On the sunken cost fallacy, there could be another, perhaps more sinister reason they won't sell nor invest in the team tucked away under Rule F.1.8. of the Premier League ownership rules. If they have been investigated for tax evasion or money laundering, which I believe is what the Indian Directorate of Enforcement deals with, it would appear our overlords could be disqualified from owning the club should a promotion have been achieved. (Rule F.1.10 states that they do not have to have been convicted for such an offence, only that it must be 'in the reasonable opinion of the board'- is it unreasonable to suggest it has happened if they have been investigated and subject to government sanctions?) Promotion and subsequent disqualification would mean a cheaper sale than they would hope for (i.e. Abramovic to Boehly) or a dilution of their ownership (Dai at Reading) It is likely that this would have been the case even before the court case became public knowledge, so perhaps we have our answer to why the investment was pulled after missing the playoffs on goal difference under JDT and now another lack of investment/not re-signing our best players this summer after being one goal away at Bramall Lane. 'The sanctions are no barrier to investment' we were repeatedly told. Maybe rule F.1.8 is.

Is it horribly sceptical of me to point out that Kortrijk are owned by Vincent Tan, who coincidentally was the owner of Cardiff when they gave Rudy Gestede his break in English football?

Miller, do you have a link to an article or any other evidence regarding the starting date of the investigation (year is fine) or the NOC? Thanks

Hypothetically of course, similar to Reading's tennis ball protest, and as a symbol of the owners' other business interests, would eggs making their way onto the pitch be an effective way of promoting our cause? Shattered shell on the pitch would surely pose a danger to players and lead to the game being abandoned, or at least delayed, leading to nationwide or worldwide exposure of our plight.