A clear and concise statement is required from the club, instead of the one that is current subject to interpretation. Something along the lines of: After todays court appeal, it has now been agreed that the bond required is 50% of the amount used to fund the club. The owners intend to fund £20m and are therefore prepared to out a £10m bond up to do so. This means the club can meet it's financial obligations and also have an amount to help ensure we have a squad, capable of challenging at the right end of the league. Does that not seem far better than "There is no legal impediment in the owners funding the club?

Thanks. Either way it just has to be a really big problem for them. More so when it goes on for year after year. When Waggott says it has no bearing on the financing of the club, he can’t possibly know that’s correct. Honesty with the (dwindling number) of fans doesn’t exist with this lot. If it’s a problem, say it is.

It's mind blowing the levels of stupidity at Ewood, filling the Riverside at the cost of a packed BBE both kills the atmosphere and pretty much results in a net reduction on ticket sales turnover. Not to mention the resulting reduction in sales of beer, food, etc.

Like i said at the beginning they're playing musical seats with the same fans instead of making a genuine attempt to draw more in. People swapping stands to save 50/100 quid plus isn't going to improve takings is it nor will it improve the atmosphere. likely the opposite. Think as the mince sitting vacuum packed on ASDA shelves this lot are.

That would be the difference i suspect between bond and guarantee, one being actual funds held separate the other provided by their bank against something. Nobody seems to know although i suppose it could be a combination of the two. Either way and i'm not defending them here it's a difficult one because it either burdens the company with potential debt that it normally just loses in the books. Or it ties up massive liquidity personal or otherwise, 10/20 million a time is a stretch for anyone if it's ongoing in that form.

Leicester charged with PSR breaches https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://talksport.com/football/3220548/leicester-city-psr-charges-points-deduction/%23:~:text%3DThe%20three%20new%20alleged%20transgressions,assistance%20to%20the%20Premier%20League.&ved=2ahUKEwiE0a3s4LGNAxUzVkEAHalsA34QFnoECBQQBQ&sqi=2&usg=AOvVaw33TXIOwk_S8lscqEQIcW96

My point would be that that is still contradictory to Suhail and Waggott's statements as to there not being an impediment. If their legal appeal is that the guarantee is an impediment to funding the club then we as fans have a right to argue that as well, and therefore Suhail did lie when he said there is no impediment (technicalities notwithstanding). And the yearly accounts clearly show the drop of in funding as a consequence of the court case being brought against Venkys. As to whether the removal of the guarantee would increase our funding, that also seems unlikely... As I said above, they ought to be able to afford £40m a year to continue the alleged £20m funding and the matched £20m bond, unless they are in serious financial difficulty.

Is the guarantee demanded in cash rather than just a written guarantee. Anyone know?

Exactly, let's be realistic he is a barrister trying to persuade the court to lift the restriction. He's hardly going to stand in front of the judge and say it would be good if you could lift this, it's not really a problem but would be nice if you did. Of course he's going to be passionate, beg and lay it on as thick as possible. Any barrister worth their salt would. Waggott and Co have been very careful in how they've worded the no impediment thing, as legally, there is no impediment or restriction. The issue is they need to match every £ with the same amount in a bond / guarantee. So legally they can send as much money as they like, practically it makes it very difficult for them financially.

Hahaha 😆 I remember that time he ran, that was quality 👌

It was always very cleverly worded by Waggott and as usual just a smokescreen, to yet again, hoodwink the fans into believe that everything is okay and the wonderful owners we have, will continue to fund us. Some, of the fans, accepted the no impediment line, but some knew better and saw that there was one huge impediment and here we have it today, confirmed in court that we were yet again, lied to.

Across a squad it's not that many for training, getting up and down as a keeper is exhausting so any finishing drills will need at least 2 keepers rotating in and out, you don't want that to be your numbers 1 and 2 as they'll blow a physical gasket

As flagged in the September hearing, what Pasha and Waggott are saying to fans/media is the total opposite from what Venky's are arguing in court. They say no impediment to funding, lawyers say there is an "immense financial burden". Elliott Jackson needs to call that out as at the moment he's taking the club's word for it that the bond is no issue for Venky's despite all evidence to the contrary.

Travis - Why Does It Always Rain On Me?

Season tickets back on sale this morning with the price hike. Club reckons they have sold over 8k, looking at the seat map it doesn't look anywhere near that. They have killed the Blackburn End, loads of good empty seats that would have been snapped up usually, looks to be around 50% full. Sad times.

Come on, he's trying to get restrictions lifted altogether - he's hardly likely to argue in Court they aren't really a problem! In reality there ISNT any real impediment to funding as it stands now - they merely have to cover monies sent with other funds which would merely affect their liquidity at the Bank a bit - but only if they're down to their last £20m or so. My guessing is they still won't send any funds even if any and all restrictions are lifted.

Please please can we not refer to how selling a player will provide more transfer funds. It won't as has been proved - simply being pocketed by Venkys. Would keep anyone that isn't a bad influence just as a body. Trading players is not giving us anything back financially.

I agree I don’t mind hedges, along as there is someone better in front of him 👍

I must admit he did look wiling to assume the position 😁😁

They will get desperate because in usual fashion they've left it to chance let it rumble on and now go into panic mode because at some point in the near future the club will run out of money. All that has been obvious all along to all but the Venky cheerleaders in the fanbase. That means panic sales, expensive external borrowings etc OR they have to pay the tariff to send money OR ...SELL ! I cannot see this ending well for anyone tbh unless the judge bends over.

This one is a new ‘appeal’ with the sole intention of removing the guarantee requirement. It’s at the top of the queue as the listing system starts with new matters, then goes on to ongoing matters and then final matters. How a final hearing ever gets heard is beyond me!

I might be wrong, but isn't the one in August a different case to this and still scheduled?

If they managed to rush this to the front of the queue when it was arranged for August maybe things are even worse than we thought behind the scenes. The noise around the women's team finances, back office staff redundancies and then the larger than expected released list further strengthens the view.

I'd say it's because it then stands as a 200 million investment on the company portfolio that will guarantee a return when - IF- it ever reaches the Prem. Even Venkys will have to answer to their own bankers etc occasionally and despite how it's run like on a whim the club is actually a company investment not a personal one.

I'm amazed about that really, I thought they would trigger him and Vale just to have bodies around for pre season before shipping them both out again. The retained list seems a bit more ruthless than usual, which I am a fan of. I'm glad we are getting no return on him, pointless at this club. I'm not a huge fan of Hedges, but he's a much better option that Markanday.