Venky’s v Indian Government (a) - 13/11/2024 - Re-Arranged Challenge Match

[Southside Rover]

On 02/07/2024 at 21:32, Salgados Hair said:

This has aged well..

Forgot how much I hate listening to the guy. Family...

[Salgados Hair]

@Southside Rover Interesting that Waggott rolls his eyes as Tony begins to wax lyrical about the Vs..

[tomphil]

All they see is the millions pumped in to pay the bills and allow them to be in the positions they are and earn hundreds of thousands per annum off that money.

The facts of what they reduced the club to are totally lost on the likes of Waggot who will have told them annually how he can reduce running costs in order to keep his own cushy position safe.

[Mattyblue]

They operate in the parameters these owners have set. So if they meet their arbitrary targets then what’s the issue?

What the club was like in 2010 is irrelevant to them.

[RoversClitheroe]

Question being - is this court case as massive as we think then? 

Are the Venkys allowed to fund us or choosing not too? 

Why is this case becoming such a big deal? 

[J*B]

4 minutes ago, RoversClitheroe said:

Question being - is this court case as massive as we think then? 

Are the Venkys allowed to fund us or choosing not too? 

Why is this case becoming such a big deal? 

The answers to all three of these questions have been answered numerous times on this website - so i'm clear, are you saying you don't know the answer to all three?

[ABBEY]

I'd settle for relegation to l2 this season if it meant the cockeroaches exterminated 

[RoversClitheroe]

47 minutes ago, J*B said:

The answers to all three of these questions have been answered numerous times on this website - so i'm clear, are you saying you don't know the answer to all three?

Lots of mixed messages from lots of different people lol can you blame me for being a bit confused! 

[SIMON GARNERS 194]

Enough is enough,the message from every Rovers fan should be loud and clear to this lot in Pune Towers:

If you cant fund the Club like responsible and dutiful Owners and you no longer have any interest in our Club then for Christs sake do the decent and right thing and put us up for Sale and then we can ALL finally move on from your disastrous Fourteen year tenure.

We cant carry on as we are...tipping point well and truly reached.

 

Edited July 11 by SIMON GARNERS 194

[RevidgeBlue]

8 hours ago, J*B said:

The answers to all three of these questions have been answered numerous times on this website - so i'm clear, are you saying you don't know the answer to all three?

I know the answers to one and three but am not sure I've seen a definitive answer as to whether they're choosing not to fund us or are not allowed unless I've missed it?

[J*B]

46 minutes ago, RevidgeBlue said:

I know the answers to one and three but am not sure I've seen a definitive answer as to whether they're choosing not to fund us or are not allowed unless I've missed it?

They are allowed to fund us within FFP restrictions (minimal at the moment due to the Wharton and Phillips sales) as long as they put a £1 for £1 security bond into an account owned by the Indian government. This is effectively so they can’t lose the case then declare they don’t have the money to pay. If they lose the court case they will lose the bond. 

They are choosing not to fund us to the levels we are used to because they don’t want to put the money into the bond. 

[Devon Rover]

9 minutes ago, J*B said:

They are allowed to fund us within FFP restrictions (minimal at the moment due to the Wharton and Phillips sales) as long as they put a £1 for £1 security bond into an account owned by the Indian government. This is effectively so they can’t lose the case then declare they don’t have the money to pay. If they lose the court case they will lose the bond. 

They are choosing not to fund us to the levels we are used to because they don’t want to put the money into the bond. 

Which suggests they expect to lose the case, or that it is just a convenient excuse?

[J*B]

23 minutes ago, Devon Rover said:

Which suggests they expect to lose the case, or that it is just a convenient excuse?

How often do people go against the government in court and win?

[Old Codger]

Let's just hope the Modi government gives them a proper kicking, that they wake up and smell the onions, and slink off back to their odious pursuit of mass slaughter of fowl beasts.

What would happen to the club if they were just to relinquish ownership?

What wouldn't happen to the club in that scenario?

(not going full Cartesian logic on these buggers just yet).

[Upside Down]

I'm going to post this one more time just so there is no confusion.

On 22nd August 2022 the Foreign Exchange Management (Overseas Investment) Rules were changed.

Rule 10 states that any residents of India that is currently under investigation by an agency of the government (of which the Directorate Of Enforcement is one) must obtain a 'No Objection Certificate' from that agency before being allowed to send funds outside of the country.

Venkys, who have been under investigation by the ED since sometime in 2021, applied for this to be able to send 26 million over. On 6th March 2023 this was rejected by the ED.

The following court cases were venkys fighting this decision.

Two payments have been made since then. The first of 3.54 million on 23rd June 2023, this was after the club had received a threat of winding up from HMRC. The second was for 11.45million. A detailed breakdown of costs was provided for this, 1.8 million allocated to 'agent fees'.

In both cases the ED faught tooth and nail against them being able to send money. The judgement of the court was that an equivalent bond be placed with the ED.

Venkys cannot send anything over without the NOC from the ED. The ED oppose this and that's what the court cases are for.

[Bethnal]

18 minutes ago, Upside Down said:

I'm going to post this one more time just so there is no confusion.

On 22nd August 2022 the Foreign Exchange Management (Overseas Investment) Rules were changed.

Rule 10 states that any residents of India that is currently under investigation by an agency of the government (of which the Directorate Of Enforcement is one) must obtain a 'No Objection Certificate' from that agency before being allowed to send funds outside of the country.

Venkys, who have been under investigation by the ED since sometime in 2021, applied for this to be able to send 26 million over. On 6th March 2023 this was rejected by the ED.

The following court cases were venkys fighting this decision.

Two payments have been made since then. The first of 3.54 million on 23rd June 2023, this was after the club had received a threat of winding up from HMRC. The second was for 11.45million. A detailed breakdown of costs was provided for this, 1.8 million allocated to 'agent fees'.

In both cases the ED faught tooth and nail against them being able to send money. The judgement of the court was that an equivalent bond be placed with the ED.

Venkys cannot send anything over without the NOC from the ED. The ED oppose this and that's what the court cases are for.

I’ve quietly thought this was the exact case, based on what we’d heard, but it is especially confusing when local media and the club themselves are saying something different.

Being objective, anything less than about a 75% chance of winning a case is probably too high of a risk to justify placing funds in a bond, anyway, but my understanding has always been that they essentially have not been able to and are - get ready for an old favourite - “saving face” in some fashion, by ensuring nobody knows that they are currently unable to directly fund the club themselves.

The club is funding itself, by selling the silver and cutting costs and they’re continuing to pretend that it’s by their grace we are funded.

[lraC]

5 hours ago, Upside Down said:

I'm going to post this one more time just so there is no confusion.

On 22nd August 2022 the Foreign Exchange Management (Overseas Investment) Rules were changed.

Rule 10 states that any residents of India that is currently under investigation by an agency of the government (of which the Directorate Of Enforcement is one) must obtain a 'No Objection Certificate' from that agency before being allowed to send funds outside of the country.

Venkys, who have been under investigation by the ED since sometime in 2021, applied for this to be able to send 26 million over. On 6th March 2023 this was rejected by the ED.

The following court cases were venkys fighting this decision.

Two payments have been made since then. The first of 3.54 million on 23rd June 2023, this was after the club had received a threat of winding up from HMRC. The second was for 11.45million. A detailed breakdown of costs was provided for this, 1.8 million allocated to 'agent fees'.

In both cases the ED faught tooth and nail against them being able to send money. The judgement of the court was that an equivalent bond be placed with the ED.

Venkys cannot send anything over without the NOC from the ED. The ED oppose this and that's what the court cases are for.

This says in no uncertain terms, that the statement made by Waggott “The owners can fund the club with no impediment”. is a total bare faced lie. 
I know some on here have failed to accept this and I personally had one particular poster, ask if I was accusing Waggott of being a liar. I answered that question and will state it again, yes he is. 
As we now know, the club are now using the press, to put it out there that we are skint, yet were masking things, by issuing statements like, we have requested funds and Pasha has gone over to India, to discuss budgets.

In reality, the fans deserve better and instead of issuing miss leading statements, they need to let the fans know, how important the court hearing is, but instead of doing that, they leave many dangling and hoping we can manage to scrape together a down payment on a £500k signing, which in itself tells a story.

The fans are now waking up and the owners deserve to be hauled over the coals big time.

I hope by the time the court date comes around on 20/08/24 the likes of Elliott Jackson and Radio Lancs at least acknowledge how important it is and offer some sort of coverage of the outcome. There will be no more adjournments and there will be facts on the table, showing the judge, some of the indiscretions that have finally led to this and put the club’s future at risk.

Finally for Waggot to state this court hearing has nothing to do with the club, beggars belief. 

[lraC]

One other thing to add to the my post above. Given the requirement for the no objection certificate, to be issued by ED before funds can be sent, the miss conception that Venky’s can send funds right now, so long as they pay the equivalent amount into a bond, is also incorrect. 

[Crimpshrine]

It is fairly easy to understand the situation by looking at the court papers.

They can't send any money without going to court.

A bond was applied to the previous payments that were allowed - probably because the ED was totally opposed to them sending any money at all.

 @Upside Down and @lraC have explained this countless times and even posted links to the relevant documents

[J*B]

2 hours ago, MCMC1875 said:

Wrong (again). Read the post above by Upside Down. 

Upside Down's post is the same explanation as mine with much more (very good) detail, no? If not, can you clarify where i'm misunderstanding? Perhaps the discrepancy is I say "they're allowed" and UD rightly says the ED previously have fought this, but a judge has allowed it as long as the bond is met.

In which case I guess your point is they're not actually allowed unless they get approval from a judge? If so I would argue there's a history of two previous approvals so I would speculate they've probably got a bit of a leg to stand on i.e. it was approved last time so there's precedent. But you're right in principle. And UD is very right. 

[Lancaster Rover]

Also being allowed and being willing are two very different things, for every £ they send they've got to spend/deposit a further £ which they seem unwilling/unable to do

[lraC]

40 minutes ago, J*B said:

Upside Down's post is the same explanation as mine with much more (very good) detail, no? If not, can you clarify where i'm misunderstanding? Perhaps the discrepancy is I say "they're allowed" and UD rightly says the ED previously have fought this, but a judge has allowed it as long as the bond is met.

In which case I guess your point is they're not actually allowed unless they get approval from a judge? If so I would argue there's a history of two previous approvals so I would speculate they've probably got a bit of a leg to stand on i.e. it was approved last time so there's precedent. But you're right in principle. And UD is very right. 

Hi Josh,

It is the no objection certificate (NOC) bit that you are missing. Simply sending funds and depositing the same amount, is not an option. The ED objected to the funds being sent last year and the compromised was the bond AND a no objection certificate issued by the ED. Without that as well the cannot send funds.

[RevidgeBlue]

17 hours ago, J*B said:

They are allowed to fund us within FFP restrictions (minimal at the moment due to the Wharton and Phillips sales) as long as they put a £1 for £1 security bond into an account owned by the Indian government. This is effectively so they can’t lose the case then declare they don’t have the money to pay. If they lose the court case they will lose the bond. 

They are choosing not to fund us to the levels we are used to because they don’t want to put the money into the bond. 

CHOOSING not to ''cos of the bond.

Thanks.

[RevidgeBlue]

10 hours ago, lraC said:

This says in no uncertain terms, that the statement made by Waggott “The owners can fund the club with no impediment”. is a total bare faced lie. 
I know some on here have failed to accept this and I personally had one particular poster, ask if I was accusing Waggott of being a liar. I answered that question and will state it again, yes he is. 
As we now know, the club are now using the press, to put it out there that we are skint, yet were masking things, by issuing statements like, we have requested funds and Pasha has gone over to India, to discuss budgets.

In reality, the fans deserve better and instead of issuing miss leading statements, they need to let the fans know, how important the court hearing is, but instead of doing that, they leave many dangling and hoping we can manage to scrape together a down payment on a £500k signing, which in itself tells a story.

The fans are now waking up and the owners deserve to be hauled over the coals big time.

I hope by the time the court date comes around on 20/08/24 the likes of Elliott Jackson and Radio Lancs at least acknowledge how important it is and offer some sort of coverage of the outcome. There will be no more adjournments and there will be facts on the table, showing the judge, some of the indiscretions that have finally led to this and put the club’s future at risk.

Finally for Waggot to state this court hearing has nothing to do with the club, beggars belief. 

Reading upside downs explanation of the NOC I thought exactly the same.

Waggott glibly claiming that future Court Hearings should be a formality as "a precedent" had been set by a transfer of funds being allowed once and various other Club statements since insinuating that the financial issues were close to resolution are misleading at best and a downright lie at worst.

Maybe as someone (Wilesden Rover?) suggested these positive noises are for the benefit of our Creditors as much as anyone else.

[windymiller7]

16 hours ago, Upside Down said:

I'm going to post this one more time just so there is no confusion.

On 22nd August 2022 the Foreign Exchange Management (Overseas Investment) Rules were changed.

Rule 10 states that any residents of India that is currently under investigation by an agency of the government (of which the Directorate Of Enforcement is one) must obtain a 'No Objection Certificate' from that agency before being allowed to send funds outside of the country.

Venkys, who have been under investigation by the ED since sometime in 2021, applied for this to be able to send 26 million over. On 6th March 2023 this was rejected by the ED.

The following court cases were venkys fighting this decision.

Two payments have been made since then. The first of 3.54 million on 23rd June 2023, this was after the club had received a threat of winding up from HMRC. The second was for 11.45million. A detailed breakdown of costs was provided for this, 1.8 million allocated to 'agent fees'.

In both cases the ED faught tooth and nail against them being able to send money. The judgement of the court was that an equivalent bond be placed with the ED.

Venkys cannot send anything over without the NOC from the ED. The ED oppose this and that's what the court cases are for.

I think the highlighted bits are quite telling as to what they are/were willing to spend in total. Essentially, they were going to send over £26m, but ended up sending £14.9m. Not far off half what we were originally going to get.

I think it's fair to assume that they have a total which is allocated to Rovers and with them having to put an equivalent amount into the bond account, we're only ever going to see about half of that figure now, at best.

So, if we think of the magic £20m a year, that'll now be £10m a year or thereabouts.

From where I'm sitting this means that unless there's a few more Adam Wharton's lurking in the U21s, we're f*cked!