Jump to content

BRFCS

BY THE FANS, FOR THE FANS, SINCE 1996
Proudly partnered with TheTerraceStore.com

wilsdenrover

Members
  • Posts

    7565
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    48

Everything posted by wilsdenrover

  1. The below formed part of the last court order: At the time I didn’t think much of this, but I’ve since discovered the Adjudicating Authority are who the Directorate of Enforcement (respondent no.2) refer a case to once they’ve gathered their evidence of a violation. That authority then hears the case and decides if and what penalty to impose. Maybe things are about to move forward… Edited to add: I’ve also just discovered the maximum penalty that can be imposed is three times the sum involved in the breach. (Unfortunately I don’t think the provision in the law imposing a jail sentence of up to five years will be applicable).
  2. I’m not sure we’re near that stage yet - if/when the money runs out I’m guessing they’ll start borrowing against the training ground etc etc.
  3. Indeed, and if the Directorate of Enforcement had their way then Venkys wouldn’t be allowed to send monies whatever conditions were attached. It makes you wonder what they’ve found out/suspect but not yet revealed.
  4. Is our FFP leeway not affected by the fact the owner’s didn’t add any equity in the 23/24 financial year? I thought this reduced the allowable loss for that year from £13 million to £5 million.
  5. Those figures (seized property and guarantees to date) are confirmed within the most recent court order. They were part of a Venky’s’ argument as to why the guarantee condition should be removed from future remittances.
  6. What formation are England playing today? - I’ve looked at the selection and can’t work it out (not that I’ve tried that hard 😁😁)
  7. In fairness to Chaddy… That article both quotes Ismael as saying he wants 90% by the first day of pre season AND as saying the trip is later in pre-season than usual so that 90% can be on it.
  8. When the Venkys first went to court the reason for wanting the money sending was set out as the below: No mention of potential job losses, detriment to the team etc - purely ‘we’d lose all our money and people will think we’re useless’ - I find that very telling. Well, funnily enough (dickheads) you’re not getting your money back and people know you’re a bunch of incompetent buffoons. In summary, fuck off Venkys.
  9. with the club trying to spin it as a good thing.
  10. We could try Sheffield United’s approach of buying players we don’t have the money to pay for.
  11. They went to court because they didn’t want to pay any bond at all, whether they’ll be ‘happy’ to pay the 50% is anyone’s guess. I don’t think there’s been any official confirmation re transfer fees as the question hasn’t been asked (judge that as you will…) If as a result of the judge’s order there is a shortfall I think we’re limited on who we could sell to raise the funds (another loan on the training ground maybe…) I’m sure others will comment on your final sentence 😁.
  12. Maybe the court would approve money being sent over for transfers but Venkys would need to ask to find out.
  13. Club requested £4.85 million so… Venkys send club £3.2 million and pay a £1.6 million bond. £1.6 million for the club to find, who wants to bet against that ending up being the fee agreed for Travis…
  14. The sum requested is worded as to ‘fulfill its statutory and contractual obligations’ I don’t see how this can include money for potential transfers. Edited to add… The court doesn’t issue the NoC but orders the authorities to do so (subject to Venkys meeting the conditions this and previous court orders have set). However… Venkys got an NoC issued in March ‘24 without the need to go to court - presumably because they just stumped up the guarantee ‘no questions asked’ that time.
  15. Rovers requested the money 26th March Venkys filed an appeal with the court 22nd April Hearing confirms funds can be sent 26th May Venkys send Rovers the money ??????
  16. They can split the club a million ways if they wish. It’s still supposed to be the CEO in overall control.
  17. It’s beyond obvious Suhail is in charge, what makes them so reluctant to make this official? 🤔🤨
  18. Is it just me or does that description sound more like a COO’s responsibilities?
  19. https://www.printfriendly.com/print?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.lancashiretelegraph.co.uk%2Fsport%2F25190722.blackburn-rovers-boost-contract-talks-star-player%2F "There have been no talks yet. That's all I can really say about it at the moment. I'm happy here."
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.