Alan Nixon Breaks Silence on American Billionaire Bid

[RoyMac5]

57 minutes ago, ossieram said:

It's a good job some of our other owners haven't been as sensitive or the courts would have been very busy. 

I would doubt that, I think it's more down to 'anonymous' posters thinking they can say what they like and stuff the consequences. #keyboardwarriors

[Gee SCREAMER !!]

8 hours ago, Coconut's Beard said:

They could, but in reality were never going to. As I said weeks ago the notion that we'd tell these clubs to 'do one' was pure in the sky and no matter how nonsensical the claims appear to us they will need to be dealt with pre-sale, nobody is going to dish out £50m+ to buy a club if there's any lingering doubt whatsoever about further legal action and multi-million pound payouts.

That's an easy gamble to take when it's not your money. Are you 100% certain of the above and willing to risk millions of pounds? Just because every logical conclusion we can come up with points towards their cases having no merit doesn't necessarily mean that's how it would play out. Been there, been screwed over by that.

How many times did we go over all the P&S stuff? How many conclusions based on logic saw us getting away without points deductions? How many people saw the judgement of the first disciplinary panel, thought through all the logic and were sure that the EFL's appeal would fall flat on its face? 

Other clubs aren't going to step in and help us out, they're all in it for themselves. This is where it's common to mention the possibility of us paying money to these leeches opening a can of worms for other similar claims, but does that truly hold up to scrutiny? 

One difference between these two claims against us and any potential claims people think it would open up for us (or others) is that we're seen to have deliberately hidden our real outgoings over a number of years. Yes other clubs have shown a more flagrant disregard for the rules but because they've been open about it they've been punished 'accordingly' (pah!) and on time.

Ultimately our messing about over amortisation and our not filing accounts on time makes us appear to be the ones responsible for the failure to punish us in any of the last 2-3 seasons (while we point the finger at Boro and the EFL for delaying things), and that's why others think they have a case against us but nobody else is worried about it setting a precedent.

We can't claim against QPR, Villa, Bournemouth if their punishments were applied at the earliest opportunity and they've done nothing to disguise their spending. 

...and there's that logic again; logic would surely dictate that someone who has disregarded completely and outright broken the rules should be treated more harshly than someone who's tried to stay within the rules but find a way to work around them, but how has that worked out for us so far?

Of course they are.   How many others are hiding their poo under the bush.  Thats the biggest hand to play, they won't want this going as far as court proceedings. 

[PistoldPete]

27 minutes ago, Coconut's Beard said:

 

a) I haven't misunderstood anything, I'm just pointing out that not everything goes as you'd always anticipate it, regardless of whether that's EFL law or civil law; the term "miscarriage of justice" exists for a reason. 

b) It's evident that the claims are being taken more seriously by the admin than they are by you. They're the ones who are communicating with the prospective new owners and know what needs to be done before a final deal is struck but it seems you know better.

If a new owner was willing to buy us with this loose end unsewn why are they taking so long to look at the claims? Why are they even considering paying out?

You can keep burying your head in the sand, keep on believing that the claims against us aren't a large detriment to the timescale or massively off-putting to the new owners, but at this point you're just ignoring what's in front of you.

If a deal does go through before this situation is resolved I'll hold my hands up and say you were right.

c) again you've totally missed my point. I'm not saying our conduct was more  egregious than others, I agree that it's the kind of crap we've had to listen to from other fans... but that is the perception of us whether it's fair or not.

I'm not saying we deserve it. I'm just trying to find a reason why the claims against us are being entertained despite us (correctly) pointing out that they should be claiming against the EFL and despite us pointing out the can of worms it could open. 

If it was as simple as you try to make out it would already have been dealt with.

I think your earlier post suggested we were deliberately hiding our FFP breaches . That was what Efl claimed in the hearing to decide on our penalty . That allegation was thrown out by the Dc . Which is why we only got a £100k fine.
 

so if we were not hiding anything but others like QPR were more blatant and deliberate ,( they just thought the rules shouldn’t apply to them.) then doesn’t it make you think why should we be sued and not qpr?

[Gaspode]

57 minutes ago, Tyler Durden said:

Their role is also the dissemination of information and updates you agree?

Doesn't matter if you don't tbf. 

I think they have a very specific job - communication is to be welcomed but shouldn't be expected......ands when they try to be open, it seems they simply leave themsleves open to criticism from those fans that mistakenly feel they 'deserve' more or else don't understand that the administrattors are working in a fluid situation where things can change.....

[Tyler Durden]

50 minutes ago, Gaspode said:

I think they have a very specific job - communication is to be welcomed but shouldn't be expected......ands when they try to be open, it seems they simply leave themsleves open to criticism from those fans that mistakenly feel they 'deserve' more or else don't understand that the administrattors are working in a fluid situation where things can change.....

Not sure why you consider fans whom are seeking accurate information to be entitled but think we're on totally different pages.

[NottsRam]

5 hours ago, MackworthRamIsGod said:

The EFL will wait to see what plays out between Boro, Wycombe and Derby and yes they will be loving it.

Immediately after a settlement is reached the EFL will create new rules stopping clubs from charging each other, IE: us charging QPR and Villa.

 

But surely, if as they keep claiming, they are doing all in their power to help the administrators facilitate a suitable exit path from administration, they should be saying to Boro and Wycombe 'ok you've made your point, now leave it be'.  The silence from the EFL on the subject smacks of twisting the knife a little further if this is indeed a sticking point for any takeover.  I think the Supporters Groups need to be lobbying the EFL on this and demanding some sort of statement on their stance.

[Inverurie Ram]

Sing up........

 

[Gaspode]

32 minutes ago, Tyler Durden said:

Not sure why you consider fans whom are seeking accurate information to be entitled but think we're on totally different pages.

I deliberately didn't use the phrase 'entitled' because I knew it would cause people to get emotive - but the reason we don't have a right to know anything is that the vast majority don't have any (to coin a phrase) skin in the game. At the end of the day we're just customers of the club - however deeply we care (and however much we want to know what's going on), we're not on the list of creditors so don't have a right to know anything.....

[Bobby]

2 hours ago, PistoldPete said:

I think your earlier post suggested we were deliberately hiding our FFP breaches . That was what Efl claimed in the hearing to decide on our penalty . That allegation was thrown out by the Dc . Which is why we only got a £100k fine.
 

so if we were not hiding anything but others like QPR were more blatant and deliberate ,( they just thought the rules shouldn’t apply to them.) then doesn’t it make you think why should we be sued and not qpr?

Because it isn’t within the legal timeframe, it was over 7 years ago.

[PistoldPete]

40 minutes ago, Bobby said:

Because it isn’t within the legal timeframe, it was over 7 years ago.

What is the legal timeframe for disputes under the Efl rules?

[MackworthRamIsGod]

19 minutes ago, PistoldPete said:

What is the legal timeframe for disputes under the Efl rules?

Well it takes them 2 years to reach the outcome they want so I think its anyone's guess.

[Tyler Durden]

1 hour ago, Gaspode said:

I deliberately didn't use the phrase 'entitled' because I knew it would cause people to get emotive - but the reason we don't have a right to know anything is that the vast majority don't have any (to coin a phrase) skin in the game. At the end of the day we're just customers of the club - however deeply we care (and however much we want to know what's going on), we're not on the list of creditors so don't have a right to know anything.....

Surely someone who mistakenly thinks they deserve more is a synonym for being entitled?

This is a dictionary definition of the phrase entitled :- believing oneself to be inherently deserving of privileges or special treatment.

So you may not have documented the word entitled but the phrase you used is damnedest an equivalent for it. 

Whatever weasel words you use if someone has the temerity to request accurate information and that makes them entitled then we use different lexicons. 

 

[Gaspode]

9 minutes ago, Tyler Durden said:

Surely someone who mistakenly thinks they deserve more is a synonym for being entitled?

This is a dictionary definition of the phrase entitled :- believing oneself to be inherently deserving of privileges or special treatment.

So you may not have documented the word entitled but the phrase you used is damnedest an equivalent for it. 

Whatever weasel words you use if someone has the temerity to request accurate information and that makes them entitled then we use different lexicons. 

 

Weasel words? - good grief, I was trying not to be confrontational - though I appreciate that's not in your nature....

Whatever words I used, you're still not entitled to an update......

 

[RAM1966]

9 hours ago, G STAR RAM said:

If MM did not show the EFL our accounts, how did they know that we had used a different amortisation policy out of interest?

Up to 2018 accounts were using said amortisation policy!

[Tyler Durden]

8 minutes ago, Gaspode said:

Weasel words? - good grief, I was trying not to be confrontational - though I appreciate that's not in your nature....

Whatever words I used, you're still not entitled to an update......

 

I wasn't trying to be confrontational either, the phrase weasel words is an informal term for words or statements that are intentionally ambiguous.

I would say the same to anyone who labels or pigeonholes a person with a negative outlook a wrist slasher, positive a happy clapper and so on, so nothing personal at all. 

[Crewton]

2 hours ago, Bobby said:

Because it isn’t within the legal timeframe, it was over 7 years ago.

That's a moot point, because most limitations on legal action rely on the clock starting from the point at which an event should have been reasonably apparent, or from when a loss should reasonably have been noticed. QPR didn't accept liability until some time in 2016, though I'm not sure whether their breach would be classed as a 3 yr or 6 yr limitation.

As I've mentioned before though, I distinctly remember MM rejecting the possibility that we might sue QPR, in a radio interview. I bet he regrets that now.

[Eddie]

7 hours ago, Curtains said:

He goes to loads of Derby County matches .

So he’s a Derby fan 

I can distinctly remember standing next to and chatting with Peter Gadsby at Newport in about 1985.

[ariotofmyown]

20 minutes ago, Eddie said:

I can distinctly remember standing next to and chatting with Peter Gadsby at Newport in about 1985.

So he's a Newport fan then?

[Bobby]

16 minutes ago, Crewton said:

That's a moot point, because most limitations on legal action rely on the clock starting from the point at which an event should have been reasonably apparent, or from when a loss should reasonably have been noticed. QPR didn't accept liability until some time in 2016, though I'm not sure whether their breach would be classed as a 3 yr or 6 yr limitation.

As I've mentioned before though, I distinctly remember MM rejecting the possibility that we might sue QPR, in a radio interview. I bet he regrets that now.

Okay thanks for the reply, I’m not here to be confrontational, been reading this site for a fair few years (along with most championship sites ) and quite recently have seen QPR mentioned a few times. Not that it helps any I don’t think any team should be suing another. 
I still have nightmares about QPR’s administration and relegation to the third tier in 2001, we had 5 registered players at the start of the following season, had a total rebuild and after 3 seasons got back into the championship.

I can still remember our “rich owners” stitching Derby up with exorbitant ticket prices as you’d just been relegated and deemed to be a category A game.

many of us weren’t happy when Tony Fernandes started buying players we couldn’t afford as if they were panini stickers and I think the other clubs are right to be ducked off with the way our club went.

it’s taken a few years but we are now doing things correctly and are just starting to reap the rewards. However I expect if we don’t go up this year then our young starts will be sold and we’ll have to start the cycle again.

Hope you get a new owner (pay HMRC off) and become competitive again.

merry Christmas to you all.

[I know nuffin]

3 hours ago, Gaspode said:

I deliberately didn't use the phrase 'entitled' because I knew it would cause people to get emotive - but the reason we don't have a right to know anything is that the vast majority don't have any (to coin a phrase) skin in the game. At the end of the day we're just customers of the club - however deeply we care (and however much we want to know what's going on), we're not on the list of creditors so don't have a right to know anything.....

Don't forget part of the administrators job is to try to make sure the company is viable going forward. Fans make the company viable that's why administration talk to them. However they have to be careful in what they say because of the nature of their job - trying to get creditors to accept less thanks they are owed