The Summer Transfer Window (Press Submit)

[Crimpshrine]

Just now, Forever Blue said:

Ok mate

If the club have said they can send funds from India I'm sure you can point to the evidence. 

[ABBEY]

1 hour ago, Forever Blue said:

So much for Ruddy wanting to stay in the Norwich area!

that's the 1st post Ive ever agreed with you... 

must have a sav nav

Edited Monday at 12:03 by ABBEY

[OldEwoodBlue]

1 hour ago, Forever Blue said:

No, the club is saying funds can be sent, and the club have said they have requested funds. 
 

 

This is part of the process.

They can only send funds which are essential and proven, after the court agrees.

If you look at the court docs from the last transfer you will see the itemised request from the club of essentials. Wages, taxes, bills.

This is the request which has been sent.

i.e. if the club doesn't request funds, there is no court case.

In court, the judge will rule on the request and if agreed, the transfer can be made as long as they put the same amount away in the bank guarantee.

If the judge says no, for example if the ED case has more evidence, then we get nothing. If the hearing is delayed (again) we get nothing.

FACT.

[Hasta]

3 minutes ago, Crimpshrine said:

But it is only B if they get permission - that is why there is another court hearing.

They were given permission to send funds in November based on the first court hearing and a full breakdown from Rovers as to what the money was to used for. 

They have to go through that process every time they want to send money.

My understanding is they can send funds now with a matched bond. That's what was reported in the press around January and ties in with the club saying money can be sent.

They are hoping the court hearing will remove the need for them to require to deposit matched bonds. 

Like all of us, this is just my view piecing it together from what I read.

 

 

[Devon Rover]

It is really galling to see the amounts being thrown Leeds' way for Archie Gray compared to what our executives and/or owners capitulated to accept for Wharton. We have, of course, been absolutely shafted.

 

(Sorry, just seen already covered on the actual Adam Wharton thread, which I usually don't open as it is too painful.) 

Edited Monday at 12:21 by Devon Rover
Duplication

[lraC]

19 minutes ago, OldEwoodBlue said:

This is part of the process.

They can only send funds which are essential and proven, after the court agrees.

If you look at the court docs from the last transfer you will see the itemised request from the club of essentials. Wages, taxes, bills.

This is the request which has been sent.

i.e. if the club doesn't request funds, there is no court case.

In court, the judge will rule on the request and if agreed, the transfer can be made as long as they put the same amount away in the bank guarantee.

If the judge says no, for example if the ED case has more evidence, then we get nothing. If the hearing is delayed (again) we get nothing.

FACT.

Interesting and does to a degree, conflict with what some other people think. (I am not having a go at anyone by the way)

One big thing I have noticed, is that the owners have stated that sending the funds protects their investment. Given that the value of the club is probably around 25% of what they have put it, at a stretch, then every £1 sent seems to drop to 25p so that statement on it's own, could be torn apart and the bond could be at serious risk. 

 

[chaddyrovers]

1 minute ago, lraC said:

Interesting and does to a degree, conflict with what some other people think. (I am not having a go at anyone by the way)

One big thing I have noticed, is that the owners have stated that sending the funds protects their investment. Given that the value of the club is probably around 25% of what they have put it, at a stretch, then every £1 sent seems to drop to 25p so that statement on it's own, could be torn apart and the bond could be at serious risk. 

 

So you think Rovers to buy is worth £50m? 

 

 

[RoversClitheroe]

Waggott negotiating a fee of £18m for Wharton is an absolute joke.

Archie G nowhere near the player Wharton is and going for £40m.

We're a joke and laughing stock.

[chaddyrovers]

30 minutes ago, BankEnd Rover said:

Great news if true!

It would great news if true. I expect him to be the first team squad this season. Great talent and similar to Wharton in terms of ability 

[Crimpshrine]

3 hours ago, OldEwoodBlue said:

This is part of the process.

They can only send funds which are essential and proven, after the court agrees.

If you look at the court docs from the last transfer you will see the itemised request from the club of essentials. Wages, taxes, bills.

This is the request which has been sent.

i.e. if the club doesn't request funds, there is no court case.

In court, the judge will rule on the request and if agreed, the transfer can be made as long as they put the same amount away in the bank guarantee.

If the judge says no, for example if the ED case has more evidence, then we get nothing. If the hearing is delayed (again) we get nothing.

FACT.

Perfect summary. 

The court hearing in August is a request to send money. The ED will be allowed to oppose the request in August if they wish.

The ED case against Venky's is a separate issue and will be ongoing well after August.

 

Edited Monday at 15:50 by Crimpshrine
ED/DE

[lraC]

6 minutes ago, chaddyrovers said:

So you think Rovers to buy is worth £50m? 

 

 

No, hence me saying at a stretch, but I was being kind. Assuming it was £25m then even worse.

What do you think the club is worth?

[JHRover]

6 minutes ago, RoversClitheroe said:

Waggott negotiating a fee of £18m for Wharton is an absolute joke.

Archie G nowhere near the player Wharton is and going for £40m.

We're a joke and laughing stock.

And to put the cherry on that cake Waggott has probably earned himself a juicy bonus for negotiating the Wharton deal and bringing a large sum of cash into the club that can be used to save the owners money.

So rather than be criticised for the deal he'll be even more popular with the odious ones.

[Forever Blue]

48 minutes ago, OldEwoodBlue said:

This is part of the process.

They can only send funds which are essential and proven, after the court agrees.

If you look at the court docs from the last transfer you will see the itemised request from the club of essentials. Wages, taxes, bills.

This is the request which has been sent.

i.e. if the club doesn't request funds, there is no court case.

In court, the judge will rule on the request and if agreed, the transfer can be made as long as they put the same amount away in the bank guarantee.

If the judge says no, for example if the ED case has more evidence, then we get nothing. If the hearing is delayed (again) we get nothing.

FACT.

It isn’t FACT unless you provide evidence.

[Forever Blue]

16 minutes ago, Crimpshrine said:

Perfect summary. 

The court hearing in August is a request to send money. The ED will be allowed to oppose the request in August if they wish.

The ED case against Venky's is a separate issue and will be ongoing well after August.

 

As you would say, if the above is true you should be able to provide evidence. 

[roversfan99]

25 minutes ago, RoversClitheroe said:

Waggott negotiating a fee of £18m for Wharton is an absolute joke.

Archie G nowhere near the player Wharton is and going for £40m.

We're a joke and laughing stock.

Its down to Venkys. We had to sell because of them so we could never hold out for a good fer regardless of who was negotiating.

[Forever Blue]

48 minutes ago, Hasta said:

My understanding is they can send funds now with a matched bond. That's what was reported in the press around January and ties in with the club saying money can be sent.

They are hoping the court hearing will remove the need for them to require to deposit matched bonds. 

Like all of us, this is just my view piecing it together from what I read.

 

 

This is how it is being reported. Some on here are stating this is not the case. I’ve asked them to provide evidence. Otherwise, they are just guessing like the rest of us. 
 

 

[phili]

3 minutes ago, Forever Blue said:

As you would say, if the above is true you should be able to provide evidence. 

I am not sure why there is so much confusion. The court case for August states in black and white the purpose is to review the request to send funds to their over seas businesses in this case Venky's London ltd to allow the funding of Blackburn Rovers football club.

 

[Polky]

 

[Forever Blue]

1 minute ago, phili said:

I am not sure why there is so much confusion. The court case for August states in black and white the purpose is to review the request to send funds to their over seas businesses in this case Venky's London ltd to allow the funding of Blackburn Rovers football club.

 

Can you provide a link because that is not what is being reported in the press or stated by the club. 
 

thanks. 

[Forever Blue]

3 minutes ago, Polky said:

 

Jackson reported in the LT that there was a separate budget for the Academy players. With the signing of the Irish lad and Tyson being offered a bumper contract it looks like that was accurate. Let’s hope Finneran follows suit. 

[islander200]

49 minutes ago, chaddyrovers said:

It would great news if true. I expect him to be the first team squad this season. Great talent and similar to Wharton in terms of ability 

Yeah Tyjon will be the reason the club gives for not spending any money on a striker

[davulsukur]

23 minutes ago, Polky said:

 

That's the striker position sorted 👌 

Cancel any funds from the owners!

(LOL, what funds?)

[Hasta]

46 minutes ago, phili said:

I am not sure why there is so much confusion. The court case for August states in black and white the purpose is to review the request to send funds to their over seas businesses in this case Venky's London ltd to allow the funding of Blackburn Rovers football club.

 

I think the difference between my view and that of @Crimpshrine and @OldEwoodBlue is that I reckon funds can be sent now with a matched bond, and they believe no funds can be sent full stop.

I think the court case could be to review this and eliminate the need for a matched bond. The others view is that the court case is whether we can send any money at all. Both of these would fall under the purpose you have quoted.

It's a moot point, as even if Venkys can match the bond they clearly don't want to hence why we have seen no money since last Autumn.

@Forever Blue is pointing out that in my scenario they CAN send money. He also acnowledges they maybe WONT send money under these cirumstances.

Either way, we arent spending any significant money. I reckon (guess) any sales from now on (such as Wahlstedt) might be part-reinvested but I'd expect 2 or 3 £500k purchases to come in before the court case and a couple of freebies. Everything else will have to wait.

Edited Monday at 13:45 by Hasta

[wilsdenrover]

14 minutes ago, Hasta said:

I think the difference between my view and that of @Crimpshrine and @OldEwoodBlue is that I reckon funds can be sent now with a matched bond, and they believe no funds can be sent full stop.

I think the court case could be to review this and eliminate the need for a matched bond. The others view is the court case is whether we can send any money at all. Both of these would fall under the purpose you have quoted.

It's a moot point, as even if Venkys can match the bond they clearly don't want to hence why we have seen no money since last Autumn.

@Forever Blue is pointing out that in my scenario they CAN send money. He also acnowledges they maybe WONT send money under these cirumstances.

Either way, we arent spending any significant money. I reckon (guess) any sales from now on (such as Wahlstedt) might be part-reinvested but I'd expect 2 or 3 £500k purchases to come in before the court case and a couple of freebies. Everything else will have to wait.

The below is from the strategic report (in the club’s accounts) dated 19th December 2023.

This shows ‘at this point’ Venky’s still needed the court’s permission to send further monies.

There’s been nothing from the court since to suggest anything has changed but I guess that doesn’t preclude some sort of arrangement being made ‘out of court’ with the Directorate of Enforcement.

Edited Monday at 13:49 by wilsdenrover

[Hasta]

1 minute ago, wilsdenrover said:

The below is from the strategic report (in the club’s accounts) dated 19th December 2023.

This shows ‘at this point’ Venky’s still needed the courts permission to send further monies.

There’s been nothing from the court since  to suggest anything has changed but I guess that doesn’t preclude some sort of arrangement being made ‘out of court’ with the Directorate of Enforcement.

Which is probably more reputable source of fact that they can't send money, than Waggot telling WATR that they can.

I think my point is that under both scenarios, whichever you believe to be true, we have no money to spend !