MFC Response To EFL Statement On Derby County

DrummerMan

DrummerMan

Well-known member

Middlesbrough FC has welcomed the statement from the EFL, who have requested a meeting with the administrators of Derby County and the following stakeholders: the current highest bidder(s), Middlesbrough FC, Wycombe Wanderers FC, Mel Morris, MSD Partners and HMRC.​

MFC is available to attend any meeting, wherever or whenever this may be, just as we always have been.

MFC has always maintained that its claim against Derby County is a football related debt and that it should be treated as such. MFC welcomes the EFL’s confirmation that it shares this view. If the administrators believe that the EFL are not entitled to take this stance, MFC has offered to refer the matter to a judge to decide.

The administrators were appointed in September but have consistently refused to engage with MFC’s attempts to engage with them to reach a resolution. There are several letters from us which the administrators have ignored. MFC is extremely disappointed that this administration has not been concluded successfully and that the administrators have, instead, through the media, continuously sought to make scurrilous and unfounded suggestions that it is the claims of our club and Wycombe, and the EFL, that are preventing a successful outcome. It is not true and these statements are deeply unfair, not only to our club, but also to the Derby County supporters who deserve better.

There has been no suggestion that the administrators have reached an agreement with Derby County’s other main creditors. We believe that the administrators have a duty to the public to answer the questions we asked in our open letter of 20 January 2022. MFC understands that the debt owed to MSD is (i) personally guaranteed by Mr Morris and (ii) is secured against the stadium. This means that Mr Morris has agreed to pay the MSD debt if there is a shortfall. Is this correct? And, if so, what contribution is being sought from Mr Morris?

A significant focus of MFC’s claim against Derby County relates to the sale of Derby County’s stadium and the belief that it was done in a way which manipulated the Profit and Sustainability Rules. The same transaction is now a material reason why the administration cannot be resolved. MFC, and many other stakeholders in football, do not understand why the administrator refuses to acknowledge this problem and, instead, chooses to unfairly blame us, Wycombe and the EFL.

Source: https://www.mfc.co.uk/news/mfc-response-to-efl-statement-on-derby-county
 
MFC understands that the debt owed to MSD is (i) personally guaranteed by Mr Morris and (ii) is secured against the stadium. This means that Mr Morris has agreed to pay the MSD debt if there is a shortfall. Is this correct? And, if so, what contribution is being sought from Mr Morris?

Boom!
 
Mic dropped.

That's a powerful statement from Boro and backs the administrators into a corner to a certain extent.

I wouldn't be surprised to see Boro accept a pound in restitution as long as the rules are applied fairly and guilty parties appropriately punished. You get the feeling Boro do not care much about the money.
 
Judging by the replies on Twitter etc, the Derby fans still don't get it, and I don't think some of them ever will. But I don't blame them for lashing out and looking for scapegoats - it's deeply emotional and I don't think I'd be able to handle it any better if it were my club.
 
DrummerMan said:
these statements are deeply unfair, not only to our club, but also to the Derby County supporters who deserve better
Click to expand...
Oooh, I think it's the first time we've played the "actually we're the ones who really care about Derby" card. I doubt it'll land well, although the penny does seem to be dropping with Derby fans that the administrators are only in it for themselves.
 
I get the feeling with Gibson's reluctance in dropping this chase that either;
1) He has some smoking gun evidence that he will reveal if this gets to court, or
2) It's got too far to pull out now without him looking silly?

I don't think anyone wants Derby to be liquated and football should be played on the grass and not in court rooms but Gibson is not a stupid businessman and will be well informed and armed if this does indeed get to court.
 
Goodbye, Derby we pray for thee
You are black sheep of the family
You tried to cheat and you were wrong
Too many signings and too much pong
We knew you'd get found out all along
 
Chappy112 said:
It's quite impressive that Derby fans have made me and a lot of other football fans go from not wanting them to go out of business to not really giving a toss.

Seems that their approach is to try and upset and **** off as many people as possible :ROFLMAO:
Click to expand...
They are apparently thinking about purchasing billboards on the A66 to 'appeal' to Teessiders

We're all 100% behind Gibson - absolute idiots
 
Gibson raised this in 2019 and they ignored him, he has absoloutley no reason whatsoever to drop it.

Derby fans can blame him as much as he wants, if anything they should of heeded that as a warning as what was to come way back then, they didn't they enjoyed Frank Lampards Derby and reeping the spoils.

He also won't drop this due to the sheer ignorance of the EFL during that time since it was first mentioned, they should of really intervened a long time ago and made a statement such as this even when Derby weren't in administration.

The idea of Derby fans wanting us to listen to them in regards to putting pressure on our chairman is quite simply laughable and hypocritical, as mentioned Gibson raised this in 2019 to which they laughed it off and blissfuly carried out doing what they were doing. With Mel Morris memes with ourselves and the EFL on strings being an example (coincidentally on twitter).

To suggest that this has blown up due to Boro & Wycombes involvment is infuriating, all we've done is stood outside Pride Park in the shrugged shoulders position for nearly 3 years and haven't had any answers, just ridicolous, hypocritlcal and exasperating accusations in relation to holding up deals with potential investors.

The administators should take legal action against Mel Morris for not adhering to the policies in the interests of the company he's registered to run. (That's a bit wild obviously but I'm on one).
 
Why does the debt on PP, secured by MM, matter to the administrators? Derby FC don't own it.

Or is it 'cos it's a complicated mess and any potential buyers will want to secure PP (either bought or rented maybe)?
 
Biggz said:
Why does the debt on PP, secured by MM, matter to the administrators? Derby FC don't own it.

Or is it 'cos it's a complicated mess and any potential buyers will want to secure PP (either bought or rented maybe)?
Click to expand...
The latter I think. Who'd buy a football team with no ground to play at?
 
Pride Park is the biggest hurdle in my opinion. If someone takes over the stadium and buys it back at a cost of £20m it makes a total lie of the original sale and potentially could have given Derby a £120m advantage.
 
RedAsABeetroot said:
Pride Park is the biggest hurdle in my opinion. If someone takes over the stadium and buys it back at a cost of £20m it makes a total lie of the original sale and potentially could have given Derby a £120m advantage.
Click to expand...
I get this, and agree with it too... but the value of that stadium must be plummeting. What value does a stadium have if there isn't a team to play in it? Right now it's not worth £80mil.
 
Biggz said:
I get this, and agree with it too... but the value of that stadium must be plummeting. What value does a stadium have if there isn't a team to play in it? Right now it's not worth £80mil.
Click to expand...
Wasn't the £80m valuation supported by the fact that it had massive potential for uses other than football?
 
DrummerMan said:
MFC understands that the debt owed to MSD is (i) personally guaranteed by Mr Morris and (ii) is secured against the stadium. This means that Mr Morris has agreed to pay the MSD debt if there is a shortfall. Is this correct? And, if so, what contribution is being sought from Mr Morris?

Boom!
Click to expand...
So what ever Morris pays MSD he must pay every else the same figure (or pay them in full if it’s lower if debt owed to each party is lower )
 
Cousin_of_Fabio said:
Gibson raised this in 2019 and they ignored him, he has absoloutley no reason whatsoever to drop it.
Click to expand...
This is a key fact that is often overlooked, or people are unaware of.

Had the EFL enforced their own rules around FFP, thereby removing the need for Gibson threatening legal actions against them for not doing so, this whole mess would have been resolved far quicker and most likely left Derby in a more secure position.

Blaming Gibson for the rule breaking and for putting their club in such a financially catastrophic position, is perhaps understandable, because its a narrative that sits easier for Derby supporters given it's an ill that doesn't sit so close to home. A bit of objective soul searching I think is needed by a big section of their fan base.

The Boro and Wycome claims have been necessary because the EFL didn't act when they should of and the administrators seem to be hiding behind the Boro and Wycome litigation, which in monetary terms is a fraction of what is owed to other creditors.

They owe the HMRC over £40m, which is a far far bigger hurdle than the circa £7m that its widely reported that Boro and Wycome, before any other creditors are even considered.

I'm glad Boro are publicly defending their position on this, because there's been plenty of propaganda leaked into the media over the last few months.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top