Rooney gone!

[ramAnag]

The administrators are acting on behalf of the club as its de facto directors, thus everything that they do in connection with that role is in effect the club's doing.

I’m not doubting you for a moment, GP...but isn’t it true that these ‘de facto directors’ have been imposed upon the club, possibly (I’m not sure) by a combination of EFL insistence and Mel Morris’ ‘choice’ and that anything that has happened - financially speaking - since last September has been with their approval?

Can we - Derby County FC - really be held responsible in such circumstances? Surely IF any questionable deal of this nature took place it was between Quantuma and Stretford with the former’s approval.

[Andy_Faber]

Can we - Derby County FC - really be held responsible in such circumstances? Surely IF any questionable deal of this nature took place it was between Quantuma and Stretford with the former’s approval.

Back to the cold-heartedness of the law - yes we can

[Geoff Parkstone]

I need add no more to AF reply.

But note that your use of "we" in the context of the club is curiously inclusive!! DCFC is a seperate legal entity run by its administrators ever since they were appointed by the courts - ratifying the decision of the previous directors to appoint them.

It is debatable that the new shareholders could possibly claim against the administrators for professional negligence if this is demonstrable in eg failing to get a deposit from CK or accepting funds they should have known were tainted (if they could prove loss) but hey will have PI insurance against this. Also they are likely to seek hold harmless agreements from the buyers anyway.

There is possibly an argument that the company (club et al) could sue their own administrators on same basis, but I dont recall hearing of it

[Andy_Faber]

I need add no more to AF reply.

But note that your use of "we" in the context of the club is curiously inclusive!! DCFC is a seperate legal entity run by its administrators ever since they were appointed by the courts - ratifying the decision of the previous directors to appoint them.

It is debatable that the new shareholders could possibly claim against the administrators for professional negligence if this is demonstrable in eg failing to get a deposit from CK or accepting funds they should have known were tainted (if they could prove loss) but hey will have PI insurance against this. Also they are likely to seek hold harmless agreements from the buyers anyway.

There is possibly an argument that the company (club et al) could sue their own administrators on same basis, but I dont recall hearing of it

I was going to say the same

IF I was selling a house under residential property laws and a buyer pulled out after exchange, and my solicitors had ommitted to secure the 10% I would be well and truly on their case. However, not sure what the rules are on business sales and purchases