That *was* the January Window

[miqaayil]

15 minutes ago, wilsdenrover said:

Is this definitely the case?

they are billionaires , owning most of PUNE india

[RevidgeBlue]

Just now, miqaayil said:

they are billionaires , owning most of PUNE india

Yes, but do they run their core businesses at home with ruthless efficiency? That was the point being made.

If they do (which I have to doubt in the circumstances) then their ownership here admittedly looks even stranger.

[tomphil]

2 minutes ago, miqaayil said:

they are billionaires , owning most of PUNE india

I doubt they own most of Pune we'll need receipts for that i'm afraid, it's like Issa bro own most of Blackburn or the Walkers did, just completely untrue.

[RevidgeBlue]

Just now, tomphil said:

I doubt they own most of Pune we'll need receipts for that i'm afraid, it's like Issa bro own most of Blackburn or the Walkers did, just completely untrue.

I don't think it is, that's where their real wealth comes from.

[tomphil]

2 hours ago, DavidMailsTightPerm said:

Does the Academy also not count for FFP ? 

I thought Academy expenditure was exempt ?

The grants would also count as income if it wasn't exempt i assume.

Edited January 22 by tomphil

[tomphil]

1 minute ago, RevidgeBlue said:

I don't think it is, that's where their real wealth comes from.

We get told that on here but there has never been any real evidence of it although iv'e no doubt they own a fair chunk of land etc.

 They never pop up in the wealth lists over there even estimated ones and there are some very wealthy who do, everything to do with them seems a bit of a mystery beyond what is officially declared.

[arbitro]

17 minutes ago, RevidgeBlue said:

Fascinating. Thank you.

The main  things I took from that is that there's a 15 minute Lee way period if you submit a quick application until 23.15 and the Club STILL couldn't submit the documents on time.

Incompetence on a stunning level.

Also when we received LOB's signed loan agreement back at 23.15 if we'd submitted it to the EFL instantly we might have got away with it but didn't submit it until 23.28.

Unbelievable Jeff.

 

The club were acutely aware of the times and still cocked up. Then appealed against a case they had very little hope of winning.

Hmmmmmmmmmmmm.

[RevidgeBlue]

5 minutes ago, tomphil said:

We get told that on here but there has never been any real evidence of it although iv'e no doubt they own a fair chunk of land etc.

 They never pop up in the wealth lists over there even estimated ones and there are some very wealthy who do, everything to do with them seems a bit of a mystery beyond what is officially declared.

Fair comment.

The story goes that all the land in and around Pune was divided up between their father and either one or two other local business men, I don't recall which.

[RevidgeBlue]

2 minutes ago, arbitro said:

The club were acutely aware of the times and still cocked up. Then appealed against a case they had very little hope of winning.

Hmmmmmmmmmmmm.

The cock up looks a bit suspicious, but why would a cock up be ordered when they would have had to give the deal the go ahead in the first place?

Also why waste money going to appeal? If you didn't want it to go through you'd save money and let it lie on the off chance any appeal was successful!

[arbitro]

2 minutes ago, RevidgeBlue said:

The cock up looks a bit suspicious, but why would a cock up be ordered when they would have had to give the deal the go ahead in the first place?

Also why waste money going to appeal? If you didn't want it to go through you'd save money and let it lie on the off chance any appeal was successful!

You used the word suspicious and that's exactly what it is. Sylvester has done hundreds of deals administratively and the deal was messed up? Who knows the motives - perhaps an appeasement for the fans and Tomasson to say 'we did all we can'. Either way it's another in the catalogue of avoidable catastrophes like the Henning Berg contract.

[ABBEY]

2 hours ago, RevidgeBlue said:

I know everyone likes to blame the owners for everything (and recently with good reason) but this is one conspiracy theory that doesn't make sense.

Why would Broughton take this deal right up to the dotting the i's and crossing the t's stage without seeking authorisation to go ahead in the first place?

Still yet another  monumental fuck  up under the venkyscum tenure 

Edited January 22 by ABBEY

[RevidgeBlue]

1 minute ago, arbitro said:

You used the word suspicious and that's exactly what it is. Sylvester has done hundreds of deals administratively and the deal was messed up? Who knows the motives - perhaps an appeasement for the fans and Tomasson to say 'we did all we can'. Either way it's another in the catalogue of avoidable catastrophes like the Henning Berg contract.

Sometimes the most obvious explanation is the correct one and I think it's a bit of a stretch to attribute this to anything other than the grossest incompetence. Does it look more or less fishy that we cocked up 2 deals? This and a relatively low value one?

Mind you IF the deals were deliberately sabotaged I don't think it would have come from the owners who would have had to ok the deals in the first place. More likely a certain penny pinching, cost cutting employee.

[JHRover]

2 hours ago, RevidgeBlue said:

I know everyone likes to blame the owners for everything (and recently with good reason) but this is one conspiracy theory that doesn't make sense.

Why would Broughton take this deal right up to the dotting the i's and crossing the t's stage without seeking authorisation to go ahead in the first place?

Because Broughton was under the impression that he had the ability and authorisation to do it. Hell they probably told him he did when he joined. His job is to have oversight and final decision making on transfers and the budget.

We've heard this sort of thing many a time, about apparently there being good solid budgets and an intention to spend, it started way back at the start with the stuff about Ronaldinho and Beckham. From the word go there has been an effort to tell people that we are deadly serious and willing to spend big, but almost every time it doesn't actually materialise.

Now this might be something along the lines of Balaji telling his underlings that they can do x, y and z, but then when it comes to final sign off from India the others get cold feet or don't agree to such an outlay. Or it might be one of the owners telling subordinates that they can do  x,y,z and then when it comes to final sign off the phone doesn't get answered simply because they have better things to do  with their time.

I really don't know, but suspect it is something along these lines. Lambert was clearly under the impression he was getting a good budget, he was under the impression the Rhodes cash was coming for him to play with, then they pulled the plug. I suspect something similar with Broughton and O'Brien. He believed they'd OK it when final sign off was requested, but then found out that they wouldnt or didn't get an answer in time.

[Rover8T4]

1 minute ago, RevidgeBlue said:

Sometimes the most obvious explanation is the correct one and I think it's a bit of a stretch to attribute this to anything other than the grossest incompetence. Does it look more or less fishy that we cocked up 2 deals? This and a relatively low value one?

Mind you IF the deals were deliberately sabotaged I don't think it would have come from the owners who would have had to ok the deals in the first place. More likely a certain penny pinching, cost cutting employee.

Swag worrying about his yearly bonus most probably

[RevidgeBlue]

Just now, ABBEY said:

Still yet another  monumental fuck under the venkyscum tenure 

Yep. 

No heads rolled which you would expect.

Then again Shaw initially survived the Berg fiasco and Waggott escaped having to back down on the proposed sale of the training ground without censure so maybe it's just par for the course under their ownership.

[JHRover]

Just now, RevidgeBlue said:

Sometimes the most obvious explanation is the correct one and I think it's a bit of a stretch to attribute this to anything other than the grossest incompetence. Does it look more or less fishy that we cocked up 2 deals? This and a relatively low value one?

Mind you IF the deals were deliberately sabotaged I don't think it would have come from the owners who would have had to ok the deals in the first place. More likely a certain penny pinching, cost cutting employee.

If it was indeed simply gross incompetence then how do we explain the following:

a) That all the actors involved in that shambles - Waggott, Broughton, Silvestre - remain in position a year on and before and since then have had no issues at all in getting various deals over the line, including some of greater complexity than a 6 month loan deal. If it was indeed gross incompetence surely action would have been taken to remove those responsible or there would be similar examples of such chaos?

b) That we have repeatedly over the years failed to get business done in the dying days of transfer windows, especially January? It seems to be a recurring theme that pre-dates Broughton and even Waggott. Common theme? Venkys

c) We know that they have to run expenditure past India before it gets final sign off. Is Broughton going to go to India and seek permission to do a deal before he knows it is even a possibility? According to Broughton the pieces to the O'Brien deal fell into place in the last few days when Forest decided what they were willing to do. I suspect it was only in those late stages that they went to India for permission, and whilst they were waiting for sign off he did the 'leg work' of dealing with Forest and the player. There wasn't very much time otherwise.

No I'm afraid all roads lead back to India on this one, either they actively stopped the deal going through or their negligence scuppered it at the 11th hour.

[arbitro]

5 minutes ago, RevidgeBlue said:

Sometimes the most obvious explanation is the correct one and I think it's a bit of a stretch to attribute this to anything other than the grossest incompetence. Does it look more or less fishy that we cocked up 2 deals? This and a relatively low value one?

Mind you IF the deals were deliberately sabotaged I don't think it would have come from the owners who would have had to ok the deals in the first place. More likely a certain penny pinching, cost cutting employee.

Suddenly the realisation of picking O'Briens wages, loan fee and a possible £10m fee hit home to them. It wasn't long after that the winding up order arrived for the unpaid tax - an unpaid bill they will have known about for some time. 

[Sparks Rover]

I see Wigan have signed Charlie Goode from Brentford for the rest of the season.  In my opinion a very good signing and one GB should have been all 0ver considering our relationship with Brentford.  Has good experience and a decent CH.

Greggy out.

[RevidgeBlue]

2 minutes ago, arbitro said:

Suddenly the realisation of picking O'Briens wages, loan fee and a possible £10m fee hit home to them. It wasn't long after that the winding up order arrived for the unpaid tax - an unpaid bill they will have known about for some time. 

Not much point arguing about this at length, JH and you have your view and I have mine but you'd have thought GB would have outlined to them the basics of the deal and they'd have given the go ahead before GB went too far down the line with it.

If GB didn't explain the financial ramifications properly that's on him.

[RevidgeBlue]

1 minute ago, Sparks Rover said:

I see Wigan have signed Charlie Goode from Brentford for the rest of the season.  In my opinion a very good signing and one GB should have been all 0ver considering our relationship with Brentford.  Has good experience and a decent CH.

Greggy out.

We have a relationship with Brentford?

Are they in the German 4th Division?

[Leonard Venkhater]

30 minutes ago, arbitro said:

You used the word suspicious and that's exactly what it is. Sylvester has done hundreds of deals administratively and the deal was messed up? Who knows the motives - perhaps an appeasement for the fans and Tomasson to say 'we did all we can'. Either way it's another in the catalogue of avoidable catastrophes like the Henning Berg contract.

Shaw/Berg..You took the words out of my mouth..

[arbitro]

6 minutes ago, RevidgeBlue said:

Not much point arguing about this at length, JH and you have your view and I have mine but you'd have thought GB would have outlined to them the basics of the deal and they'd have given the go ahead before GB went too far down the line with it.

If GB didn't explain the financial ramifications properly that's on him.

My view is based on 13 years of mismanagement and the current financial predicament but you are right it's essentially down to if you believe what you are being told.

[arbitro]

1 minute ago, Leonard Venkhater said:

Shaw/Berg..You took the words out of my mouth..

There's a whole litany of dubious goings on Leonard,  these are just the ones made public. They couldn't use NDA's in these examples to buy the silence of people who know where the bodies are buried.

[roversfan99]

1 hour ago, RevidgeBlue said:

Not sure if they need "praising" for it as it's them who's created that level of loss in the first place by allowing incompetents to run the gaffe and allowing  money to be consistently wasted like water over the years.

However I can't see the harm in acknowledging the level of contribution over the years. Whether it be £15m or £20m p.a. that's a hell of a lot of money to me. If you dont think that's a lot, that's up to you.

If they'd been putting less in over the years also presumably we wouldn't have been able to run as big a wage bill and wouldnt have been as competitive. I think we're seeing that now when in addition to the Court proceedings the tax laws have allegedly changed to our detriment.

So I see it more as their contribution as to be acknowledged rather than praised If they'd employed better people over the years and achieved a lot more success on the pitch for the same financial input then that would have been praiseworthy.

 

Do the number of other non parachute payment club owners even get acknowledged for doing likewise? They have no choice. Their business needs to pay more out than is coming in. They either pay via their own pocket (loans or shares) or the business cant carry on as a going concern.

The main source of income for Championship clubs is player sales. Who are the blockers of that source? You bet it. Venkys. Not the supposed incompetents. Not that im saying that Waggott for example is anything other than incompetent in this regard, but it pales into insignifance when the owners turn away £12m in 6 months.

Im sure you once made out that Mowbray had blown £100m. In that case, lots of managers in this league are blowing obscene amounts too. 

Lets make it clear, over a number of years not just hiding behind government issues, Venkys have been investing the bare minimum to cover costs with no intention of pushing for anything else.

[simongarnerisgod]

16 minutes ago, Sparks Rover said:

I see Wigan have signed Charlie Goode from Brentford for the rest of the season.  In my opinion a very good signing and one GB should have been all 0ver considering our relationship with Brentford.  Has good experience and a decent CH.

Greggy out.

has been injured a lot,only 4 games in two seasons,so id`e give him a miss

the egg  out definately,the epitome of someone out of his depth,getting lucky and landing a job at a fairly big club