That *was* the January Window

[ChrisyG]

3 minutes ago, Silas said:

Been posted a few pages back.

But no harm doing it again in invisible ink I suppose.

Maybe if we can't see it, it will cease to exist.  

Looks like a technical error. Probably, pasted it and was going to edit further but clicked submit instead of save draft by mistake. 

[MB Rover]

12 minutes ago, Paul Mellelieu said:

Not as much as I'm laughing at you......

They remembered to press submit (🤣🤣🤣🤣) on the 21 year old from Liverpool; then ‘forgot’ on the signing that the ‘board’ had blocked 24 hours prior, then miraculously remembered on the 30 odd year old signing a 4 month contract? Got it!

[JHRover]

12 minutes ago, CambridgeRover said:

One thing I noticed is when speaking to some fans from Charlton and Coventry is that they both though Waggott was horrendous when he was at their clubs.  

So how did he get our job again?

Because he was mates with Mowbray and he convinced the owners of the need for a 'CEO' after 8 years without one. 

Despite this he's a CEO in name only so they struck lucky finding someone happy to act as a human shield and not actually be CEO, just pretend to be. 

[tomphil]

20 minutes ago, simongarnerisgod said:

venkys profits did take a nosedive last year,maybe their chicken business has a serious rival

I don't think money availability on their side is an issue yet although it could be before long but they sent 11 mill and had to secure it by holding another 11 mill in an account apparently.

So they have to go guaranture probably with personal money for every amount they send now allegedly.

There'll be a limit to how often then can provide that.

Edited February 6 by tomphil

[roversfan99]

6 minutes ago, islander200 said:

I just find it too suspicious that this could happen three times and too convenient that it's the signings that cost a bit more than usual .

Fleck was confirmed after and there wasn't a mention of his name all day.Have no issues with paperwork when it comes to the other deals 

Listen Iv said many times I do not think Broughton is doing an outstanding job in fairness some of our recruitment has been shocking but when he thought he had a better budget even not a decent one much better players were being targeted and last summer when money was spent then 2 hsve done very well and one average but not bad for a million and the signing players up to contracts (which wasn't happening before) have been good things .Like some blame him for the fact no experience was brought in in the summer

If we had new owners in the morning I would want him replaced and a clean sweep across the board including JDT even tho I rate him big time and think he could do good things with backing , too much of the support base have their set opinion of him now 

He isn't responsible for it but since last summer £22.5+ Raya money incoming million worth of player sales has been brought into the club along with losing some higher wages and he has had probably just over £1 million pound to replace them 

If he goes under the current lot we will get equal or worse ,and I expect JDT knows more than us what went on and he did not mention Broughtons name 

Again, I totally agree with your stuff on the real problems. The budget slashing, the moving of the goalposts. These are the quite frankly unsustainable issues that will lead to relegation, maybe not this season but next.

But what I cant get my head around is that you cant seem to acknowledge that Broughton holds ANY blame in the debacle. If it is a case of purposeful fucking up of the deal, and im not ruling it out totally, then surely he wouldnt be at the club now. IF the issue is as reported, following Broughton promising that this wont happen again and the processes will be changed, yet he hasnt found time on deadline day to just quickly 100% check to be sure the submission has been done on the most important deal of the three, that simply is unacceptable.

Just because Tomasson didnt mention him is immaterial. Internal politics. The people he did mention are bigger problems, most notably the owners who are the problem and the rest including even Waggott are just symptoms. But Broughton is still a problem.

[Bethnal]

15 minutes ago, RoverDom said:

From the accounts point of view does the going concern assessment has to cover a period of atleast 12 months from the sign off date. Does the £18m cover us for a year? (The rest is add-ons isn't it?). I'd say the fact that we have to go to court to get funding means that the owners can't provide a letter of comfort/ support to cover our losses. I'm personally very interested to see our accounts when they're signed off. 

Combined with the cash that was previously sent to cover costs, £18m would cover the season’s losses, based on previous years and the budget cut in summer.

I suppose we have to see how it shakes out. Is the fee spread out over a timeframe that means we aren’t liquid enough to meet obligations without the owners’ input? Is there less optimism around the owners’ chances of shaking off the investigation? Have the finance dept been asked to sign off on something they disagree with?

There’s a logic to that flow of events, but I’m cautious because I am aware I’m seeing what I “want” to see. I don’t actively want to see us in administration, but I’m struggling to think of a way to get rid of the owners that doesn’t involve that.

[Bethnal]

27 minutes ago, TugaysMarlboro said:

What happens on the 12th March when the next hearing is due if the Indian Courts say 'no' to the money being sent over and the next transfer window is 12 weeks away?

Well, quite. “What happens if it’s delayed again” is an even trickier question.

I think if the former happens, the writing is on the wall.

[GWHITE81]

3 minutes ago, Bethnal said:

Combined with the cash that was previously sent to cover costs, £18m would cover the season’s losses, based on previous years and the budget cut in summer.

I suppose we have to see how it shakes out. Is the fee spread out over a timeframe that means we aren’t liquid enough to meet obligations without the owners’ input? Is there less optimism around the owners’ chances of shaking off the investigation? Have the finance dept been asked to sign off on something they disagree with?

There’s a logic to that flow of events, but I’m cautious because I am aware I’m seeing what I “want” to see. I don’t actively want to see us in administration, but I’m struggling to think of a way to get rid of the owners that doesn’t involve that.

I’m sure I read or heard of the fee coming in 3 installments of £6 million - might have been Andy Bayes so cash flow will still be an issue if the court case gets adjourned again

[tomphil]

3 minutes ago, GWHITE81 said:

I’m sure I read or heard of the fee coming in 3 installments of £6 million - might have been Andy Bayes so cash flow will still be an issue if the court case gets adjourned again

One now, next in 6 months and next year was the instalments i believe.

So earmarked for running costs and unless it's been swallowed by the tax bill or something else. There'll certainly be no re-investment from the best player we've produced since Dunn and a record transfer fee.

Brentford model of course.....

Edited February 6 by tomphil

[Bethnal]

Just now, GWHITE81 said:

I’m sure I read or heard of the fee coming in 3 installments of £6 million - might have been Andy Bayes so cash flow will still be an issue if the court case gets adjourned again

Sure, that’s an obvious issue. Can you borrow against the fee? (I don’t know, at all, but I’m thinking what I would do with my business if I had the misfortune of not being able to run it without £15-20m in losses being underwritten by owners)

Clearly - pitch matters aside - the next big obvious milestone for this saga is the meeting on 12th March, where one of three things happens and we still don’t really know what’s happening as a result of it.

[islander200]

6 minutes ago, roversfan99 said:

Again, I totally agree with your stuff on the real problems. The budget slashing, the moving of the goalposts. These are the quite frankly unsustainable issues that will lead to relegation, maybe not this season but next.

But what I cant get my head around is that you cant seem to acknowledge that Broughton holds ANY blame in the debacle. If it is a case of purposeful fucking up of the deal, and im not ruling it out totally, then surely he wouldnt be at the club now. IF the issue is as reported, following Broughton promising that this wont happen again and the processes will be changed, yet he hasnt found time on deadline day to just quickly 100% check to be sure the submission has been done on the most important deal of the three, that simply is unacceptable.

Just because Tomasson didnt mention him is immaterial. Internal politics. The people he did mention are bigger problems, most notably the owners who are the problem and the rest including even Waggott are just symptoms. But Broughton is still a problem.

Because what I'm saying is I don't believe the narrative,someone wether the owners ,Waggott whoever didn't want this deal going ahead and no I don't believe he should have to follow Silvester after contracts have been signed that does not happen at any other club if it is a case that it's just human error instead of my belief the papers weren't submitted on purpose, if you don't think Silvester is capable then you replace him if everything had been looked over and ready to be submitted then I just do not think he should have to follow Silvester to watch him do it,he could of had to been in talks with other players signed 

He could have easily asked Silvester ,Waggott whoever did everything get off ok and have been told yes.I don't think Broughton was sat twiddling his thumbs while all this was happening like Revidge suggests 

[RoverDom]

8 minutes ago, Bethnal said:

Have the finance dept been asked to sign off on something they disagree with?

I thought this too. Like you though I'm cautious of seeing what I want to see. I just don't understand why they'd take the fall for a botched transfer so their reason for leaving must be something else. 

[jones_rover]

41 minutes ago, jim mk2 said:

 

Can someone explain the difference between the two?

Cheston does the plus column and Hasan does the minus column?

Same with head coach and director of football: two people doing the job of one

And the club is supposed to be short of money

It is usual, even for much smaller companies, to have both a Finance Director and a Financial Controller / Finance Manager / Head of Finance.

The Financial Controller (or equivalent) deals with day to day finance and will be in charge of the finance team who record and post all transactions etc. The Finance Director will be more strategic and typically wouldn't get involved in the day to day transactional side of things.

32 minutes ago, TugaysMarlboro said:

What happens on the 12th March when the next hearing is due if the Indian Courts say 'no' to the money being sent over and the next transfer window is 12 weeks away?

Interestingly, the next set of accounts are due by 31 March 2024.

Even though these will cover the 12 months to 30 June 2023, in relation to the going concern of the club, both the directors and auditors have to be happy to sign of for a period of 12 months from the date of approval.

So if the Indian courts say anything other than "yes" by the end of March, things will be very very interesting in those accounts...

[Mike E]

[Bethnal]

3 minutes ago, jones_rover said:

Interestingly, the next set of accounts are due by 31 March 2024.

Even though these will cover the 12 months to 30 June 2023, in relation to the going concern of the club, both the directors and auditors have to be happy to sign of for a period of 12 months from the date of approval.

Well, the two bits in bold might go some way to explaining what’s just happened (if it has, indeed, just happened).

There’s every chance they’re getting towards the end of preparing annual accounts… someone not happy with what they see?

Edited February 6 by Bethnal

[G Somerset Rover]

If the Indian courts say no, or delay it again, I’m guessing we could have seen a similar situation to that of Reading where the EFL have told their owner to fund the club or sell it. Given Venky’s cannot fund us (should the courts say no, or delay), surely they’ll be told at some point, sell up.*

*from what I’ve read the Reading owner hasn’t listened to a word of what the EFL have told him, as I suspect the Venky’s wouldn’t.

Edited February 6 by G Somerset Rover

[islander200]

The Venkys have probably taken the Wharton money to cover the money that has to be held against what the courts allowed them to send last time 

[Blue blood]

Reminds me a bit of the joke about Little Timmy in his first day of class. The teacher's asking each child what their father does for a living. When it gets to Timmy's turn he says "my Dad is a male prostitute who sells crack on the side." The teacher quickly shuts down the conversation. At break the teacher speaks to Timmy and challenges him as to whether his answer was true. Timmy answers "oh no Miss, my Dad plays for Burnley, but I was just too embarrassed to say so." 

In a similar way, that they're willing to fabricate an excruciating save instead of send story, the truth is certainly far more nefarious; probably a deliberate sabotage/Venkys pulling the plug on any deal involving actual expenditure. 

And let's make no mistake, it clearly wasn't a save vs send error. For starters, it happens to be this deal, when all the others got done? The only deal involving actual investment, given Venkys track record of underfunding us. When all the others around it got done? Yeah right. 

Then of course there's the history of last January's transfer window. The revamped procedures to prevent errors according to our DOF. Heck, the extra pressure/scrutiny/diligence last season's debacle would engender every employee and everyone overseeing the process to ensure no more errors occurred would be colossal.  

Of course, both of these arguments ignore the most basic principle, which is people don't accidently not send very important emails. Thinking of the charity I work for, when we do funding applications - we make sure it is sent. It's simple human nature and basic working practice to ensure key information is sent. Not only that - and I can't account for the system in question - but generally the save option is nowhere near the send button. Certainly all the email systems I've used they're not next to each other. In fact send is the default option on all of them. So somehow getting the two confused and not checking? Yeah right. 

No the sinister goings on at Rovers continue. This lot are lower than pond scum. 

[tomphil]

That money could well have been used by the bank to guarantee the overdraft for the next 6 months.

[RoverDom]

9 minutes ago, jones_rover said:

is usual, even for much smaller companies, to have both a Finance Director and a Financial Controller / Finance Manager / Head of Finance.

To add to that, I've recently done some voluntary financial controls work at a Multi Academy Trust, where they had a Finance Director but no Controller / HoF and it was really inefficient not having the two roles. 

[roversfan99]

16 minutes ago, islander200 said:

Because what I'm saying is I don't believe the narrative,someone wether the owners ,Waggott whoever didn't want this deal going ahead and no I don't believe he should have to follow Silvester after contracts have been signed that does not happen at any other club if it is a case that it's just human error instead of my belief the papers weren't submitted on purpose, if you don't think Silvester is capable then you replace him if everything had been looked over and ready to be submitted then I just do not think he should have to follow Silvester to watch him do it,he could of had to been in talks with other players signed 

He could have easily asked Silvester ,Waggott whoever did everything get off ok and have been told yes.I don't think Broughton was sat twiddling his thumbs while all this was happening like Revidge suggests 

I get how Waggott might massage ticket sales to hit target. Its a bit of a stretch for him to purposely sabotage transfers to try and earn a bonus or earn brownie points. If anyone has done it on purpose its the owners.

If he has trusted Silvester to do it without checking it himself after last time, then again, obviously Silvester should go but its also on Broughton who clearly hasnt learnt. Obviously it doesnt mean he was twiddling his thumbs, nor do I think he was responsible purposely. But hes another I think we would be better without.

[wilsdenrover]

1 hour ago, Bethnal said:

I’ve been thinking about this since I heard the rumour.

There’s either financial impropriety at play or reputational preservation, just as you said. It’s a strange occurrence otherwise.

Administration makes little sense with the Wharton money on the books (depending how it’s accounted, I’m not familiar with how receivables work in football accounting terms) and an upcoming court case to determine whether more funds are sent, the last of which allowed funds to be sent. It’s a going concern, purely on the basis of those two points and - I assume - no radical cost increases across the business.

From what we know, I can’t see administration. The other option - that something “serious” has happened in finance or they’ve been asked to do something “serious” - well, I can make more sense of that.

 

 

[JHRover]

16 minutes ago, G Somerset Rover said:

 

*from what I’ve read the Reading owner hasn’t listened to a word of what the EFL have told him, as I suspect the Venky’s wouldn’t.

The League can't do anything, they can moan and groan and give points deductions but if the owner isn't selling they can't force him to. 

They're only making noises about Reading because their fans have kicked off big time and the League want to be seen to be doing something about it.

We need the Indian authorities / courts to rescue us and need to forget about English based intervention.

[Gamst]

I am not the suspicious sort. I generally don’t give much credence to a conspiracy theory. I’m truly dumbfounded though (and aghast ) by our 3rd transfer related administrative error of the year. If reports are to be believed, we supposedly finished the paperwork at 8pm. I’m assuming you receive some kind of receipt from the EFL to confirm the paperwork is received and then some notification of a successful  registration? At 10.30pm having not had any EFL reply, rather than calling the EFL to check on the status of the transfer, instead we take some pics of GB and the player and just announce the signing nevertheless. If this is genuinely incompetence and not willing negligence then the incredible lack of safeguards and oversight is beyond belief. We were reported to be interested in McGuire in early December I think. We have obviously been working on this deal for a long time and you’d think one of the many adults in the room might double and triple check the paperwork and the submission. When you submit an important essay or you transfer a large amount of money for a tax bill you triple and quadruple check. It really doesn’t add up and despite my generally trusting disposition I smell a rat. 

[Jimmy612]

Lots of people seemingly happy to swallow the version of events provided by the club. Absolute hogwash from start to finish if you ask me.

As I suggested last Thursday, there was a stench around the initial half baked reason for canning the McGuire deal. The Wharton transfer did go through on Wednesday evening, I seriously doubt there was ever any issue around it, but certain individuals at Rovers saw it as the perfect excuse to cover for the owners who had pulled the rug again.

Best guess, once the owners vetoed the loan fee as well, there was nowhere left to go but play the incompetence card. I simply don’t believe that this deal was ever truly meant to go through. I genuinely believe Broughton and JDT would have wanted it done, not at all convinced any of the money men would have.

As for signing McGuire on a pre-contract…. What a load of absolute bollocks. 

Edited February 6 by Jimmy612