I could be wrong here, but I think I read somewhere that Eustace was promised the Maguire money, if he kept us up and when this was pulled, he started to look elsewhere. That does seem to make sense now.

Spot on. Sadly, certain people at the club, do rely on the blind faith that some fans have, in that the custodians are doing the right thing for the club. We had a player return last weekend, who once deliberately scored some own goals and got himself sent off, to engineer a move away, yet some people still decided to defend that. There are sadly people involved with the club right now, who do not care on jot for the supporters, or the club itself and are in it for their own selfish reasons. We owe it to ourselves and the history of the club, to call these people out and not to simply sit back and allow this to happen.

There is no smoke without fire. For that to happen once, is unfortunate, but twice. To add insult to injury to then try to have the fans swallow the crap they came out with, just tells us what they think of us really.

Amazing, isn't it, that we managed to do that two years in a row and we all wondered whose fault it was and if the club were covering something up. The Maguire and O'Brien deals, could have been the difference between, a profit bonus being generated or not, yet we as fans will be left to wonder forever. Was pressing the wrong button, really an innocent mistake?

The lying dirty rat?

What is absurd though is the money they manage to find for Waggott though, without too much difficulty. Assuming it is just for money, an offer equal to what Derby were paying, would have kept him.

This is stating salaries, not players wages and as we have seen the highest paid director in the last accounts, was paid a pretty penny.

Both Derby and Plymouth are odds on for the drop now, with Derby 4/9. They will almost certainly go now and hopefully we ensure the odds drop even further on Saturday.

It’s just a common theme, from the very start. Find the bottom of the barrel, pay them loads of money and then spread the narrative of being badly advised. There aren’t many left, but some are still falling for that one, as we heard on the radio, about a week ago.

His only loyalty, is to himself. One very selfish individual.

A couple of inaccuracies in there, but interesting comments none the less.

I don't know if this is correct, but someone on here, said we have a 15% sell on clause. Accepting the fact that we were desperate to sell him, given the problems with funding us, then surely a bigger sell on clause should haven been agreed. I think most fans expected him to kick on at Palace, so even the dim wits running the show, could see that and maybe 25- 40% would at least make it look like someone did at least a decent job.

One good thing about this, is that Derby can ill afford to draw this now, let alone lose it, as they are already a fair margin, adrift of safety. Given how we know how Eustace plays, I think it is safe to say, he will be looking to keep it tight and try to scrape a 1-0 win. Plenty are saying that he knows our players, which of course is correct, but the players know him too, so hopefully that, along with the desire to get one over their old boss, will mean we get the much needed win and keep our hopes alive.

There is a statement in the accounts, posted in here yesterday, about the owners being able to send money, if they meet certain requirements and I have pasted that below. It is taken directly from the accounts, so not my words, but given the source, it must be true. The directors are pleased to confirm that the ED issues a no objection certificate date 12 March 2024, which confirmed that VHPL has been granted permission to make a remittance of £15 million, to its wholly owned subsidiary, namely Venky's London Limited, the immediate parent company of BRFC. This permission, is subject to certain conditions, which have been met already, or that will be met prior and subsequent to the remittance being made. Worrying times really, as I believe that Pasha is reporting back to the owners and suggesting that there is no need for them to send funds, as losses are being covered, by sales, as you have stated, but this cannot go on indefinitely in my opinion, without a significant drop in our league status.

I think it is pretty nailed on that it is Waggott, but maybe the groups who meet him, will question him on it. As posted above, it is a major concern, if he is being paid on what he saves the owners, rather than what should be considered success at a football club, but as we have seen so often in recent years, results on the pitch are secondary.

So you know what the impediment is, yet you asked what the impediment is and I simply answered your question. If you know what it is, then why did you ask that question? I, along with several other posters stated that they could not fund and at the time this was stated (Pre April 2024) that was correct. After they agreed that funding could be made, but only with a no objection certificate again myself and other people then called Waggott out, as he had then stated that they could fund with no, imediment. You yourself still don't seem to get that. The bond itself is an impediment, as is the no objection certificate and the added statement now in the accounts (This permission is subject to certain conditions which that have been met already, or that will be met prior and subsequent to the remitance being made) If this simply means the bond as you state, then why go the the trouble of putting those extra words in the accounts, surely a simple statement explaining that, a bond is required to the equivalent amount, would do. Personally, I am not convinced at this point that a no objection certificate and a bond, means that they can then send funds, but if you are, then fine, we simply have a difference of opinion. I note you consider me to have been patronising, which I never intended, so please accept my apologies, if I came across that way.

I know this sounds rude, so apologies, but I don’t actually think you quite grasp what the accounts are actually saying. Please read my post prior to this one, as the very fact that you need to ask what the impediment is, makes it very clear, that you aren’t getting this.

Incredible that you don’t know, or don’t understand. The fact that they need to get a no objection certificate for starters is an impediment, but also read the accounts, as it states very clearly in there that: ”This permission is subject to certain conditions, which have been met already, or that will be met, prior or subsequent to the remittance being made”. This is a big impediment and given that it is written in the accounts, it is 100% admitting, there is an impediment. Just for clarity the definition of the word impediment, as per the Oxford English Dictionary is: Noun A hinderance or obstruction in doing something. So there you have it in black and white confirming exactly what I said, that Waggott’s statement, that there is no impediment to them sending funds, is a total and utter lie.

Spot on. Seems someone on here, doesn’t understand what the word impediment means.

Thats exactly what I recall him saying too, not to mention, saying Waggott’s no impediment to sending funds was correct. The accounts now confirm, there is an impediment.

Nonsense. You said the statement Waggott made about there being no impediment to funding was correct. Well as you see in the accounts there is an impediment. Are you denying saying that? He is changing his story it seems.

Hence the reason the former manager decided to do one. Fed up of the lies and false promises no doubt, but us fans are stuck with it, until the decide to move on and leave the car crash behind for us.

Nice work if you can get it.

Where would we be without him?

The no impediment to funding has been blown out of the water anyway, with the statement in the accounts, which says in no uncertain terms, that there is a rather larger impediment. Impediment (Noun) Hindrance or obstruction in doing something. Extracted form the accounts This permission is subject to certain conditions, which have been met, already, or that will be met prior and subsequent to the remittance being made. Now, I don't know about other people, but that sounds very much like an impediment to me.