WATR (The Rovers Trust)

[lraC]

16 hours 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.

This is again, exactly why Waggott stated that the funds were coming in February. His line was, I provided a full breakdown of what the exact amounts needed were and what they were for. The court accepted that and the funds were released. Given this, a precedent has been set, so the same will happen in  February.

He perhaps did not account for an adjournment, but he did state that we only had the funds (in late November) to pay everything until February. 
As we now know the Wharton sale meant funds did come in to carry on, but it must have been a close run thing. 

[Forever Blue]

4 hours ago, lraC said:

This is again, exactly why Waggott stated that the funds were coming in February. His line was, I provided a full breakdown of what the exact amounts needed were and what they were for. The court accepted that and the funds were released. Given this, a precedent has been set, so the same will happen in  February.

He perhaps did not account for an adjournment, but he did state that we only had the funds (in late November) to pay everything until February. 
As we now know the Wharton sale meant funds did come in to carry on, but it must have been a close run thing. 

Which is why Wharton was sold, because they had run out of funds and the adjournment in Jan (?) pulled the rug so they had to sell Wharton on the cheap. So what Waggott told you in Nov was probably correct at the time, but the Jan adjournment messed everything up. 
 

Then when they went back to court in March it was agreed that only procedural and technical issues were outstanding that had nothing to do with Rovers so sending funds is no longer an issue.
 

Then they adjourned again until  August, at which point they will deal with whatever outstanding issues remaining. 
 

that’s my reading of the situation which or may not be correct. We’ll soon find out….

Edited May 24 by Forever Blue

[lraC]

4 minutes ago, Forever Blue said:

Which is why Wharton was sold, because they had run out of funds and the adjournment in Jan (?) pulled the rug so they had to sell Wharton on the cheap. So what Waggott told you in Nov was probably correct at the time, but the Jan adjournment messed everything up. 
 

Then when they went back to court in March it was agreed that only procedural and technical issues were outstanding that had nothing to do with Rovers so sending funds is no longer an issue.
 

Then they adjourned again until  August, at which point they will deal with whatever outstanding issues remaining. 
 

that’s my reading of the situation which or may not be correct. We’ll soon find out….

I honestly don’t think that’s correct. Granted it’s nothing to do with Rovers, but it has everything to do with the owners. They have been caught sending illegal funds and were unable to send any more without absolutely clarity of what the funds were paying and getting the courts permission. Right now they cannot send any further funds and need to wait until the hearing in August, which will not only determine if they can send funds then. It will also clarify if they will be banned from sending any funding permanently. 

[Forever Blue]

7 minutes ago, lraC said:

I honestly don’t think that’s correct. Granted it’s nothing to do with Rovers, but it has everything to do with the owners. They have been caught sending illegal funds and were unable to send any more without absolutely clarity of what the funds were paying and getting the courts permission. Right now they cannot send any further funds and need to wait until the hearing in August, which will not only determine if they can send funds then. It will also clarify if they will be banned from sending any funding permanently. 

You’re stating that they can’t send further funds as fact. The club have said they can. How do you know they can’t?

[ABBEY]

a venky bot ?

[Forever Blue]

5 minutes ago, ABBEY said:

a venky bot ?

Fantastic contribution 

[ABBEY]

Cheers pash lad

[tomphil]

We'll have a better idea next month or so as don't they usually drop some funds in in summer ?

[chaddyrovers]

11 hours ago, J*B said:

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

Why did you do that Josh? 

[arbitro]

11 hours ago, J*B said:

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

I'm pleased to hear that. These clandestine meetings are often counter productive and invariably have a hidden agenda.

[Forever Blue]

7 minutes ago, arbitro said:

I'm pleased to hear that. These clandestine meetings are often counter productive and invariably have a hidden agenda.

The agenda last time was to stop the nascent anti-Waggott protests from gaining momentum. 

[arbitro]

29 minutes ago, Forever Blue said:

The agenda last time was to stop the nascent anti-Waggott protests from gaining momentum. 

Without a doubt and sums Waggott up to a tee.

[Mike Graham]

12 hours ago, J*B said:

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

What further proposals?

[Forever Blue]

1 hour ago, ABBEY said:

Cheers pash lad

No probs kid. 
 

oh and there is a Pash bot on here. Let me know if you ever work it out. 

[J*B]

38 minutes ago, Mike Graham said:

What further proposals?

Currently on holiday - will reply in due course!

[Crimpshrine]

2 hours ago, Forever Blue said:

You’re stating that they can’t send further funds as fact. The club have said they can. How do you know they can’t?

The club have not stated that they can freely send funds from India. Waggott has stated that the adjournment in March did not affect the owners' ability to continue funding the club. This is true because they can use transfer income to fund the club. 

Nothing changed in March because there was no court hearing.  Even if Venky's were allowed to send funds from India, they would need to match the amount with a security deposit to the BOI which would be a big increased burden for them.

I've posted this a few times - there was a telling sentence in the LT back in March: stating that the adjournment had prevented Venky's sending funds that they had hoped would see the club through to the summer. Luckily, the Wharton and Raya cash has acted as a cushion. Without the transfer income we would have been struggling.

 

[lraC]

3 hours ago, Forever Blue said:

You’re stating that they can’t send further funds as fact. The club have said they can. How do you know they can’t?

Back in November, I had a meeting with Waggott, prompted by me sending a copy of the article in the Indian press, about the illegal payments made by Venky's to Venkys London Limited. It is reported in the article that the Directorate of enforcement has seized 6 properties, as a result of these illegal payments being made, which as you can imagine, gave me cause for concern about their activity and given the serious nature of the above, their future ability to fund the club.

Waggott explained to me, that the owners could still fund the club, but due to what had happened, they had to go to court to get permission to do so and he had to give the court a breakdown of the liabilities that the funds were for and the exact amounts. He was at pains to say, that given they had done this twice and the funds were allowed to be sent, that the court hearing in February was a formality, as a precedent had been set. He did not say that the owners could freely send any further funds, so the words that came from his mouth stated that permission from the court was required.

Given that the hearing in February was adjourned until March and again until August, unless the court have made an interim ruling to state that the can fund still before the hearing in August then, that must still stand.

I found out after the meeting from a separate  source that a bond had also to be put up before the funds, before the funds could be sent in 2023 so this is NOT something agreed after, to allow further funding to take place prior to the hearing in August.

If someone has  access to a court document stating that the ban on funding has been temporarily lifted, due to the timescale to the next meeting them by all means say so and that would obviously then mean, that the can now send funds, so either that exits, or I was told a lie.

The link to the Indian press article that prompted Waggott to invite me in for a meeting, is pasted below.

ED seizes immovable properties worth over Rs 24 cr of Venkateshwara Hatcheries under FEMA provisions (aninews.in)

[lraC]

32 minutes ago, Crimpshrine said:

The club have not stated that they can freely send funds from India. Waggott has stated that the adjournment in March did not affect the owners' ability to continue funding the club. This is true because they can use transfer income to fund the club. 

Nothing changed in March because there was no court hearing.  Even if Venky's were allowed to send funds from India, they would need to match the amount with a security deposit to the BOI which would be a big increased burden for them.

I've posted this a few times - there was a telling sentence in the LT back in March: stating that the adjournment had prevented Venky's sending funds that they had hoped would see the club through to the summer. Luckily, the Wharton and Raya cash has acted as a cushion. Without the transfer income we would have been struggling.

 

Spot on and some people are reading this incorrectly and to be fair, I think it was dressed up like this purposely to add some convenient confusion to the issue.

Edited May 24 by lraC

[Upside Down]

5 minutes ago, lraC said:

Back in November, I had a meeting with Waggott, prompted by me sending a copy of the article in the Indian press, about the illegal payments made by Venky's to Venkys London Limited. It is reported in the article that the Directorate of enforcement has seized 6 properties, as a result of these illegal payments being made, which as you can imagine, gave me cause for concern about their activity and given the serious nature of the above, their future ability to fund the club.

Waggott explained to me, that the owners could still fund the club, but due to what had happened, they had to go to court to get permission to do so and he had to give the court a breakdown of the liabilities that the funds were for and the exact amounts. He was at pains to say, that given they had done this twice and the funds were allowed to be sent, that the court hearing in February was a formality, as a precedent had been set. He did not say that the owners could freely send any further funds, so the words that came from his mouth stated that permission from the court was required.

Given that the hearing in February was adjourned until March and again until August, unless the court have made an interim ruling to state that the can fund still before the hearing in August then, that must still stand.

I found out after the meeting from a separate  source that a bond had also to be put up before the funds, before the funds could be sent in 2023 so this is NOT something agreed after, to allow further funding to take place prior to the hearing in August.

If someone has  access to a court document stating that the ban on funding has been temporarily lifted, due to the timescale to the next meeting them by all means say so and that would obviously then mean, that the can now send funds, so either that exits, or I was told a lie.

The link to the Indian press article that prompted Waggott to invite me in for a meeting, is pasted below.

ED seizes immovable properties worth over Rs 24 cr of Venkateshwara Hatcheries under FEMA provisions (aninews.in)

I take it he didn't mention the loan taken out with Crossbarron secured against the training ground?

[lraC]

2 minutes ago, Upside Down said:

I take it he didn't mention the loan taken out with Crossbarron secured against the training ground?

No he failed to mention that and believe it or not, it was on my agenda, to delve into that, but we ran out of time.

[Crimpshrine]

7 minutes ago, Upside Down said:

I take it he didn't mention the loan taken out with Crossbarron secured against the training ground?

That is another good point. Why would they take out expensive loans like this if they were free to send funds from India?

[Forever Blue]

Cheers for the info guys, we’ll see if any funds are sent between now and August. 

[lraC]

21 minutes ago, Crimpshrine said:

That is another good point. Why would they take out expensive loans like this if they were free to send funds from India?

They wouldn't.

Expensive bridging loans are a last resort, when all other options have evaporated.

[wilsdenrover]

8 hours ago, Crimpshrine said:

The club have not stated that they can freely send funds from India. Waggott has stated that the adjournment in March did not affect the owners' ability to continue funding the club. This is true because they can use transfer income to fund the club. 

Nothing changed in March because there was no court hearing.  Even if Venky's were allowed to send funds from India, they would need to match the amount with a security deposit to the BOI which would be a big increased burden for them.

I've posted this a few times - there was a telling sentence in the LT back in March: stating that the adjournment had prevented Venky's sending funds that they had hoped would see the club through to the summer. Luckily, the Wharton and Raya cash has acted as a cushion. Without the transfer income we would have been struggling.

 

The club’s accounts refer to this amount being to cover until the end of June.

[aletheia]

9 hours ago, Forever Blue said:

oh and there is a Pash bot on here. Let me know if you ever work it out. 

How intriguing -I had always assumed there are plenty of club apparatchiks around.

edit

IT'S ABBEY AND I CLAIM MY £5 😉 

Edited May 24 by aletheia