RevidgeBlue

Also had the bad injury necessitating the wearing of a mask for a period which Mowbray seemingly disregarfed

They haven't. Today was technically scheduled as a final hearing. Venky's want to be allowed to send funds over free of encumbrances and get their bonds back and I'm guessing the ED still want to prevent them from doing so and they don't get their bonds back. I'm guessing all possible final outcomes are still on the table In the interim we appear to have have had a temporary solution whereby the Judge seems to have taken pity on the Club who aren't at fault per se. The area of disagreement between us is whether the owners can't or won't send money currently. I think the latter but either way the net effect for the Club is the same.

Good question - I don't know and that would be a good question for Waggott who himself claims there are no impediments to the owners funding us .....errr apart from the bond.

I've made the point before though that just because you're fit and proper owners at one point surely doesn't mean you're fit and proper forever regardless of changing circumstances?

Not sure what you're arguing about here - so until a final decision is made, it's twice as expensive to send money over until a final determination on the case is made albeit they MIGHT get the bonds back. Yes?

My reading of it is Venky's (or the Company if we're splitting hairs) initially barred from sending money over at all. They appeal this and go to Court and are successful in getting the outright restriction lifted BUT they have to provide an equivalent supporting monetary bond and jump through all the other hoops as regards supporting paperwork. They can now send money over at any point provided they comply with these conditions. The proceedings now relate SOLELY to Venky's trying to get the requirement to provide a supporting bond lifted. However the case keeps getting postponed and they don't want to send money over in the meantime as it's too expensive. If people disagree that's fine but that's my opinion on it.

Nah. Raya though..........

Respectfully disagree - after permitting the initial transfer of the £11m the judgment went on to say that after "every" remittance to it's WOS (wholly owned subsidiary Venky's had to provide supporting Bank Statements etc etc and a Bank Guarantee and on that basis their application was considered dealt with. Perhaps the Club should have read the judgement more carefully or thought that "The situation is unclear" sounded better than "We don't want to pay double" in the accounts.

Not really in favour of Ruddy, would he not be on very big wages as well?

I mean, as much as people don't like them, possibly you can't blame them for not being willing to pay double bubble BUT that doesn't help us in the meantime. As long as this stipulation about the bond is in place and they aren't willing to meet it, that makes them effectively no different in real terms to owners who are unable to fund the Club. There won't be a Szmodics or a Wharton round every single corner to keep the lights on.

The case didn't go on today - along with 16 others- because of lack of Court time - nothing whatsoever to do with being successful in removing the order or not!

I think that's it in a nutshell as well.

Sorry, it seems quite clear from the extract of the Court papers provided by Duncan that that is wrong. The judgement thus far appears to concede that the Club are "not yet under the cloud of suspicion" therefore money CAN be sent as long as it is on each occasion supported by an equivalent supporting bond and provided they subsequently back it up with the details of what it's required for and Bank statements showing where it's coming from. etc etc But like Josh says they're probably not doing because double bubble is now too expensive and too much trouble.

That does tend to indicate that they CAN in face send money whenever they want as long as they provide the equivalent supporting bond and complete all the relevant paperwork retrospectively. But as we can see - they clearly aren't doing. Choosing instead to let the Club wash it's own face courtesy of a couple of fortuitously timed sales. WHICH - imo in many ways is worse than being blocked from doing so.

I did suspect that was the case and that Waggott was talking complete shite about a precedent having been set, because if that was the case then you'd think there'd be no need to have to forensically itemise in such detail each and every item of expenditure requested.

Just to follow up on Josh's point then - if their success rate in prosecutions is so high; what is it that makes Venky-s think they can win this one? Do they have a genuine belief, or, is it merely a tit for tat retaliation against the Authorities causing them maximum inconvenience and tying them up in Court for years simply because they can?

Interesting. Thanks. "It's worse than that - She's dead Jim, dead Jim, dead".

Organisations like the Trust and Fans Forum absolutely have to step up now and not let Waggott get away with any more crap whatsoever along the "This doesn't affect our day to day operations" line. Obviously it does. Over the last 12 months we've been selling anything of any value, scuppering high value incoming deals and not reinvesting in the team whereas before these particular financial difficulties the owners were (commendably imo) quite happy to risk the likes of Rothwell and Brereton walk for nothing in the hope that by keeping them they'd fire us to promotion.

Over the years they do seem to have had intermittent periods where they have splurged loads of cash and others when the taps appear to have been turned off. This feels slightly different now though, like a concerted effort to sell anything of any value and until the next player "does a Szmodics" and improves out of all recognition they appear to have more or less completed the task. To be fair, I did say "If" not "They will".

At this point after 2 postponements if the owners were serious about doing the right thing by the Club they'd settle the case out of Court and pay some sort of financial penalty. If they believe they're in the right and are intent on fighting the case on principle however this could drag on more or less indefinitely. We're obviously right at the bottom of the Court's list of priorities.

Really interesting. Thanks.

I keep reading views along those lines, yet we only stayed up on the last day of the season. Does not compute but each to their own, I recognise I'm in the minority on this, I just don't get him as a player. And if he's that good, why aren't other teams racing to sign him up?

Great post. At the very least the fans deserve to know exactly what is going on. It's only the future of the Club that's at stake.

Neither did Douglas.

Travis was great against Derby and to coin a well worn cliche is " one of our own". If he is one of our higher earners then the similarities between him and Gallagher end there. Must be in a minority of one but I still can't see what all the fuss about Tronstad is about. Very over-rated imo. In addition JRC has also started the season in dreadful fashion so a sale of Travis now would be an absolute disaster necessitating the addition of two decent central midfielders before the window closes. Talk about cutting off your nose to spite your face. I wouldn't have thought with hindsight that it was in dispute that loaning Travis out last season to save a few quid was a massive mistake that we only just got away with, yet here we are allegedly looking to compound the error!