It isn't aimed at anyone in particular this, but for those who have renewed, here is a scenario and I wondered how you would feel. Income becomes a real issue for some reason and you find yourself unable to afford to renew, but would just about scrape enough together if you could get a £100 reduction. You E Mail the club and tell them your circumstances and having had a season ticket for 25 years, ask for some sort of compassionate discount, due to your loyalty. The club E Mail you back and say, tough the price is the price, if we do this for you, we will have to do it for everyone. How would you feel?

This is where everyone sticking together and forcing them to drive their prices down, is the only way forward. Sadly, some people will accept it and renew, come what may. Without wanting to have a real go, the poor people who have 2-3 kids, who have followed Rovers all of their lives, but are now priced out, are the ones that suffer.

That’s right. He was a real find for us. He broke records for clean sheets 2 seasons in a row. Great keeper.

Wasn’t Marshall Burke with us first and signed for them, when he was passed his best?

You missed a treat with little Jonny Price.

For those who remember Jim Arnold and where we signed him from, it would certainly be fine if this fella was as good.

For the teams that do make the premier league, you would think it’s the end of their money problems, but it often isn’t. Plenty think if we get there, things will be okay, but would they?

May your Dad Rest In Peace SC and love and best wishes to all of your family. Its hard losing a parent. Remember the good times and be very proud, as he has led an extremely fruitful life.

They wouldn't. Expensive bridging loans are a last resort, when all other options have evaporated.

No he failed to mention that and believe it or not, it was on my agenda, to delve into that, but we ran out of time.

Spot on and some people are reading this incorrectly and to be fair, I think it was dressed up like this purposely to add some convenient confusion to the issue.

Back in November, I had a meeting with Waggott, prompted by me sending a copy of the article in the Indian press, about the illegal payments made by Venky's to Venkys London Limited. It is reported in the article that the Directorate of enforcement has seized 6 properties, as a result of these illegal payments being made, which as you can imagine, gave me cause for concern about their activity and given the serious nature of the above, their future ability to fund the club. Waggott explained to me, that the owners could still fund the club, but due to what had happened, they had to go to court to get permission to do so and he had to give the court a breakdown of the liabilities that the funds were for and the exact amounts. He was at pains to say, that given they had done this twice and the funds were allowed to be sent, that the court hearing in February was a formality, as a precedent had been set. He did not say that the owners could freely send any further funds, so the words that came from his mouth stated that permission from the court was required. Given that the hearing in February was adjourned until March and again until August, unless the court have made an interim ruling to state that the can fund still before the hearing in August then, that must still stand. I found out after the meeting from a separate source that a bond had also to be put up before the funds, before the funds could be sent in 2023 so this is NOT something agreed after, to allow further funding to take place prior to the hearing in August. If someone has access to a court document stating that the ban on funding has been temporarily lifted, due to the timescale to the next meeting them by all means say so and that would obviously then mean, that the can now send funds, so either that exits, or I was told a lie. The link to the Indian press article that prompted Waggott to invite me in for a meeting, is pasted below. ED seizes immovable properties worth over Rs 24 cr of Venkateshwara Hatcheries under FEMA provisions (aninews.in)

I honestly don’t think that’s correct. Granted it’s nothing to do with Rovers, but it has everything to do with the owners. They have been caught sending illegal funds and were unable to send any more without absolutely clarity of what the funds were paying and getting the courts permission. Right now they cannot send any further funds and need to wait until the hearing in August, which will not only determine if they can send funds then. It will also clarify if they will be banned from sending any funding permanently.

I thought someone on here said it has. I haven’t checked so obviously that was wrong then.

Given that account has now been closed down, yes very fishy.

This is again, exactly why Waggott stated that the funds were coming in February. His line was, I provided a full breakdown of what the exact amounts needed were and what they were for. The court accepted that and the funds were released. Given this, a precedent has been set, so the same will happen in February. He perhaps did not account for an adjournment, but he did state that we only had the funds (in late November) to pay everything until February. As we now know the Wharton sale meant funds did come in to carry on, but it must have been a close run thing.

Which demonstrates yet again that the often trotted out communication, “The owners never fail to sign a cheque” is also nonsense.

Exactly why I think this was an ambiguous statement. I think some people are under the impression that they can send funds, when in truth, they can’t.

If we spend more than we bring in, I will be extremely surprised. I am not in the know, but do expect the court to stop any further funding.

That's exactly why I am of the firm opinion that the owners cannot send any more funds over, until the court hearing at the earliest.

That's probably a good shout and I for one, would be gutted if he did end up there.

I really believe the club (Waggott) have been really evasive on this, as there is no doubt whatsoever that the owners (granted not the club) are or certainly have been, the subject of an investigation. They have had property seized and been stopped from sending funds without the permission of the court. To go on record in a meeting to say the club is not the subject of an investigation, is a bum steer, as what we really need to know right now, is are the allowed to fund us or not and I am of the opinion that they aren't. Perhaps some clarity can be sought at the next meeting.

Good question and one I am particularly interested in too. Hopefully an answer will be posted by the Trust.

Who art in heaven.

It’s just good clean fun.