How to say nothing in as many words as possible. Purposefully vague and confusing. "Financially supporting the club in whatever way" - translates as selling players If they can send funds from India whenever they like, why not say that in the statement? - because it wouldn't be true. "the owners have already secured required permissions to give full financial support to the club" - true, they have gained permission twice ( £3,540,000 and £11,000,000 ). Now they need to be granted permission again to send more funds ( the postponed court hearing ) They refer to litigation just to muddy the waters - this is presumably the ED's case against Venky's and not Venky's requests for permission to send funds out of the country. I was 99% convinced that they can't send funds until after the next court case. I am now 100% convinced.

At least 3 judges ?

Yes, I can see that. However, the Accounts document seems to suggest they are waiting on the court decision before being allowed to transfer any more funds. Either way, whether they can't send funds or won't send funds, the fact is they are NOT sending funds.

I am not up on legal or financial matters so I may well be wrong but I can't find any evidence for the assertion that 'no further approval is required from the court for future remittance of funds' as you have stated above. The order made on 31.10.23 clearly states that £11 million can be remitted with a bank guarantee of the same value. The £11 million could be paid via any number of remittances to the wholly owned subsidiaries mentioned in the order. There were a number of conditions imposed on each of the remittances that made up the £11 million total. I think this is where people are getting confused. The order uses phrases like 'after every remittance'. This is not a reference to future remittances but only refers to remittances within the total £11 million approved by the order. A key sentence is the last line of the order which states 'The bank guarantee will be kept alive for the period of the investgation' - It doesn't mention 'all bank guarantees' or 'any bank guarantees'. There is only one bank guarantee in question and that covers the £11 million. I can see no reference to allowing any future remittances. I think the situation is described much more clearly in the Rovers accounts submitted in April which can be found here (3rd doc on list) https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/00053482/filing-history Under Accounting policies ( going concerns ) page 21, there is an explanation that 2 petitions for interim remittances were approved in June 2023 ( £3,540,000 ) and Oct 2023 ( £11,000,000 ). Encouraged by the success of these 2 petitions, a third petition was lodged in January 2024 asking for permission to send more funds. This is the court hearing that has been postponed a number of times and is now scheduled for November. I don't believe any more funds can be sent until this case is heard. The account statement goes on to state that the owners are not in control of when they can send funds and are dependent on the court decision. It states that BRFC would have difficulty in continuing to trade if the court does not permit the release of future funds. I don't see why this would be put in the accounts if the owners are free to send funds without further approval ( providing the bond/guarantee etc ). In my opinion, if the hearing gets postponed one more time we will be in really big financial trouble.

The truth is in the Rovers accounts which were published after the court hearing that allowed the £11 million remittance. "A material uncertainty exists therefore, due to the ability to remit sufficient funds to BRFC by VHPL not being in the control , at the time of the approval of these financial statements ( April 2024 ), of VHPL. If the court does not permit the release of future funds, there will be a significant impact on the company's ability to continue to trade" I would call that an impediment

That's right but if the court hearings keep getting postponed they actually can't send funds. The current hearing was due in January and the Rovers accounts state that the money to be requested ( in January ) should cover BRFC's future liabilities until June 2024 !!

It may be bonkers but that is what is happening. They need to go to court every time they want to send money

The case that was scheduled for today was a continuation of W.P.(C) 7966/2023 which is a request to send funds out of the country. What makes you think the purpose of the proceedings have changed ?

These court papers have been posted and discussed a few times on here. I think you have misunderstood the section that talks about 'every remittance'. This is referring to all the remittances that made up the 11 million allowance being discussed on that occasion. There is no allowance for any future remittances. Hence the need for the subsequent hearings. While the ED oppose Venky's requests they will need to go to court every time they want to send money.

I believe they need to go to court each time they need to send money. No hearing, no funds

Venky's are being investigated for various tax misdemeanours. The investigations will take a long time and while they are ongoing Venky's are prohibited from sending money out of the country. They probably haven't got to a point where there is a need to defend themselves or admit liability on any charges yet. They are still under investigation. The current court hearing is simply Venky's applying for permission to send money out of India while they are under embargo. These hearings are at Venky's request, they are not a culmination of the tax avoidance investigations.

I don't believe they can fund us. The whole point of the court hearing is Venky's asking for permission to send funds. The last hearing allowed them to send some funds with a bond but they have to go to court each time they want to send more. No hearing no funds .

They have just had 2 national holidays in India. Today was always going to be a catch up with a high chance of an adjournment.

All the cases heard first thing this morning were prefixed by A. They then started on the normal numbers as listed for today. So maybe adjourned hearings ?

No need to be homophonic about it

I agree with this. They can't send any money without having permission granted by the court for every individual payment. This is because the ED won't give Venky's the certificate. The court may impose a bond in order to allow payments, they may not. The court may refuse permission to send any money at all. It depends on the ED's argument against Venky's each time and how the judge sees it. In order for Venky's to argue that they should be allowed to send funds, Rovers need to supply details of what the money is to be spent on ( HMRC, Wages etc ). That is the process for every request to send funds.

Exactly - Even if the Courts don't give permission to send funds without associated bonds, they don't need to worry. The club can 'wash it's own face'. In the future, when cash runs short, if there is nobody else to sell they will just resume drip feeding us into oblivion.

Sammie was incredible last season but before that he had scored 11 championship goals in 73 appearances. He wasn't particularly prolific even in League 1. I don't think one good season in the championship would be enough to tempt most Prem clubs - especially given his age.

Surely Ipswich will just be waiting until after 20th August to see how desperate we are for cash.

I remember thinking the same thing - even as the teams walked out. He did score the opening goal however !

Quite a good chance it could be postponed again. In India, Thursday and Monday are national holidays. Probably not much will get done on the Friday in between, so Tuesday 20th is going to be busier than usual in the courts..

Thursday is Independence Day in India - celebrating the end of British rule. I am hoping Rovers soon see the end of Indian rule. Fingers crossed.

I hope to hear chants of 'One Peter Jackson' on Friday

Can they clear the filth from the boardroom at the same time?

I prefer comparing the current squad to the squad from 14 years ago. No skewing of data, no arguments but plenty of justified anger.