WATR (The Rovers Trust)

[Miller11]

2 hours ago, Forever Blue said:

The Venky funding issue, and the WATR statement regarding it, have generated discussion recently. Is WATR still of the belief that there is no longer an impediment to Venky’s funding Rovers? 

The statement was us minuting what we were told during our MOU meeting. In that meeting it was reiterated that the club wasn’t the subject of any investigation and that future remittances would be allowed to happen, providing a break down of proposed expenditure was given.

We weren’t party to the legal discussions and only saw the publicly available court documents, so we can only go by what we are told by the club. Similarly they can only go by what they have been told by Venky’s.

I expect it will become very clear in the coming weeks if Venky’s are able and/or willing to continue to send funds over.

[J*B]

23 minutes ago, Miller11 said:

The statement was us minuting what we were told during our MOU meeting. In that meeting it was reiterated that the club wasn’t the subject of any investigation and that future remittances would be allowed to happen, providing a break down of proposed expenditure was given.

We weren’t party to the legal discussions and only saw the publicly available court documents, so we can only go by what we are told by the club. Similarly they can only go by what they have been told by Venky’s.

I expect it will become very clear in the coming weeks if Venky’s are able and/or willing to continue to send funds over.

Agree on all of this. To follow it up, let’s assume the funds don’t come and Rovers spend 5-10M this summer after generating circa 40M in the last 12 months (increase from tv revenue = 4M, Wharton = 22M, Raya = 3.35M, Szmodics = ?). If that plays out, then either:

Waggott told the Trust dud info under a MOU

or

Waggott was told one thing and the owners did another (again)

[Forever Blue]

37 minutes ago, Miller11 said:

The statement was us minuting what we were told during our MOU meeting. In that meeting it was reiterated that the club wasn’t the subject of any investigation and that future remittances would be allowed to happen, providing a break down of proposed expenditure was given.

We weren’t party to the legal discussions and only saw the publicly available court documents, so we can only go by what we are told by the club. Similarly they can only go by what they have been told by Venky’s.

I expect it will become very clear in the coming weeks if Venky’s are able and/or willing to continue to send funds over.

I didn’t realise a breakdown of expenditure was required, I just thought any expenditure had to be met with a bond of the same amount? I suppose it makes sense given the events that prompted the investigation. 
 

Like you say it will all become clear in the next month or so once the transfer window opens.

Edited May 23 by Forever Blue

[Miller11]

8 minutes ago, J*B said:

Agree on all of this. To follow it up, let’s assume the funds don’t come and Rovers spend 5-10M this summer after generating circa 40M in the last 12 months (increase from tv revenue = 4M, Wharton = 22M, Raya = 3.35M, Szmodics = ?). If that plays out, then either:

Waggott told the Trust dud info under a MOU

or

Waggott was told one thing and the owners did another (again)

I’m not really following here. For clarity, we weren’t given any assurances that all money generated would be put back into transfers.

This is purely my opinion, but…

We have been hampered by FFP/P&S rules in recent years. Yes, we have contributed to our own downfall in this regard with failure to properly protect playing assets and losing them on a free rather than generating a fee, but we’ve more or less operated on the cusp of the FFP threshold for a rolling 3 year period since we got back into the Championship.

If we had really “gone for it” and failed, we’d then have to basically pay for it the following season or two (expect to see Hull do this over the next 2 years). it’s a risky strategy, and the current board are very risk averse. Avoiding sanctions is massively high on the agenda.

Through a mix of factors, we’ve generated a lot of additional funds this year. We’ve obviously needed to use the cash for the ongoing running of the club, but what it has done is put us on a good P&S footing ahead of time. This makes “going for it” a lot less risky - forgetting the cash situation, we have enough leeway in the accounts to increase the wage budget over the next few years and to add significant transfer expenditure to the balance sheet.

If Venky’s don’t have the permission to remit funds to us for the forseeable, this won’t happen as the money we do have and are scheduled to receive will just go into running costs - like practically all Championship teams we operate at a loss ordinarily. If Venky’s don’t have the inclination to remit funds for us to fund a push, then the same applies.

I’d hope that conversations have happened to highlight that there is currently a window of opportunity to actually progress.

 

23 minutes ago, Forever Blue said:

I didn’t realise a breakdown of expenditure was required, I just thought any expenditure had to be met with a bond of the same amount? I suppose it makes sense given the events that prompted the investigation. 
 

Like you say it will all become clear in the next month or so once the transfer window opens.

They have previously had to provide a breakdown, the basic idea appears to be to show that the funds are not leaving the country and are going in roughly the right direction. There isn’t anything to say they can only use these funds for certain expenses. While the last lot specified things like PAYE and HMTC commitments there wouldn’t be anything to stop them adding any other expenses on there, ie transfer fees.

[lraC]

15 minutes ago, Miller11 said:

The statement was us minuting what we were told during our MOU meeting. In that meeting it was reiterated that the club wasn’t the subject of any investigation and that future remittances would be allowed to happen, providing a break down of proposed expenditure was given.

We weren’t party to the legal discussions and only saw the publicly available court documents, so we can only go by what we are told by the club. Similarly they can only go by what they have been told by Venky’s.

I expect it will become very clear in the coming weeks if Venky’s are able and/or willing to continue to send funds over.

I really believe the club (Waggott) have been really evasive on this, as there is no doubt whatsoever that the owners (granted not the club) are or certainly have been, the subject of an investigation. They have had property seized and been stopped from sending funds without the permission of the court.

To go on record in a meeting to say the club is not the subject of an investigation, is a bum steer, as what we really need to know right now, is are the allowed to fund us or not and I am of the opinion that they aren't. 

Perhaps some clarity can be sought at the next meeting.

[Miller11]

34 minutes ago, lraC said:

I really believe the club (Waggott) have been really evasive on this, as there is no doubt whatsoever that the owners (granted not the club) are or certainly have been, the subject of an investigation. They have had property seized and been stopped from sending funds without the permission of the court.

To go on record in a meeting to say the club is not the subject of an investigation, is a bum steer, as what we really need to know right now, is are the allowed to fund us or not and I am of the opinion that they aren't. 

Perhaps some clarity can be sought at the next meeting.

He was stressing that the investigation was into the activities of the parent company and not the club itself. It’s all pretty public knowledge what has happened, he has only reiterated that it isn’t any activity the club is responsible for. There was no attempts to be evasive, he was reiterated what is stated in the court documents around the first remittance.

He believes that the club will be able to remit funds as required, as that is what Venky’s have told him.

[TheRevAshton]

1 hour ago, Miller11 said:

I’m not really following here. For clarity, we weren’t given any assurances that all money generated would be put back into transfers.

This is purely my opinion, but…

We have been hampered by FFP/P&S rules in recent years. Yes, we have contributed to our own downfall in this regard with failure to properly protect playing assets and losing them on a free rather than generating a fee, but we’ve more or less operated on the cusp of the FFP threshold for a rolling 3 year period since we got back into the Championship.

If we had really “gone for it” and failed, we’d then have to basically pay for it the following season or two (expect to see Hull do this over the next 2 years). it’s a risky strategy, and the current board are very risk averse. Avoiding sanctions is massively high on the agenda.

Through a mix of factors, we’ve generated a lot of additional funds this year. We’ve obviously needed to use the cash for the ongoing running of the club, but what it has done is put us on a good P&S footing ahead of time. This makes “going for it” a lot less risky - forgetting the cash situation, we have enough leeway in the accounts to increase the wage budget over the next few years and to add significant transfer expenditure to the balance sheet.

If Venky’s don’t have the permission to remit funds to us for the forseeable, this won’t happen as the money we do have and are scheduled to receive will just go into running costs - like practically all Championship teams we operate at a loss ordinarily. If Venky’s don’t have the inclination to remit funds for us to fund a push, then the same applies.

I’d hope that conversations have happened to highlight that there is currently a window of opportunity to actually progress.

 

They have previously had to provide a breakdown, the basic idea appears to be to show that the funds are not leaving the country and are going in roughly the right direction. There isn’t anything to say they can only use these funds for certain expenses. While the last lot specified things like PAYE and HMTC commitments there wouldn’t be anything to stop them adding any other expenses on there, ie transfer fees.

Good post. How much do you expect them to spend this window?

Of course, nobody really knows, but as someone with better insight than most i'm curious as to what you think.

Edited May 23 by TheRevAshton

[Miller11]

19 minutes ago, TheRevAshton said:

Good post. How much do you expect them to spend this window?

Of course, nobody really knows, but as someone with better insight than most i'm curious as to what you think.

I honestly couldn’t even hazard a guess. I would expect a busy summer though with both incomings and outgoings though.

[lraC]

1 hour ago, TheRevAshton said:

Good post. How much do you expect them to spend this window?

Of course, nobody really knows, but as someone with better insight than most i'm curious as to what you think.

If we spend more than we bring in, I will be extremely surprised.

I am not in the know, but do expect the court to stop any further funding.

[aletheia]

6 hours ago, J*B said:

Rovers spend 5-10M this summer

Does this include wages? Rovers have spent around £8.4m in TOTAL on transer fees in the last 4 seasons.

Edited May 23 by aletheia

[wilsdenrover]

10 hours ago, Mike E said:

2 more seats in the boot 😂

Roof rack?

[wilsdenrover]

7 hours ago, Miller11 said:

I’m not really following here. For clarity, we weren’t given any assurances that all money generated would be put back into transfers.

This is purely my opinion, but…

We have been hampered by FFP/P&S rules in recent years. Yes, we have contributed to our own downfall in this regard with failure to properly protect playing assets and losing them on a free rather than generating a fee, but we’ve more or less operated on the cusp of the FFP threshold for a rolling 3 year period since we got back into the Championship.

If we had really “gone for it” and failed, we’d then have to basically pay for it the following season or two (expect to see Hull do this over the next 2 years). it’s a risky strategy, and the current board are very risk averse. Avoiding sanctions is massively high on the agenda.

Through a mix of factors, we’ve generated a lot of additional funds this year. We’ve obviously needed to use the cash for the ongoing running of the club, but what it has done is put us on a good P&S footing ahead of time. This makes “going for it” a lot less risky - forgetting the cash situation, we have enough leeway in the accounts to increase the wage budget over the next few years and to add significant transfer expenditure to the balance sheet.

If Venky’s don’t have the permission to remit funds to us for the forseeable, this won’t happen as the money we do have and are scheduled to receive will just go into running costs - like practically all Championship teams we operate at a loss ordinarily. If Venky’s don’t have the inclination to remit funds for us to fund a push, then the same applies.

I’d hope that conversations have happened to highlight that there is currently a window of opportunity to actually progress.

 

They have previously had to provide a breakdown, the basic idea appears to be to show that the funds are not leaving the country and are going in roughly the right direction. There isn’t anything to say they can only use these funds for certain expenses. While the last lot specified things like PAYE and HMTC commitments there wouldn’t be anything to stop them adding any other expenses on there, ie transfer fees.

Re the first bit in bold - the below (from the 31st October judgment) would suggest they have to prove its being spent on exactly what they said it was for.

re the second bit in bold - do you mean onto a future request to the court?

Also re this point, if Venkys felt they could request funds to be sent for transfer fees why didn’t they do so in either October or June?

Edited May 23 by wilsdenrover

[wilsdenrover]

8 hours ago, Miller11 said:

The statement was us minuting what we were told during our MOU meeting. In that meeting it was reiterated that the club wasn’t the subject of any investigation and that future remittances would be allowed to happen, providing a break down of proposed expenditure was given.

We weren’t party to the legal discussions and only saw the publicly available court documents, so we can only go by what we are told by the club. Similarly they can only go by what they have been told by Venky’s.

I expect it will become very clear in the coming weeks if Venky’s are able and/or willing to continue to send funds over.

It says in the clubs accounts that the case in January was for funds to cover liabilities until June.

As this case didn’t take place I can’t see how they can currently send anything to the club.

[Miller11]

5 minutes ago, wilsdenrover said:

Re the first bit in bold - the below (from the 31st October judgment) would suggest they have to prove its being spent on exactly what they said it was for.

re the second bit in bold - do you mean onto a future request to the court?

Also re this point, if they felt they could request funds to be sent for transfer fees why didn’t they do so in either October or June?

- Yes, my language was probably a bit more vague than it should’ve been

- Yes

- Don’t know. Possibly because we didn’t have a lot of room within p&s rules to spend much on transfers 

Edited May 23 by Miller11

[wilsdenrover]

3 minutes ago, Miller11 said:

- Yes, my language was probably a bit more vague than it should’ve been

- Yes

- Don’t know. Possibly because we didn’t have a lot of room within p&s rules to spend much on transfers 

Thanks for the reply.

On the last point, I think they probably either didn’t want to risk asking for money for things which weren’t contractual obligations or they just didn’t want to.

i just want to make clear (in case it isn’t) that any critical tones in my posts are aimed at Venkys/SW and not you/The Trust. 

[Crimpshrine]

24 minutes ago, wilsdenrover said:

It says in the clubs accounts that the case in January was for funds to cover liabilities until June.

As this case didn’t take place I can’t see how they can currently send anything to the club.

I agree. I don't think they can send any money at the moment. As stated in the LT:

"£11.5million was transferred in November to provide funding until the end of January and Venky’s wanted their latest application to cover the club until the summer and beyond. 

They need to apply to send money and the application isn't being heard until August.

Waggott has stated that their ability to fund the club is not affected - this is true as they can use income from player sales to fund the club - at the moment anyway!

[lraC]

37 minutes ago, Crimpshrine said:

I agree. I don't think they can send any money at the moment. As stated in the LT:

"£11.5million was transferred in November to provide funding until the end of January and Venky’s wanted their latest application to cover the club until the summer and beyond. 

They need to apply to send money and the application isn't being heard until August.

Waggott has stated that their ability to fund the club is not affected - this is true as they can use income from player sales to fund the club - at the moment anyway!

Exactly why I think this was an ambiguous statement. I think some people are under the impression that they can send funds, when in truth, they can’t. 

[Upside Down]

9 hours ago, J*B said:

Agree on all of this. To follow it up, let’s assume the funds don’t come and Rovers spend 5-10M this summer after generating circa 40M in the last 12 months (increase from tv revenue = 4M, Wharton = 22M, Raya = 3.35M, Szmodics = ?). If that plays out, then either:

Waggott told the Trust dud info under a MOU

or

Waggott was told one thing and the owners did another (again)

Or both.

[roversfan99]

It isnt down to P&S/FFP why they havent spent more.

[J*B]

9 minutes ago, roversfan99 said:

It isnt down to P&S/FFP why they havent spent more.

Nobody knows because rather than official communication they opt to individually tell different people different stories in private. 

[arbitro]

4 minutes ago, J*B said:

Nobody knows because rather than official communication they opt to individually tell different people different stories in private. 

That's a bit unfair. Weren't you at the meeting with the senior players and Waggott when things were said that couldn't be made public?

[roversfan99]

14 minutes ago, J*B said:

Nobody knows because rather than official communication they opt to individually tell different people different stories in private. 

They dont tell anyone anything. But weve seen in the past them turn down requests to spend on things out of scope of FFP. Plus they havent continiously spent to the brink of FFP.

[J*B]

22 minutes ago, arbitro said:

That's a bit unfair. Weren't you at the meeting with the senior players and Waggott when things were said that couldn't be made public?

Yes — and it was a nonsense! Which is why we (BRFCS) have rejected further proposals.

[Upside Down]

FFP is a total have. There are ways they could have got around it to put money into the club and they didn't do anything.

And for the 66393651573662993003rd time, stadium maintenance is not subject to FFP restrictions.

Not having a do at you BTW Miller, it's just the lies and deception from the owners and their boot licking henchmen I'm sick of.

[lraC]

6 hours ago, roversfan99 said:

They dont tell anyone anything. But weve seen in the past them turn down requests to spend on things out of scope of FFP. Plus they havent continiously spent to the brink of FFP.

Which demonstrates yet again that the often trotted out communication, “The owners never fail to sign a cheque” is also nonsense.