January Transfer window

[Fraserkirky]

3 hours ago, davulsukur said:

Sunderland have been reading @chaddyrovers posts. 

If Sunderland and Sheff Utd are fighting it out for him, we've never stood a chance (thanks Venky's, that's on you)

Just less options for the Chilean prince 

Edited 6 hours ago by Fraserkirky

[Fraserkirky]

13 minutes ago, mr bishi said:

Aasgaard with another 2 goals this evening for Wigan.

Cracking player 

[bluebruce]

5 hours ago, Exiled_Rover said:

WBA have no money.

We are the same. So like the poster said, more competition...

[RoversClitheroe]

Can't help but think we're re-loaning Markanday out for an extra few 100 pounds just because Venkys aren't funding us. League 2 to League 1 higher wage contribution 

[roverstdt]

On 08/01/2025 at 18:25, islander200 said:

Omg

Your posts suggest without Venkys there would be nobody else to cover the losses.

Kent exile replied a more savvy owner wouldn't be losing as much money and would have used parts of the Wharton and Szmodic fee to reinvest and bring in other assets that can be sold for profit down the line. 

Our owners don't do that though and it is 100% on them, not Waggott, not Pasha...the venkys !

fingers crossed on Diaz! Wouldn’t mind Ellis Simms who hasn’t had much luck I still like Miles Leadburn

[RevidgeBlue]

3 hours ago, Herbie6590 said:

I suspect the UK board have been told not to bother asking India as the answer will be “No”.

Every recent action points to Rovers having to be self sustaining. 
They’ll only send money to stop us going into administration IMO “to save face”. 

But but..........according to the Fans Forum Notes 25/11 Waggott was "in the process of requesting funding for the upcoming January transfer window".

Surely you're not suggesting our esteemed CEO would pull the wool over supporters' eyes?

[Ghost7]

Sunderland going for it hard, whereas Waggott and our owners are probably hoping we lose the next two just to ease any pressure on them spending.

😂

[RevidgeBlue]

https://www.lancashiretelegraph.co.uk/sport/24854663.blackburn-rovers-venkys-court-case-india-delayed/

Depressing to see the LT perpetuating the myth on behalf of the Club about the owners effectively having to pay double in respect of any money sent over.

[Eddie]

Just now, RevidgeBlue said:

https://www.lancashiretelegraph.co.uk/sport/24854663.blackburn-rovers-venkys-court-case-india-delayed/

Depressing to see the LT perpetuating the myth on behalf of the Club about the owners effectively having to pay double in respect of any money sent over.

You know, the myth doesn't really matter. 

Our owners are wealthy enough that paying double shouldn't really matter. With their level of net worth, whether it's 20m, 40m, or 80m it shouldn't be a hindrance to sending money over. 

So, I'm fine with the myth being perpetuated, because it really shouldn't stop the hard questions being asked. 

[RevidgeBlue]

3 minutes ago, Ghost7 said:

Sunderland going for it hard, whereas Waggott and our owners are probably hoping we lose the next two just to ease any pressure on them spending.

😂

At most Clubs that would intensify the pressure to strengthen even more.

You can spin either way:

Win the next couple - "Look how well we're doing - no need to spend".

Lose the next couple - "We've slipped out of realistic contention now - no point going overboard".

[RevidgeBlue]

3 minutes ago, Eddie said:

You know, the myth doesn't really matter. 

Our owners are wealthy enough that paying double shouldn't really matter. With their level of net worth, whether it's 20m, 40m, or 80m it shouldn't be a hindrance to sending money over. 

So, I'm fine with the myth being perpetuated, because it really shouldn't stop the hard questions being asked. 

You're probably right but for many supporters it seems the incorrect notion that they have to physically stick their hands in their pockets to match any money sent over is a valid reason for them to not send any in the first place.

[Mashed Potatoes]

7 hours ago, aletheia said:

So no new money then?

Allotments of shares are always for "new money" although in this case it appears possible that the money may have been received a few months earlier prior to the shares being allotted in exchange.

Edited 4 hours ago by Mashed Potatoes
clearer explanation

[miqaayil]

3 hours ago, Mashed Potatoes said:

Allotments of shares are always for "new money" although in this case it appears possible that the money may have been received a few months earlier prior to the shares being allotted in exchange.

Or monies never received but paper trail of expenses shown to re-channel monies

[miqaayil]

4 hours ago, Eddie said:

You know, the myth doesn't really matter. 

Our owners are wealthy enough that paying double shouldn't really matter. With their level of net worth, whether it's 20m, 40m, or 80m it shouldn't be a hindrance to sending money over. 

So, I'm fine with the myth being perpetuated, because it really shouldn't stop the hard questions being asked. 

Its actually comical that such crowd appeasing articles come out in support of these charlatans.

 

firstly when will fans realize not a cent sent over till now actually belong to venkys. its credit facility from SBI , hence the whole court case of misuse of investment. 

court simply asking you to put hard cash as collateral so as to ensure you don't misuse the facility from SBI. So is this double expenditures ? Spin doctors at work....