Perhaps one of our very well paid male players could fund their legal fees.

Hod the Vainglorious 😁

One candidate?? we’re becoming like China, whatever you do lads don’t stop clapping first 😁😁 (👍 from me btw)

Cameo - Word Up

Less than two years ago… https://www.rovers.co.uk/news/2023/june/20/a-new-era-starts-now/ Quite the volte-face.

Our owners have deep pockets but short arms.

You need to down the Webex meet app - then when the cause list is published there is a link on there. I’ll add that link to this thread if you wish? - cause list is published the working day before the hearing is due.

Just to lighten the mood… I was watching the case and my wife woke up and asked what on earth I was doing. I’d have felt less ashamed if she’d caught me watching porn 😁😁

Supplementary matters is further down the list than new matters…

I wouldn’t be completely surprised if he gets a percentage of any savings he makes.

Just to be clear… I think the judge proposed reducing the bond to 50% but I’m not certain. I don’t believe this reduction was put in place, rather both sides were sent away to see if their clients would be agreeable to this. People were talking over each other and some had very strong accents so I wouldn’t be surprised if I’ve misheard some parts of the hearing. No sign of the written order yet.

Blondie - Call Me

Waggott’s wage.

Managed to get a dig at the fans in there… ‘Regrettably, despite all Rovers Women’s league fixtures being played at Ewood Park last season for the first time, there was no noticeable upturn in home attendances, resulting in the absence of the substantial matchday commercial revenue and sponsorships required to support continued investment at Tier 2’

https://www.rovers.co.uk/news/2024/january/27/club-statement/ https://www.rovers.co.uk/news/2024/march/18/club-statement--18-03-24-/

Some of us are.

Just on this point. I think I heard them discussing this option. I’m certain the case was then (whatever the option under discussion was) the hearing was then adjourned for both sides to take client instructions.

The way the Venkys’ barrister worded things this morning gave the impression the guarantee monies are sent to the authorities. He referred to ‘them’ having both the guarantee monies and the seized properties (and specified the sums involved for both) It was almost a ‘what more do they want?’ moment.

Of course not, but why go to court at all if they aren’t a problem* *Obviously they are a problem of Venkys own choosing because (as you say) they could just cover the monies without a second thought.

I must admit he did look wiling to assume the position 😁😁

This one is a new ‘appeal’ with the sole intention of removing the guarantee requirement. It’s at the top of the queue as the listing system starts with new matters, then goes on to ongoing matters and then final matters. How a final hearing ever gets heard is beyond me!

He’s wrong (I’ll let others judge whether intentionally or otherwise) - I don’t have the figures in front of me but it’s about £210 million ‘loan’ and £90m shares. The shares includes their initial purchase of the club, I imagine the rest of them are simply to comply with FFP rules.

They’re dancing on the head of a pin. Yes the owners can send money but the far more important factor is they won’t (either because of the guarantee or they don’t want to and the guarantee is a handy excuse).

He was very passionate about it, imo verging on the desperate.

His exact words.