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

[RevidgeBlue]

15 minutes ago, Crimpshrine said:

I think this is where people are getting confused. The order uses phrases like 'after every remittance'. This is not a reference to future remittances but only refers to remittances within the total £11 million approved by the order. 

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.

[RevidgeBlue]

49 minutes ago, Brian-Potter said:

I have received further information regarding the bond / guarantee. Summary is below:

The order made on 31.10.23 clearly states an unconditional bank guarantee is to be made in favour of the ED for the same amount being remitted. A bank guarantee in this situation usually means that the bank guarantee to pay the amount set out in the terms in the event that the petitioner defaults / refuses to pay any amount due up to this value. This would only be called upon if VHPL is found to be in breach of FEMA and a subsequent financial penalty / fine relating to this is not paid. It is worth noting that for the bank to agree to any such guarantee the standing of VHPL with the bank must be A+++ and they would have very large amounts invested / deposited with said bank. I’m not going to get into commenting on the case or the financial position of VHPL, other than publicly available ratings agency documents state that the VHPL Group has huge cash reserves. On a side note, looking at the case history I would make an assumption that the purpose of the hearing is not urgent in the short term. As can be seen in 2023, documents show that when the situation was perilous the hearings were being scheduled and re-scheduled only days apart.

 

Really informative. Thanks.

[lraC]

4 minutes ago, Forever Blue said:

£20m a year covering losses at Rovers for them is like me and thee losing a fiver. 
 

Which makes their refusal to pay the guarantee an act of self-sabotaging stupidity.

From what Crimpshine has posted above, the are being stopped from funding, not refusing to.

All a bit confusing at the minute, but hopefully the club will clarify, but of course, we need to ensure they do so in an honest and open way, if that is possible.

Good luck to WATR tomorrow and hopefully they can clear this up, once and for all.

[Crimpshrine]

2 minutes ago, RevidgeBlue said:

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.

Yes, I can see that. However, the Accounts document seems to suggest they are waiting on the court decision before being allowed to transfer any more funds.

Either way, whether they can't send funds or won't send funds, the fact is they are NOT sending funds. 

[Brian-Potter]

21 minutes ago, Crimpshrine said:

I am not up on legal or financial matters so I may well be wrong but I can't find any evidence for the assertion that 'no further approval is required from the court for future remittance of funds' as you have stated above.

The order made on 31.10.23 clearly states that £11 million can be remitted with a bank guarantee of the same value. The £11 million could be paid via any number of remittances to the wholly owned subsidiaries mentioned in the order.  There were a number of conditions imposed on each of the remittances that made up the £11 million total. I think this is where people are getting confused. The order uses phrases like 'after every remittance'. This is not a reference to future remittances but only refers to remittances within the total £11 million approved by the order. 

A key sentence is the last line of the order which states 'The bank guarantee will be kept alive for the period of the order' - It doesn't mention 'all bank guarantees' or 'any bank guarantees'. There is only one bank guarantee in question and that covers the £11 million. 

I can see no reference to allowing any future remittances.

I think the situation is described much more clearly in the Rovers accounts submitted in April which can be found here (3rd doc on list)

https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/00053482/filing-history

Under Accounting policies ( going concerns ) page 21, there is an explanation that 2 petitions for interim remittances were approved in June 2023 ( £3,540,000 ) and Oct 2023 ( £11,000,000 ). Encouraged by the success of these 2 petitions, a third petition was lodged in January 2024 asking for permission to send more funds. This is the court hearing that has been postponed a number of times and is now scheduled for November. I don't believe any more funds can be sent until this case is heard. 

The account statement goes on to state that the owners are not in control of when they can send funds and are dependent on the court decision. It states that BRFC would have difficulty in continuing to trade if the court does not permit the release of future funds. I don't see why this would be put in the accounts if the owners are free to send funds without further approval ( providing the bond/guarantee etc ).

In my opinion, if the hearing gets postponed one more time we will be in really big financial trouble.

 

 

 

As I stated previously the above are not my views. My background is corporate finance and the views above are that of two of my colleagues who work in our legal team, both who are qualified solicitors specialising in corporate financial law. What I have posted is their interpretation of the court order from a legal point of view. I’ll pass your comments on to them and see what they say, might not be a quick response as I’m running out of ‘favours’ with them.

The issue with this is most of it is pure speculation based upon extremely limited factual information and people are putting two and two together and coming up with 150 in some scenarios. Hence why I’ve refrained from posting.

 

[J*B]

1 minute ago, Brian-Potter said:

As I stated previously the above are not my views. My background is corporate finance and the views above are that of two of my colleagues who work in our legal team, both who are qualified solicitors specialising in corporate financial law. What I have posted is their interpretation of the court order from a legal point of view. I’ll pass your comments on to them and see what they say, might not be a quick response as I’m running out of ‘favours’ with them.

The issue with this is most of it is pure speculation based upon extremely limited factual information and people are putting two and two together and coming up with 150 in some scenarios. Hence why I’ve refrained from posting.

 

Its much appreciated. The reality here like you say its BRFCS is essentially acting as a forum for people to discuss and speculate on what may or may not happen. Seemingly fans on Facebook and (in the most part) Twitter are either unwilling to discuss or the platform by design doesn't allow them to discuss in detail. So this is the only place to get any sort of quantifiable speculation and hypothesis. 

[lraC]

I have attached the page from the accounts that is being referred to here, to add a bit more clarity (hopefully)

Accounts BRFC Page.pdf

Edited August 22 by lraC
Typo

[RevidgeBlue]

27 minutes ago, lraC said:

So, they do not need to double up on any payment made, it is just the default position that they find themselves in, should they not use the funds for the stated purpose.

Sounds pretty straight forward to me then, they have decide they don't want to fund us.

I understand that a WATR trust meeting is to take place tomorrow, whereby a vote will take place regarding a plan of action. There is plenty of ammunition here now. 

There's plenty of ammunition building that will blow Waggott out of the water now.

It seems feasible now that when he said "There is no impediment to the owners sending funds over" he might actually have been telling the truth for about the first time ever!

i.e they merely have to jump through the hoops as regards the stipulated  paperwork and provide a Bank Guarantee.

The various fan groups now need a clear answer from Waggott to the above:

Is it the case they are not allowed to fund the Club without Court approval or is it simply the case that they don't want to? 

And if the answer is as looking increasingly likely the latter, why not?

And don't let the slimy toe rag off the hook until he's provided satisfactory answers. No more of this "The owners have assured me they remain fully committed to funding the Club" crap because in reality it simply isn't happening.

It may be that the honest answer would be "The owners have now decided they want the Club to wash its own face wherever possible but where it isn't they will step in to provide funding to keep the Club running"

Which would be far from ideal but at least we'd know where we stand.

[B16Rover]

Wasn't it nice when the extent of Blackburn Rovers analysis was watching match of the day 

[tomphil]

25 minutes ago, Forever Blue said:

£20m a year covering losses at Rovers for them is like me and thee losing a fiver. 
 

Which makes their refusal to pay the guarantee an act of self-sabotaging stupidity.

Yep it's all covered by the VH group turnover and paid by those banking facilities as far as the info we have available so their personal wealth will be untroubled by any of it.

That's probably largely why they don't give a toss but the ED holding a charge of 11 million or more against whatever won't sit well with them.

[tomphil]

53 minutes ago, Crimpshrine said:

I am not up on legal or financial matters so I may well be wrong but I can't find any evidence for the assertion that 'no further approval is required from the court for future remittance of funds' as you have stated above.

The order made on 31.10.23 clearly states that £11 million can be remitted with a bank guarantee of the same value. The £11 million could be paid via any number of remittances to the wholly owned subsidiaries mentioned in the order.  There were a number of conditions imposed on each of the remittances that made up the £11 million total. I think this is where people are getting confused. The order uses phrases like 'after every remittance'. This is not a reference to future remittances but only refers to remittances within the total £11 million approved by the order. 

A key sentence is the last line of the order which states 'The bank guarantee will be kept alive for the period of the order' - It doesn't mention 'all bank guarantees' or 'any bank guarantees'. There is only one bank guarantee in question and that covers the £11 million. 

I can see no reference to allowing any future remittances.

I think the situation is described much more clearly in the Rovers accounts submitted in April which can be found here (3rd doc on list)

https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/00053482/filing-history

Under Accounting policies ( going concerns ) page 21, there is an explanation that 2 petitions for interim remittances were approved in June 2023 ( £3,540,000 ) and Oct 2023 ( £11,000,000 ). Encouraged by the success of these 2 petitions, a third petition was lodged in January 2024 asking for permission to send more funds. This is the court hearing that has been postponed a number of times and is now scheduled for November. I don't believe any more funds can be sent until this case is heard. 

The account statement goes on to state that the owners are not in control of when they can send funds and are dependent on the court decision. It states that BRFC would have difficulty in continuing to trade if the court does not permit the release of future funds. I don't see why this would be put in the accounts if the owners are free to send funds without further approval ( providing the bond/guarantee etc ).

In my opinion, if the hearing gets postponed one more time we will be in really big financial trouble.

 

 

 

Further sales and budget cuts on the horizon in Jan but certainly by summer if it isn't sorted before then.

 

[Wendal]

[wilsdenrover]

48 minutes ago, Wendal said:

Next debate, what does a larger bench mean? 🤔🧐😁

Edited August 22 by wilsdenrover

[Crimpshrine]

At least 3 judges ?

[Forever Blue]

2 minutes ago, wilsdenrover said:

Next debate, what does a larger bench mean? 🤔🧐😁

Subs bench innit. Sarjeev is Pears’ new understudy. Venkys signed him up straight after the court case adjournment. Loan to buy.

[Forever Blue]

5 minutes ago, wilsdenrover said:

Next debate, what does a larger bench mean? 🤔🧐😁

Sounds like he had another case to sit  that day on a ‘larger bench’ so didn’t have time to carry on. 

[lraC]

19 minutes ago, wilsdenrover said:

Next debate, what does a larger bench mean? 🤔🧐😁

A drinking bench for someone who can’t spell lager. 

[Brian-Potter]

53 minutes ago, wilsdenrover said:

Next debate, what does a larger bench mean? 🤔🧐😁

The judge that was supposed to hear the VHPL Petition is required to sit on a larger bench for another case and therefore is unable to hear the VHPL case.

[RevidgeBlue]

8 hours ago, tomphil said:

So maybe all this is about is getting their previous 11 million bond back or charge removed  ?

Venky's brought the case against the ED, not the other way round so I'm guessing it's about them trying to get the requirement to provide a guarantee removed.

I think Herbie got to the crux of the matter and nailed it when he made a throwaway comment about if the V's had to provide personal guarantees it would explain a lot.

From the bits of info that are emerging and the In telligent analysis of them on here I now think they can send money if they wish and don't even have to pay a bond which makes it "double bubble". The Court papers however indicate that they have to provide a Bank Guarantee and I suspect that that Guarantee from the Company would have to be reinforced by  personal guarantees and that THAT is the reason the flow of money has stopped because they don't want to put a penny of their respective personal fortunes at risk. Hence us trying to scrape by by selling players in the meantime until the matter is finalised.

So much to go at Waggott on. And please someone the next time you have an audience with him and he says they've reiterated their commitment to funding the Club blah blah - point out to him there's "funding" it and really funding it. 

"Funding" it entails doing the bare minimum to keep the lights on as appears to be happening at present.

Really funding it entails doing enough to make us a competitive outfit on the pitch and giving us the best chance to thrive in future. Therefore if the manager or recruitment team think they've spotted an absolute gem who would cost £6m but could almost certainly be sold for £20m - £30m a couple of years later then that sort of backing would need to be available and could be recouped at a later date. Rinse and repeat.

[wilsdenrover]

1 hour ago, RevidgeBlue said:

Venky's brought the case against the ED, not the other way round so I'm guessing it's about them trying to get the requirement to provide a guarantee removed.

I think Herbie got to the crux of the matter and nailed it when he made a throwaway comment about if the V's had to provide personal guarantees it would explain a lot.

From the bits of info that are emerging and the In telligent analysis of them on here I now think they can send money if they wish and don't even have to pay a bond which makes it "double bubble". The Court papers however indicate that they have to provide a Bank Guarantee and I suspect that that Guarantee from the Company would have to be reinforced by  personal guarantees and that THAT is the reason the flow of money has stopped because they don't want to put a penny of their respective personal fortunes at risk. Hence us trying to scrape by by selling players in the meantime until the matter is finalised.

So much to go at Waggott on. And please someone the next time you have an audience with him and he says they've reiterated their commitment to funding the Club blah blah - point out to him there's "funding" it and really funding it. 

"Funding" it entails doing the bare minimum to keep the lights on as appears to be happening at present.

Really funding it entails doing enough to make us a competitive outfit on the pitch and giving us the best chance to thrive in future. Therefore if the manager or recruitment team think they've spotted an absolute gem who would cost £6m but could almost certainly be sold for £20m - £30m a couple of years later then that sort of backing would need to be available and could be recouped at a later date. Rinse and repeat.

 

It would be nice if another hearing would go ahead so we can (maybe) finally find out for certain what Venky’s are trying to achieve.

I think a good thing to ask SW would be for him to explain how his assertion the owners can fund the club doesn’t contradict the statements in the club’s accounts (re the court cases to date) 

A better thing still would be the Venkys to finally read the room and fuck right off.

Edited August 22 by wilsdenrover

[RevidgeBlue]

6 minutes ago, wilsdenrover said:

 

It would be nice if another hearing would go ahead so we can (maybe) finally find out for certain what Venky’s are trying to achieve.

I think a good thing to ask SW would be for him to explain how his assertion the owners can fund the club doesn’t contradict the statements in the club’s accounts (re the court cases to date) 

A better thing still would be the Venkys to finally read the room and fuck right off.

Total guess on my part but I assume they thought "There remains material uncertainty about our ability to fund" (I.e. not in our control) sounds a lot better than 'We don't want to fund because we don't want to provide personal guarantees".

Bang on about Waggott.

Re: the owners even if they win their case the question remains whether they would return to pre crisis levels of funding or whether they've rather enjoyed not having to put their hands in their pockets.

Historically most Club  benefactors start off with great enthusiasm, spending money like it's going out of fashion before losing enthusiasm for endlessly flushing money down the pan and eventually withdrawing funding altogether.

[tomphil]

2 hours ago, RevidgeBlue said:

Venky's brought the case against the ED, not the other way round so I'm guessing it's about them trying to get the requirement to provide a guarantee removed.

I think Herbie got to the crux of the matter and nailed it when he made a throwaway comment about if the V's had to provide personal guarantees it would explain a lot.

From the bits of info that are emerging and the In telligent analysis of them on here I now think they can send money if they wish and don't even have to pay a bond which makes it "double bubble". The Court papers however indicate that they have to provide a Bank Guarantee and I suspect that that Guarantee from the Company would have to be reinforced by  personal guarantees and that THAT is the reason the flow of money has stopped because they don't want to put a penny of their respective personal fortunes at risk. Hence us trying to scrape by by selling players in the meantime until the matter is finalised.

So much to go at Waggott on. And please someone the next time you have an audience with him and he says they've reiterated their commitment to funding the Club blah blah - point out to him there's "funding" it and really funding it. 

"Funding" it entails doing the bare minimum to keep the lights on as appears to be happening at present.

Really funding it entails doing enough to make us a competitive outfit on the pitch and giving us the best chance to thrive in future. Therefore if the manager or recruitment team think they've spotted an absolute gem who would cost £6m but could almost certainly be sold for £20m - £30m a couple of years later then that sort of backing would need to be available and could be recouped at a later date. Rinse and repeat.

I also still think there is an element of 'leave it to us we can handle it' coming from this end as well.  As Waggot and Shadowman look to cement their status and justify their positions, salaries and bonuses.

Waggot is the ultimate penny pincher as we've seen and when Mowbray was here he had the perfect guy to deflect everything because he himself was in clover just plodding along.

[Penwortham Blue]

9 hours ago, RevidgeBlue said:

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.

To my mind, Crimpshine’s summary seems to provide the clearest and most considered opinion / interpretation to date and certainly is in line with my own conclusion. They are going to Court to get ‘permission’ to fund but until the case is heard, they can’t but agree that they might now be happy with delay and money staying in their pocket and the club limping on by self generating funds.

[RevidgeBlue]

43 minutes ago, Penwortham Blue said:

To my mind, Crimpshine’s summary seems to provide the clearest and most considered opinion / interpretation to date and certainly is in line with my own conclusion. They are going to Court to get ‘permission’ to fund but until the case is heard, they can’t but agree that they might now be happy with delay and money staying in their pocket and the club limping on by self generating funds.

Just have to agree to disagree on whether they can or can't then.

If they can but won't it's even worse in my book.

[roversfan99]

13 hours ago, RevidgeBlue said:

Venky's brought the case against the ED, not the other way round so I'm guessing it's about them trying to get the requirement to provide a guarantee removed.

I think Herbie got to the crux of the matter and nailed it when he made a throwaway comment about if the V's had to provide personal guarantees it would explain a lot.

From the bits of info that are emerging and the In telligent analysis of them on here I now think they can send money if they wish and don't even have to pay a bond which makes it "double bubble". The Court papers however indicate that they have to provide a Bank Guarantee and I suspect that that Guarantee from the Company would have to be reinforced by  personal guarantees and that THAT is the reason the flow of money has stopped because they don't want to put a penny of their respective personal fortunes at risk. Hence us trying to scrape by by selling players in the meantime until the matter is finalised.

So much to go at Waggott on. And please someone the next time you have an audience with him and he says they've reiterated their commitment to funding the Club blah blah - point out to him there's "funding" it and really funding it. 

"Funding" it entails doing the bare minimum to keep the lights on as appears to be happening at present.

Really funding it entails doing enough to make us a competitive outfit on the pitch and giving us the best chance to thrive in future. Therefore if the manager or recruitment team think they've spotted an absolute gem who would cost £6m but could almost certainly be sold for £20m - £30m a couple of years later then that sort of backing would need to be available and could be recouped at a later date. Rinse and repeat.

Venkys only funding the club to keep the lights on has not happened only since the court case. Its all they have done for tbe majority of their time in charge. Its just been particularly desperate coupled with well timed sales.