Exactly. So either that was untrue, or here we have the proof, unless of course, someone provides evidence that a further ruling was made in March overturning the ban.

My proof is down to knowing that the previous statement banning them form sending funds, has not been overturned. If it has then proof is needed, if it hasn't then what was in place still stands, no irony, purely fact.

He seems to want to have it both ways. How can Venky's not being allowed to send funds overseas, not have an impact on Rovers? He has then stated that they can still send funds overseas and despite me proving that Waggott has lied, about there being no impediment still chooses not to accept that.

I haven't got any evidence, but neither have you. You have stated that the court made a new ruling in March. Prove it. Would you accept that what Waggott said about needing permission for the 2 tranches to be sent last year existed, as I wasn't at the court hearing, but he stated that. He has never stated that there was a decision made on the funding changing in March, it was simply reported that it was adjourned. He states that a precedent has been set, so expects the funding to be agreed again in August. He has NEVER stated that anything has changed in either of the adjourned hearing in 2024.

Would you like to provide evidence of the agreements that were made in March please? These do not exist, so either show people on here that they do, or accept that the hearing in August is for permission to be given to start funding again.

The issues never related to Rovers and nothing has changed. The CANNOT send funds now 100%.

I agree with that statement, but of course it does affect Rovers. Let's face it, if they are banned from sending funds forever, then it is game over. This is exactly why I have stated that Waggott's statement is cleverly worded. The hearing itself has nothing to do with Rovers, but the outcome could have a catastrophic impact on the very future of the club.

The court hearing is set for 21/08/2024. Assuming no further adjournment, the court will decide if further funds can be released or not. If they agree that funds can be released, then hopefully it means, they no longer need to keep on going to court and getting future permissions. In my opinion, the reason for a gap of 7 months between the original court date in January and the August meeting, is to investigate fully, what has been going on with regards to the funding of the club and how VLL is structured. My hope is that they will uncover some of the mystery surrounding the original takeover and some of the strange goings on ever since. That in turn I hope leads to them being denied the permission for further funding and that ultimately leads to them being forced to sell.

Yes 100% I am. Impediment Noun " A hindrance or obstruction in doing something". (Oxford English dictionary of the meaning) Yet, you have stated that they can send funds over, so long as they put the equivalent amount in a bond. If that is correct ( I don't believe it is) then the statement made by Waggott about there being no impediment, cannot possibly be true.

That's not the case. The bond was required, before permission was given for the two previous amounts. Right now, they cannot send funds, with or without a bond.

Absolutely, so how can it be argued that there is no impediment to them sending funds. Waggott himself has stated that court permission is required to release funds, so how can he then say, there is no impediment? Baffling.

Does anyone really believe that we will spend as much as we receive this coming window. My guess is is will be a minus figure and would not be surprised if it was not minus £10m or more.

Spot on.

Okay, so part one, does than mean they are free to send funds from India now, or does it mean they can use what is already in the UK? I am certainly not clear on the answer to that. I agree that the Delhi Hight Court case does not involve the running of the club, but the decision made will DEFINITLELY have an impact on the future of the club. Waggott is on record to say a precedent has been set, so is he 100% that the hearing in August will go the same way as the previous two and therefore permission will be granted for them to transfer future funds? if that's the case, why did they simply not say in November, we are satisfied that the funds are being used for the purposes stated and will therefore accept that you can carry on regardless. Also, will there be any need to go back to the court for future permissions? Again, I am not clear, but maybe I am being a bit thick. SW requesting funds from the owners is one thing, but have they responded and again, will they be allowed to send funds from India, as again to me, that is unknown at the minute so not clear. A direct yes or no question will clear this up. Steve, if the owners had to send funds from India right now, to help fund a payment on behalf of the club, would they be allowed to do so? Yes or no? That would clear this up once and for all, but this is certainly anything but clear just now.

I don’t think it says that and note Waggott’s answer is so ambiguous. This needs a simple yes or no response from him, that he simply won’t give, so we have to draw we are left to draw our own conclusions. Q. Steve, just so that we know can you please answer yes or no? Are the owners allowed to transfer funds from India, right now to help with signing players in this summers transfer window. No way will he answer that with a yes or no.

Because someones bottie is on fire.

Okay, thanks for confirming. It could be a bit miss leading they way that was posted then, so not too sure if that needs amending, as it could prove to be important. It is you that welcomes the appointment then, not WATR?

So, just for clarity Mike, is this just you or are the Trust welcoming this appointment and happy with it?

That's another fine mess we are in.

Who trotted that one out?

If the ED in India are anything like HMRC in the UK and are seriously investigating them, I do not think it will be a matter of them admitting to a mistake and getting away with it that way. This all points to money laundering, which is a very serious crime worldwide.

It seems to me that the source of the investigation is far stronger than anything that has been tried before. History tells us that there didn’t seem to be an appetite to take the people to task who were involved in all this from the start. Even the likes of Richard Scudamore were squirming with the evidence presented to him, but it seemed that agents and even the football authorities, had connections that ran deeper than we will ever know. From what I have seen and heard and from the people I have spoken to, there is evidence there of wrong doing and given what the authorities in India have already done, I would be feeling very uncomfortable now, if I was involved in it.

With no money coming from Indian until at least August, it’s a matter of either accepting what we can afford, or signing no one. The manager is highly likely to say what the club want him to say about his opinion on the players and the situation we are in, as that’s the reason he is here and not JDT who would call them out.

Spot on. With it being so long ago, they probably thought they had got away with it too. There is a reason for the 7 months gap between the original date and the new date in August. Hopefully, that’s enough time to dig very deep and find that smoking gun that surely exists.

I think someone must have been on something very strong, to state that in their post.