wilsdenrover

Would you steak your life on that?

Please don’t let the Venkys be part of the 5%.

They need to ‘defend’ themselves to the Adjudicating Authority but them saying they intend to do so (if indeed they do*) may well get brought up on Wednesday. * I think we all know they will. Re your new show analogy - do you think we’re at the stage where we know it will be shit but we’re sticking with it anyways 😁😁

Sell on fees are the only financial commitments a club is allowed to make whilst under a fee restriction.

As every one seems to be in here, I’ve done a little update in the Venky court case thread. I wouldn’t rush to go read it though but just so you all know it’s there…

@paullarrygher Delhi High Court updated their website a while ago, perhaps that’s why it no longer loads for you? This is the link I use https://delhihighcourt.nic.in/app/

Point 3 is the interesting one for me, this complaint (if I’ve understood the procedure correctly) is the ED saying to the Adjudicating Authority that they believe the Venkys have a case to answer (re their investigation). Respondent no 2 is the Directorate of Enforcement. edited to add: Just checked and it’s listed as the sixth case to be heard on Wednesday - who thinks I need to set my alarm??

A model he’d have been aware of when he joined.

Let’s stop this Derby Rovers bollocks before it becomes a thing eh.

What motivation is there for a young player to improve if better/more experienced players are just moved aside to keep their ‘pathways’ clear? First team opportunities should be earned.

My only issue with this is it’s entirely the club’s fault (by not sorting out contracts sooner) that we’re in a transitional state. We finished seventh last season, any half functioning club would have been pushing to strengthen in a bid to reach the play offs. That being said, none of this is the new players fault so I agree they need time to show whether they’re good enough. The concern however would be, if they aren’t of sufficient standard, I wouldn’t trust our lot to resolve the situation in January (given the past few winter windows).

1 game

Harder to bring in banners if only small bags are allowed…

They tried to but he was spinning too fast.

🤷‍♂️ hopefully we’ll find out soon.

I’ve heard he does his best work in and around the box.

Looks like he falls one point short. He’d have got that point if they’d qualified for Europe through the league (they did so through the cup). A good argument to make to the exceptions panel??

Let’s hope he doesn’t fall out with the supporters of the Smit might hit the fan. I’ll get my coat…

The order is yet to be published so we don’t know what (if anything) happened but it’s listed to be in court again on Wednesday.

Maybe you’re right but I don’t think a selling club should be operating like that. Surely it’s in their interest to maximise the price they get.

That only works if the selling club doesnt want others to know the player is available. Why wouldn’t they want to drum up interest to increase the price?

They could choose to write it off. They could try to get it back. They could sell Rovers but retain ownership of Venkys London (with the debt remaining owing)* There’s probably further options too. * I’d be amazed if anyone agreed to buy the club under this circumstance. I think we’ve veered well off topic! 😁

Yes, owed by the club. These loans are always repayable within a year but the Venkys are yet to ever call them in. Of course someone owing you money and you getting that money back from them are two entirely different things.

I think that’s probably based on the assumption they’d want all their money back. As of March ‘24 this was £220.1 million - £86.1 invested (I use that term loosely) in shares and £134 million advanced (ie loans).