The Summer Transfer Window (Press Submit)

[Forever Blue]

6 minutes ago, lraC said:

That's not the case. The bond was required, before permission was given for the two previous amounts. Right now, they cannot send funds, with or without a bond. 

So you’re calling Waggott a liar and saying the statement released by, and agreed with  WATR, is inaccurate? 
 

And if so, what legally has to change for funds to be allowed to be sent over? 

Edited June 15, 2024 by Forever Blue

[Upside Down]

11 minutes ago, Forever Blue said:

There you go Matty, it’s a fact. 

Thanks for the response Roger, I can see the angle you are approaching this from, which is fair enough. I presume Waggott means that there is not future impediment if the known conditions are met. 
 

That is also not true. They have to get a certificate from the ED to send over the funds. That's the same ED that are investigating them so they refuse. It then has to go to court where they will plead their case and the judge decides.

Previously the judge decided they could send the money as long as they placed the same amount in a bond with the ED. The ED still were against this decision but were over ruled.

There is no way that anyone can 100% guarantee that they are able to send over funds.

[Upside Down]

1 minute ago, Forever Blue said:

So you’re calling Waggott a liar and saying the statement released by, and agreed with  WATR, is inaccurate? 

Yes. Waggot is a liar.

Exhibit A: We've just bought a new bus.

[lraC]

2 minutes ago, Forever Blue said:

So you’re calling Waggott a liar and saying the statement released by, and agreed with  WATR, is inaccurate? 

Yes 100% I am.

Impediment Noun " A hindrance or obstruction in doing something". (Oxford English dictionary of the meaning)

Yet, you have stated that they can send funds over, so long as they put the equivalent amount in a bond. If that is correct ( I don't believe it is) then the statement made by Waggott about there being no impediment, cannot possibly be true. 

[Forever Blue]

2 minutes ago, Upside Down said:

That is also not true. They have to get a certificate from the ED to send over the funds. That's the same ED that are investigating them so they refuse. It then has to go to court where they will plead their case and the judge decides.

Previously the judge decided they could send the money as long as they placed the same amount in a bond with the ED. The ED still were against this decision but were over ruled.

There is no way that anyone can 100% guarantee that they are able to send over funds.

I don’t think that’s accurate. Waggotf has stated that the court case no longer involves Rovers. 
 

basically this whole debate boils down to if people think Waggott is telling lies or not. None of us know so it’s fairly pointless. We’ll just have to wait and see what happens. 

[USABlue]

Venies will be leading the charge.to league one this season.  Wish they would just sod off.

[LDRover]

I can't believe the thread has boiled down to if Waggott is a stranger to the truth or not!!!!

[Forever Blue]

1 minute ago, lraC said:

Yes 100% I am.

Impediment Noun " A hindrance or obstruction in doing something". (Oxford English dictionary of the meaning)

Yet, you have stated that they can send funds over, so long as they put the equivalent amount in a bond. If that is correct ( I don't believe it is) then the statement made by Waggott about there being no impediment, cannot possibly be true. 

Fair enough, I have no idea if he’s lying. So what will have to change for funds to be allowed to be sent over? A new court ruling? Because if nothing changes and funds are sent over then Waggott is telling the truth. 

[lraC]

Just now, Forever Blue said:

Fair enough, I have no idea if he’s lying. So what will have to change for funds to be allowed to be sent over? A new court ruling? Because if nothing changes and funds are sent over then Waggott is telling the truth. 

The court hearing is set for 21/08/2024. Assuming no further adjournment, the court will decide if further funds can be released or not. If they agree that funds can be released, then hopefully it means, they no longer need to keep on going to court and getting future permissions.

In my opinion, the reason for a gap of 7 months between the original court date in January and the August meeting, is to investigate fully, what has been going on with regards to the funding of the club and how VLL is structured. My hope is that they will uncover some of the mystery surrounding the original takeover and some of the strange goings on ever since. That in turn I hope leads to them being denied the permission for further funding and that ultimately leads to them being forced to sell. 

[Forever Blue]

Just now, lraC said:

The court hearing is set for 21/08/2024. Assuming no further adjournment, the court will decide if further funds can be released or not. If they agree that funds can be released, then hopefully it means, they no longer need to keep on going to court and getting future permissions.

In my opinion, the reason for a gap of 7 months between the original court date in January and the August meeting, is to investigate fully, what has been going on with regards to the funding of the club and how VLL is structured. My hope is that they will uncover some of the mystery surrounding the original takeover and some of the strange goings on ever since. That in turn I hope leads to them being denied the permission for further funding and that ultimately leads to them being forced to sell. 

The court date in August had nothing to do with Rovers, or the Venky’s ability to send funds to Rovers. According to Rovers. 

[lraC]

4 minutes ago, Forever Blue said:

The court date in August had nothing to do with Rovers, or the Venky’s ability to send funds to Rovers. According to Rovers. 

I agree with that statement, but of course it does affect Rovers. Let's face it, if they are banned from sending funds forever, then it is game over.

This is exactly why I have stated that Waggott's statement is cleverly worded. The hearing itself has nothing to do with Rovers, but the outcome could have a catastrophic impact on the very future of the club.

Edited June 15, 2024 by lraC

[Upside Down]

17 minutes ago, Forever Blue said:

I don’t think that’s accurate. Waggotf has stated that the court case no longer involves Rovers. 
 

basically this whole debate boils down to if people think Waggott is telling lies or not. None of us know so it’s fairly pointless. We’ll just have to wait and see what happens. 

If you want to send funds out of India you have to seek approval from the Enforcement Directorate. That's the law.

The ED refused to allow the funds to be sent on the grounds that venkys were under investigation. Then it went to court when venkys challenged the decision.

As far as I understand it, nobody can guarantee that money will be sent over here by venkys from India.

Rovers are not under investigation as they Indians have no jurisdiction in the UK and it will be unlikely that the UK authorities will allow them to conduct a financial crime investigation in their own country given that the UK is a global money laundering hub.

Edited June 15, 2024 by Upside Down

[Rogerb]

The court date in August is primarily to do with the purchase of Anderton House from Gary Neville 

[RV Blue]

1 hour ago, chaddyrovers said:

Some signings turn out good or not. 

I think Ryan Hardie and Miyoshi would be very good signing. Keeper like Wilson would improve us. Then free agent like Campbell would improve us cos I think he has talent just needs a manager to get out of him

Maybe he’s better going elsewhere then

[Polky]

 

[Forever Blue]

1 minute ago, Rogerb said:

The court date in August is primarily to do with the purchase of Anderton House from Gary Neville 

Exactly. It concerns Venky’s use of overseas funds. It has nothing to do with BRFC and has no impact on Venky’s ability to fund Rovers. 

[Forever Blue]

Just now, Polky said:

 

Those funds got sent over quick! 

[Forever Blue]

On 03/05/2024 at 08:43, Polky said:

 

 

On 03/05/2024 at 09:26, KentExile said:

Just turned 18 today and made mainly sub appearances for his club in Ireland, looks like a signing for the U21s

https://www.transfermarkt.co.uk/aodhan-doherty/leistungsdatendetails/spieler/1077242/plus/0?saison=2023&verein=&liga=&wettbewerb=&pos=&trainer_id=

Jackson said there would be a budget for Academy players. Looks like the fee for this lad is about £100k. Hopefully more signings like this to come. 

[Crimpshrine]

30 minutes ago, Forever Blue said:

The court date in August had nothing to do with Rovers, or the Venky’s ability to send funds to Rovers. According to Rovers. 

Waggott's latest statement via WATR is almost word for word what he said last time. He very carefully avoids the question of funds being sent from India - he only states that the owners have no impediments which will prevent them funding the club. This money will likely be coming from transfer fees and loans. 

Waggott has NOT stated  that the owners can currently send funds from India. We all know that the court case is not about 'the running of the club' - that is quite obvious but it will affect Rovers ultimately.

Over the past few years, FFP has always been sited as a reason why we can't overspend on new players. We are currently in a decent position with respect to FFP so we have an opportunity to splash the cash a little.

hypothetical: Why not send funds from India for all the usual running costs and use the Wharton/Raya money to buy new players ?  Probably because they can't send money from India!

Edited June 15, 2024 by Crimpshrine

[Crimpshrine]

9 minutes ago, Forever Blue said:

Exactly. It concerns Venky’s use of overseas funds. It has nothing to do with BRFC and has no impact on Venky’s ability to fund Rovers. 

So why have Venky's sent no money since November 2023 ?

[Forever Blue]

7 minutes ago, Crimpshrine said:

So why have Venky's sent no money since November 2023 ?

Because they’ve not been allowed to, they now can.

I think what people are missing is that at the adjourned court case in March there were agreements made that meant the unresolved issues no longer related to Rovers, they only related to Venky’s.
 

The adjournment was purely to give each party time to prepare their case in respect of  foreign currency issues and if Venky’s had a case to answer relating to Neville’s house. It has nothing to do with BRFC. 

[Lucimo]

Not sure Tyrese Campeill be thinking about football for a bit. His Dad has passed away. Terribly sad news.RIP Kevin Campbell 😢 

[lraC]

2 minutes ago, Forever Blue said:

Because they’ve not been allowed to, they now can.

I think what people are missing is that at the adjourned court case in March there were agreements made that meant the unresolved issues no longer related to Rovers, they only related to Venky’s.
 

The adjournment was purely to give each party time to prepare their case in respect of  foreign currency issues and if Venky’s had a case to answer relating to Neville’s house. It has nothing to do with BRFC. 

The issues never related to Rovers and nothing has changed.

The CANNOT send funds now 100%.

[Crimpshrine]

2 minutes ago, Forever Blue said:

Because they’ve not been allowed to, they now can.

So you believe they have been allowed to send money since March but haven't bothered ? OK 

[lraC]

3 minutes ago, Forever Blue said:

Because they’ve not been allowed to, they now can.

I think what people are missing is that at the adjourned court case in March there were agreements made that meant the unresolved issues no longer related to Rovers, they only related to Venky’s.
 

The adjournment was purely to give each party time to prepare their case in respect of  foreign currency issues and if Venky’s had a case to answer relating to Neville’s house. It has nothing to do with BRFC. 

Would you like to provide evidence of the agreements that were made in March please?

These do not exist, so either show people on here that they do, or accept that the hearing in August is for permission to be given to start funding again.