I mean the accounts show they sent across £5-10m at a few points since the court-case to keep the lights on so-to speak, but it is clear they have been unwilling to do so unless it endangered bankruptcy of day-to-day operations. Certainly they have not invested what Suhail/Waggot claim and almost none of it has gone to improving the club, facilities or players.

That would still mean they could send some funds, but not nothing at all. There is probably something hidden that we are not aware, where putting extra funds into a bond, is far riskier that we as fans think.

This is what makes me think that accounting wise they have set a very specific figure to fund the club through the loans, which they refuse to budge on, hence the guarantee manifestly impeding investment in the club. As to why they cannot/will not budge who knows...

Interesting, is there potentially a way to leverage the shareholders in the company against the mismanagement of the company asset/investment then? Or do Venkys own too many of the shares?

Sounds like they must have been very naughty!!!

I suppose with price hikes in the BEnd/JW and for kids tickets if we limp to 8,500 they probably won’t be too far off last year’s revenue… bonuses all round! 🍾

8,000 sold vs 9,100 last season is a significant downgrade, with miminal expectation that many more will be sold at these prices, I imagine. That's a lot of lost revenue. Let's see how they spin this one...

Some of us are.

So more legal costs for an issue that is not causing them any problems? They must think we are daft.

So the stand nobody sees is slightly fuller, but at a cheaper price, and we now have a substantially emptier JW and BEnd... with an overall reduction of bums on seats (as they'll now do well to get close to the 9,100 we sold last summer at these phase 2 prices) *and* revenue. Takes some doing that from the Regime Brains Trust. 👏

Just on this point. I think I heard them discussing this option. I’m certain the case was then (whatever the option under discussion was) the hearing was then adjourned for both sides to take client instructions.

The way the Venkys’ barrister worded things this morning gave the impression the guarantee monies are sent to the authorities. He referred to ‘them’ having both the guarantee monies and the seized properties (and specified the sums involved for both) It was almost a ‘what more do they want?’ moment.

I suspect it has cost them to keep on making these appeals, so as you correctly say, why would they keep going back to court, paying the relevant fees and their lawyers, when there is no problem. Of course there is a problem, but they want certain people, including the fans, to accept that there isn't. I wonder why?

Of course not, but why go to court at all if they aren’t a problem* *Obviously they are a problem of Venkys own choosing because (as you say) they could just cover the monies without a second thought.

Adam Murray isn't coming to us. https://www.thenationalleague.org.uk/murray-the-man-for-kidderminster-as-new-boss-named-83634

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 👌