He tries to block the ball and wouldn’t have made any contact with Kane. Come on, It made Speedie’s penalty in 1992 look like GBH, but I’ll take it. 😂

I know I’m late to this penalty debate , but if the defender is going into Kane after the ball has gone it’s a foul. But he isn’t. He’s static and Kane follows through and kicks him. Kane comes off worse because he kicks his studs but it should be irrelevant what part of the guys body Kane kicks. If the guy had tried to block the shot with his head, and Kane had kicked his head, would people think that was a penalty? It’s not a foul, or if anything it is a foul on the defender.

Karma’s a bitch Koeman

One of the two at work is pretty clued up. He would normally do pre-season friendlies, even abroad, and he has no idea. The other one hardly talks football to me except every now and again blubs "Not fair, you should have given us the whole Darwen End"

I believe Burnley have no friendlies announced at all. Their fans have no idea what's going on. .

It’s not ‘probably’.

I’ve just pointed out Szmodics goal scoring rate was unaffected whether Gallagher was playing with him or not last season. In Armstrongs last season, Gallagher wasn’t on the pitch for 17 of his 29 goals.

Yep. When he was absent between September to January Szmodics only scored, err, 15 without him.

Yeah, that's not happening.

Needing funds for Balaji's celebrity bunga bunga parties.

Yep. 4-0 defeat. Leo only played half the game and at fault for 3 of them. The first three goals are at:- 1hr 31 1hr 33:40 1hr 50 Pears is bad but I don't get those who don't see this guy as worse.

I can see what’s coming now. No significant incomings. Sell a couple. Court case goes against us. Fire sale. Transfer window closes and the following day Burnley get proper revenge for the April Fools day massacre.

Bellingham's one season at Birmingham they finished 20th. But they knew what they had.

I dont think this one was. I remember listening to it on radio Lancs when had it been on Sky I'd have certainly watched it. Plus other than Rhodes header the game rings no bells, even a last minute equaliser for them.

As I say, option B.

I’d actually forgotten about that comment in the accounts until @wilsdenrover re quoted it before. At the time I just thought “let’s see”, but things have evolved since.

https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/00053482/filing-history/MzQxNjYxMjAzNmFkaXF6a2N4/document?format=pdf&download=0 Page 10

am or pm? They are American owned 🤷‍♂️

I’m factoring in selling Szmodics or someone else for several million here.

Ok. So your going with option B - they can send money but are refusing to.

Which is probably more reputable source of fact that they can't send money, than Waggot telling WATR that they can. I think my point is that under both scenarios, whichever you believe to be true, we have no money to spend !

I think the difference between my view and that of @Crimpshrine and @OldEwoodBlue is that I reckon funds can be sent now with a matched bond, and they believe no funds can be sent full stop. I think the court case could be to review this and eliminate the need for a matched bond. The others view is that the court case is whether we can send any money at all. Both of these would fall under the purpose you have quoted. It's a moot point, as even if Venkys can match the bond they clearly don't want to hence why we have seen no money since last Autumn. @Forever Blue is pointing out that in my scenario they CAN send money. He also acnowledges they maybe WONT send money under these cirumstances. Either way, we arent spending any significant money. I reckon (guess) any sales from now on (such as Wahlstedt) might be part-reinvested but I'd expect 2 or 3 £500k purchases to come in before the court case and a couple of freebies. Everything else will have to wait.

My understanding is they can send funds now with a matched bond. That's what was reported in the press around January and ties in with the club saying money can be sent. They are hoping the court hearing will remove the need for them to require to deposit matched bonds. Like all of us, this is just my view piecing it together from what I read.

Exactly. They had to send money to the UK to fund us one way or another. Whereas now they either:- a) Are not able to put money in. b) CAN put money in but have to match it with a bond of the same amount. If it's A we aren't spending any money. If it's B, it remains to be seen if they are prepared to do this. As you say, we will see shortly if we sign anyone of any real value before the next court case. However the fact we panic-sold Wharton and nearly relegated the club, rather than send money and match it with a bond, tells me I dont believe they are prepared to do it. Therefore the landscape now is quite clearly different from that of 2 years ago. In the likely scenario of B above @Forever Blue the club are correct that they can send money. And they will request money because they desperately need it. But it doesn't mean it's coming. And that would be because of the situation Venkys have put themselves in meaning they now won't risk tying up extra finances.

England 6/5 Draw 2/1 Switzerland 11/4 Hmm.