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

[Crimpshrine]

2 hours ago, RevidgeBlue said:

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?

Venky's are being investigated for various tax misdemeanours. The investigations will take a long time and while they are ongoing Venky's are prohibited from sending money out of the country. They probably haven't got to a point where there is a need to defend themselves or admit liability on any charges yet. They are still under investigation.

The current court hearing is simply Venky's applying for permission to send money out of India while they are under embargo. 

These hearings are at Venky's request, they are not a culmination of the tax avoidance investigations.

  

[Crimpshrine]

47 minutes ago, booth said:

So can they send funds or not?

I believe they need to go to court each time they need to send money.

No hearing, no funds

[sverrehh]

1 minute ago, Crimpshrine said:

I believe they need to go to court each time they need to send money.

No hearing, no funds

and the hearings are all indefinitely postponed..?

[RevidgeBlue]

6 minutes ago, Crimpshrine said:

Venky's are being investigated for various tax misdemeanours. The investigations will take a long time and while they are ongoing Venky's are prohibited from sending money out of the country.

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.

[1864roverite]

IF they have been successful in removing this order then that is why the case didn’t go on today - it was a paper exercise - it’s as simple as that! IF they had the order continued they would have appealed and it would have been heard. My take is that there will be an agreement in place and what that is we don’t yet know.

here’s hoping eh ?

[RevidgeBlue]

51 minutes ago, J*B said:

Nobody knows! Well, someone must do. But we're here to speculate and i'm going to speculate with: Yes, but its a fucking pain in the arse and expensive. 

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

[RevidgeBlue]

1 minute ago, 1864roverite said:

IF they have been successful in removing this order then that is why the case didn’t go on today - it was a paper exercise - it’s as simple as that! IF they had the order continued they would have appealed and it would have been heard. My take is that there will be an agreement in place and what that is we don’t yet know.

here’s hoping eh ?

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!

[Forever Blue]

1 hour ago, RevidgeBlue said:

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.

This is what I’ve said all along. They are choosing not to fund, which is far worse than being unable to fund. Which is why I questioned WATR’s stance on not wanting them gone.

[den]

Would Venkys being found guilty of financial misconduct/tax evasion affect their viability to own an English football club? 
 

 

[RevidgeBlue]

3 minutes ago, Forever Blue said:

This is what I’ve said all along. They are choosing not to fund, which is far worse than being unable to fund. Which is why I questioned WATR’s stance on not wanting them gone.

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.

[wilsdenrover]

30 minutes ago, RevidgeBlue said:

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.

The extract Duncan  shared showed the court allowed those monies to be sent (circa £11 million) - it did not give permission for any further monies to be sent.

The extract from the club’s accounts I posted earlier (I’ll do so again here) states that Venkys aren’t currently in control of whether they can send funds to the club or not (second paragraph)

The below also confirms Venkys believe the precedent has been set for the court to approve all future requests but if these hearing keep getting postponed they, and us, are never going to find out 

It’s of course possible something has changed since the accounts were finalised but no documented proof has been provided for this

 

[broadsword]

I worry that I'll go to my grave consumed with enmity for these pricks. What a life wasted that would be. 

The only succour would be that I'd come back from the dead and haunt their offspring until they sell.

So if seems that nothing has changed. I thought rovers insider said if the case doesn't go their way today then they'll be gone by the end of the year?

Edited August 20 by broadsword

[broadsword]

 

Rovers Insider

@InsiderRovers

Venky’s.

 

The importance of the August court case can not be understated.

 

If the hearing is easier postponed or it doesn’t go in the owners’ favour, it’s almost certain that the club will have new owners before the end of the year.

[bluebruce]

1 hour ago, 1864roverite said:

IF they have been successful in removing this order then that is why the case didn’t go on today - it was a paper exercise - it’s as simple as that! IF they had the order continued they would have appealed and it would have been heard. My take is that there will be an agreement in place and what that is we don’t yet know.

here’s hoping eh ?

It can't have been successful if it didn't get heard.

[1864roverite]

Hence why have suggested it was a paper exercise agreed outside of the court arena. It happens in every court in the land - Russia China and N Korea excepted- if that is the case then it wouldn’t have got on in court. No one at this point, not even the esteemed Rev who has vast experience of court processes, knows what went on outside of the court room. I have not read anything that suggests any scenario painted on here so far. I think now that Swag will not release a statement himself it will be words attributed to another!

The very fact venkys asked for the hearing leads me to the above conclusion. The fact the case is later in the year suggests a trial or judgement ruling.

Edited August 20 by 1864roverite

[RevidgeBlue]

24 minutes ago, wilsdenrover said:

The extract Duncan  shared showed the court allowed those monies to be sent (circa £11 million) - it did not give permission for any further monies to be sent.

The extract from the club’s accounts I posted earlier (I’ll do so again here) states that Venkys aren’t currently in control of whether they can send funds to the club or not (second paragraph)

 

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.

[Armchair supporter supremo]

Just all one big fk8n farce from day 1 with these degenerates.

 

Edited August 20 by Armchair supporter supremo

[wilsdenrover]

44 minutes ago, RevidgeBlue said:

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.

point 1 of the order - Venkys asked for permission to send remittances (plural) totalling circa £11 million

point 2 of the order - The breakdown of what these remittances are needed for.

point 12 of the order - Grants permission for the £11 million to be sent subject to certain conditions (the lettered clauses following this point)

conditions b and c (which I presume you’re referring to) therefore only applies to this £11 million.

edited to add - if this order covered all future remittances Venkys wouldn’t have gone back to court in January to make a further request:

Edited August 20 by wilsdenrover

[OldEwoodBlue]

1 hour ago, RevidgeBlue said:

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.

You are wrong Rev

We agree the club itself isn't yet under any suspicion.

But Venkys do not send money to the club.

It goes via Venkys London Limited and that is the entity under investigation, due to them misrepresnting investments and buying Neville's house.

 

They need to go to court with the relevent docs for each transaction. The issue is the court case hasn't been heard so we all do not know for sure if the previous precedent will be followed or not.

It also does not cost them double. That is wrong. They have to deposit the same amount in a bank guarantee. That isn't spent. It is their money still in their bank but a security against it in the name of ED. It means ultimately if the ED win their case (which has not got near court yet) they can take that money. If the case is dropped or Venkys win, the bank guarantee expires and they can use their money again.

 

Edited August 20 by OldEwoodBlue

[RevidgeBlue]

30 minutes ago, OldEwoodBlue said:

You are wrong Rev

We agree the club itself isn't yet under any suspicion.

But Venkys do not send money to the club.

It goes via Venkys London Limited and that is the entity under investigation, due 

 

 

33 minutes ago, wilsdenrover said:

point 1 of the order - Venkys asked for permission to send remittances (plural) totalling circa £11 million

point 2 of the order - The breakdown of what these remittances are needed for.

point 12 of the order - Grants permission for the £11 million to be sent subject to certain conditions (the lettered clauses following this point)

conditions b and c (which I presume you’re referring to) therefore only applies to this £11 million.

edited to add - if this order covered all future remittances Venkys wouldn’t have gone back to court in January to make a further request:

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.

Edited August 20 by RevidgeBlue

[RevidgeBlue]

31 minutes ago, OldEwoodBlue said:

You are wrong Rev

We agree the club itself isn't yet under any suspicion.

But Venkys do not send money to the club.

It goes via Venkys London Limited and that is the entity under investigation, due to them misrepresnting investments and buying Neville's house.

 

They need to go to court with the relevent docs for each transaction. The issue is the court case hasn't been heard so we all do not know for sure if the previous precedent will be followed or not.

It also does not cost them double. That is wrong. They have to deposit the same amount in a bank guarantee. That isn't spent. It is their money still in their bank but a security against it in the name of ED. It means ultimately if the ED win their case (which has not got near court yet) they can take that money. If the case is dropped or Venkys win, the bank guarantee expires and they can use their money again.

 

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?

[tomphil]

1 hour ago, broadsword said:

 

Rovers Insider

@InsiderRovers

Venky’s.

 

The importance of the August court case can not be understated.

 

If the hearing is easier postponed or it doesn’t go in the owners’ favour, it’s almost certain that the club will have new owners before the end of the year.

🙏

[Ianrally]

1 hour ago, den said:

Would Venkys being found guilty of financial misconduct/tax evasion affect their viability to own an English football club? 
 

 

According to me and probably you, then no they are not fit and proper to own our club.

As far as the Football League as re concerned , yes they are because they are a bunch of ostriches. 

[aletheia]

Been an interesting read all –thank you.
But really, as we stand at present, for whatever reasons and nuances:-

1. Funding at all levels will essentially rely on outgoings
2. Waggot (or minions) will spin it how they like but point 1 remains
3. The Rao’s are here for the forseeable

 

[wilsdenrover]

1 minute ago, Ianrally said:

According to me and probably you, then no they are not fit and proper to own our club.

As far as the Football League as re concerned , yes they are because they are a bunch of ostriches. 

We’d probably end up in the farcical position of they wouldn’t be allowed to buy the club but they would  be allowed to continue to own it.