Alan Nixon Breaks Silence on American Billionaire Bid

[Eatonram]

It is hard to see how they can deemed Football creditors. There is no contract or invoice, they have not sold or loaned us a player, never been employed and owed wages, as such there is no outstanding debt to either Club. It is a speculative claim for unproven "damages". A strong owner, backed by substantial funds and a good at business will not be put off by this I feel sure. This seems to be backed up by the fact that more than one party were as of yesterday, still increasing their bids to buy the Club. 

Beating Cov in the Cup and drawing Boro would be good.

[SBW]

11 minutes ago, B4ev6is said:

We cant get another points dudction that's all been settled now mate.

Depends on the CVA mate, which I believe in simple terms, means we have to leave administration having paid the creditors accordingly, else it would mean -15 next season. 

[Tyler Durden]

5 minutes ago, Ramarena said:

I suppose it could also be £9,999,999

No mention of decimal places either.

[Sparkle]

14 minutes ago, B4ev6is said:

We cant get another points dudction that's all been settled now mate.

We can for next season if we don’t agree a CVA 

[Sparkle]

9 minutes ago, Ramarena said:

I suppose it could also be £9,999,999

Hmm let me take a guess 

[PistoldPete]

31 minutes ago, sage said:

If you were taking over Derby would you...

 

a) offer Boro £3m and Wycombe £1m shake down money and gurry the process along with certainty

or

b) say...see you in court with a 2-3% chance of losing £50m and £5m? 

I think you overstimate the chances of us losing that amount of money. Even if we lost the cases, even if they were deemed to be football creditors , they would still not get anything like the sums they are claiming.

The sums would have to be watered down because of the uncertainty that whatever alleged wrongdoing by Derby it would actually have made  the difference? For example, in Boro's case it seems very unlikely to me they would have got through the playoffs in the form they were in and up against the best two teams the Championship has seen in several years, Leeds and Villa.  And finally reduced because of contributory negligence by the EFL themselves. In Wycombe's case there was also the fact that Boro delayed the penalty being applied to Derby becasue of their trying to muscle in on the EFL's own action.   

[atherstoneram]

59 minutes ago, Andicis said:

Trusting Mel is another reason not to trust Simon Jordan! 

The vast majority on here also trusted Mel.

[Ramifications]

Mr Nixon is saying on his twitter that it's not Mike Ashley. 

[Gee SCREAMER !!]

54 minutes ago, Sparkle said:

So if I am understanding this correctly then someone has offered £1 million pounds more to take hold of the club 

also the administrators are saying any claims from Middlesbrough and Wycombe are not football creditors but the the EFL are suggesting they are ? 
it’s no wonder a deal can’t get sorted. 
the behaviour of Middlesbrough and Wycombe is incredulous and Middlesbrough are placing themselves at the top of my do not like list replacing dirty leeds whilst irrelevant Wycombe need to give themselves a slap. 

I thought they said it was a civil matter and washed their hands of it.  If they are saying there a football creditor the only way to settle this is in court and take them along for the ride for allowing other clubs to ignore there own cannot sue process

[sage]

15 minutes ago, PistoldPete said:

I think you overstimate the chances of us losing that amount of money. Even if we lost the cases, even if they were deemed to be football creditors , they would still not get anything like the sums they are claiming.

The sums would have to be watered down because of the uncertainty that whatever alleged wrongdoing by Derby it would actually have made  the difference? For example, in Boro's case it seems very unlikely to me they would have got through the playoffs in the form they were in and up against the best two teams the Championship has seen in several years, Leeds and Villa.  And finally reduced because of contributory negligence by the EFL themselves. In Wycombe's case there was also the fact that Boro delayed the penalty being applied to Derby becasue of their trying to muscle in on the EFL's own action.   

Thank goodness no one replied with a pedantic literal answer instead of debating the general quandary. 

Phew

[IslandExile]

https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/imminent 

"Esp. something unpleasant"

 

[Rammy03]

 

[RoyMac5]

 

 

[RadioactiveWaste]

It's going to be DCI Ian Buckles isn't it?

[Crewton]

Like others have said, those vultures are not Football Creditors until their claim is validated. If the EFL truly are saying "they have a case" they are going against their own rules and are setting themselves up for a counter claim if a new owner with the chops to do it thinks its worthwhile. 

So much for remaining neutral in inter-club disputes ?

[Crewton]

1 minute ago, RadioactiveWaste said:

It's going to be DCI Ian Buckles isn't it?

Join the Dots... 

[Archied]

1 hour ago, kash_a_ram_a_ding_dong said:

B)tell them to baalocks or we will never see the end of such opportunistic,speculative claims from every dodgy punter out there.

Jeez kash ,don’t you just long for the days when all we had to worry about was whether Chris Martin was god or the devil??‍♂️

[Tyler Durden]

Norman Hull got to be 

[B4ev6is]

49 minutes ago, SBW said:

Depends on the CVA mate, which I believe in simple terms, means we have to leave administration having paid the creditors accordingly, else it would mean -15 next season. 

No club can not be charge twice for same offence mate that's how Birmingham city got away with it last time.

[Ruud Aralliss]

Been catching up on the thread this afternoon and Wow what a rollercoaster ride. 
Plateaued for a bit, then dived into the depths of disparity, then out of the blue a surge in hopeful positivity, then back to the stability of the unsure.

I need a beer!

 Oh yeah, merry Christmas everyone!