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

[Armchair supporter supremo]

11 minutes ago, lraC said:

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? 

He doesn't understand the meaning of the word Lie. 

It's just a natural occurrence for him 

[Mashed Potatoes]

10 hours ago, wilsdenrover said:

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. 

That is correct.

This point is specifically addressed in the explanatory notes to the Football Governance Bill published May, stating "An individual incumbent owner or director can only be tested on their fitness or,with respect to owners, their source of wealth .Incumbent owners will not be tested on their financial resources or required to submit a financial plan. This is because the ongoing financial sustainability of clubs is already addressed through financial regulation requirements elsewhere in the legislation."

 

[philipl]

As soon as the case was scheduled as item 36 in the Court, a further delay became likely.

The club has had several days to prepare a comment.

Nothing so far and the silence now is more eloquent than whatever eventually will be said.

10 days to the end of the transfer window and actions will speak louder still.

[Armchair supporter supremo]

Why do the delays have to be many months(only to then get delayed again and again) and if the courts are so ridiculously busy why not hire more bloody courts & judges. Shithole 

[tomphil]

42 minutes ago, philipl said:

As soon as the case was scheduled as item 36 in the Court, a further delay became likely.

The club has had several days to prepare a comment.

Nothing so far and the silence now is more eloquent than whatever eventually will be said.

10 days to the end of the transfer window and actions will speak louder still.

They've had months over there in India to push and press the matter but whenever these hearings come around it's buried way down the list.

Nobody sees any urgency in it obviously.

[Crimpshrine]

9 hours 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.

That's right but if the court hearings keep getting postponed they actually can't send funds.

The current hearing was due in January and the Rovers accounts state that the money to be requested ( in January ) should cover BRFC's future liabilities until June 2024 !!  

[Penwortham Blue]

10 hours ago, Rogerb said:

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

What was that, hopefully sell up and piss off !

[lraC]

1 hour ago, philipl said:

As soon as the case was scheduled as item 36 in the Court, a further delay became likely.

The club has had several days to prepare a comment.

Nothing so far and the silence now is more eloquent than whatever eventually will be said.

10 days to the end of the transfer window and actions will speak louder still.

This is exactly why Waggott's statement about no impediment needs to be called out.

He knows only too well, that there is a huge impediment and that this is effectively meaning no funds are being made available for the running of the club.

The fans deserve better and all he does is make fools of us and expect us all to be taken in by his bullshit. 

A request for funds has gone into the club has it, then please do let us know what the outcome of said request is then. 

[ABBEY]

27 minutes ago, Penwortham Blue said:

What was that, hopefully sell up and piss off !

and rot in hell

[Forever Blue]

10 hours ago, Rogerb said:

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

Which was? 

[Crimpshrine]

17 minutes ago, lraC said:

This is exactly why Waggott's statement about no impediment needs to be called out.

He knows only too well, that there is a huge impediment and that this is effectively meaning no funds are being made available for the running of the club.

The fans deserve better and all he does is make fools of us and expect us all to be taken in by his bullshit. 

A request for funds has gone into the club has it, then please do let us know what the outcome of said request is then. 

The truth is in the Rovers accounts which were published after the court hearing that allowed the £11 million remittance.

"A material uncertainty exists therefore, due to the ability to remit sufficient funds to BRFC by VHPL not being in the control , at the time of the approval of these financial statements ( April 2024 ), of VHPL.

If the court does not permit the release of future funds, there will be a significant impact on the company's ability to continue to trade"

I would call that an impediment

[TugaysMarlboro]

Why is everyone complaining?

They've just released a new backstage Instagram video...get behind the lads FFS. 🙄

Edited August 21 by TugaysMarlboro

[Mercer]

21 hours ago, Mercer said:

Rovers could be in serious financial trouble here considering Wharton was seemingly sold to keep the lights on particularly if VLL recall their loans or part of.

Rovers' directors will need to be mindful of being held liable for wrongful trading should they know Rovers unlikely to avoid insolvency or administration.  Deferment until November, at the earliest, is going to put further strain on cash and I fear if it moves it will be sold! 

 

19 minutes ago, Crimpshrine said:

The truth is in the Rovers accounts which were published after the court hearing that allowed the £11 million remittance.

"A material uncertainty exists therefore, due to the ability to remit sufficient funds to BRFC by VHPL not being in the control , at the time of the approval of these financial statements ( April 2024 ), of VHPL.

If the court does not permit the release of future funds, there will be a significant impact on the company's ability to continue to trade"

I would call that an impediment

Think we may be heading for murky and dangerous waters!

Edited August 21 by Mercer

[Mike E]

2 hours ago, Armchair supporter supremo said:

Why do the delays have to be many months(only to then get delayed again and again) and if the courts are so ridiculously busy why not hire more bloody courts & judges. Shithole 

Same happens here tbf.

[Rogerb]

1 hour ago, Forever Blue said:

Which was? 

We don't know. This was Pasha speak for WATR benefit. No doubt he will get back after November if the hearing happens.

[lraC]

1 hour ago, Crimpshrine said:

The truth is in the Rovers accounts which were published after the court hearing that allowed the £11 million remittance.

"A material uncertainty exists therefore, due to the ability to remit sufficient funds to BRFC by VHPL not being in the control , at the time of the approval of these financial statements ( April 2024 ), of VHPL.

If the court does not permit the release of future funds, there will be a significant impact on the company's ability to continue to trade"

I would call that an impediment

I would call that a mountain of Everest proportions. 

[Upside Down]

1 hour ago, Crimpshrine said:

The truth is in the Rovers accounts which were published after the court hearing that allowed the £11 million remittance.

"A material uncertainty exists therefore, due to the ability to remit sufficient funds to BRFC by VHPL not being in the control , at the time of the approval of these financial statements ( April 2024 ), of VHPL.

If the court does not permit the release of future funds, there will be a significant impact on the company's ability to continue to trade"

I would call that an impediment

When I get a chance I'll add the accounts summaries to the timeline. That will help paint more of a picture. 

[lraC]

Just let that statement, written by Crimpshine and posted into the accounts sink in.

This needs to be addressed by the people pulling the strings at Ewood and quickly.

This is from the Chartered accountants that act for BRFC here, so it becomes very serious now.

If the court does not permit the release of future funds, there will be a significant impact on the company's ability to continue to trade"

[RoverDom]

46 minutes ago, lraC said:

Just let that statement, written by Crimpshine and posted into the accounts sink in.

This needs to be addressed by the people pulling the strings at Ewood and quickly.

This is from the Chartered accountants that act for BRFC here, so it becomes very serious now.

If the court does not permit the release of future funds, there will be a significant impact on the company's ability to continue to trade"

If I'm correct, does it not become an issue till the auditors next have to sign the accounts and confirm it is a going concern? A lot can happen between now and when the accounts need to be filed in March. 

[toogs]

1 minute ago, RoverDom said:

If I'm correct, does it not become an issue till the auditors next have to sign the accounts and confirm it is a going concern? A lot can happen between now and when the accounts need to be filed in March. 

March isn’t far off. 
I don’t think it’s unreasonable to expect some comment about this from the club as a matter of urgency. 
 

[Rogerb]

I would suggest that transfer income approaching 40 million will take care of that for the time being. Enough money to continue trading for the next twelve months has been generated.

[RoverDom]

12 months from the date of signing the accounts rather than the end of the financial year might make it a touch tighter but will probably be OK but not scope for signings really! 

Edited August 21 by RoverDom

[lraC]

4 minutes ago, Rogerb said:

I would suggest that transfer income approaching 40 million will take care of that for the time being. Enough money to continue trading for the next twelve months has been generated.

Look carefully at what Waggott himself has said about the way these funds are structured and assuming what he is saying is correct, we will not have enough to pay the day to day costs.

[lraC]

10 minutes ago, RoverDom said:

If I'm correct, does it not become an issue till the auditors next have to sign the accounts and confirm it is a going concern? A lot can happen between now and when the accounts need to be filed in March. 

It is highly unlikely that they will be able to make that statement again, in the next accounts, so in my view, they need to explain what the plans are, once we get there.

That statement was made for a reason after all.

[Boz]

As has been mentioned above, in light of such uncertainties concerning the financial situation, insolvent position and reliance on the going concern to continue trading, surrounding The Blackburn Rovers Football and Athletic Club.

If I was one of the four directors, I would be seeking the professional advice of an Insolvency Practitioner as a matter of urgency to protect myself against future actions brought upon me personally. Especially so if I was concerned that I was being fed instructions as to how I should be performing my fiduciary directors duties and responsibilities, by say the Chief Operating Officer, who is not a director. Perhaps he is a 'shadow director'? Again I'd be seeking to clarify this situation.

I have a feeling that part of any advice received would be to hold onto any funds.