That *was* the January Window

[RoverDom]

19 minutes ago, Herbie6590 said:

Not really…the year end being reported on is June 2023. Activity in January 2024 is irrelevant to those numbers.

Sonethings between the reporting date of June and the sign off date is potentially relevant as they have to report significant post balance sheet events (or events after the reporting period). It's normally just a note to the accounts though and wouldn't change the numbers. 

More relevant is that they also have to be confident that the organisation will be a going concern for atleast 12 months from the date of signing. I've said a couple of times that with the indian court situation, I wouldn't sign it off as a going concern so I'd imagine the auditors are voicing some concerns. The directors have to make a similar declaration that it's a going concern so I wonder if our FD wants to avoid declaring it a going concern and then it being plunged into administration. 

Edited February 7 by RoverDom

[Bethnal]

22 minutes ago, Herbie6590 said:

Not really…the year end being reported on is June 2023. Activity in January 2024 is irrelevant to those numbers.

I’m aware of that, the point I was making was it overlaps with the period where the Club were aware of the proceedings against the owners and the filings and there was the HMRC issue in that time frame. Combined with what’s going on at present, there has to be a declaration in the filings that we are a going concern. If someone’s being asked to put their name to that without agreeing to it, what might happen at that point?

[wilsdenrover]

12 minutes ago, RoverDom said:

Sonethings between the reporting date of June and the sign off date is potentially relevant as they have to report significant post balance sheet events (or events after the reporting period).

More relevant is that they also have to be confident that the organisation will be a going concern for atleast 12 months from the date of signing. I've said a couple of times that with the indian court situation, I wouldn't sign it off as a going concern so I'd imagine the auditors are voicing some concerns. The directors have to make a similar declaration that it's a going concern so I wonder if our FD wants to avoid declaring it a going concern and then it being plunged into administration. 

I think you mean the below bit of the auditor’s report (this is the year ending 30/6/2022) 

I think A.Wharton’s departure will mean they’re happy to include the same this year.

 

Edited February 7 by wilsdenrover

[wilsdenrover]

33 minutes ago, Herbie6590 said:

Not really…the year end being reported on is June 2023. Activity in January 2024 is irrelevant to those numbers.

As I’ve just posted, would you not think the sale of Wharton (despite being outside this accounting period) would be relevant in terms of the ‘going concern’ statement?

ie. The auditor’s raise the concern with the club regarding the Indian court case and the uncertainties surrounding this.

The club’s reply is, ‘don’t worry we’ve just pocketed circa £20 million pounds in player sales’

 

[broadsword]

They didn't think to check that the league had received the docs until after the deadline? Even though they didn't get confirmation? Presumably all signings get confirmed by the league? And now they're appealing fir if to go through on the basis of pressing the wrong button, as if there's a hope in hell of winning it? 

 

These guys just take the piss. 

[RoverDom]

6 minutes ago, wilsdenrover said:

I think you mean the below bit of the auditor’s report (this is the year ending 30/6/2022) 

I think A.Wharton’s departure will mean they’re happy to include the same this year.

 

Instinctively yeah, I think Wharton puts them safe - buts is liquidity and cash flow that's the key over the accounting losses. The Wharton fee is installments and presumably they've structured it in a way to meet our cash commitments over the coming year - but you never know with our lot.

 

[phili]

2 minutes ago, broadsword said:

They didn't think to check that the league had received the docs until after the deadline? Even though they didn't get confirmation? Presumably all signings get confirmed by the league? And now they're appealing fir if to go through on the basis of pressing the wrong button, as if there's a hope in hell of winning it? 

 

These guys just take the piss. 

With the EFL system only 2 people at a club have login details and can register a player, the club secretary and as a backup the CEO.

So it's either Silvester or Waggot that didn't submit properly. They can't blame anybody else as login details shouldn't be shared.

[wilsdenrover]

4 minutes ago, RoverDom said:

Instinctively yeah, I think Wharton puts them safe - buts is liquidity and cash flow that's the key over the accounting losses. The Wharton fee is installments and presumably they've structured it in a way to meet our cash commitments over the coming year - but you never know with our lot.

 

Indeed!

[Upside Down]

What's the bet that Waggott takes the fall for this, leaves by mutual consent or whatever and receives a nice fat payout.

All the happy clappers will be lining up to lick the Rao's boots and proclaiming how they're such good owners for finally getting rid of this oaf they've employed for years.

I'm not a betting man at all but I'd put my house on this being done deliberately. 

I was about 95% sure the OBrien deal was sabotaged deliberately, with this I am absolutely certain. 

[OJRovers]

Silvester has successfully done hundreds of transfer paperwork for Liverpool and Rovers over the course of nearly 20 years. He will have his own system and controls for doing so, which have worked over his long career.

The question is why has he seemingly made 3 errors over the last 12 months?

Personally I think that it was done deliberately, which is more plausible than him suddenly starting to make mistakes.

[Upside Down]

12 minutes ago, OJRovers said:

Silvester has successfully done hundreds of transfer paperwork for Liverpool and Rovers over the course of nearly 20 years. He will have his own system and controls for doing so, which have worked over his long career.

The question is why has he seemingly made 3 errors over the last 12 months?

Personally I think that it was done deliberately, which is more plausible than him suddenly starting to make mistakes.

Even maggot, as wretched as he is, was a former agent and has done hundreds of transfers. 

These guys don't just make primary school level errors three times in a year.

Well actually it's really only about 4 months as that's the only time where there's a tranfer window. 

I didn't believe it the first time and I don't believe it now.

[doctorryan]

16 minutes ago, OJRovers said:

Silvester has successfully done hundreds of transfer paperwork for Liverpool and Rovers over the course of nearly 20 years. He will have his own system and controls for doing so, which have worked over his long career.

The question is why has he seemingly made 3 errors over the last 12 months?

Personally I think that it was done deliberately, which is more plausible than him suddenly starting to make mistakes.

 

Either that or he's developed Parkinson's & Alzheimer's at the same time.

 

 

[chaddyrovers]

1 hour ago, phili said:

With the EFL system only 2 people at a club have login details and can register a player, the club secretary and as a backup the CEO.

So it's either Silvester or Waggot that didn't submit properly. They can't blame anybody else as login details shouldn't be shared.

Exactly why I have kept saying for days that its their responsibility to send the correct paperwork for transfers and contracts to EFL and why the blame lies with those 2. Also said it should those 2 to go not GB. 

[Armchair supporter supremo]

What are the chances of the efl just letting it through purely out of sympathy for us long suffering fans

And if it was done deliberately (for whatever reason) it would also be a slap in the face to whoever sabotaged it if it was green lit now

Edited February 7 by Armchair supporter supremo

[Herbie6590]

2 hours ago, RoverDom said:

Sonethings between the reporting date of June and the sign off date is potentially relevant as they have to report significant post balance sheet events (or events after the reporting period). It's normally just a note to the accounts though and wouldn't change the numbers. 

More relevant is that they also have to be confident that the organisation will be a going concern for atleast 12 months from the date of signing. I've said a couple of times that with the indian court situation, I wouldn't sign it off as a going concern so I'd imagine the auditors are voicing some concerns. The directors have to make a similar declaration that it's a going concern so I wonder if our FD wants to avoid declaring it a going concern and then it being plunged into administration. 

I agree entirely with the going concern issue…for the UK directors trading whilst insolvent opens them up to personal liability. 

[Herbie6590]

2 hours ago, Bethnal said:

I’m aware of that, the point I was making was it overlaps with the period where the Club were aware of the proceedings against the owners and the filings and there was the HMRC issue in that time frame. Combined with what’s going on at present, there has to be a declaration in the filings that we are a going concern. If someone’s being asked to put their name to that without agreeing to it, what might happen at that point?

That’s a good point 👍

[RoverInverness]

Many pages back someone argued that ultimately it will be good if the McGuire deal does not go through, because it will push the Raos closer to a sale of the club.

I wonder if it’s the other way round and that the £500k fee could be what forces the issue within the family. If one part of the family is refusing to fund us and another part of the family is trying to fight this (my theory only), then the overturning of the Slyvester/Waggot sabotage attempt by the EFL actually stirs up the tension in Pune. An EFL decision to void the transfer leaves us more likely to continue with this (hypothetical) status quo. Where we are caught in their civil war (perhaps) and the stop sending £ side of the family is winning, but not decisively enough.
 

My hypothetical status quo (Conspiracy Theory #99) btw, is that one part of the family is wanting to cling on so as to eventually give a job to a younger Rao, whilst the rest of the family have given up and just want rid of the damn thing. 
 

The more I reflect the more it fits, but maybe I am thinking too hard - like all conspiracy theorists!

[Groundhog]

42 minutes ago, Armchair supporter supremo said:

What are the chances of the efl just letting it through purely out of sympathy for us long suffering fans

And if it was done deliberately (for whatever reason) it would also be a slap in the face to whoever sabotaged it if it was green lit now

I just don't think they will, they'll rightly stick to procedure - in a post Tevez world no one can be seen to providing any club with preferential treatment. As many have said, if McGuire scores the goal that keeps us up and sends Wednesday down, can you imagine?

I do feel likes there's something else, I bet errors with transfers are more common than we think across the board they just get sorted out of the public eye through proper process, that's why there's got to be more to it than this story "they clicked save instead of send". The fact that we've had 3 in a year, lightning doesn't strike thrice.

For me, there's obvious infighting at the top in the Venky's hierachy and Sunhail is either stuck in the middle of it as the rep over here, or more aligned with one Venky than the other, so will scupper decisions to side with his chosen one. I bet one Venky signed it off, wanted a marquee US signing, and another Venky pulled the plug overall, causing the indecision and chaos. Coupled with disgruntled staff who are either a) amateur or more likely b) pissed off and worried about their own jobs; do the math.

It's Occam's Razor, there's previous evidence of infighting and disagreement causing bungled decisions. 

Edited February 7 by Groundhog

[Groundhog]

3 minutes ago, RoverInverness said:

Many pages back someone argued that ultimately it will be good if the McGuire deal does not go through, because it will push the Raos closer to a sale of the club.

I wonder if it’s the other way round and that the £500k fee could be what forces the issue within the family. If one part of the family is refusing to fund us and another part of the family is trying to fight this (my theory only), then the overturning of the Slyvester/Waggot sabotage attempt by the EFL actually stirs up the tension in Pune. An EFL decision to void the transfer leaves us more likely to continue with this (hypothetical) status quo. Where we are caught in their civil war (perhaps) and the stop sending £ side of the family is winning, but not decisively enough.
 

My hypothetical status quo (Conspiracy Theory #99) btw, is that one part of the family is wanting to cling on so as to eventually give a job to a younger Rao, whilst the rest of the family have given up and just want rid of the damn thing. 
 

The more I reflect the more it fits, but maybe I am thinking too hard - like all conspiracy theorists!

Couldn't agree more actually, I think you may have a point, like I said in my post, we've seen evidence of this before, it makes total sense. We're basically at the mercy of a family feud. 

[arbitro]

4 minutes ago, Groundhog said:

Couldn't agree more actually, I think you may have a point, like I said in my post, we've seen evidence of this before, it makes total sense. We're basically at the mercy of a family feud. 

Which aligns with what I was told by two different people on Saturday namely that one of the brothers (presumably the playboy) actually sacked (through his minions) Tomasson on Friday but big sis reinstated him within a short space of time. I believe there is real disharmony at Chez Rao and we are piggy in the middle.

[PLJPB]

3 hours ago, Herbie6590 said:

Not really…the year end being reported on is June 2023. Activity in January 2024 is irrelevant to those numbers.

 

Edited February 7 by PLJPB
Points already made by previous posts

[G Somerset Rover]

Well Waggott out would be a pretty good start, should it happen. He's been on the gravy train for far, far too long.

We can then turn all our attention to Suhail and the owners.

Edited February 7 by G Somerset Rover

[Dreams of 1995]

19 minutes ago, arbitro said:

Which aligns with what I was told by two different people on Saturday namely that one of the brothers (presumably the playboy) actually sacked (through his minions) Tomasson on Friday but big sis reinstated him within a short space of time. I believe there is real disharmony at Chez Rao and we are piggy in the middle.

Bloody hell arbitro. Do you have confidence in that? That's a pretty damning indictment of where we are at a club

I sometimes think if things like this were public knowledge, even the most fervent defender of Venkys would come around

Edited February 7 by Dreams of 1995

[Roverthechimp]

A question that may need to be asked is was GB informed “no permanent signings” or “no signings involving a fee as of now”? 

I would guess the latter but then Ennis being sold created a situation and the most relevant question is if GB was told this money could be used. Who told him this and did they have the authority?

If not then conspiracy theory number 1 comes into play with someone sabotaging the process to protect themselves…. Logically it would be SW

[Lancaster Rover]

Whilst that sounds plausible I just don’t seem JDT accepting being sacked and then reinstated. He’s too professional to hang about with that carry on and also he doesn’t stand to gain by staying if given his marching orders. We’re an absolute shit show and he’s managing with both hands tied behind his back (albeit he’s not doing himself any favours with tactics, formations and team Selection at the moment)