It's the tomorrow never comes syndrome, which the cowards at the club are hoping they get away with.

That could be a fun decision for the bankers, if they do their due diligence.

It is in there for a reason and no doubt the accountants insisted on it. The certificate of no objection seems to be the key to this, which I assume can only be issued, if a court hearing actually takes place. From what I believe, we will run out of funds around April next year.

I can't imagine for one minute they would be liable for any tax, as they loss would be eye watering.

So far as I am aware, there is still a requirement for a no objection certificate to be issued, in order for funds to be sent. Unless that has changed, then there seems to be a problem sending funds and each time the court hearing does not proceed, we become closer to running out of money. Below is an extract from the court document form November 2023. 5. The Petitioner made an application dated 17.01.2023 under Rule 10 of 2022 Rules seeking a No-Objection for remittance for financial commitments to its WOS for the year 2023-24 which has been rejected vide an Order dated 06.03.2023 passed by the Enforcement Directorate, which is the subject matter of the instant writ petition.

It’s always been my opinion, that the reason for not selling the club, is fear of something coming out that would cause some severe problems. Some people have suggested that their is no “conspiracy theory” and perhaps that’s correct, but I cannot see any other reason for holding on to us, despite all that’s gone on in the past and is currently going on. It simply beggars belief now.

Maybe the agent has forgotten who the owners were, as no doubt running the club himself and dishing out contracts negotiated by himself, especially one for his own son, can no doubt become a bit confusing.

Exactly what I have been saying too. This new narrative that funds can be sent, so long as the same amount is deposited in a bond has resulted in zero, being sent ever since. Suhail has confirmed, as you correctly state that the ruling in November 2023 did not create a “precedent” which was the word used by Waggott. There will be no funds sent in my opinion, until the court agree that funds can be sent and as we have now seen 4 times, this court hearing just keeps getting put back. The latest one prompted an article in a national paper, stating that the club is in danger of going bust. What have we seen since, a resignation in the recruitment department and a statement from another backroom boy, that we will loan and develop, other clubs players.

Maybe, but the consequences of this look somewhat dire.

If it is such a drop in the ocean, why are we are now being asked to believe that double that hurts, as they have put 0 in since there were forced to effectively pay £2 for every £1 given the bond. if as is being suggested the very existence of the club is at risk, perhaps putting £10m in and the same in a bond might help.

There is very little doubt in my mind, that the only reason they hold onto the club, is their fear of things coming out, from the original takeover, that could create huge problems for them. We have already heard about property being seized and the article in the National press, now eludes to money laundering being one of the reasons an Indian business gets investigated by the ED. For them to be clinging on like they are, despite this adverse publicity now that is in our national press, combined with the legal costs, they must be faced with, given the 4 adjournments, as usual does not make any sense. No doubt the no impediment line trotted out was their idea, to keep the fans at bay, thinking they choose not to fund us rather than they are prevented from funding us, but the suggestion now that we are not far from running out of money, would surely provoke a reaction, but still nothing.

No impediment then!!!! I assume WATR will drill down on the no impediment line trotted about by Waggott, in the next meeting?

That's an absolutely brilliant post, but given the post made by Tomphil are we talking a bank guaranteed here, or a bond with hard cash deposited? Also I assume this is at risk, but in what circumstances would the forfeit the bond, or have to pay the value of the bank guarantee, dependent on what applies?

It depends what he said at the interview. I can make you millions, with my contacts in Europe. The proof is the signing I made happen of Maguire, which was at 20 times his true value. That was all done and dusted, until the tea lady spilled the contents of the teapot, onto his contract and we missed the deadline.

No.