Thank you - after a lot of digging I’ve finally tracked down the relevant regulations. My apologies to you, @Andy and @chaddyrovers Something else to file in my I was wrong book (it’s a big book!) Here’s the reg(s)…

How is a pre-contract agreement anything other than seeking to register with another club? If your position is correct then the regulation I quoted is completely redundant. I can’t find that one month rule, do you know where you’ve seen it? (and Ennis was announced over a month before his contract expired…) (yes I know I said I was out, but felt it was courteous to reply since I was quoted).

For oversea transfers yes, for domestic no. Anyways as I said, I’m out.

I’ve posted the relevant regulation as to when a player can negotiate a new deal. Clearly things can be different with the current club’s permission. I’m out now as if showing the regulation doesn’t persuade people nothing else will.

Nothing can be made official prior to July 1st unless Rovers agree. Derby not announcing anything is proof of the square root of fuck all.

They’d still have had to okay him signing the Rovers’ deal early and he still didn’t officially join until 1st July.

Nope, all three of those signed/will sign on 1st July. (After contracts expired/will expire) https://www.rovers.co.uk/news/2023/june/15/sondre-signs-/ ‘He will officially become a Blackburn Rovers player – along with fellow summer signing Niall Ennis – on July 1st’ https://www.swanseacity.com/news/cameron-burgess-seals-swansea-city-move ‘The 29-year-old defender will become a Swansea player on July 1, having agreed a three-year contract, with the club having faced considerable competition in securing his services’ The fact deals were sorted and announced earlier would have been because their current club gave permission. As we want to keep Batth that won’t be happening with him.

My wife says a semi is never enough.

No they can’t.

I’d quite like them being unable to pay the fine as then a jail term comes into play.

Bellingham certainly thinks he is.

They’d be fine - he’d get them loads of points.

Thanks, much clearer than the web link then.

135 years of pride, 15 years of shame.

I particularly like how the article on the website saying when the kit will be on sale contains a link to a form to fill in if you want be told when the kit goes on sale. 🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️

It says season ticket holders can see the kit a day earlier, it doesn’t say they can buy it a day earlier.

They’ll both leave on frees - god knows what their replacements will be like.

This next bit is speculation on my part (but I will show my workings 🧐) If Venkys were willing to pay the 100% guarantee I don’t think they’d have needed to go to court re the £4.85 million. I’m basing this on the fact they were given permission to send monies in March ‘24 without a judge ordering the authorities to allow this* With all this in mind, whilst the May case included a request for funds to be sent, I think their main motivation for the appeal was the removal of the guarantee. * I also have a slight recollection of a poster on here saying Pasha had confirmed a ‘deal had been done’. I’m presuming that deal was along the lines of ‘if you keep to the current court conditions we’ll give you permission’ I wouldn’t want to rely on that source though (Pasha, not whoever that poster was 😁).

The other hearing currently pending (5th August) is a continuation of the original case - this is Venkys wanting to be able to send funds with no conditions whatsoever* Last month’s case was a separate (albeit clearly linked) appeal looking for the removal of the guarantee condition only. * other conditions are such things as the club’s auditors providing an end use certificate within three days of the remittance being received (ie confirming the monies will be used for the requested purpose only).

No, it’s definitely been implemented - the hearing you’re referring to was 20th May, the hearing when the reduction was applied was 26th May.

Did you tell him to keep an eye on this thread and we’ll keep him updated? Back to front I know but needs must 😁😁

Add in how Rovers is now run and I’m guessing that probability drops even further.

Yep, bankruptcy is a disqualify event.