Yeah. They've "secured required permissiona" with conditions attached they don't want to meet. Pull the other one Steve. Or....we're being unduly cynical and harsh and we can expect to see the Szmodics money and then some spent next week. I can't wait.

Can't force him out. If he doesn't want to go, he stays. Not like Eustace will have called him in and said he's not part of his plans either, he's obviously integral to them. Hopefully all bollux anyway if the story has been taken down.

We'd have had quite a few more more if Wahlstedt hadn't come in for Pears.

Can't be true.....Gav doesn't think any of our squad would get into their team LOL. If true what a shocker given the already threadbare nature of the squad and Eustace's stated desire to keep the player. Travis himself wouldn't come out with any credit either after claiming it was JDT's fault he ended up on loan on Ipswich and banging on about how much he loved the Club less than 48 hours ago.

Is Rovers' goalkeeping situation a hot topic of conversation in Malta?

Just have to agree to disagree on whether they can or can't then. If they can but won't it's even worse in my book.

Total guess on my part but I assume they thought "There remains material uncertainty about our ability to fund" (I.e. not in our control) sounds a lot better than 'We don't want to fund because we don't want to provide personal guarantees". Bang on about Waggott. Re: the owners even if they win their case the question remains whether they would return to pre crisis levels of funding or whether they've rather enjoyed not having to put their hands in their pockets. Historically most Club benefactors start off with great enthusiasm, spending money like it's going out of fashion before losing enthusiasm for endlessly flushing money down the pan and eventually withdrawing funding altogether.

Venky's brought the case against the ED, not the other way round so I'm guessing it's about them trying to get the requirement to provide a guarantee removed. I think Herbie got to the crux of the matter and nailed it when he made a throwaway comment about if the V's had to provide personal guarantees it would explain a lot. From the bits of info that are emerging and the In telligent analysis of them on here I now think they can send money if they wish and don't even have to pay a bond which makes it "double bubble". The Court papers however indicate that they have to provide a Bank Guarantee and I suspect that that Guarantee from the Company would have to be reinforced by personal guarantees and that THAT is the reason the flow of money has stopped because they don't want to put a penny of their respective personal fortunes at risk. Hence us trying to scrape by by selling players in the meantime until the matter is finalised. So much to go at Waggott on. And please someone the next time you have an audience with him and he says they've reiterated their commitment to funding the Club blah blah - point out to him there's "funding" it and really funding it. "Funding" it entails doing the bare minimum to keep the lights on as appears to be happening at present. Really funding it entails doing enough to make us a competitive outfit on the pitch and giving us the best chance to thrive in future. Therefore if the manager or recruitment team think they've spotted an absolute gem who would cost £6m but could almost certainly be sold for £20m - £30m a couple of years later then that sort of backing would need to be available and could be recouped at a later date. Rinse and repeat.

There's plenty of ammunition building that will blow Waggott out of the water now. It seems feasible now that when he said "There is no impediment to the owners sending funds over" he might actually have been telling the truth for about the first time ever! i.e they merely have to jump through the hoops as regards the stipulated paperwork and provide a Bank Guarantee. The various fan groups now need a clear answer from Waggott to the above: Is it the case they are not allowed to fund the Club without Court approval or is it simply the case that they don't want to? And if the answer is as looking increasingly likely the latter, why not? And don't let the slimy toe rag off the hook until he's provided satisfactory answers. No more of this "The owners have assured me they remain fully committed to funding the Club" crap because in reality it simply isn't happening. It may be that the honest answer would be "The owners have now decided they want the Club to wash its own face wherever possible but where it isn't they will step in to provide funding to keep the Club running" Which would be far from ideal but at least we'd know where we stand.

Really informative. Thanks.

That's your interpretation of it. I read it and thought instantly that for whatever period Venky's are under investigation the Court had come up with a solution to avoid all parties having to trail back and forth to Court on pointless hearings which would have the same outcome.

Probably didn't start out that way when they couldnt transfer at all but once they got satisfaction of sorts with the existing judgement it does seem to me that they've noticed that it's a lot better to let the Club wash it's own face wherever possible with a few player sales rather than having to dip their hands in their pockets for £20 m plus every year. Get Waggott to muddy the waters with uncertainty about whether they are or are not allowed to fund us and use the word "bond" instead of "guarantee" to make people think it would cost them double and boom! You're off the hook.

There seems to be some dispute as to whether SS was already on our radar before the Egg rocked up but giving him credit for that, even Owen Coyle found Charlie Mulgrew.

Especially for contestants who lived at the top of a high rise tower block in the middle of Birmingham!

Notwithstanding Waggott/Pasha and the owners though, Broughton was beyond useless. I just wonder what might have been had we appointed a proper DOF to work alongside the excellent JDT as opposed to Broughton supplying him with duds or not signing people at all.

This thread is now like an episode of Bullseye in light of the postponed Court hearing. "Look at what you could have had!" (Won)

As I posted the other day, that's exactly the way I interpreted it, but kept getting told I was wrong. The general thrust and purpose of the order seemed quite clear to me. As regards whether Venky's merely have to provide a guarantee or physically have to pay an equivalent bond that's not a discussion I was aware of. I thought we'd always been led to believe by Waggott and Co that they had to pay a bond and that therefore the cost of sending any money over was double what it was previously but it would be no surprise whatsoever if he's been misleading people in this respect as well in addition to every other.

OK even if the ED did object in future every time Venky's wanted to send money over, none of that detracts from the basic premise that they "can" send funds if they really want. The process is just a bit more convoluted but it seems more likely than not the request would be granted given the existing precedent.

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..........