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.

But Venky's were willing (or able) to put money into the club to fund it 2 years ago. Now they haven't put any money in for 9 months and we are clearly selling our best players to pay the bills. The landscape is very different.

Never really paid him much attention before. But the more I watch this tournament, the more I think he is a bit of a cock.

I don’t know Mainoo or Bellinghams temperament, but they need to be very careful even with innocuous challenges.

But in my opinion, Roy Keane’s and many others, the arm position was “ a consequence of the players body movement for that specific situation” Therefore there is interpretation possible in the rule not to give that.

Although she said the VAR officials deemed the silhouette of the body to be ‘unnatural’. By which point Keane had already pointed out it was a natural, running balanced position. So the officials could have deemed it ‘natural’ as that’s always up to perception.

Well the VAR machine says it was so I’ll blame that on the system (which is not 1cm accurate) rather than the operators. ( I don’t think you can say it was ‘clearly onside’ either.) But for the penalty they’ve looked at it and decided to consciously make that decision. Chances are it’s a leveller in their own mind for the disallowed goal early on.

Yep. They book you for daring to visually show your not happy that a foul has been given against you, but can’t get that right. It’s barely a metre away from him and he’s running in a completely natural way. Sure he sticks his leg out to block the ball but I’d love to see one of the rulemakers try to run flat out and stick you leg out to block and not have an arm away from your body. They can fuck off and so can that irritating yank in the studio who just sucks up to whatever on field decision is given. And this is just Denmark V Germany. Imagine if England go out to such a decision. 🤬

What’s annoying is this game has been turned on a decision that nobody really appealed for, and nobody would have known or cared if it was never even looked at.

Austria are the biggest danger in this half. I fancy them to get through to the semis. They’ve beaten Netherlands, battered Poland and their first game against France was pretty close.

I’ve only heard the BBC interview at half time and that’s definitely not what he said. He said the fans were superb in their support of the team second half. He said it was strange at the full time whistle

‘Technical and procedural” issues just like tying up £15 million in a bond which they may not get back every time they decide to send £15 million towards Ewood. I don’t believe they want to do that. If they did they could have done that instead of selling Wharton and jeopardising our Championship status. Therefore they will wait till the court case hoping that problem goes away.

I don’t get why there are two Championship games at 8pm on the opening Friday. That’s Sky just taking the piss.

Reducing their allocation last year was the only thing Waggot has ever got right.

That was just bad. Either Foden or Bellingham has to be dropped, but that would take big cahones. Southgate doesn’t have them.