The Summer Transfer Window (Press Submit)

[Forever Blue]

I don’t know enough about WATR to comment on their effectiveness as a fan advocacy group. I’m loathe to criticise people who give up their own time to be part of those groups. I’ve been on similar non-Rovers related groups and always found most people are in them for the right reasons

[Parsonblue]

2 minutes ago, BankEnd Rover said:

https://t.co/cFVNxCJdeQ
 

We are fishing for national league players…NICE!

Tony Parkes and Simon Garner both came from non-League and didn't do too badly.  The lower leagues do throw up decent players.

[lraC]

38 minutes ago, Forever Blue said:

I can’t post links for some reason but just found an LT article from April 4th (titled ‘Blackburn Rovers CEO sheds more light on Venkys funding’) it quotes 'We Are THe Rovers’ website as saying there is no further impediment to Venkys providing funding going forward as long as it’s met with an equivalent bond (paraphrasing). There is nothing about that arrangement being dependant on the court case in August. 
 

 

It is nonsense and he knows it. Unless he fed me a pack of lies that is and the Indian journo is also wrong. 

[rigger]

32 minutes ago, Forever Blue said:

Priority has to be GK, CB, RW, LW, CF x 2

Priority (singular) has to be Keeper.

[lraC]

18 minutes ago, Forever Blue said:

I would hope WATR asked probing questions before agreeing to the joint statement. I don’t rate Waggott in the slightest, I think he’s a dreadful CEO, but it really would be a sad day if he has chosen to lie about something so fundamental. 

He has either lied to me or in that meeting, as one contradicts the other. 

[Forever Blue]

4 minutes ago, lraC said:

It is nonsense and he knows it. Unless he fed me a pack of lies that is and the Indian journo is also wrong. 

My guess is that when the court case was adjourned in March there was an agreement that BRFC was not longer impacted beyond providing an equivalent bond for any money they put into Rovers. Hence the statement about the remaining issues only being ‘technical’ on nature. When you met him in November or whenever that may not have been the case. 

[arbitro]

11 minutes ago, wilsdenrover said:

The below is from the club’s accounts - the final paragraph seems (I’m being generous) to contradict SW’s assertions…

 

 

Re the last sentence the Indian authorities have adjourned the case until August with no mention of any interim agreement. I'm taking from that that no money could be sent. That is why speculation is rife that the first tranche of the Adam Wharton few has enabled us to keep going.

[wilsdenrover]

2 minutes ago, Forever Blue said:

My guess is that when the court case was adjourned in March there was an agreement that BRFC was not longer impacted beyond providing an equivalent bond for any money they put into Rovers. Hence the statement about the remaining issues only being ‘technical’ on nature. When you met him in November or whenever that may not have been the case. 

I think if that was the case it would say so in the court document (confirming the adjournment).

[wilsdenrover]

Just now, arbitro said:

Re the last sentence the Indian authorities have adjourned the case until August with no mention of any interim agreement. I'm taking from that that no money could be sent. That is why speculation is rife that the first tranche of the Adam Wharton few has enabled us to keep going.

I don’t see how it can be interpreted in any other way.

[Forever Blue]

1 minute ago, wilsdenrover said:

I think if that was the case it would say so in the court document (confirming the adjournment).

Who knows? We could do with someone from WATR to confirm what they know. 

[wilsdenrover]

1 minute ago, Forever Blue said:

Who knows? We could do with someone from WATR to confirm what they know. 

Perhaps @Mike Graham could be of help here…

[lraC]

5 minutes ago, arbitro said:

Re the last sentence the Indian authorities have adjourned the case until August with no mention of any interim agreement. I'm taking from that that no money could be sent. That is why speculation is rife that the first tranche of the Adam Wharton few has enabled us to keep going.

Absolutely and 100% what I was told to me face. 

[lraC]

4 minutes ago, wilsdenrover said:

I don’t see how it can be interpreted in any other way.

Me neither, so yet again something does not add up. 

[lraC]

10 minutes ago, Forever Blue said:

My guess is that when the court case was adjourned in March there was an agreement that BRFC was not longer impacted beyond providing an equivalent bond for any money they put into Rovers. Hence the statement about the remaining issues only being ‘technical’ on nature. When you met him in November or whenever that may not have been the case. 

That cannot be true either as the WATR meeting minutes state that they can send funds so long as the equivalent amount IS put in a bond. 

[wilsdenrover]

1 minute ago, lraC said:

Me neither, so yet again something does not add up. 

I work on the assumption if the club say something without providing evidence then it’s probably a load of bollocks.

[lraC]

Just now, wilsdenrover said:

I work on the assumption if the club say something without providing evidence then it’s probably a load of bollocks.

Funny you should say that as Waggott asked me if I was recording our meeting. If he had nothing to hide, why would he ask that? 

[Moptop1]

17 minutes ago, lraC said:

He has either lied to me or in that meeting, as one contradicts the other. 

What do you think Waggotts done?🙄

[dallydally]

2 minutes ago, wilsdenrover said:

I work on the assumption if the club say something without providing evidence then it’s probably a load of bollocks.

It's all a loan of.........

BRFC specialises in that

[Forever Blue]

3 minutes ago, lraC said:

That cannot be true either as the WATR meeting minutes state that they can send funds so long as the equivalent amount IS put in a bond. 

Yes, that’s what I meant, that there has been agreement since you met him in Nov that they can now fund the club if an equivalent bond is paid to Indian authorities, regardless of any further court decisions in August. 

Edited May 18 by Forever Blue

[wilsdenrover]

2 minutes ago, lraC said:

That cannot be true either as the WATR meeting minutes state that they can send funds so long as the equivalent amount IS put in a bond. 

I suspect SW told them that as an absolute fact whereas the accounts make clear the club assumed all future requests would be approved.

[arbitro]

1 minute ago, wilsdenrover said:

I work on the assumption if the club say something without providing evidence then it’s probably a load of bollocks.

My take is that there was a typically arrogant belief from them that the authorities would allow money to be sent and this was relayed to Waggott. Not getting the permission to do so set off the chain reaction of selling Adam. Given the haste with which that deal happened it's more than feasible that this is true.

[wilsdenrover]

2 minutes ago, Forever Blue said:

Yes, that’s what I meant, that there has been agreement since you met him in Nov that they can now fund the club if an equivalent bond is paid to Indian authorities, regardless of any further court decisions in August. 

Agreement with who?

[davulsukur]

Retained list:

https://www.rovers.co.uk/news/2024/may/18/retain-list-confirmed/

 

Confirms we have taken the 1 year option on Gally and Dolan (sigh) and we are in discussions with Fadz and Fleck (why the fuck would we be?)

Also, thought Charlie Weston was highly rated? 

[wilsdenrover]

1 minute ago, arbitro said:

My take is that there was a typically arrogant belief from them that the authorities would allow money to be sent and this was relayed to Waggott. Not getting the permission to do so set off the chain reaction of selling Adam. Given the haste with which that deal happened it's more than feasible that this is true.

I think it’s beyond obvious that  Adam was sold because the case was adjourned.

 

[Forever Blue]

Just now, wilsdenrover said:

Agreement with who?

The Indian courts who presumably previously specified that Venkys could only send money to Rovers for a specified time frame before having to return to court. That stipulation, if the WATR statement is true, has now been removed.