What a load of twaddle.

It would be nice if another hearing would go ahead so we can (maybe) finally find out for certain what Venky’s are trying to achieve. I think a good thing to ask SW would be for him to explain how his assertion the owners can fund the club doesn’t contradict the statements in the club’s accounts (re the court cases to date) A better thing still would be the Venkys to finally read the room and fuck right off.

Thanks - not from a reliable source then 😄😄

The first match I went to.

Get Santa to contact this chap… https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caganer

Last minute incomings? what could possibly go wrong with that?…

Where has personal guarantee come from? The court documents describe it as an unconditional bank guarantee to be provided by the petitioner which is VHPL.

Next debate, what does a larger bench mean? 🤔🧐😁

https://www.rovers.co.uk/news/2024/august/21/ticket-news--burnley-v-rovers/#

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enforcement_Directorate

The two clubs have to agree on the price - maybe for once it’s not our lots fault. Then again…

I wonder if that’s why today was listed as a final hearing. ie to agree on a ‘solution’ which would be in place until the conclusion of the EDs investigation.

Don’t forget their reputation…

The rules ‘reassess’ the fitness of someone to be a director of a club on a season by season basis. Unless I’m misreading things, they only assess owners at the point they’re wanting to buy a club. As you allude to, it’s ridiculous they don’t seem to ‘keep an eye’ on owners after the acquisition has taken place.

We’d probably end up in the farcical position of they wouldn’t be allowed to buy the club but they would be allowed to continue to own it.

point 1 of the order - Venkys asked for permission to send remittances (plural) totalling circa £11 million point 2 of the order - The breakdown of what these remittances are needed for. point 12 of the order - Grants permission for the £11 million to be sent subject to certain conditions (the lettered clauses following this point) conditions b and c (which I presume you’re referring to) therefore only applies to this £11 million. edited to add - if this order covered all future remittances Venkys wouldn’t have gone back to court in January to make a further request:

The extract Duncan shared showed the court allowed those monies to be sent (circa £11 million) - it did not give permission for any further monies to be sent. The extract from the club’s accounts I posted earlier (I’ll do so again here) states that Venkys aren’t currently in control of whether they can send funds to the club or not (second paragraph) The below also confirms Venkys believe the precedent has been set for the court to approve all future requests but if these hearing keep getting postponed they, and us, are never going to find out It’s of course possible something has changed since the accounts were finalised but no documented proof has been provided for this

This (from the accounts) makes it pretty clear they think the court will always say yes to funds being sent but they don’t know that for a fact. What does appear to be clear is Venkys needing the court’s separate permission for any new tranche of money they want to send.

Their email address is on the cause list…

The last hearing to go ahead was November 2023. A whole year of fuck all progress.

Decision time … https://www.rovers.co.uk/news/2024/august/20/ticket-news--rovers-v-blackpool/

One of the cases in the same court today began in 2021…

I posted the right one this morning - well I hope I did as you have a ban button 😬😬

I’m regretting posting the link now 😄