The Summer Transfer Window (Press Submit)

[Forever Blue]

5 minutes ago, lraC said:

The issues never related to Rovers and nothing has changed.

The CANNOT send funds now 100%.

They can, and will. IMO of course

Edited June 15 by Forever Blue

[Forever Blue]

Just now, lraC said:

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.

Would you like to provide evidence they can’t send funds over? 
 

 

[arbitro]

27 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. 

Surely then Rovers are 'overseas funds' if the money comes from India in the first place

[lraC]

Just now, Forever Blue said:

Would you like to provide evidence they can’t send funds over? 
 

 

I haven't got any evidence, but neither have you. You have stated  that the court made a new ruling in March. Prove it. 

Would you accept that what Waggott said about needing permission for the 2 tranches to be sent last year existed, as I wasn't at the court hearing, but he stated that.

He has never stated that there was a decision made on the funding changing in March, it was simply reported that it was adjourned. He states that a precedent has been set, so expects the funding to be agreed again in August.

He has NEVER stated that anything has changed in either of the adjourned hearing in 2024. 

[lraC]

3 minutes ago, arbitro said:

Surely then Rovers are 'overseas funds' if the money comes from India in the first place

He seems to want to have it both ways.

How can Venky's not being allowed to send funds overseas, not have an impact on Rovers?

He has then stated that they can still send funds overseas and despite me proving that Waggott has lied, about there being no impediment still chooses not to accept that.

[Forever Blue]

Just now, lraC said:

I haven't got any evidence, but neither have you. You have stated  that the court made a new ruling in March. Prove it. 

It’s ironic you’re asking me to prove it when only a few posts higher you have said 100% that Venky’s  can’t send funds, but are now admitting you’ve no proof. 
 

Elliot Jackson has stated an agreement has been reached in today’s LT, Rovers have previously said the court case now concerns technical non-Rovers related issues, and he’s also said we’ve just requested funds. 
 
You can believe what you want, but like me you’ve no proof. My belief is that funds can now be sent subject to an equivalent bond being stumped. My belief is the court case in August has nothing to do with Rovers. 
 

[Crimpshrine]

6 minutes ago, Forever Blue said:

Would you like to provide evidence they can’t send funds over? 
 

 

I would say the fact that they haven't sent any is pretty good evidence.

Also, from the LT in March

"Venkateshwara Hatcheries Private Limited's application to push through funding for Blackburn Rovers has been delayed until August 20."

"This latest delay further underlines how unsustainable Venky's current funding options are. There are serious long-term questions about how Rovers will be funded without an end to these sanctions imposed by the Indian government.

£11.5million was transferred in November to provide the club funding until the end of January. Venky's wanted their latest application to cover the club until the summer and beyond. 

[lraC]

Just now, Forever Blue said:

It’s ironic you’re asking me to prove it when only a few posts higher you have said 100% that Venky’s  can’t send funds, but are now admitting you’ve no proof. 
 

Elliot Jackson has stated an agreement has been reached in today’s LT, Rovers have previously said the court case now concerns technical non-Rovers related issues, and he’s also said we’ve just requested funds. 
 
You can believe what you want, but like me you’ve no proof. My belief is that funds can now be sent subject to an equivalent bond being stumped. My belief is the court case in August has nothing to do with Rovers. 
 

My proof is down to knowing that the previous statement banning them form sending funds, has not been overturned. If it has then proof is needed, if it hasn't then what was in place still stands, no irony, purely fact. 

[lraC]

2 minutes ago, Crimpshrine said:

I would say the fact that they haven't sent any is pretty good evidence.

Also, from the LT in March

"Venkateshwara Hatcheries Private Limited's application to push through funding for Blackburn Rovers has been delayed until August 20."

"This latest delay further underlines how unsustainable Venky's current funding options are. There are serious long-term questions about how Rovers will be funded without an end to these sanctions imposed by the Indian government.

£11.5million was transferred in November to provide the club funding until the end of January. Venky's wanted their latest application to cover the club until the summer and beyond. 

Exactly. So either that was untrue, or here we have the proof, unless of course, someone provides evidence that a further ruling was made in March overturning the ban. 

[Forever Blue]

8 minutes ago, arbitro said:

Surely then Rovers are 'overseas funds' if the money comes from India in the first place

I’ll be clearer. The court case is to do with Venky’s allegedly transferring money overseas for purposes other than what they were stated for. In this case saying they were poultry-related funds when the allegation is the money was spent on Neville’s house.
 

 It had nothing to with tax or any of the other reasons initially flouted in the LT and elsewhere. 

When charges were brought Venkys were prohibited from sending any money overseas to Rovers. An agreement was reached in March in court that decided Rovers were not implicated and thus funding could continue, but only if an equivalent bond was posted with Indian Authorities. The court date in August concerns the Neville house and whether any laws have been broken regarding overseas transfers of money (hence overseas funds). It has nothing to do with funds that have been sent to Rovers, and no longer impacts their ability to fund us. 

 

[Forever Blue]

9 minutes ago, Crimpshrine said:

I would say the fact that they haven't sent any is pretty good evidence.

Also, from the LT in March

"Venkateshwara Hatcheries Private Limited's application to push through funding for Blackburn Rovers has been delayed until August 20."

"This latest delay further underlines how unsustainable Venky's current funding options are. There are serious long-term questions about how Rovers will be funded without an end to these sanctions imposed by the Indian government.

£11.5million was transferred in November to provide the club funding until the end of January. Venky's wanted their latest application to cover the club until the summer and beyond. 

And in today’s LT it stated an agreement was reached earlier this year that means they can fund us. 
 

It’s worth noting the Jackson though it was a tax-related issue for quite a while AFTER it was clear it was to do with overseas money transfers. 

[lraC]

1 minute ago, Forever Blue said:

And in today’s LT it stated an agreement was reached earlier this year that means they can fund us. 
 

It’s worth noting the Jackson though it was a tax-related issue for quite a while AFTER it was clear it was to do with overseas money transfers. 

So, given your second paragraph, do you consider Jackson to be accurate or inaccurate normally, with what he reports?

[Old Codger]

1 hour ago, lraC said:

Absolutely, so how can it be argued that there is no impediment to them sending funds. Waggott himself has stated that court permission is required to release funds, so how can he then say, there is no impediment?

Baffling. 

Questions need to be asked about where the money is going that has come / is coming to the club from the Wharton, Raya & Smzmodics sales (when that happens). If the Venksters are precluded from transferring dosh from India to Rovers, is there a similar embargo on funds going the other way? If so, where is the money and why can't the club access it?

 

[Hasta]

6 minutes ago, Forever Blue said:

I’ll be clearer. The court case is to do with Venky’s allegedly transferring money overseas for purposes other than what they were stated for. In this case saying they were poultry-related funds when the allegation is the money was spent on Neville’s house.
 

 It had nothing to with tax or any of the other reasons initially flouted in the LT and elsewhere. 

When charges were brought Venkys were prohibited from sending any money overseas to Rovers. An agreement was reached in March in court that decided Rovers were not implicated and thus funding could continue, but only if an equivalent bond was posted with Indian Authorities. The court date in August concerns the Neville house and whether any laws have been broken regarding overseas transfers of money (hence overseas funds). It has nothing to do with funds that have been sent to Rovers, and no longer impacts their ability to fund us. 

 

What if Venkys don’t want to tie up £15million each time time in equivalent bonds with the same Authorities that are taking them to court over other issues with regards to other issues with UK money?

Was the ‘bond’ story not doing the rounds in January, and yet we still panic-sold Wharton to cover the costs for the remainder of the season.

[Forever Blue]

3 minutes ago, lraC said:

So, given your second paragraph, do you consider Jackson to be accurate or inaccurate normally, with what he reports?

As I’ve repeatedly stated, I have no idea what is true and what isn’t, just like you. I can only interpret things as I believe them to be true. 
 

if I’m wrong or right I certainly won’t be looking to score points or trying to move the goalposts. 
 

I appreciate the discussion at least. Let’s just hope what we are being told is true and that we are able to sign the players we desperately need to avoid a repeat of last years shitshow👍 
 

 

[Forever Blue]

2 minutes ago, Hasta said:

What if Venkys don’t want to tie up £15million each time time in equivalent bonds with the same Authorities that are taking them to court over other issues with regards to other issues with UK money?

Was the ‘bond’ story not doing the rounds in January, and yet we still panic-sold Wharton to cover the costs for the remainder of the season.

Well, quite,  that’s another issue, they might not want to post an equivalent bond. 
 

My understanding is that the issue re sending funding to Rovers was settled in March. And by ‘my understanding’ l mean my interpretation of what’s gone on. I may be wrong. 

[arbitro]

https://www.thebusinessdesk.com/northwest/news/2127102-blackburn-rovers-finances-at-mercy-of-a-judge-in-india

 

[Rogerb]

6 minutes ago, Forever Blue said:

 

My understanding is that the issue re sending funding to Rovers was settled in March. And by ‘my understanding’ l mean my interpretation of what’s gone on. I may be wrong. 

The hearing never got to be heard in court in March it was adjourned until August. The judge ruled there was insufficient time left in the day to here it.

[Forever Blue]

9 minutes ago, Rogerb said:

The hearing never got to be heard in court in March it was adjourned until August. The judge ruled there was insufficient time left in the day to here it.

Agreements can be made outside of the courtroom, hence why after the adjournment Rovers stated the outstanding issues no longer related to Rovers and were technical in nature. 
 

The announcement by Rovers about outstanding legal  issues only relating to venkys Hatcheries and not Rovers was made 3 days after the court case.  This would indicate agreement was possibly reached on what the parameters of the August court case in a subsequent meeting after the adjournment. Or prior. 

Edited June 15 by Forever Blue

[Crimpshrine]

27 minutes ago, Old Codger said:

Questions need to be asked about where the money is going that has come / is coming to the club from the Wharton, Raya & Smzmodics sales (when that happens). If the Venksters are precluded from transferring dosh from India to Rovers, is there a similar embargo on funds going the other way? If so, where is the money and why can't the club access it?

 

They can access this money. It has kept us afloat since January

[Rogerb]

7 minutes ago, Forever Blue said:

Agreements can be made outside of the courtroom, hence why after the adjournment Rovers stated the outstanding issues no longer related to Rovers and were technical in nature. 

Has any money arrived from India since March?

[Forever Blue]

2 minutes ago, Rogerb said:

Has any money arrived from India since March?

It’s just been requested. And money not arriving isn’t proof that they can’t send any. 
 

they’ve clearly been using the Wharton money since January to keep the club afloat

Edited June 15 by Forever Blue

[tomphil]

There is no proof things are any different than they were before March when there was no hearing because it was pushed back until August, all that can be checked.

Jackson is just repeating Waggot from previous interviews where he attempted to talk his way around it instead of being asked the real questions directly like 'Is the transfer income funding the club and do you not expect any from the owners until that runs out' and 'can you put it on record they can send funds anytime they are needed without court approval'.

Quite easy to get answers if you actually ask the fucking questions direct.

I suspect there'll be no funds sent this year and any budget signed off will be one factoring in the clubs own income and maybe just maybe another sponsorship payment that might be allowed regardless of the other stuff.

[B16Rover]

The agent for the young northern Irish signing is the same guy who represents Dipepa (sp) at Port Vale.  Would be leaning on that a bit myself 

[rigger]

3 hours ago, Forever Blue said:

Would you like to provide evidence they can’t send funds over? 
 

 

It is even worse if they can send funds. It means they don't want to send the funds. Or they haven't been asked to send the funds.