Looks like they have paid off the loan from the guy in Bolton. I wonder if they had to pay a bond in India to cover this ? https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/13452736/charges

Half season tickets on sale - a bargain at approximately 70% cost of a full season ticket. They are going to fly out!

OK mate, no point continuing. You won't answer any of the genuine questions I am putting to you and you just want a playground squabble. If you change your mind and want to have a serious conversation send me a message. Thanks

But you aren't able to tell me what happened or when. You just swallowed Waggott's 'no impediment' statements. I didn't and still don't. It's hard to know what believe because nobody - including you - can provide any evidence. I tried to get to the truth by asking Suhail but you don't believe what he told me about the July date. So it appears you know more than he does - fair enough, I'd love to hear your explanation.

What is odd ? My beliefs are based on the reports from the court hearings that did not allow for future funds to be sent. How do you know something happened before July ? Do you know more than the COO of Blackburn Rovers ? I am obviously more likely to believe him than you - don't you think ? So, putting all that to one side, please inform me what happened before July, how did you know about it and where can I find the evidence? Thanks

Isn't the whole point of administration to save jobs and keep a business alive ? If the club can't pay their bills in the near future due to cashflow problems but the general structure of the club is sound and the potential to recover is evident, then administration could well turn everything around. There are some very positive examples - Crystal Palace have been through it twice !

What I always said was that the court hearing that allowed them to send money in November 2023 did not create a ruling that they could send any further money. That was confirmed by Suhail. However, something happened in July which, according to Suhail, changed the situation. I don't know for certain what this 'something' was and have yet to see any evidence as to what it was. Prior to July, they could not send any money without going back to court. If you were saying they could before July then I don't think that was correct. If you were saying it only after July, please explain what happened.

I guess so. He wasn't specific about the date. I can't say I understand everything fully even now. The financial statements issued yesterday still seem to state they need court permission to send funds which doesn't really agree with what Suhail said to me. Maybe they simply repeated the 'going concern' as a continuation from the last financial statements as it is convenient for them ?

The financial statements in April said pretty much the same thing as in the ones issued yesterday – Venky’s need to obtain permission every time they want to send money. I was recently lucky enough (not sure if that is the right phrase!) to talk to Suhail about the situation with the court hearings and Venky's ability to send money from India. This was back in September: I asked why the official ( vague ) club statements contradict the financial statements issued by the club in April (on Companies House web site). The financial statements state that the owners need to apply to the courts each and every time they need to send money. Conversely, the club seem to maintain that there is 'no impediment' to the owners sending funds. I'll put the conversation in Q and A format. Q: Why do the Club maintain that funds can be sent without impediment while the financial statement from April states they can't? A: The financial statement was correct at the time. The November hearing allowed £11 million to be transferred as long as a bond of the same amount was deposited in India. The November court hearing did not allow any further funds to be sent without going back to court. This was true in April when the financial statement was made - we were totally dependent on petitions to the courts. The court hearing scheduled for January (now November) was a petition to be allowed to send more funds. Something changed in July and the club was informed by the owners that they could now send funds without waiting for the next court hearing to take place. However, the requirement to post a bond against each payment remains. It is still a difficult situation. Q: So what is the point of the next court hearing if it was originally scheduled to ask for permission to send funds? A: The court hearing now has less importance but it may allow for a petition to remove the need for the additional bond but I don't really know if that will happen Q: how long do you think the bond requirement will be in place? A: I am not sure but the investigation is ongoing and may take a while. Q: What are the implications if the court hearing is delayed again? A: Very little, It is not really too important now Q: So, in theory, the owners could send money tomorrow if they wanted to? A: Yes, but with the added bond it is an expensive situation for the owners and the club is in a stable financial situation just at the moment. Q: So the club are not asking for more funds imminently A: Correct That was about it. I twigged a bit later that the July date coincides somewhat with the sale of the Neville house and Venky's possibly made a profit, paid off any tax they were deemed to have dodged and then deposited the rest of the cash back in India. This may have generated enough good will to have the restrictions loosened a bit but the end result is the same - they can only send funds with an associated bond. This was in September but I don't think anything has changed since then.

And the Tevez handball, offside, not over the line goal

our /ˈou(ə)r,är/ determiner belonging to or associated with the speaker and one or more other people previously mentioned or easily identified. plight1 /plīt/ noun a dangerous, difficult, or otherwise unfortunate situation. Similar to Predicament, sorry condition, sad state, trouble, difficulty, mess, dire straits

It is getting that way. Rovers 150th next year. If Venky's are still here that will be 15 years - 10% of our history under enemy occupation.

Maybe it helps for tax purposes to show they are making losses? Perhaps it's just a measure of their stupidity

Not real debts though are they? They are the cost of running the club for the last 14 years which Venky's know they will never get back. Whether they sell the club or not they will have already written that money off - unless of course we get promoted which is an option they don't seem interested in.

And being in an excellent position with respect to FFP must make the club more attractive to potential buyers with money to invest.