Really informative. Thanks.

That's your interpretation of it. I read it and thought instantly that for whatever period Venky's are under investigation the Court had come up with a solution to avoid all parties having to trail back and forth to Court on pointless hearings which would have the same outcome.

Probably didn't start out that way when they couldnt transfer at all but once they got satisfaction of sorts with the existing judgement it does seem to me that they've noticed that it's a lot better to let the Club wash it's own face wherever possible with a few player sales rather than having to dip their hands in their pockets for £20 m plus every year. Get Waggott to muddy the waters with uncertainty about whether they are or are not allowed to fund us and use the word "bond" instead of "guarantee" to make people think it would cost them double and boom! You're off the hook.

There seems to be some dispute as to whether SS was already on our radar before the Egg rocked up but giving him credit for that, even Owen Coyle found Charlie Mulgrew.

Especially for contestants who lived at the top of a high rise tower block in the middle of Birmingham!

Notwithstanding Waggott/Pasha and the owners though, Broughton was beyond useless. I just wonder what might have been had we appointed a proper DOF to work alongside the excellent JDT as opposed to Broughton supplying him with duds or not signing people at all.

This thread is now like an episode of Bullseye in light of the postponed Court hearing. "Look at what you could have had!" (Won)

As I posted the other day, that's exactly the way I interpreted it, but kept getting told I was wrong. The general thrust and purpose of the order seemed quite clear to me. As regards whether Venky's merely have to provide a guarantee or physically have to pay an equivalent bond that's not a discussion I was aware of. I thought we'd always been led to believe by Waggott and Co that they had to pay a bond and that therefore the cost of sending any money over was double what it was previously but it would be no surprise whatsoever if he's been misleading people in this respect as well in addition to every other.

OK even if the ED did object in future every time Venky's wanted to send money over, none of that detracts from the basic premise that they "can" send funds if they really want. The process is just a bit more convoluted but it seems more likely than not the request would be granted given the existing precedent.

Also had the bad injury necessitating the wearing of a mask for a period which Mowbray seemingly disregarfed

They haven't. Today was technically scheduled as a final hearing. Venky's want to be allowed to send funds over free of encumbrances and get their bonds back and I'm guessing the ED still want to prevent them from doing so and they don't get their bonds back. I'm guessing all possible final outcomes are still on the table In the interim we appear to have have had a temporary solution whereby the Judge seems to have taken pity on the Club who aren't at fault per se. The area of disagreement between us is whether the owners can't or won't send money currently. I think the latter but either way the net effect for the Club is the same.

Good question - I don't know and that would be a good question for Waggott who himself claims there are no impediments to the owners funding us .....errr apart from the bond.

I've made the point before though that just because you're fit and proper owners at one point surely doesn't mean you're fit and proper forever regardless of changing circumstances?

Not sure what you're arguing about here - so until a final decision is made, it's twice as expensive to send money over until a final determination on the case is made albeit they MIGHT get the bonds back. Yes?

My reading of it is Venky's (or the Company if we're splitting hairs) initially barred from sending money over at all. They appeal this and go to Court and are successful in getting the outright restriction lifted BUT they have to provide an equivalent supporting monetary bond and jump through all the other hoops as regards supporting paperwork. They can now send money over at any point provided they comply with these conditions. The proceedings now relate SOLELY to Venky's trying to get the requirement to provide a supporting bond lifted. However the case keeps getting postponed and they don't want to send money over in the meantime as it's too expensive. If people disagree that's fine but that's my opinion on it.

Nah. Raya though..........

Respectfully disagree - after permitting the initial transfer of the £11m the judgment went on to say that after "every" remittance to it's WOS (wholly owned subsidiary Venky's had to provide supporting Bank Statements etc etc and a Bank Guarantee and on that basis their application was considered dealt with. Perhaps the Club should have read the judgement more carefully or thought that "The situation is unclear" sounded better than "We don't want to pay double" in the accounts.

Not really in favour of Ruddy, would he not be on very big wages as well?

I mean, as much as people don't like them, possibly you can't blame them for not being willing to pay double bubble BUT that doesn't help us in the meantime. As long as this stipulation about the bond is in place and they aren't willing to meet it, that makes them effectively no different in real terms to owners who are unable to fund the Club. There won't be a Szmodics or a Wharton round every single corner to keep the lights on.

The case didn't go on today - along with 16 others- because of lack of Court time - nothing whatsoever to do with being successful in removing the order or not!

I think that's it in a nutshell as well.

Sorry, it seems quite clear from the extract of the Court papers provided by Duncan that that is wrong. The judgement thus far appears to concede that the Club are "not yet under the cloud of suspicion" therefore money CAN be sent as long as it is on each occasion supported by an equivalent supporting bond and provided they subsequently back it up with the details of what it's required for and Bank statements showing where it's coming from. etc etc But like Josh says they're probably not doing because double bubble is now too expensive and too much trouble.

That does tend to indicate that they CAN in face send money whenever they want as long as they provide the equivalent supporting bond and complete all the relevant paperwork retrospectively. But as we can see - they clearly aren't doing. Choosing instead to let the Club wash it's own face courtesy of a couple of fortuitously timed sales. WHICH - imo in many ways is worse than being blocked from doing so.

I did suspect that was the case and that Waggott was talking complete shite about a precedent having been set, because if that was the case then you'd think there'd be no need to have to forensically itemise in such detail each and every item of expenditure requested.

Just to follow up on Josh's point then - if their success rate in prosecutions is so high; what is it that makes Venky-s think they can win this one? Do they have a genuine belief, or, is it merely a tit for tat retaliation against the Authorities causing them maximum inconvenience and tying them up in Court for years simply because they can?