tomphil Posted January 25 Author Share Posted January 25 If that court date has been put back it's because its been agreed by all party's. Why rush when you know you can force the club to generate its money via a player sale, this is looking like another stitch up. I hope i'm proved wrong. 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
This thread is brought to you by theterracestore.com Enter code `BRFCS` at checkout for an exclusive discount!
Herbie6590 Posted January 25 Share Posted January 25 12 minutes ago, Dreams of 1995 said: It won't allow me to open this Scan the QR 👍 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rigger Posted January 25 Share Posted January 25 If Adam Wharton is a true Rovers fan, perhaps he will turn down any transfer, and force the club into liquidation when they cannot pay the bills. We could then all chip in to get him a statue next to Uncle Jacks. 7 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tomphil Posted January 25 Author Share Posted January 25 I'm sorry but how the hell do they run up a 26 million tax bill that's an outrageous figure and basically we'd have been in admin before now. Nice planted excuse though to cash in on what players you can.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ben-2000 Posted January 25 Share Posted January 25 11 minutes ago, tomphil said: If that court date has been put back it's because its been agreed by all party's. Why rush when you know you can force the club to generate its money via a player sale, this is looking like another stitch up. I hope i'm proved wrong. Not necessarily. One party can request it and its up to the judge to accept it (or not) if the other party doesn't agree. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
den Posted January 25 Share Posted January 25 10 minutes ago, tomphil said: I'm sorry but how the hell do they run up a 26 million tax bill that's an outrageous figure and basically we'd have been in admin before now. Nice planted excuse though to cash in on what players you can.... Is that figure correct? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RevidgeBlue Posted January 25 Share Posted January 25 5 minutes ago, den said: Is that figure correct? Can't be surely. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lraC Posted January 25 Share Posted January 25 4 minutes ago, Ben-2000 said: Not necessarily. One party can request it and its up to the judge to accept it (or not) if the other party doesn't agree. Who would want to adjourn it? We have Venky's lawyers asking for permission to send money that we know is pissed up against the wall and maybe ED saying, we want them to keep the money in India, whist we investigate them. There must be a valid reason for them insisting on a bond each time too, so to me, there is a BIG issue here, not a simple adjournment. Remember last time , it was stated that the funds needed to be sent to protect their investment and that is a lie, simple as that. Perhaps they have been rumbled, during the last 3 months Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tomphil Posted January 25 Author Share Posted January 25 8 minutes ago, den said: Is that figure correct? I'd say it's impossible to owe that much without serious action being taken on the club before now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigUts Posted January 25 Share Posted January 25 4 minutes ago, RevidgeBlue said: Can't be surely. According to Keiran Maguire and his 'secret Rover' insider it is Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tomphil Posted January 25 Author Share Posted January 25 11 minutes ago, Ben-2000 said: Not necessarily. One party can request it and its up to the judge to accept it (or not) if the other party doesn't agree. So it looks like if that's the case then hes agreed and why wouldn't he its no skin of his nose it's not a criminal trial just a routine hearing. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RevidgeBlue Posted January 25 Share Posted January 25 4 minutes ago, lraC said: Who would want to adjourn it? We have Venky's lawyers asking for permission to send money that we know is pissed up against the wall and maybe ED saying, we want them to keep the money in India, whist we investigate them. There must be a valid reason for them insisting on a bond each time too, so to me, there is a BIG issue here, not a simple adjournment. Remember last time , it was stated that the funds needed to be sent to protect their investment and that is a lie, simple as that. Perhaps they have been rumbled, during the last 3 months It SOUNDS as though the Court themselves have adjourned it due to lack of Court time rather than at the request of either party although maybe it will become clearer over the coming days. I wouldn't say it's a lie to say funds need to be sent to "protect their investment" as presumably without it we're in danger of going tits up. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ben-2000 Posted January 25 Share Posted January 25 (edited) Any plans for the @RoversTrust to contact Waggott and find out what this now means for the day to day running of the club... and whether there's a possibility of HMRC getting involved again @Mike Graham, @Miller11? Any plans to release a statement also? Needless to say its a worrying time to be a Rovers fan. Edited January 25 by Ben-2000 7 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phili Posted January 25 Share Posted January 25 19 minutes ago, RevidgeBlue said: It SOUNDS as though the Court themselves have adjourned it due to lack of Court time rather than at the request of either party although maybe it will become clearer over the coming days. I wouldn't say it's a lie to say funds need to be sent to "protect their investment" as presumably without it we're in danger of going tits up. I think the last one was delayed 3 times before the court appearance and approval. So I can see this being delayed quite easily till June/July before approval to send the cash comes through. Where this puts our cash flow I have no idea. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wilsdenrover Posted January 25 Share Posted January 25 1 hour ago, Rogerb said: The October tranche of funds is not on companies house. Perhaps because they are not creating additional shares with these transfers. Could it not be part of the confirmation statement dated 13th October? (Venky London Limited) Or is that date too early in October (I can’t remember the court date) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarkBRFC Posted January 25 Share Posted January 25 3 minutes ago, phili said: I think the last one was delayed 3 times before the court appearance and approval. So I can see this being delayed quite easily till June/July before approval to send the cash comes through. Where this puts our cash flow I have no idea. Adam Wharton solves that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mattyblue Posted January 25 Share Posted January 25 Then there’s Sammie, then there’s err… oh yeah Brockhall 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RoversClitheroe Posted January 25 Share Posted January 25 (edited) Venkys now have an excuse to sell all our assets. How likely is admin? Or a points deduction Edited January 25 by RoversClitheroe Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Polky Posted January 25 Share Posted January 25 Here’s a link to the Rovers section of the podcast. I’ve shared it from 17:20, this is the start of the talk about us. Kieran Maguire mentions his source has told him about the unpaid £26m tax bill, as mentioned by other posters. 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tomphil Posted January 25 Author Share Posted January 25 8 minutes ago, RoversClitheroe said: Venkys now have an excuse to sell all our assets. How likely is admin? Or a points deduction Less likely because of point A, we have enough assets to sell for now. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wilsdenrover Posted January 25 Share Posted January 25 (edited) 18 minutes ago, Polky said: Here’s a link to the Rovers section of the podcast. I’ve shared it from 17:20, this is the start of the talk about us. Kieran Maguire mentions his source has told him about the unpaid £26m tax bill, as mentioned by other posters. I can’t listen right now - does it say what this tax relates to? Certainly can’t be on profits! Edited January 25 by wilsdenrover 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leonard Venkhater Posted January 25 Share Posted January 25 13 minutes ago, Polky said: Here’s a link to the Rovers section of the podcast. I’ve shared it from 17:20, this is the start of the talk about us. Kieran Maguire mentions his source has told him about the unpaid £26m tax bill, as mentioned by other posters. Well, they have always paid the bills....What about the agent free for all, refusal to listen to people who cared, so many terrible decisions, low grade appointments, interfering with on field matters, dumbing down and the slow lingering death...and loss of support??!! Fck off, Kieron, do some proper research! 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RevidgeBlue Posted January 25 Share Posted January 25 4 minutes ago, wilsdenrover said: I can’t listen right now - does it say what this tax relates to? Certainly can’t be on profits! Just says "allegations" of an unpaid £26m tax bill. Nothing to substantiate it. Interesting listen overall though. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
glen9mullan Posted January 25 Share Posted January 25 Some suggesting on twitter we would get funds now based on previous ruling? I'm not sure that's correct but dont know its incorrect either. . Pretty sure SW said we had to provide substantiation to each claim and given they granted the funds on the previous bills, surely they won't just grant another 11 million blindly in absence of the hearing? I genuinely don't know their laws . Anyone more legally minded know the likelihood of the above scenario? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tomphil Posted January 25 Author Share Posted January 25 Iv'e said before McGuire really isn't the gospel on these things he just rehashes stuff already out there without any meat on the bones. You genuinely learn more from a few on here and i assume that's a source for him as well. 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.