Absolutely

Whichever side of the fence you sit on, the outcome is no investment in the squad from the owners. I think we can universally agree on that.

It’s all semantics really isn’t it. I think the important thing is they shouldn’t be allowed to use these hindrances as an excuse for not funding the club properly. Yes, as you say, they exist, but no they do not prevent them from fulfilling their obligations to the club. If they don’t want to do this properly they should just fuck off.

Just seen Derby county just offered 2 year deal to Forsyth at 36. Be the oldest squad in the championship

Not hard to read. It’s a well articulated post and thanks for making it.

This is what iv'e been saying all along so i'm glad someone else has mentioned it, true or not. Some have really odd takes on the wages this club is now paying they seem to assume everyone is on 10-20k a week and if someone rejects a contract offer or doesn't get one it's because they are a greedy so and so. They really haven't been paying attention to what has been going on over the last 3 years that has led us to this point. Even if he's on 5-7k a week Dolan has every right to ask for double that and i think he should be on a reasonable Championship salary it would be an investment. There is no way on earth at this club he went from £300 or so a week to 7-10k but it's ok football manager style estimates say he did 🤪 So if he was indeed offered a double his money deal 18 months ago and he said no then now we know why.

I can see where he is coming from too, but as most posters know, impediment is just another word for conditions and as most also know there are conditions to be met. Yes they can meet them and send the funds, but it does not mean that they don’t exist.

I can see where @Forever Blue is coming from with this because, whilst there are restrictions, it is not outside of Venky’s’ control to meet them. Yes they’ve hoops to jump through but it is entirely within their hands as to whether they do so or not. Re the court permission, for reasons I’ve set out before, I don’t think they need this anymore unless they’re wanting to try and get the conditions changed as well.

That would give us 8 centre mids, you just can't keep that many players happy for 2 places.

Just in case anyone is interested (oh and hello Elliott 🙋‍♂️😁) During the course of the court proceedings the Venkys attorney has filed 5 affidavits. The first was on the 20th June 2023 and I believe was in relation to them setting out their initial case for funds to be sent. The second was on the 15th November 2023 - 15 days after a court order gave them permission to send £11 million (subject, amongst other things, to such an affidavit being lodged confirming the intended use of the funds) The third was on the 2nd January 2024 - I cannot explain this one. The fourth was on the 11th March 2024 - just one day before a No Objection Certificate was issued (without a court date but presumably in light of the Venkys meeting the court’s conditions, including the filing of an affidavit). The final one was on the 16th June - 21 days after the court agreed to funds being sent with the bond reduced (but the affidavit requirement remaining). Anyone still reading??😁 In relation to the allotting on shares with regards to these monies… The first sum authorised by the court (before the requirement to file an affidavit was added) was £3.54 million on the 23rd June 2023. On 14th October 2024 £3.685 million of shares were allotted in Venkateshwara London a limited (the company which owns the training ground). The second sum authorised by the court was on 31st October 2023 for £11 Million. On the 19th March 2024 £11 million of shares were allotted in Venkys London Limited. I believe, but clearly can’t be certain, these two payments and share allotments are related. That would leave the £15 million from March 2024 and the more recent £4.85 million to be turned into shares at some stage** ** or perhaps it could be left as a debt owed by Venkys London to Venkys Hatcheries but I consider this unlikely. Well done to anyone who got this far 😁😁- I’m more than happy for people to point out where any assumptions I’ve made are (or could be) incorrect.

Travis and Tronstad, are the reason we got into the playoffs.

This messageboard sometimes confuses me. Most of the second half of last season: 'We don't have enough midfield options and injuries to Travis and Tronstad derailed our season' This offseason 'We've already signed one extra CM, I don't understand why we would sign another unless either Travis or Tronstad are leaving.' I have little faith our club to build out a complete squad, but we definitely need more central midfield options and I'd be delighted to see another one signed without anyone else leaving.

Previous to the court case they sent money when it was needed or when they felt like it but now they have to ask first and follow a set of rules laid out by the court, if they don't then they can't. Therefore there is an impediment.

Yes,right on. De Keersmaecker would be more than positive. Rather have Garrett, even(dare I say it) Buckley than Gore. Makes the Forshaw re-signing more positive by the day!

I really don't think you understand the meaning of the word impediment. If they could send funds with no, affidavit, no bond and no court permission, they there would be no impediment, but all 3 of these exists. They can send funds, so long as these 3 conditions (Impediments) are met.

to be fair he's been injured for Malmö as well. So it's not a Corry Evans situation, where he was always fit enough to play for the National team, but always injured for us...

So there’s still no impediment, just a choice about if/when they send money.

Wilsden deserves some royalties!

Interesting that this conversation happens and within an hour there is an article containing similar information in the LET. Proof that Jackson is a frequent reader of the forums?

It’s recorded…awaiting TX date from TalkSport… Against the winners of this tie

12.30 away at Swansea on the opening day, Rovers fans to be reminded ad infinitum that this is what everyone wanted, hence the TV deal. Southampton away to be a noon kick off on a Sunday in the middle in January. Cannot wait.

De Keersmaecker would only come if we lose Trav or Tronstad, guarenteed. Gore I don't want anything to do with, makes JRC look like a low injury risk.

I think so, there’s only one affidavit listed** which isn’t related to when we know a payment was authorised (whether with or without a court order). I think it’s reasonable to assume the other one was related to a payment, whether one we’ve not heard of or where, for some reason, they sent the money in two tranches.*** In addition to this, I can’t see anything in any of the orders which requires one filing for any other reason. ** after the date at which filing one became a condition of sending funds (31/10/23) *** having looked again I’m not so certain in this, but still believe the June affidavit relates to the £4.85 payment being sent - I’m going out now but will explain my logic later on. (if anyone’s interested! 😁)

Only thing is last season the whole EFL started same weekend and League 2 were shown live at 3pm - the blackout didn't apply, shows it here: https://www.efl.com/news/2024/june/26/watch-every-game-on-the-opening-day-of-the-2024-25-season/ This season 1 and 2 start a week earlier. You are probably right regarding 12:30 kick offs but it is a bit different to last season this time.

Can we be certain that the affidavit is related to a payment ? Nothing showing on companies house regarding a new share allotment. There are other affidavits listed against the case which don't coincide with payments and some that do.