Keep the numbers high, so that those taking their cut under the radar, can remain there secretly taking their.

I actually dread to think where will be in 2 years time to be honest. I think the club is in serious trouble right now and will be very surprised if something major doesn't happen between now and Christmas, that put's the very future of BRFC in jeopardy.

Rhyming slang?

Go back to page 35 of the plot thickens thread and have a careful read. The money from the season ticket sales and the £7- £10m mentioned to fund transfers, may just be going elsewhere I think. People seem to want to bury their heads in the sand.

It is a very easy thing to do, throw out statements like they have during the WATR meeting, saying the can fund us now, so long as they put the equivalent amount in a bond and then (assuming this 25% cut is true) put out another announcing cut backs. Our fate will be decided by an Indian court and as we already know, they have to go down this route, due to being caught making illegal payments.

So what is it this year, a change in the Indian National Insurance laws?

I take it you mean Damien and not what we will end up with this coming season.

Currently 3/1 to make the final squad.

I will go on record now to say, that no way in this world, will Eustace get us promoted in a couple of seasons. I know we don't have a clue what the squad will look like yet, but I would almost guarantee that will will be in the bottom half again next year and be very surprised of we are not relegated.

This is in a lot of ways, where Broughton earned his corn. Extending the contract for Szmodics was good business for the club, as it means we will get a good fee for him, should the expected suitors come along. The downside is of course that is in highly unlikely that the fee will achieve much as transfer funds are probably going to be needed to fund the running of the club.

We would now be looking at problems such as unpaid wages, had we not sold him. Sadly our esteemed owners who never fail to sign a cheque, had got themselves into some serious issues and are currently banned from sending money to fund us.

The club had a one year option in their favour and decided to take it up. Had they not done, then both would now be free agents and able to leave with no fee to Rovers. Now that they are under contract for a year, if anyone wants to sign them, we will get a fee. It may well be that both stay and leave on a free next summer. Time will tell.?

We would have received some compensation for him, but nothing like the £2,5M so I agree it was pretty incredible and makes the parting shot on the website, even more pathetic.

Hover over it and you will see.

I agree, he was dreadful that night.

That guy is totally nuts. He had his own Website at one time and it got shut down. He also posts total nonsense on Twitter.

There are people already of the opinion that the court hearing is a formality and they can still fund us anyway.

If the word should was replaced with has, then that would make sense. The statement from the club reading like this would make me believe they could still send funds. Following on from the adjournment of the court hearing again and a postponement until August, the owners have confirmed that there are only technical and procedural matters to now be resolved. This has now resulted in the owners being immediately able to commence funding and once the hearing takes place in August, this WILL be rubber stamped. That would be nice and clear, but as we stand right now, with the statement released by the club, the word should being used and no owner funding having been made since November, I still have serious doubts. You are quite right though, people can choose to believe what they like.

It could be a tactic to allow us to sell him, instead of him walking for nothing, like Brereton and others.

I’m getting a haddock, trying to keep up with all the lies and errors.

Yeah and the owners cannot find the running costs just now.

It can’t be with the court, as that was adjourned. Waggott stated that a precedent had been set and he therefore expected permission to be granted at the meeting in February. If the court have agreed that they can now send that money that why is it reported that it was adjourned. Surely the meeting would have had to have taken place for a decision like that to have been made.

Funny you should say that as Waggott asked me if I was recording our meeting. If he had nothing to hide, why would he ask that?

That cannot be true either as the WATR meeting minutes state that they can send funds so long as the equivalent amount IS put in a bond.

Me neither, so yet again something does not add up.