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

[KentExile]

55 minutes ago, lraC said:

It’s a very simple question to ask and answer, which will hopefully be put to him, by the next group who hold a meeting with him.

Can the owners send funds at an amount of their choosing, before the next court hearing?

Yes or no? 

If the answer to that is a "yes", then there needs to be a follow up question of 

"Why have they not yet done so"?

[G Somerset Rover]

Going to have to ban myself from going on social media for the foreseeable - some of the supportive guff being trotted out on there is sickening. From some in privileged positions too.

[tomphil]

37 minutes ago, G Somerset Rover said:

Going to have to ban myself from going on social media for the foreseeable - some of the supportive guff being trotted out on there is sickening. From some in privileged positions too.

Just completely unaware or choosing to be ignorant of the full facts, just love being fed pigswill from those snouts in the trough dining on steak.

The kids can be forgiven they are mostly just concerned with what happens on the pitch but some of those who claim to be long terms blue & whites are unreal.

We can all have varied opinions that's fine it's normal it's like politics but it has to be based on true facts not the blind leading the blind just because they love the shirt.

[Mattyblue]

It’s this modern day social media mantra of ‘being positive’, of ‘avoiding negativity’.

Of course there’s nothing remotely ‘positive’ about blindly supporting people that have dragged BRFC into the gutter.

[47er]

1 hour ago, tomphil said:

what happens on the pitch

Carry on like we are for much longer and we won't have a pitch to worry about.

[K-Hod]

7 minutes ago, Mattyblue said:

It’s this modern day social media mantra of ‘being positive’, of ‘avoiding negativity’.

Of course there’s nothing remotely ‘positive’ about blindly supporting people that have dragged BRFC into the gutter.

We get it on here and it’s infuriating.

Just a simple way to try and shut down debate and aim at some sort of superiority.

[SuperBrfc]

2 hours ago, G Somerset Rover said:

Going to have to ban myself from going on social media for the foreseeable - some of the supportive guff being trotted out on there is sickening. From some in privileged positions too.

They prefer to hear comforting lies, rather than the truth, and are being fed them in barrel loads by the car salesman.

It keeps the charade going on and on. The liars carry on as is, whilst the ignorant convince themselves everything is going to be fine as long as they stay positive and 'trust the process'.

The fly in the ointment for both parties though is fans like us that speak the truth and say it as it is. Just like in the wider world, the people who speak out against bullshit are painted as being "crazy", "negative", "conspiracy theorists", "entitled" and so on by those who have fallen for the lie.

I've come to realise that a lot of those who are blindly supportive of this hierarchy online aren't really arsed about winning. Anybody who is, would not be defending this lot. It's more about vibes and toxic positivity for much of the facebook crew, imo.

The youngers who know nothing but the Venky era, I can understand. The older fans though, that saw it all pre Venky's and have fully experienced the decline should be ashamed about trying to dress this crap up.

A prime example of it being about vibes is fans being blocked on certain FB pages recently for being "negative" and for posting a few truths on there.

"Why can't you just enjoy our start to the season and our new signings scoring goals?" I.e 'Why are you spoiling the vibe'.

That's the kind of response that has been seen over the past few days to criticisms of Waggott/Venky's. Rovers winning a couple of games or scoring 12 goals so far does not cover up or excuse this shoddy hierarchy in any way.

It is possible to be pleased with and positive about our new signings and results so far, whilst also calling out the bastards upstairs for the way they are running the club and holding the club back. The latter anger is rooted in wanting Blackburn Rovers to succeed and to be back in the Premier League, where we were before these idiots ruined the club.

What is the facebook crew's defence of the hierarchy rooted in? It most certainly is not a desire for promotion. So on what basis is their positivity? Comforting lies that have been repeated over and over again. That's the basis, along with the added bonus of looking like a superior fan.

"The owners are committed".

"The owners want promotion"

"They never refuse to sign a cheque"

"They have been so generous, we must give them something back".

Tell me lies.

[Mattyblue]

I’ve stopped letting it bother me as you know when we are thriving again with new owners (I know, I know!) they’ll be all ‘obviously Venky’s had to go’ ‘it’s a new dawn’. They just blindly protect the status quo and authority at all times.

[lraC]

Strange how this is a statement from the club. I have never heard a club speak before, so what’s really meant is no one is prepared to put their name to such bullshit. 

Edited August 24 by lraC

[wilsdenrover]

7 hours ago, lraC said:

Strange how this is a statement from the club. I have never heard a club speak before, so what’s really meant is no one is prepared to put their name to such bullshit. 

I reckon Suhail wrote it.

[ABBEY]

nah be one of teckies 

 

pasha can't string that many words together 

[Herbie6590]

23 hours ago, Mattyblue said:

It’s this modern day social media mantra of ‘being positive’, of ‘avoiding negativity’.

Of course there’s nothing remotely ‘positive’ about blindly supporting people that have dragged BRFC into the gutter.

I think it’s perfectly acceptable & intellectually consistent to hold concurrent views along the lines of

1. I want Rovers to be an incredibly successful football club & I will support the team 100%

2. I think the owners & their acolytes are a major problem to achieving 1. 
 

In a modern polarised society too many folks can’t handle this it appears…especially on Facebook…or if you live in California…

[Mars Rover]

Apologies if this is treading over old ground but I've not seen anything on this recently:

I recall last year that Venky's owed the final instalment on the training ground payment and, since then, they have also plastered their badge all over Ewood and the kits in a, supposed, multi-year deal. Does anyone know if they are still making/have made those payments due to their current limitations (which by my reckoning should be separate to the last money sent in November), or is all that still outstanding?

[wilsdenrover]

28 minutes ago, Mars Rover said:

Apologies if this is treading over old ground but I've not seen anything on this recently:

I recall last year that Venky's owed the final instalment on the training ground payment and, since then, they have also plastered their badge all over Ewood and the kits in a, supposed, multi-year deal. Does anyone know if they are still making/have made those payments due to their current limitations (which by my reckoning should be separate to the last money sent in November), or is all that still outstanding?

Rovers last set of accounts confirm the training ground had been paid for in full on 25th October 2023.

 

[SuperBrfc]

16 hours ago, wilsdenrover said:

I reckon Suhail wrote it.

It reeks of Waggott, imo. There are a few things in there that he has said in recent interviews. Emphasis on 'legal and technical issues' being one example. 'They have supported the club even through difficult moments' is another one of his go to themes. I'm still waiting to hear another CEO in the top two Divisions come out publicly with this rhetoric about their respective owners.

The last paragraph of that statement is a bloody joke. That has to be a wind up.

[Bronzed A Donis]

That statement is to coin a modern term, absolute gaslighting.

Every word drips with lies and contempt and feels like it's designed to be divisive among fans.

[Brian-Potter]

Sorry it’s taken a while, BH weekend etc.

Not much more to divulge really. My colleagues have come back and stick by their original legal interpretation of the court hearing on 31/10/23 in that VHPL are not restricted on sending future funds to VLL as long as they comply with the criteria set out by the court at that hearing. This aligns with the latest club statement but they do concur that the entry in the last set of club accounts seems to contradict this.

Sorry this doesn’t really make things much clearer.

 

[Bethnal]

5 minutes ago, Brian-Potter said:

Sorry it’s taken a while, BH weekend etc.

Not much more to divulge really. My colleagues have come back and stick by their original legal interpretation of the court hearing on 31/10/23 in that VHPL are not restricted on sending future funds to VLL as long as they comply with the criteria set out by the court at that hearing. This aligns with the latest club statement but they do concur that the entry in the last set of club accounts seems to contradict this.

Sorry this doesn’t really make things much clearer.

 

Appreciate the insight. Absolutely nothing is clear with this ownership and yet it still continues. The more perspectives/interpretations we have, the closer we come to understanding (though we will probably never fully understand).

[RevidgeBlue]

17 minutes ago, Brian-Potter said:

Sorry it’s taken a while, BH weekend etc.

Not much more to divulge really. My colleagues have come back and stick by their original legal interpretation of the court hearing on 31/10/23 in that VHPL are not restricted on sending future funds to VLL as long as they comply with the criteria set out by the court at that hearing. This aligns with the latest club statement but they do concur that the entry in the last set of club accounts seems to contradict this.

Sorry this doesn’t really make things much clearer.

 

I think you're absolutely spot on with the legal interpretation.

As regards the statement attached to the accounts they simply CAN'T say "We can put money in if we want to, we just don't want to under the current conditions" can they? I think that they've just inserted as nebulous a statement in as they can to create confusion which at the same time will just about allow the accounts to be signed off.

[RevidgeBlue]

On 24/08/2024 at 05:58, lraC said:

It’s a very simple question to ask and answer, which will hopefully be put to him, by the next group who hold a meeting with him.

Can the owners send funds at an amount of their choosing, before the next court hearing?

Yes or no? 

He's already answered that in the affirmative hasn't he?

[wilsdenrover]

17 minutes ago, Bethnal said:

Appreciate the insight. Absolutely nothing is clear with this ownership and yet it still continues. The more perspectives/interpretations we have, the closer we come to understanding (though we will probably never fully understand).

they don’t want us to 

[ABBEY]

#VENKYSOUT

[Crimpshrine]

I listened to 606 with Robbie Savage and Chris Sutton on Sunday. 

A Newcastle fan phoned in complaining that the new Saudi owners had lost interest because they hadn't attended the first two matches of the season and have only spent £60 million on players so far!  Made my laugh.

[Crimpshrine]

On 27/08/2024 at 12:00, RevidgeBlue said:

He's already answered that in the affirmative hasn't he?

No. He only talks in riddles and never confirms or denies anything. 

His stock answer is that there is 'no impediment to the owners funding the club' - he never clarifies if funding means  money arriving from India or simply using self generated income.

[rigger]

On 27/08/2024 at 12:00, RevidgeBlue said:

He's already answered that in the affirmative hasn't he?

Was the follow-up question asked ?