discuss how awful she's being to ask for this money too.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

MM has stated he is open to selling all ownership to the successful bidder for Derby County at prices based around the independent valuation made when the EFL looked into what amortisation Derby was doing.

Any bidder will have taken this into account with their valuation to buy the team.

Or they will take the assets the  administrators are offering and build their own and rent/share till then.

The debts and baggage ran up by MM are what administration usually reduces by 75-80%

Until MM took over Derby were a competitive side and their finances were much better than Boro. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder if Derby fans will write to the queen asking her to get her tax men to drop their claims against County like they have done to Gibson as these claims could kill their club.

22 minutes ago, wilsoncgp said:

Indeed. I can't wait for BBC Radio Derby's interview with the Queen to discuss how awful she's being to ask for this money too.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

@samwallacetel

EXCLUSIVE: Middlesbrough FC say they contacted Derby County administrators to make compromise settlement offer over P&S breaches claim at much less than reported £45m. Boro have not heard back. More @TeleFootball

Middlesbrough FC statement on Derby County P&S legal claim hinted at willingness to compromise - but no backing down on original allegations of rule-breaking. Full story with colleague @JPercyTelegraph

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/football/2022/01/18/middlesbrough-deny-40m-legal-battle-derby-preventing-sale-stricken/ - apologies but the article is behind a paywall

This was also shared by Keiran Maquire last night, says a lot about why DCFC are in their present situation 

85609C63-0DC2-4DF3-A7B3-A6E8EFB1A0BA.png

Edited by Brisbrough
Link to post
Share on other sites

The Middlesbrough chairman Steve Gibson has responded to claims that his club’s legal action is holding up Derby County’s search for a new owner by revealing a settlement offer was made to the stricken Championship club’s administrators in November and no response has come back.

In a hard-hitting statement from Gibson, whose club are understood to have been chasing damages of over £40 million from Derby, he said that Middlesbrough first made contact in November with Quantuma, the Derby administrators. Gibson said that a compromise deal was proposed by Middlesbrough but there was no response at all until this week, when a reply did arrive from Quantuma that made no mention of the November offer.

Middlesbrough and Wycombe Wanderers both allege that the breaking of the Football League profit and sustainability [P&S] rules by Derby means that, in separate seasons, the two clubs’ destinies were severely affected. In Middlesbrough’s case they allege it is being denied a play-off place in the 2018-2019 season. For Wycombe, they allege that it meant relegation to League One last season. Both have launched an action for damages.

In the meantime, the EFL chief executive Trevor Birch has said this week that it may have to expel the 138-year-old club from the league if administrators cannot prove that Derby have the £8 million funds necessary to survive the season and fulfil their other payment obligations up to the end of June. 

Gibson, 64, says that Middlesbrough “does not wish to see Derby County fall into liquidation” and that his club are “happy to be realistic in its expectations in order for Derby County to exit administration”. He called upon Quantuma “to put a firm and realistic proposal forward or merely agree that Middlesbrough’s claim, when finally determined, will be met in full by the new owners.”. He dismissed claims that the legal action was “frivolous”.

In the statement, counsel for Gibson, chairman of Middlesbrough since 1993, said that the demand from his club is that any new owner accept the ruling of the arbitration panel in the event that it finds Derby broke P&S rules. The statement said: “There is a certain inconsistency to the arguments presented by the administrators. On the one hand, it is said that there is no prospect of the claim succeeding, in which case there is no risk for a new owner. But, on the other hand, the administrator apparently cannot find a new owner because they will not proceed without the claim being settled due, presumably, to the fact that it has merit and might succeed.

“If the claim has no prospect of success Middlesbrough does not understand why a new owner would resolve the matter by accepting that the arbitration decision should be honoured. Of course, if the claim has a value as Middlesbrough believes, there is no reason why Middlesbrough should not, as a football creditor, be entitled to recover the monies due to it.”

Gibson and Middlesbrough allege that “Derby County and its directors systematically cheated under the P&S rules” and “that such cheating affects the integrity of the competition”. The statement adds that Middlesbrough first “initiated a claim” against Derby in May 2019 when suspicions were raised about P&S breaches during the preceding 2018-2019 season. A letter outlining Middlesbrough’s claim was sent to Derby in autumn 2020 before the legal action began in January of last year. Derby County used various procedural tactics to seek to delay,” Boro alleged.

The Telegraph reported this week that Quantuma are under pressure to name a preferred bidder or face the prospect of player sales in January to raise money.

Championship rivals Millwall have made four bids for midfielder Louie Sibley, 20, of over £450,000 which have all been rejected by the administrators.

In another serious development, Derby could lose manager Wayne Rooney to Everton this week. 

The club are fighting bravely against a 21-point EFL deduction for financial irregularities to do with P&S rules that seemed to have doomed them to relegation. The club went into administration in September, incurring an immediate 12-point penalty. Three bidders are in talks over a potential takeover, including former Newcastle United owner Mike Ashley.

Quantuma were contacted for comment on Tuesday.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...