nogbad van 50

Nowt like Derby fans to wait 2 years for someone to save the club and decide they don’t want him cause they feel hurt that he ‘snubbed us’ but came back in.
 

Pure speculation on your part. The facts aren’t known, the reasons for decisions made are not known. It’s just that certain posters have decided that what they believe has happened, has really occurred.

CK is the only bid to be accepted, he his a sporting man for his company sponsors top golf tournaments, and i can see Rooney and CK having a good working relationship in the interest of your club Derby County give him a chance be happy, for again he his the only one who as come up with the cash.
Rooney has implied that he will be staying with the club under CK ownership, so let look forward to the next chapter in Derby county's history, not having ago at you Roy, what do you think CK will think of the negativity on this forum against him when reading these pages when his investment is trying to save the club. COYR

I’m not the one questioning the situation I’ll leave that to all the others as they seem to know best .
I haven’t 100 percent confidence in anything DCFC at the moment how could I but it’s about practicalities in our situation and CK is the preferred bidder and whilst ever he is trying to buy us I’ll back him as there is no other suitors who showed they wanted the club enough re Appleby or Ashley.

Got it. Thanks Rich.

There you go Col
 
“Implications for creditors
Under the new rules, unsecured creditors must receive a minimum of:
25p in the pound, paid on takeover of the clubs’ assets by the purchaser, or
35p in the pound, paid within three years.
Failure to meet this requirement will result in a further 15-point penalty the following season.
Whilst unsecured creditors will welcome this measure, it may put off would-be purchasers. It is also currently unclear how this minimum repayment rule will relate to the ‘prescribed part’ – the ring fenced fund set aside for unsecured creditors of any company out of the net floating charge realisations.
Creditors will also welcome the abolition of the requirement to exit administration by Company Voluntary Arrangement (CVA). Instead, the club’s share in The Football League may now pass to the purchaser, subject to certain requirements. This certainty of continuation in the league should reduce the insolvency period and the associated costs. It should also deliver a better overall return for creditors by increasing the number of potential purchasers, rather than a CVA process largely controlled by the club’s previous owners.
The controversial ‘Football Creditors Rule’ remains unchanged, despite running contrary to normal principles of insolvency law, including the pari
passu rule that all unsecured creditors should be paid an equal percentage of their debt. The Football Creditors Rule bypasses the statutory order of priority by requiring full repayment of debts to clubs and players for transfers and wages, before any other unsecured creditors.  The justification for the rule is that it ensures the continuation of business in league football.  Other creditors will, however, take some comfort from the new minimum returns required for unsecured creditors.”

There you go Col
 
“Implications for creditors
Under the new rules, unsecured creditors must receive a minimum of:
25p in the pound, paid on takeover of the clubs’ assets by the purchaser, or
35p in the pound, paid within three years.
Failure to meet this requirement will result in a further 15-point penalty the following season.
Whilst unsecured creditors will welcome this measure, it may put off would-be purchasers. It is also currently unclear how this minimum repayment rule will relate to the ‘prescribed part’ – the ring fenced fund set aside for unsecured creditors of any company out of the net floating charge realisations.
Creditors will also welcome the abolition of the requirement to exit administration by Company Voluntary Arrangement (CVA). Instead, the club’s share in The Football League may now pass to the purchaser, subject to certain requirements. This certainty of continuation in the league should reduce the insolvency period and the associated costs. It should also deliver a better overall return for creditors by increasing the number of potential purchasers, rather than a CVA process largely controlled by the club’s previous owners.
The controversial ‘Football Creditors Rule’ remains unchanged, despite running contrary to normal principles of insolvency law, including the pari
passu rule that all unsecured creditors should be paid an equal percentage of their debt. The Football Creditors Rule bypasses the statutory order of priority by requiring full repayment of debts to clubs and players for transfers and wages, before any other unsecured creditors.  The justification for the rule is that it ensures the continuation of business in league football.  Other creditors will, however, take some comfort from the new minimum returns required for unsecured creditors.”

There you go Col
 
“Implications for creditors
Under the new rules, unsecured creditors must receive a minimum of:
25p in the pound, paid on takeover of the clubs’ assets by the purchaser, or
35p in the pound, paid within three years.
Failure to meet this requirement will result in a further 15-point penalty the following season.
Whilst unsecured creditors will welcome this measure, it may put off would-be purchasers. It is also currently unclear how this minimum repayment rule will relate to the ‘prescribed part’ – the ring fenced fund set aside for unsecured creditors of any company out of the net floating charge realisations.
Creditors will also welcome the abolition of the requirement to exit administration by Company Voluntary Arrangement (CVA). Instead, the club’s share in The Football League may now pass to the purchaser, subject to certain requirements. This certainty of continuation in the league should reduce the insolvency period and the associated costs. It should also deliver a better overall return for creditors by increasing the number of potential purchasers, rather than a CVA process largely controlled by the club’s previous owners.
The controversial ‘Football Creditors Rule’ remains unchanged, despite running contrary to normal principles of insolvency law, including the pari
passu rule that all unsecured creditors should be paid an equal percentage of their debt. The Football Creditors Rule bypasses the statutory order of priority by requiring full repayment of debts to clubs and players for transfers and wages, before any other unsecured creditors.  The justification for the rule is that it ensures the continuation of business in league football.  Other creditors will, however, take some comfort from the new minimum returns required for unsecured creditors.”

Thank god ! The EFL have got our back. I feel better already ?

Who is your preference out of the masses of potential new owners who submitted acceptable bids?? 

Cant see why they have to stick their noses in, he hasnt chopped anybodies heads or hand off has he. At the end of the day dont they get it we could have been liquidated, anybody that can save our club is welcome in my eyes.

Who cares what they say ? ,they’re not Derby fans.

Who cares what they say ? ,they’re not Derby fans.

Who cares what they say ? ,they’re not Derby fans.

Who cares what they say ? ,they’re not Derby fans.

????????

I take it you are being sarcastic. 

You missed the ending of that quote. "Mother, put down that brick."

We need to get behind this guy, we have been waiting for a PB for months, he may not be the 1st choice for all of us, however, if he saves our beloved DCFC we should all give him our support.
Who knows what else will happen in the next few weeks, but this is the first bit of confirmed positive news we have had in months so let's stick together as we have done all season.

None of us know what the deals at Preston were like. Could be as soon as he looked under the kilt it was obviously not for him! I think decisiveness is a positive attribute. If you are making an error the sooner you know and can react.

Ironic Sinclair’s involved after being convicted for racism and urinating in a police car in 2017/18

Have you not considered that maybe he was serious about Preston but after looking at what the'd get for his money, he considered Derby was the better option?
For all their history, Preston will always struggle to attract big crowds due to their location. If he could get them to the PL, they'd need heavy ongoing investment to stay there (in much the same way Wigan did). Conversely, Derby could be self-sustaining as a PL club and provide a far bigger re-sale value if he decides to cash in on his investement in the future....

I genuinely couldn’t care less about being docked more points next season, which league we’re playing in, what CK may have tweeted some 10 years ago, or any of that.
I just want to still have a club to support when all is said and done. Everything else is noise. 

If he did that, I think he would speak very highly of the Rams

Not worried about the names of the food in the concourse. Think beggars can't be choosers comes to mind.