As long as the relevant questions are asked and answered, I think everyone will be happy, even if they do not like the answers.

Relegation definitely is.

Problem being is if VI is more than happy to toe the party line for remuneration then this shit situation carries on indefinitely. Buy cheap sell high is the 'project'.. Promotion is not on the agenda for this lot.

Have a look at my post above. The final minutes are agreed between us. At the end of the day I guess that they could insist that something should not be published. I have been secretary of the Forum since 2009 and it hasn't happened yet.

Absolutely nailed it. That's Pasha's plan.

Are they allowed to censure anything they dont want to be published?

Yep, agreed. The manager has now admitted we are in a transitional phase, which we were not planning on being in. I think the indications from Brittain's, Tronstad's & Travis' camp have been, we are not signing new deals. So we're now looking to move all of them on and replace with cheaper, younger alternatives.

They must think we're as thick as mince. They just want the cheapest possible options they think they can get away with in the squad - in this case unproven youngsters. If (hypothetically) established 27-28 year olds were cheaper than youngsters in terms of wages, then the narrative would be all about needing Championship experience. And we'd be looking to fill the squad with those sorts of players. This is what worries me about VI. I dont think he is thick as mince and I dont see how he can possibly believe this will work.

I’ve just picked a random set of accounts (1994) to see if our memories on this are accurate. In that year the amount owed to Jack was reduced (through capitalisation) by £7.5 million.

I know its only Tuesday but you can tell this week is a stinker when the only news is Brittain supposedly having talks with Boro and Elliott's coverage in the LT is an interview with Bradley Dack 😂. No disrespect to Dacky, love the guy...but it's not the news I want to see right now 😅.

I don't think any new CEO will be on 500k a year looking at the job description.

The owner’s words (within Venky London’s accounts) suggest they hope one day to get it back. The owner’s actions (ever since they darkened our door) will almost certainly ensure they won’t.

I suspect that Baradji was to be signed as a Travis replacement, much like Alebiosu has been signed to replace Brittain. Traveres is Tronstad's replacement.

Saving £500k a year set against an uncomfortable couple of hours every three months difficult decision.

Was just about to post the same thing. Interesting quotes from the article: So, we have already changed this summers plan and are now, apparently, in a transition period. We want to reduce the average age of the squad. Batth and Weimann were probably never really staying, especially as we re-signed Forshaw, if we are looking at younger players. Tronstad turns 30 next month, so I suspect there is little appetite from the club to sign him back up. As Brittain is on his way out (27) and replaced with a 23 year old, I suspect that the club are in no rush to sign Travis (27, 28 later this year) up either.

They certainly don't seem to want the money back as things stand. However, if they got into financial trouble, or sold the club, I certainly don't believe they would treat it as though it doesn't exist. Otherwise, they'd have written it off, as Jack used to do (pretty sure Wilsden is indeed remembering that correctly). They absolutely won't get it all back (not unless by some miracle they turned us back into a steady Prem club maybe), but I bet they'd try to extract as much of it as possible. Maybe even leave some on the club's back if sold on, with loan repayments arranged.

OK, fair enough in that respect - I know you have a better knowledge of all this than I do, but declaring shareholder loans rather than equity investment is really just for the tax advantages I would guess?. In reality I don't think the owners are expecting this money back or treating it as a debt. It's just money that was needed for running costs.. The club has no loan repayment plans as far as I know.

Recent post from the rovers account priming us for the fact that CB's replacement is already here.

Apologies, think I got mixed up with some other club. There's that much yo-yoing goes on from this league to the Championship, nearly everyone else seems to have done it at some point since we came down. They have however been in the playoffs twice since Venkys came, which we haven't done once since relegation.

If I remember correctly (and it’s sadly now so long ago) Jack periodically wrote off the loans he’d made. Fifteen years in and Venkys have never done the same.

Getting what they paid for us back would be child's play if they wrote off their debt to us. They could probably get double that if they were interested in entertaining bids. The money in the game has changed significantly. Crappy Derby County were bought for 33 million when in administration last year, but 55 million really as they also bought their stadium for 22 mill. There is a claim that Sheff W turned down 75 million dollars last month.

They are amongst the creditors on the club’s balance sheet.

I bet Suhail can't wait to appoint a new CEO so they can just wheel him out in these meetings instead.

Consultation meetings are open to all. The fans forum is not! This being a crucial part of the fan engagement rules set out by the EFL the FF let the club carry on at will. Its a known fact that Suhail and the club want to cut all ties and communications with fans.why?My point is in the past the FF have let this ride I hope the farcical way the club are going about setting up the 150 (135) anniversary celebrations are anything to go by was brought up.

To add to my last post, this is from the club’s last accounts: