Innocently mis representing the purposes of the Company seems somewhat too trivial to warrant a major investigation imo. It's clear the current Indian regime don't like money leaving the Country full stop. So maybe they're trying to make out that the omission was deliberate to allow funds to be funneled out overseas? Doesn't the investigation on the information so far to hand centre around the allegedly improper purchase of Neville's old house and shares in Akon's Company using VOL money? I'd have thought it would be pretty easy to argue they needed a suitable Base in this Country re: the house. Not so much the shares.

Seems that way. But so far they've been over-ruled twice. Might be a different story if we got an unsympathetic judge at some point though.

Boom Boom!

Yes, like I said, as long as the major bills continue to be paid presumably there's no problem from their point of view.

Appreciate your wider point but why would we need to borrow the money from the bank when the Court have said they can send the money over? As others have said I wouldn't be surprised to see net sales approximating to a similar amount instead

It's a matter of subjective interpretation really. My view is that if they're willing to meet the guarantee in case of emergency it makes no practical difference to us whatsoever. If and when all need for a guarantee is removed, imo they're not suddenly going to start lashing more money in the Club's direction. We won't see any benefit, it'll just be cheaper for them.

As regards Rovers the ED have been over-ruled twice? now though and restrictions appear to be slowly relaxing rather than increasing, so unless something drastic changes in the meantime the Club are probably correct to assume a precedent has been set. We probably haven't found out yet the entirety of what Venky's the organisation are being investigated for. I suppose something major could theoretically come to light which would cause us problems. Equally the wider investigation could come to nothing. I'm not sure why these proceedings have not prompted the EFL to consider whether Venky's the owners are still "fit and proper owners" though. That happened to the guy at Reading as I recall. Presumably as long as the bills are still being paid there's no problem from their point of view.

Ah - got it!. I've only just noticed that specific wording and the the numbering on the new order etc. 🤭 Thanks for your patience and concise explanations!

But it applies now I presume? So therefore they could send up to £11m over (if they wanted) with a 50% guarantee.

It depends on your definition of "impediment". To me if you can send money over but have to jump through a few administrative hoops to do it - that's inconvenient, but not really an impediment. If you can't send money over because the Court have said no - now THAT'S an impediment. It seems at the moment the Court are allowing money to be sent. Maybe the "impediment" such as it is is not being able to get the Case heard due to time constraints? We seem to have been able to get the case heard fairly swiftly on this occasion though when we needed it.

Thanks. I've managed to download the entire thing now. I found the judgment very unclear and a lot of the language used about the Club not being under suspicion etc and the monetary amounts were the same as at earlier hearings . However unless the judgment was simply citing the 2023 order for reference purposes, it looks to me as though it was ordered that they could send up to £11m again but with a 50% Bank Guarantee this time as opposed to a full one as previously. With a further hearing date due to decide whether the need for a guarantee can be completely removed altogether. The ED were seemingly objecting to money being sent at all on the basis that the transfer would not comply with the Country's foreign exchange regulations and that the V's were still under investigation but were seemingly over-ruled again. So it seemed to me that if we can actually get before the Court, they're not stopping money being sent over at this stage. What i found striking however was the fact that we're having to go back cap in hand to the Court already indicating the Wharton/ Szmodics/Raya money etc has run out. Also the amounts we claimed we needed on the previous occasion seem odd - unless I'm reading it wrong it's claimed the tax due on the wages was the same amount as the wages themselves. To be fair the £4.9m requested by Suhail this time round to cover 3 months equates to the £20m p.a. they've always claimed they sent over. Exactly where it's all going though bearing in mind the massive cost savings and cuts we've made over the last few years I've no idea.

What does the 2nd part of the order say? The bit reproduced above keeps referring back to an order made in June 23?

No it's that Roverseas dude who for some unknown reason has thousands of subscribers.

Agreed, point taken.

Gascoigne was very good but he wasn't a patch on Hoddle imo. I've never seen an English player like him.

Not a valid comparison at all really. Those Clubs can afford to replace said players. And even if other Clubs make the occasional mistake, that doesn't excuse us making the same mistake once, let alone time after time after time.

I have Ken Beamish's no 7 shirt from the final home game v Wrexham which I can make available if needed.

Couldn't agree more. Can't understand how he's carved out a career in professional football at all. The point I was making was that he buzzes about and looks lively at times which must impress managers but it all goes wrong when he gets the ball.

Hedges doesn't look too bad UNTIL the ball arrives at his feet.

I don't like players who swing the lead for season after season, therefore I'd have a similarly dim view of Corry Evans. Gallagher was half decent during his initial loan spell under Coyle (although never worth spending anywhere near £5m on) but following his return on a permanent basis he turned being invisible and avoiding getting into scoring positions into an art form. Opinions vary on how much effort Gallagher put in but for me he was only ever going through the motions for that reason. Incidentally, he only scored 3 League goals for Stoke this season as well so that looks like it's a "standard Gallagher season" now. Bet Stoke are delighted they're paying him £15k - £20k p.w.

Closest player we've ever had to Gueye that I can recall is Shefki Kuqi. Big, Clumsy, bit of a handful, not incredibly prolific but scores a few. Infectious enthusiasm and extremely likeable.

Scored twice as many League goals in his first season over here as Gallagher did in his last though. Who you liked. Think the reality is neither Ohashi or Gueye are really good enough in isolation but both proved relatively good value at around £250k and £1m respectively. Decent strikers cost decent money which we wont pay. We might get a reasonable combined return out of the two of them again if used judiciously. I do fear for Gueye, he looks like a confidence type of player who needs an arm round the shoulder but it wouldn't appear that Ismael rates him. Both have however performed far more creditably thus far than the assorted dross we've had over recent years like Gallagher, Hirst, Telalovic and Ennis.

Eddie's view is fair enough. I was replying to Bank End Rover. FWIW I don't see us spending anywhere near E3m on a CB. We seem to be loath to spend half of that on a striker

I've no real view on signing this particular player either way other than it is a fairy speculative link and if it came to fruition one very much on the riskier end of the scale. It's using that very tenuous link to justify not re-signing Batth (who is proven at this level) that I don't agree with. It's not part of a grand masterplan to bring the age of the squad down either. We've offered Batth terms but so far he's rejected them.