His ultimate issue is his lack of pace. His style of play would require him to be significantly quicker if he were to be an impactful player at a higher level. He looks like he should be quick, but he just isn't. Stronger, faster, smarter defenders will have him in their back pocket. He could definitely join a more ambitious club in the Championship and find his way in the Premier League through promotion, or get a taste of European football by going to Rangers or Celtic, but if a Premier League team signs him, they will be making a mistake.

I think a poster on here, once trivialised this in the past, but here is an extract from the link posted above. So, assuming the article is accurate the owners have stated that Venky's overseas limited has been declared to the state bank of India, as a business that is trading in agriculture and mining and rearing of ducks and hens amongst other. That sounds to me, pretty much like fraud, but maybe that is an over reaction. The ED’s investigation revealed that VHPL had declared the business of VOL to the Reserve Bank of India as agriculture and mining, including rearing of ducks, hens, among others. No such business activity, however, was ever undertaken by VOL even after the lapse of over 11 years since its incorporation, said the ED sources.

As regards Rovers the ED have been over-ruled twice? now though and restrictions appear to be slowly relaxing rather than increasing, so unless something drastic changes in the meantime the Club are probably correct to assume a precedent has been set. We probably haven't found out yet the entirety of what Venky's the organisation are being investigated for. I suppose something major could theoretically come to light which would cause us problems. Equally the wider investigation could come to nothing. I'm not sure why these proceedings have not prompted the EFL to consider whether Venky's the owners are still "fit and proper owners" though. That happened to the guy at Reading as I recall. Presumably as long as the bills are still being paid there's no problem from their point of view.

I don't think the transfer moneys due have run out - because some of them have yet to be received. Per the club's accounts at 30 June 2024 there are football related debtors of £12.29m falling due more than 1 year after the date of the accounts - ie from 1 July 2025 onwards. Therefore I think we may be looking here at a short term cash flow problem which can be addressed by a short term loan from the bank.

ED seizes nine assets of Pune-based poultry major in FEMA probe | Mumbai news - Hindustan Times

Yep

You are very welcome. Glad you manged to sort it.

Not wanting to really start up this impediment argument all over again and it is the last I will EVER say on the matter, but I teach (as a hobby) a Spanish youth some English, so the meaning of certain words, is part of my every day life and does help him with his college work. We regularly refer to both the Oxford and Cambridge dictionaries, for clarification on words, as you can imagine, getting the meaning wrong, and translating it to from English to Spanish and vice versa, can prove to be important. The Oxford Dictionary meanings for both words is below. Inconvenient = A hindrance, trouble or difficulty Impediment = Something that interferes with a process, power or right.

ED were seemingly objecting to money being sent at all on the basis that the transfer would not comply with the Country's foreign exchange regulations and that the V's were still under investigation. Just as a reminder, what are ED investigating?

Ah - got it!. I've only just noticed that specific wording and the the numbering on the new order etc. 🤭 Thanks for your patience and concise explanations!

Apologies for quoting the same post twice but re the bit I’ve emboldened: A No Objection Certificate was issued for £15 million in March ‘24 - this was done without the court’s intervention. Persumably on that occasion the Venkys were willing to pay the guarantee in full and this time they weren’t.

On a very irregular basis

No, point 7 of the new order gives permission for the sum sought to be remitted to be sent , point one of the new order states the sum sought to be £4.85 million.

Impediment means to have a hindrance or obstruction in doing something and that is certainly the case with the bank and the NOC. I think the word inconvenient has a much less stringent meaning, as in, the need to send it to be checked first, before being given the green light. That in my view is inconvenient, but having to add 50% and previously 100% to any funding, in order to send it, is not an inconvenience but a pretty severe impediment.

I like the lad but he’s playing at his level at Rovers.

But it applies now I presume? So therefore they could send up to £11m over (if they wanted) with a 50% guarantee.

Here is how I see it… The bank guarantee is only an impediment if the Venkys aren’t willing to fund it. Evidence suggests they’re only willing to fund it when the situation absolutely forces them to do so. Ergo (imo) it’s an impediment.

It depends on your definition of "impediment". To me if you can send money over but have to jump through a few administrative hoops to do it - that's inconvenient, but not really an impediment. If you can't send money over because the Court have said no - now THAT'S an impediment. It seems at the moment the Court are allowing money to be sent. Maybe the "impediment" such as it is is not being able to get the Case heard due to time constraints? We seem to have been able to get the case heard fairly swiftly on this occasion though when we needed it.

I knew you were with it, but hopefully our conversation, has helped some people get a better grasp of it too, as it is a bit miss leading.

Agreed, I was just stating the appropriate stage will be dictated by when Venkys next drag themselves to court which may or may not be the date in August. I agree completely re the impediments by the way.

That's stating, the senior counsel for the petitioner (Venky's) want the requirement for a bank guarantee removing. For now it has been reduced to 50% hence two impediments remaining, until considered at an appropriate stage. They have spelt relieved wrong and it reads relived, but that can be forgiven, perhaps.

All of point 4 of the new order is cut and pasted from the 2023 order.

But hardly prolific!!

In which case, there is an short term 4.9m hole to plug. Ergo, player sales.

Thanks. I've managed to download the entire thing now. I found the judgment very unclear and a lot of the language used about the Club not being under suspicion etc and the monetary amounts were the same as at earlier hearings . However unless the judgment was simply citing the 2023 order for reference purposes, it looks to me as though it was ordered that they could send up to £11m again but with a 50% Bank Guarantee this time as opposed to a full one as previously. With a further hearing date due to decide whether the need for a guarantee can be completely removed altogether. The ED were seemingly objecting to money being sent at all on the basis that the transfer would not comply with the Country's foreign exchange regulations and that the V's were still under investigation but were seemingly over-ruled again. So it seemed to me that if we can actually get before the Court, they're not stopping money being sent over at this stage. What i found striking however was the fact that we're having to go back cap in hand to the Court already indicating the Wharton/ Szmodics/Raya money etc has run out. Also the amounts we claimed we needed on the previous occasion seem odd - unless I'm reading it wrong it's claimed the tax due on the wages was the same amount as the wages themselves. To be fair the £4.9m requested by Suhail this time round to cover 3 months equates to the £20m p.a. they've always claimed they sent over. Exactly where it's all going though bearing in mind the massive cost savings and cuts we've made over the last few years I've no idea.