2025 Summer Transfer Thread. 😂

[lraC]

31 minutes ago, wilsdenrover said:

Rovers requested the money 26th March

Venkys filed an appeal with the court 22nd April

Hearing confirms funds can be sent 26th May

Venkys send Rovers the money ??????

From, what I have seen in the past, about this, I think the request needs to be made in such a way that everything needs itemising and therefore proof of exactly what the funds are for.

In turn, they are then presented to the court and a NOC is given and a bond for the same amount needs to be paid. I believe this bond is now 50%. 

Given the amount requested, you have to assume that is for the day to day running of the club and not transfers, but does anyone know if that is the case and if what I have posted is accurate?

[Tomphil2]

54 minutes ago, wilsdenrover said:

Rovers requested the money 26th March

Venkys filed an appeal with the court 22nd April

Hearing confirms funds can be sent 26th May

Venkys send Rovers the money ??????

Owners say we'll send half due to bond so you'll have to find the other half.... someone phones Wrexham... 🤔

[wilsdenrover]

36 minutes ago, lraC said:

From, what I have seen in the past, about this, I think the request needs to be made in such a way that everything needs itemising and therefore proof of exactly what the funds are for.

In turn, they are then presented to the court and a NOC is given and a bond for the same amount needs to be paid. I believe this bond is now 50%. 

Given the amount requested, you have to assume that is for the day to day running of the club and not transfers, but does anyone know if that is the case and if what I have posted is accurate?

The sum requested is worded as to ‘fulfill its statutory and contractual obligations’

I don’t see how this can include money for potential transfers.

Edited to add…

The court doesn’t issue the NoC but orders the authorities to do so (subject to Venkys meeting the conditions this and previous court orders have set).

However…

Venkys got an NoC issued in March ‘24 without the need to go to court - presumably because they just stumped up the guarantee ‘no questions asked’ that time.

Edited 12 hours ago by wilsdenrover

[lraC]

3 minutes ago, wilsdenrover said:

The sum requested is worded as to ‘fulfill its statutory and contractual obligations’

I don’t see how this can include money for potential transfers.

Edited to add…

The court doesn’t issue the NoC but orders the authorities to do so (subject to Venkys meeting the conditions this and previous court orders have set).

However…

Venkys got an NoC issued in March ‘24 without the need to go to court - presumably because they just stumped up the guarantee ‘no questions asked’ that time.

Thanks for the explanation.

[wilsdenrover]

18 minutes ago, Tomphil2 said:

Owners say we'll send half due to bond so you'll have to find the other half.... someone phones Wrexham... 🤔

Club requested £4.85 million so…

Venkys send club £3.2 million and pay a £1.6 million bond.

£1.6 million for the club to find, who wants to bet against that ending up being the fee agreed for Travis…

[Tomphil2]

They rarely ever seem to send extra money for transfer that usually has to be generated by the club itself and of course there has been plenty recently but....

Couldn't see the authorities over there ever signing it off anyway 'we have x amount billed for tax, x amount for utility bills, x amount for insurance, oh and we need to give 500k to Peterbro for a deposit on a player...'

Doesn't really fit why they are restricting it and asking for receipts in the fist place.

[bluebruce]

7 minutes ago, Tomphil2 said:

They rarely ever seem to send extra money for transfer that usually has to be generated by the club itself and of course there has been plenty recently but....

Couldn't see the authorities over there ever signing it off anyway 'we have x amount billed for tax, x amount for utility bills, x amount for insurance, oh and we need to give 500k to Peterbro for a deposit on a player...'

Doesn't really fit why they are restricting it and asking for receipts in the fist place.

Does it not? They're doing that because of impropriety in the accounts for when they sent money here to buy Neville's house. They've no particular reason to stop us doing transfer business.

[wilsdenrover]

Maybe the court would approve money being sent over for transfers but Venkys would need to ask to find out.  

[Tomphil2]

22 minutes ago, bluebruce said:

Does it not? They're doing that because of impropriety in the accounts for when they sent money here to buy Neville's house. They've no particular reason to stop us doing transfer business.

It's the anti fraud and money laundering unit they don't want money going anywhere but to pay for essential running costs of the English business i would have thought that was obvious by now.

Edited 12 hours ago by Tomphil2

[RevidgeBlue]

1 hour ago, wilsdenrover said:

Club requested £4.85 million so…

Venkys send club £3.2 million and pay a £1.6 million bond.

£1.6 million for the club to find, who wants to bet against that ending up being the fee agreed for Travis…

The Club requested £4.85 million for running costs April to June I think, so you'd assume that amount should be being sent over to the Club and they give the Court a lien over c £2.4m worth of funds at the Bank etc.

As regards transfer funding it has been suggested in the past that the Court will only authorise money for expenditure on running costs not transfer fees although I don't think I've seen any official confirmation of this anywhere.

As for the thought of Travis being sold to Wrexham to cover costs  irrespective of their upward trajectory - good grief. Uncle Jack must be spinning even faster than normal.

Just thinking aloud, if Tronstad is as good as everyone apart from me reckons wouldn't it just  be easier to sell him for a higher fee than Travis if money is that tight? He's half the player Travis is as well.

[London blue]

English Tax on Travis and is a proven player in the league.

Not rising to the comparison between the two.

[roversfan99]

Tronstad is certainly not "half the player" that Travis is.

He is better albeit also older so that will likely mean that he is less valuable.

We shouldnt be selling either.

[wilsdenrover]

2 minutes ago, RevidgeBlue said:

The Club requested £4.85 million for running costs April to June I think, so you'd assume that amount should be being sent over to the Club and they give the Court a lien over c £2.4m worth of funds at the Bank etc.

As regards transfer funding it has been suggested in the past that the Court will only authorise money for expenditure on running costs not transfer fees although I don't think I've seen any official confirmation of this anywhere.

As for the thought of Travis being sold to Wrexham to cover costs  irrespective of their upward trajectory - good grief. Uncle Jack must be spinning even faster than normal.

Just thinking aloud, if Tronstad is as good as everyone apart from me reckons wouldn't it just  be easier to sell him for a higher fee than Travis if money is that tight? He's half the player Travis is as well.

They went to court because they didn’t want to pay any bond at all, whether they’ll be ‘happy’ to pay the 50% is anyone’s guess.

I don’t think there’s been any official confirmation re transfer fees as the question hasn’t been asked (judge that as you will…)

If as a result of the judge’s order there is a shortfall I think we’re limited on who we could sell to raise the funds (another loan on the training ground maybe…)

I’m sure others will comment on your final sentence 😁.

 

[AndyB]

6 hours ago, chaddyrovers said:

I think we have a couple in by them but not all. Maybe 3 out of the 6 or 7 signings Ismael want

Suhail is apparently in India at the moment, we don't know how long for.

My prediction

-If we receive a bid for a player, he'll have great mobile phone reception

-If we want to buy a player, no mobile phone reception

[roversfan99]

Preston meanwhile have just announced their 4th signing of the window.

[RevidgeBlue]

28 minutes ago, wilsdenrover said:

They went to court because they didn’t want to pay any bond at all, whether they’ll be ‘happy’ to pay the 50% is anyone’s guess.

Good point.

As myself and others have commented many times already it wouldn't be much of a surprise to see players sold to cover much of the entire £4.85m let alone the amount of the guarantee.

[davulsukur]

21 minutes ago, roversfan99 said:

Preston meanwhile have just announced their 4th signing of the window.

Weren't we linked with that guy?

[RevidgeBlue]

39 minutes ago, wilsdenrover said:

I’m sure others will comment on your final sentence 😁.

Well, Premier League Ipswich came in for Travis and now ambitious Wrexham so he obviously has something other Clubs value.

There never seems to be much interest in Tronstad. If we had to lose one only out of the two I know which one I'd rather lose. Last season imploded right after Travis got injured at Millwall.

As others have also commented many times however it wouldn't exactly be a surprise to lose both and Brittain as well so any comparison between the merits of Trav and Tronstad may well turn out to be irrelevant.

Edited 9 hours ago by RevidgeBlue

[JHRover]

We will be losing both as long as cash offers land on the table.

We want shut. 

[RevidgeBlue]

2 minutes ago, JHRover said:

We will be losing both as long as cash offers land on the table.

We want shut. 

That's the worry.

And if we flog off our few remaining decent players for relative buttons simply to keep the lights on a bit longer, then the gig is up. 

[BankEnd Rover]

45 minutes ago, roversfan99 said:

Preston meanwhile have just announced their 4th signing of the window.

Their 4th signing but, for me, their only good signing...He's a player.

[M_B]

50 minutes ago, roversfan99 said:

Preston meanwhile have just announced their 4th signing of the window.

They're just 12 short now then. 

[simongarnerisgod]

18 minutes ago, BankEnd Rover said:

Their 4th signing but, for me, their only good signing...He's a player.

thierry small,good player and good capture by pne,we on the other hand don`t appear to be close to signing anybody

personally i just don`t give a **** anymore,only positive this season will be the protests getting louder and nastier when we continue to lose game after game,we ar`nt suddenly going to sign 4/5  good players,the **** will hit the fan this season 

[Tomphil2]

In the event money was requested for signings and allowed by the court are they going to effectively pay 50% more on a player because of the bond/guarantee ?

I'd 110% say no they won't so it's a non starter and we hold out hope that they send full funds to cover running costs and any instalment income goes towards signings.

Again i'm 90% certain that's not happening either but how else can we sign anybody ?

[DeeCee]

8 hours ago, Lancaster Rover said:

I'm afraid it would be a no brainer if I were in Travis position. A young ambitious (judging by his wife's social media) newly married couple is a perfect match for a team with successive promotions, widespread positive worldwide media coverage, committed owners who are progressive and seemingly with ever improving infrastructure. If you look at it from a business/career point of view there is only 1 winner IMO, we're a club on very much a downward trajectory on all fronts, Wrexham are the opposite, as much as it pains me to admit that the famous Blackburn Rovers are a worse option than Wrexham.

And he wouldn't have to move house.