Venky’s v Indian Government (a) - 13/1/2025 - Re-Arranged Challenge Match

[islander200]

14 minutes ago, RevidgeBlue said:

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?

Why can't they send over half what they used to send over and then leave the other half as the bond and it would still be costing them the same as it was previous to these charges against them?... instead  they have sent nothing since that 11 million leaving us poor fans to watch our talent get scooped up by the vultures whilst two weeks into the season our squad lacks in numbers and quality 

 

Edited August 20 by islander200

[Crimpshrine]

2 hours 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.

These court papers have been posted and discussed a few times on here.

I think you have misunderstood the section that talks about 'every remittance'. This is referring to all the remittances that made up the 11 million allowance being discussed on that occasion. There is no allowance for any future remittances. Hence the need for the subsequent hearings. 

While the ED oppose Venky's requests they will need to go to court every time they want to send money.

[RevidgeBlue]

11 minutes ago, wilsdenrover said:

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.

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?

[tomphil]

10 minutes ago, islander200 said:

Why can't they send over half what they used to send over and then leave the other half as the bond and it would still be costing them the same as it was previous to these charges against them?... instead  they have sent nothing since that 11 million leaving us poor fans to watch our talent get scooped up by the vultures whilst two weeks into the season our squad lacks in numbers and quality 

 

Because the self serving 🔔ends running the show this side of the world have told them they don't need to.

Making themselves look good in the process and no doubt lining up hefty bonuses.

[wilsdenrover]

1 minute ago, RevidgeBlue said:

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?

The rules ‘reassess’ the fitness of someone to be a director of a club on a season by season basis.

Unless I’m misreading things, they only assess owners at the point they’re wanting to buy a club.

As you allude to, it’s ridiculous they don’t seem to ‘keep an eye’ on owners after the acquisition has taken place. 

[RevidgeBlue]

13 minutes ago, islander200 said:

Why can't they send over half what they used to send over and then leave the other half as the bond and it would still be costing them the same as it was previous to these charges against them?... instead  they have sent nothing since that 11 million leaving us poor fans to watch our talent get scooped up by the vultures whilst two weeks into the season our squad lacks in numbers and quality 

 

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.

[JHRover]

16 minutes ago, islander200 said:

Why can't they send over half what they used to send over and then leave the other half as the bond and it would still be costing them the same as it was previous to these charges against them?... instead  they have sent nothing since that 11 million leaving us poor fans to watch our talent get scooped up by the vultures whilst two weeks into the season our squad lacks in numbers and quality 

 

I wonder if the reason for this is that they would not be able to justify 'non essential' transfers.

It is clear that a big part of their case and justification for wanting to send money over last year was that without this money the club would face financial armageddon with winding up petitions mentioned and the collapse of the business.

I suspect this was a factor as to why the court ultimately allowed the money to be paid over.

But if they are turning around asking to send money over so that we can go out and have a (relative) splurge in the transfer window and spend non-essential sums on new players this may be harder to justify before a court. 

[Crimpshrine]

38 minutes ago, RevidgeBlue said:

 

 

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.

The case that was scheduled for today was a continuation of W.P.(C) 7966/2023 which is a request to send funds out of the country. What makes you think the purpose of the proceedings have changed ?

[tomphil]

15 minutes ago, RevidgeBlue said:

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.

And the 20% tariff they've been hit with.

[wilsdenrover]

13 minutes ago, JHRover said:

I wonder if the reason for this is that they would not be able to justify 'non essential' transfers.

It is clear that a big part of their case and justification for wanting to send money over last year was that without this money the club would face financial armageddon with winding up petitions mentioned and the collapse of the business.

I suspect this was a factor as to why the court ultimately allowed the money to be paid over.

But if they are turning around asking to send money over so that we can go out and have a (relative) splurge in the transfer window and spend non-essential sums on new players this may be harder to justify before a court. 

Don’t forget their reputation…

[RevidgeBlue]

30 minutes ago, Crimpshrine said:

The case that was scheduled for today was a continuation of W.P.(C) 7966/2023 which is a request to send funds out of the country. What makes you think the purpose of the proceedings have changed ?

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.

[Upside Down]

22 minutes ago, RevidgeBlue said:

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.

You are wrong.

A No Objection Certificate is required every time they want to send funds overseas. This is denied and venkys then challenge this in court, hence the court cases.

[Torgeir]

When was the original hearing again?

[Gav]

1 hour ago, RevidgeBlue said:

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?

They were NEVER fit and proper owners, this despite passing the awful test applied by our governing body. 
 

VENKYS OUT - NOTHING ELSE MATTERS 

Edited August 20 by Gav

[roversfan99]

3 hours ago, RevidgeBlue said:

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.

 

1 hour ago, RevidgeBlue said:

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 appreciate that you have acknowledged to an extent that they are unwilling to invest but in the main you have reverted back to somewhat empathising with them, justifying them and deflecting back onto targetting the arse licker Waggott for his communication rather than the main issue.

There is no justification in any reluctance in being unwilling to have to equal any investment in a seperate temporary bond. As @islander200 said, why not invest half? But beyond that, in the last 12 months (not in line with the accounting period) we have operated at a considerable profit. Reinvesting a chunk wouldnt even require then to invest.

You also mentioned a mixture of taps off and transfer splurges in the past. Its misrepesentative based on this idea that covering losses as all Championship owners do is investing in the club. We have not spent more than £2m on a transfer in 5 years. Before that, we bought Gallagher with predominantly the Raya money and the year before they did invest £10m which was an anomoly. Prior, a few summers of taps off, player sales, minimal incomings. The only other summer in 14 years where we spent a bit was when we came down, and that was more than covered by outgoings.

They have been consistent with the odd exception in not funding the club in terms of investing in it.

[Miller11]

Venky’s need a No Objection Certificate every time they want to send money. They don’t have to go to court to get this, but they have previously taken the Indian Government Department responsible to court to challenge their decision not to allow one.

It stands to reason that if the ED has objected once, they will continue to do so. It also stands to reason that it would be absolutely bonkers for the same process (apply, reject, appeal to high court, be allowed with conditions) to be repeated time after time. We’ve been told about the precedent, which would suggest that Venky’s apply for the No Objection Certificate, get rejected, but the ED grudgingly give permission with attached conditions (so not without objection) as set out in the earlier ruling.

Precedent is a cornerstone of law, and you’d expect there to be consistency in decisions. Perpetual, repetitive court cases surely wouldn’t happen. I suppose the ED might dig their heels in, but if a judge felt they were being unreasonable or flouting previous judgements I think they would eventually come unstuck.

All this is pure speculation on my part by the way. If any of the above is true, Venky’s should be saying “Steve, here’s £20 million. Get those forms filled in and account for every penny for the next 6-12 months. Wages, tax, agents fees, stadium upkeep, lawnmowers, stock for the shop, a new PA system, bills for cleaning, advertising, petrol for the bus, hotel bills, flights, balls, bibs, grass seed etc etc. We’ve set aside the same as a bond. Then with the transfer fees you’ve recouped buy some new players and have a crack at getting promoted while P&S and FFP aren’t an issue.”

 

[Crimpshrine]

3 minutes ago, Miller11 said:

 It also stands to reason that it would be absolutely bonkers for the same process (apply, reject, appeal to high court, be allowed with conditions) to be repeated time after time.

 

It may be bonkers but that is what is happening. They need to go to court every time they want to send money

[wilsdenrover]

15 minutes ago, Crimpshrine said:

It may be bonkers but that is what is happening. They need to go to court every time they want to send money

I wonder if that’s why today was listed as a final hearing.

ie to agree on a ‘solution’ which would be in place until the conclusion of the EDs investigation.

 

[Rogerb]

A better solution to the funding issues was what came out of Pasha 's chat with WATR

[Upside Down]

1 hour ago, Miller11 said:

Venky’s need a No Objection Certificate every time they want to send money. They don’t have to go to court to get this, but they have previously taken the Indian Government Department responsible to court to challenge their decision not to allow one.

It stands to reason that if the ED has objected once, they will continue to do so. It also stands to reason that it would be absolutely bonkers for the same process (apply, reject, appeal to high court, be allowed with conditions) to be repeated time after time. We’ve been told about the precedent, which would suggest that Venky’s apply for the No Objection Certificate, get rejected, but the ED grudgingly give permission with attached conditions (so not without objection) as set out in the earlier ruling.

Precedent is a cornerstone of law, and you’d expect there to be consistency in decisions. Perpetual, repetitive court cases surely wouldn’t happen. I suppose the ED might dig their heels in, but if a judge felt they were being unreasonable or flouting previous judgements I think they would eventually come unstuck.

All this is pure speculation on my part by the way. If any of the above is true, Venky’s should be saying “Steve, here’s £20 million. Get those forms filled in and account for every penny for the next 6-12 months. Wages, tax, agents fees, stadium upkeep, lawnmowers, stock for the shop, a new PA system, bills for cleaning, advertising, petrol for the bus, hotel bills, flights, balls, bibs, grass seed etc etc. We’ve set aside the same as a bond. Then with the transfer fees you’ve recouped buy some new players and have a crack at getting promoted while P&S and FFP aren’t an issue.”

 

They argued that a precedent was set last time they sent over funds. That was from when they sent over the 3.5 million for the tax bill.

Both these times the club was financially in a different place. My hope (however realistic this is) is that the court cite the sales of Adam Wharton and Sammie Szmodics as evidence the club can fund itself and basically say it's up to the ED and their decision stands.

Again, if there's "no impediment" to them funding the club then where's the fucking money?

[tomphil]

11 minutes ago, Rogerb said:

A better solution to the funding issues was what came out of Pasha 's chat with WATR

What was that then ?

[RevidgeBlue]

2 hours ago, Upside Down said:

You are wrong.

A No Objection Certificate is required every time they want to send funds overseas. This is denied and venkys then challenge this in court, hence the court cases.

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.

[Upside Down]

1 hour ago, RevidgeBlue said:

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.

This hearing was denoted as the final hearing in the last lot of court docs.

I would hazard a guess that this is to outline the process of how they will be allowed to send over funds from now on.

My hope is that the court says it's up to the ED's discretion whether or not a NOC is issued and that decision can't be challenged.

They were previously allowed to send over funds provided they met certain conditions however, the club was financially in a different state then. With the fire sale of players the club will be showing a profit for the last financial year. I'm hoping this will result in the court denying them permission. How realistic this is I don't know.

Venkateshwara Hatcheries is the organisation under investigation by a government entity that specialises in combating money laundering. They're dead against them being allowed to send over funds.

[lraC]

Whichever way you look at this, why has Waggott gone on record to say, there is no impediment to them sending funds.

Is it a bare faced lie, or does he not understand the meaning of the word impediment? 

[lraC]

2 hours ago, Upside Down said:

This hearing was denoted as the final hearing in the last lot of court docs.

I would hazard a guess that this is to outline the process of how they will be allowed to send over funds from now on.

My hope is that the court says it's up to the ED's discretion whether or not a NOC is issued and that decision can't be challenged.

They were previously allowed to send over funds provided they met certain conditions however, the club was financially in a different state then. With the fire sale of players the club will be showing a profit for the last financial year. I'm hoping this will result in the court denying them permission. How realistic this is I don't know.

Venkateshwara Hatcheries is the organisation under investigation by a government entity that specialises in combating money laundering. They're dead against them being allowed to send over funds.

I suppose you didn’t have to wonder now, how presenting the sales of players, spread out over several payments is a convenient way of showing the court, we are still skint?