@aloysius said:
It's hardly a straw man argument when no Derby creditor can get paid until Wycombe's claim is settled or dismissed.
Christ man, do some reading and research before posting your nonsense, and I don't mean reading the Derby forum. This isn't true. It's some bollocks you read somewhere that you keep repeating in yet another attempt to have a pop at Rob Couhig and it's getting very silly indeed. Even the latest statement from the EFL says this isn't true.
If your opinions were even half based on actual facts, maybe people would engage with your ridiculous hypothetical questions more.
You also keep saying RC is suing for the money, which is also completely wrong. Is it any wonder your opinions on the situation are so ridiculous when you clearly don't have the slightest grasp on what's actually going on.
@aloysius said:
It's hardly a straw man argument when no Derby creditor can get paid until Wycombe's claim is settled or dismissed.
Christ man, do some reading and research before posting your nonsense, and I don't mean reading the Derby forum. This isn't true. It's some bollocks you read somewhere that you keep repeating in yet another attempt to have a pop at Rob Couhig and it's getting very silly indeed. Even the latest statement from the EFL says this isn't true.
If your opinions were even half based on actual facts, maybe people would engage with your ridiculous hypothetical questions more.
Erm...
Are you suggesting the Football Creditors Rule doesn't exist?
For a bit of background reading, try this summary of the HMRC vs EFL court case from 2012 when the former tried to get the rule removed because of its unfairness.
Football creditors include players, managers and other employees, other FL
member clubs and the FL itself. So the effect of this so-called "football creditors rule" is
that in the event of an insolvency of an FL member club, the football creditors are
prioritised at the expense of the ordinary unsecured creditors who usually include St John Ambulance, catering, ground care and maintenance staff, utilities and, of course, HMRC.
You refer to the EFL statement... I've read that. It states very clearly that it disagrees with Derby County's argument that Wycombe/Middlesborough's claims should NOT be treated as football-related debt.
If you have read something that demonstrates the Football Creditors Rule does not apply in this case, please do post a link and I promise to read it.
Otherwise, perhaps you could take a deep breath, maybe take the dog for another walk and calm down a bit?
@aloysius said:
It's hardly a straw man argument when no Derby creditor can get paid until Wycombe's claim is settled or dismissed.
Christ man, do some reading and research before posting your nonsense, and I don't mean reading the Derby forum. This isn't true. It's some bollocks you read somewhere that you keep repeating in yet another attempt to have a pop at Rob Couhig and it's getting very silly indeed. Even the latest statement from the EFL says this isn't true.
If your opinions were even half based on actual facts, maybe people would engage with your ridiculous hypothetical questions more.
Erm...
Are you suggesting the Football Creditors Rule doesn't exist?
For a bit of background reading, try this summary of the HMRC vs EFL court case from 2012 when the former tried to get the rule removed because of its unfairness.
Football creditors include players, managers and other employees, other FL
member clubs and the FL itself. So the effect of this so-called "football creditors rule" is
that in the event of an insolvency of an FL member club, the football creditors are
prioritised at the expense of the ordinary unsecured creditors who usually include St John Ambulance, catering, ground care and maintenance staff, utilities and, of course, HMRC.
You refer to the EFL statement... I've read that. It states very clearly that it disagrees with Derby County's argument that Wycombe/Middlesborough's claims should NOT be treated as football-related debt.
If you have read something that demonstrates the Football Creditors Rule does not apply in this case, please do post a link and I promise to read it.
Otherwise, perhaps you could take a deep breath, maybe take the dog for another walk and calm down a bit?
Are you suggesting the Football Creditors Rule doesn't exist?
No, because that's irrelevant to what you said. You said, and I quote directly...
It's hardly a straw man argument when no Derby creditor can get paid until Wycombe's claim is settled or dismissed.
And that is not true. There is nothing about our claim that is stopping the administrators bringing the club out of administration. The football creditors rule doesn't block the administrators bringing the club out of administration.
Are you suggesting the Football Creditors Rule doesn't exist?
No, because that's irrelevant to what you said. You said, and I quote directly...
It's hardly a straw man argument when no Derby creditor can get paid until Wycombe's claim is settled or dismissed.
And that is not true. There is nothing about our claim that is stopping the administrators bringing the club out of administration. The football creditors rule doesn't block the administrators bringing the club out of administration.
To bring the club out of administration the administrators need to settle the debts. We are led to believe Rob Couhig has lodged a claim that hasn't been settled yet. The EFL are clear that football creditors, including potentially Wycombe, have to have their debts settled first. What part of that am I misunderstanding?
Are you suggesting the Football Creditors Rule doesn't exist?
No, because that's irrelevant to what you said. You said, and I quote directly...
It's hardly a straw man argument when no Derby creditor can get paid until Wycombe's claim is settled or dismissed.
And that is not true. There is nothing about our claim that is stopping the administrators bringing the club out of administration. The football creditors rule doesn't block the administrators bringing the club out of administration.
To bring the club out of administration the administrators need to settle the debts. We are led to believe Rob Couhig has lodged a claim that hasn't been settled yet. The EFL are clear that football creditors, including potentially Wycombe, have to have their debts settled first. What part of that am I misunderstanding?
All of it.
The administrators don't settle the debts.
To settle the debts they need a buyer, the buyer would then either contest or settle the claim.
The debts don't need to be settled before the administrators find a buyer, otherwise it would be impossible to bring them out of administration.
The football creditors are settled after the club has been sold.
Also, we're all still waiting for your apology for the lie that we're suing Derby.
Are you suggesting the Football Creditors Rule doesn't exist?
No, because that's irrelevant to what you said. You said, and I quote directly...
It's hardly a straw man argument when no Derby creditor can get paid until Wycombe's claim is settled or dismissed.
And that is not true. There is nothing about our claim that is stopping the administrators bringing the club out of administration. The football creditors rule doesn't block the administrators bringing the club out of administration.
To bring the club out of administration the administrators need to settle the debts. We are led to believe Rob Couhig has lodged a claim that hasn't been settled yet. The EFL are clear that football creditors, including potentially Wycombe, have to have their debts settled first. What part of that am I misunderstanding?
All of it.
The administrators don't settle the debts.
To settle the debts they need a buyer, the buyer would then either contest or settle the claim.
The debts don't need to be settled before the administrators find a buyer, otherwise it would be impossible to bring them out of administration.
The football creditors are settled after the club has been sold.
Also, we're all still waiting for your apology for the lie that we're suing Derby.
Come on @aloysius apologise It’s good for the soul
If Rob C had opened up.his checkbook and bought The Player that would have saved us from relegation he would not have to blackmail that nice Mr Morris now. I think we can all agree on THAT!
@aloysius said:
Seeing as we are criticising Derby County fans for a lack of critical thinking, here are two questions for you:
1) Do you think Wycombe - with £3m in the bank - is more deserving of a pay-out from Derby than all the small local businesses that supplied the club in good faith and now face destitution because their bills haven't been paid?
2) Here's a hypothetical scenario to ponder. What if Steve Hayes, when he had complete control of the club, had ensured Wycombe had spent beyond its means and engaged in creative accountancy that bent or broke the EFL's rules, then walked away. Other clubs claim they've been screwed over by Wycombe and want compensation. Would you prefer they a) claimed against a football club with few assets and mired in negative equity, threatening its very existence? Or b) went after the man who created the problems in the first place and is still worth multiple tens of millions?
I just can’t see how you can’t see what is actually going on.
Everything aside, how would you feel if you were a Wycombe Wanderers footballer who has completely missed out on a staying up bonus. Just imagine if that was life changing for that player. Just imagine if that player is struggling financially or has a growing family.
Imagine for a moment we were not so financially secure and we had said to Onyedinma “I know your happy here and your young family are in local schools and have friends in the area but we are selling you to balance the books now we are relegated” (not the case but it is a common scenario at relegated clubs).
Now look how quickly Nick Freeman’s career almost / possibly still will change/d forever. End of contract and on the scrap heap. Worse case scenario end of career. Misses out on a significant staying up bonus and an automatic contract extension. Lots of hypotheticals here obviously, but really not far stretched.
It couldn’t be any more obvious what he did and it’s cost us financially and allows Derby to have an extra £6m in the bank account.
I have on good authority that we had our first ever £1m sponsorship deal lined up based on c333k over 3yrs of staying in the Championship. Gone.
To your points.
1. Every creditor is equally deserving of every £ owed, so I see that question as an irrelevance to be totally honest.
2. Our club unfortunately. As the club is a separate legal entity. It’s a Limited Company.
Regrettably for the right or wrong reasons depending on your viewpoint Companies are liquidated all the time. None of us want to see
Derby liquidated. But fundamentally, Morris completely fucked up the running of the Company and those doing the day to day running of the club would and should have known too. Do you think no one in the accounts team knew what was going on?
If I fuck up running my company too then I’d expect my Company to be wound up also, if I couldn’t find a buyer.
@Wendoverman said:
If Rob C had opened up.his checkbook and bought The Player that would have saved us from relegation he would not have to blackmail that nice Mr Morris now. I think we can all agree on THAT!
Plus we're sat here chilling on 3million in fresh consecutive numbered notes.
So don't need to be suing Derby anyway, and thus killing their club single handedly.
@username123 said:
And another thing, this won’t end here if Derby stay up by finishing 4th from bottom.
The team finishing 3rd from bottom will be all over it for their £6m lost the following season as Derby shouldn’t have been in the league this season.
That would likely be Peterborough. They wouldn't do such a thing as they occupy much higher moral ground. Although it would be interesting to see them try and reconcile the outcome.
@Wendoverman said:
If Rob C had opened up.his checkbook and bought The Player that would have saved us from relegation he would not have to blackmail that nice Mr Morris now. I think we can all agree on THAT!
I'm glad you're finally coming round to my point of view.
As for @drcongo - we can argue over semantics all you like. We both interpret the rules in fundamentally different ways. When it comes out in the wash, let's see which of us was closest.
The reason that Derby have not and are not responding to them is quite simply because that whilst these claims are outstanding they can hide behind them and pretend to the World that it is the claims that are the reason for being unable to sell the club, not the fact that it is so riddled with debt it is not a viable option and unsellable.
I am pretty certain now that Derby are doing nothing on the claims because they moment they are settled (or quite probably laughed out of court) they have no excuses and the full extent of Mel Morris's bending of the rules will be revealed.
If (when) they are liquidated the blame will be put firmly at the door of the EFL and the Middlesbrough/Wycombe claims.
It's why we're seeing some things played out in public and others behind closed doors.
Kirchner is saying 'ask the right questions' - Well if you accept that the Administrators are working in cahoots with Morris to protect him, his reputation with Derby fans and his financial interests as best they can then suddenly everything starts to drop into place.
Morris has used smoke and mirrors throughout the last 5 years to delay, obscure and bend the rules, and he's still doing it."
Can’t disagree with a single word of that posting you found Shev
I said weeks ago that I believed Kirchner once having seen the books found the situation much worse than ether administrators are willing to admit to.
His twitter posts the other night seem to shed some light on the full extent of the debt and mismanagement
I hate to see any club go out of business but I don’t see Derby’s way back from here.
The administrators seemingly chose not to save the club in the long term during January but ran an incredibly high risk strategy of hoping that Rooney could save them from relegation with the current squad and therefore make them more attractive to buyers at the end of the season.
Didn’t Kirchner say he’s doing a Q&A tomorrow evening, or am I just imagining that? If so, I suspect a lot more will come out (although of course he would have signed an NDA so not the entire picture).
Didn’t Kirchner say he’s doing a Q&A tomorrow evening, or am I just imagining that? If so, I suspect a lot more will come out (although of course he would have signed an NDA so not the entire picture).
I’ve inadvertently engaged with Derby fans on Twitter. Safe to say the current position is Morris is honourable. Wycombe and Middlesbrough evil.
Morris would do a great job at number 10 right now as his spin powers are amazing.
I've actually quit twitter. It's a vile horrible place and ultimately not great for your mental health haha. Facebook isn't great but slightly better imo
Comments
You also keep saying RC is suing for the money, which is also completely wrong. Is it any wonder your opinions on the situation are so ridiculous when you clearly don't have the slightest grasp on what's actually going on.
Another Daily Fail exclusive.
Erm...
Are you suggesting the Football Creditors Rule doesn't exist?
For a bit of background reading, try this summary of the HMRC vs EFL court case from 2012 when the former tried to get the rule removed because of its unfairness.
Football creditors include players, managers and other employees, other FL
member clubs and the FL itself. So the effect of this so-called "football creditors rule" is
that in the event of an insolvency of an FL member club, the football creditors are
prioritised at the expense of the ordinary unsecured creditors who usually include St John Ambulance, catering, ground care and maintenance staff, utilities and, of course, HMRC.
Full thing here: https://www.ilauk.com/docs/ilabull428.pdf
You refer to the EFL statement... I've read that. It states very clearly that it disagrees with Derby County's argument that Wycombe/Middlesborough's claims should NOT be treated as football-related debt.
If you have read something that demonstrates the Football Creditors Rule does not apply in this case, please do post a link and I promise to read it.
Otherwise, perhaps you could take a deep breath, maybe take the dog for another walk and calm down a bit?
We haven’t made a claim. Mel Morris says so.
@aloysius, no one has suggested the Football Creditors Rule doesn't exist.
However, you feel free to keep saying RC has sued Derby without retracting the statement.
He hasn't. It's that simple. He has submitted a claim to the Administrator, which has yet to be tested, that's all.
Either retract the statement or go away.
No, because that's irrelevant to what you said. You said, and I quote directly...
And that is not true. There is nothing about our claim that is stopping the administrators bringing the club out of administration. The football creditors rule doesn't block the administrators bringing the club out of administration.
@drcongo, I think we're wasting our time trying to correct @aloysius.
Not one to let facts get in the way of a mystery grudge.
If Mel Morris was in charge of paying the premiums, then they're probably whistling in the wind.
To bring the club out of administration the administrators need to settle the debts. We are led to believe Rob Couhig has lodged a claim that hasn't been settled yet. The EFL are clear that football creditors, including potentially Wycombe, have to have their debts settled first. What part of that am I misunderstanding?
All of it.
Also, we're all still waiting for your apology for the lie that we're suing Derby.
Come on @aloysius apologise It’s good for the soul
If Rob C had opened up.his checkbook and bought The Player that would have saved us from relegation he would not have to blackmail that nice Mr Morris now. I think we can all agree on THAT!
For the record, I'm not waiting for an apology from aloysius, although perhaps Sebastian Flyte needs to buy another hairbrush from that barber.
I just can’t see how you can’t see what is actually going on.
Everything aside, how would you feel if you were a Wycombe Wanderers footballer who has completely missed out on a staying up bonus. Just imagine if that was life changing for that player. Just imagine if that player is struggling financially or has a growing family.
Imagine for a moment we were not so financially secure and we had said to Onyedinma “I know your happy here and your young family are in local schools and have friends in the area but we are selling you to balance the books now we are relegated” (not the case but it is a common scenario at relegated clubs).
Now look how quickly Nick Freeman’s career almost / possibly still will change/d forever. End of contract and on the scrap heap. Worse case scenario end of career. Misses out on a significant staying up bonus and an automatic contract extension. Lots of hypotheticals here obviously, but really not far stretched.
It couldn’t be any more obvious what he did and it’s cost us financially and allows Derby to have an extra £6m in the bank account.
I have on good authority that we had our first ever £1m sponsorship deal lined up based on c333k over 3yrs of staying in the Championship. Gone.
To your points.
1. Every creditor is equally deserving of every £ owed, so I see that question as an irrelevance to be totally honest.
2. Our club unfortunately. As the club is a separate legal entity. It’s a Limited Company.
Regrettably for the right or wrong reasons depending on your viewpoint Companies are liquidated all the time. None of us want to see
Derby liquidated. But fundamentally, Morris completely fucked up the running of the Company and those doing the day to day running of the club would and should have known too. Do you think no one in the accounts team knew what was going on?
If I fuck up running my company too then I’d expect my Company to be wound up also, if I couldn’t find a buyer.
And another thing, this won’t end here if Derby stay up by finishing 4th from bottom.
The team finishing 3rd from bottom will be all over it for their £6m lost the following season as Derby shouldn’t have been in the league this season.
Plus we're sat here chilling on 3million in fresh consecutive numbered notes.
So don't need to be suing Derby anyway, and thus killing their club single handedly.
That would likely be Peterborough. They wouldn't do such a thing as they occupy much higher moral ground. Although it would be interesting to see them try and reconcile the outcome.
I'm glad you're finally coming round to my point of view.
As for @drcongo - we can argue over semantics all you like. We both interpret the rules in fundamentally different ways. When it comes out in the wash, let's see which of us was closest.
A sad day when Rob C no longer has the confidence of @aloysius
From the Forest forum:
"Wycombe and Middlesbrough claims -
The reason that Derby have not and are not responding to them is quite simply because that whilst these claims are outstanding they can hide behind them and pretend to the World that it is the claims that are the reason for being unable to sell the club, not the fact that it is so riddled with debt it is not a viable option and unsellable.
I am pretty certain now that Derby are doing nothing on the claims because they moment they are settled (or quite probably laughed out of court) they have no excuses and the full extent of Mel Morris's bending of the rules will be revealed.
If (when) they are liquidated the blame will be put firmly at the door of the EFL and the Middlesbrough/Wycombe claims.
It's why we're seeing some things played out in public and others behind closed doors.
Kirchner is saying 'ask the right questions' - Well if you accept that the Administrators are working in cahoots with Morris to protect him, his reputation with Derby fans and his financial interests as best they can then suddenly everything starts to drop into place.
Morris has used smoke and mirrors throughout the last 5 years to delay, obscure and bend the rules, and he's still doing it."
Can’t disagree with a single word of that posting you found Shev
I said weeks ago that I believed Kirchner once having seen the books found the situation much worse than ether administrators are willing to admit to.
His twitter posts the other night seem to shed some light on the full extent of the debt and mismanagement
I hate to see any club go out of business but I don’t see Derby’s way back from here.
The administrators seemingly chose not to save the club in the long term during January but ran an incredibly high risk strategy of hoping that Rooney could save them from relegation with the current squad and therefore make them more attractive to buyers at the end of the season.
Didn’t Kirchner say he’s doing a Q&A tomorrow evening, or am I just imagining that? If so, I suspect a lot more will come out (although of course he would have signed an NDA so not the entire picture).
.> @Gary said:
Yes he is
I’ve inadvertently engaged with Derby fans on Twitter. Safe to say the current position is Morris is honourable. Wycombe and Middlesbrough evil.
Morris would do a great job at number 10 right now as his spin powers are amazing.
I've actually quit twitter. It's a vile horrible place and ultimately not great for your mental health haha. Facebook isn't great but slightly better imo
Facebook is just Twitter for Karens
What is this Karen thing? Heard it a few times recently
Think of someone you know who likes brunch and asks to see the manager if little Hugo's meal isn't cut into the correct sized bites.
Facebook isn't as abusive as twitter