• Railcar8095@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    13 hours ago

    No, there was no 5.25 in credit. I’m happy to see any source for that claim though.

    There was some future payments promised and a better than usual split for some families, so they “valued” the bid at 7 million.

    • booly
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      10 hours ago

      There was some future payments promised

      It’s not future payments promised. Just a division of who to split the proceeds with. And so for the typical creditor who didn’t credit bid, The Onion’s bid was worth the equivalent of a $7 million cash bid, and therefore was more valuable than the Jones affiliates’ $3.5 million cash bid.

      It’s just math. The Onion bid was higher, and the judge said that the losing bid should’ve been given an opportunity to improve the bid to get a chance to win, and maybe raise even more money.

      • Railcar8095@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 hour ago

        Murray valued it at that amount, it didn’t have that real value. Even future payments were a percentage of profits and but not guaranteed.

        That equivalence is only theoretical, not real. If you think they can write "it’s 7 million but I let you hav 5.75, then we can have the bid at 99 trillions! Why not? They can just say they only Want 1.25.

    • user134450@feddit.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      13 hours ago

      a better than usual split for some families

      That is exactly what counts as credit in this case, because this split is made possible by some other families crediting the bid. Basically writing “i dont want this money give it to someone else” on a figurative piece of paper and bidding with that instead of cash.