Venky’s v Indian Government (a) - 5/8/25 - Perennially Re-Arranged Challenge Match

[Herbie6590]

The Big Match…anyone got any team news?

Lest we forget… “material uncertainty”

[Herbie6590]

15 hours ago, rog of the rovers said:

Well done Scotty! 

Though it may just be me, I think the article is pretty poor journalism. Grab the low hanging fruit, whilst copy and pasting a million similar articles over the last dozen years.

Venkys came in, ruined the Walker legacy, made bad decisions, compounded those decisions, haven't been seen much since. It doesn't take a Pulitzer Prize to write 90% of that article.

The juiciest paragraph is saved to the very end and this is what a journalist should be writing about.

Where has the fan base gone?

Why have they gone?

How robust was it in the first place?

These questions are the ones that deserve a journalistic deep dive, rather than a bunch of 'maybe this' and 'maybe that'.

In fairness to Daniel Storey - whose writing I admire - this is part of a season long exercise where he visits all 92 clubs. The fact that he homes in on the issues raised proved he did his research. 

[Upside Down]

49 minutes ago, Herbie6590 said:

In fairness to Daniel Storey - whose writing I admire - this is part of a season long exercise where he visits all 92 clubs. The fact that he homes in on the issues raised proved he did his research. 

It also shows how bad things are that this was the focus of his article about his visit to the home of football that is Ewood Park.

[TheRevAshton]

I know it's just gonna get kicked down the road again... but does anyone have any idea what time they're supposed to have the hearing?

Really hopeful that this goes ahead today, this is the only chance we have of getting these morons out of our Club.

[Mattyblue]

Ever the optimists on brfcs with the thread being pinned... no doubt unpinned by the time the judge only gets to case 23 of 233.

[roverblue]

I hope that financial statement is read out in the next fans forum for Waggot to respond to and is asked why he has continually lied about it.

[Theopinionatedone]

11 minutes ago, roverblue said:

I hope that financial statement is read out in the next fans forum for Waggot to respond to and is asked why he has continually lied about it.

Mate, like any of them are ever gonna question anything the club do. They just love having their feet under the table and feeling important. Our fans have a backbone made of jelly

[wilsdenrover]

Has it been called off yet?

[tomphil]

37 minutes ago, roverblue said:

I hope that financial statement is read out in the next fans forum for Waggot to respond to and is asked why he has continually lied about it.

Was it read out last time ?

Was he not forced to admit we were selling to survive ?

If not why not.

[TheRevAshton]

It's currently ~4.15pm in Delhi right now, has there not been an update on this?

[Craigman]

It's alright, the club will always give us an update! It's their duty. 🙂

 

[wilsdenrover]

38 minutes ago, TheRevAshton said:

It's currently ~4.15pm in Delhi right now, has there not been an update on this?

I think, but am far from certain, it’s just been rearranged for the 17th February.

Hopefully I misheard 😬😬

[TheRevAshton]

2 minutes ago, wilsdenrover said:

I think, but am far from certain, it’s just been rearranged for the 17th February.

Hopefully I misheard 😬😬

Wouldn't surprise me in the slightest!

[MarkBRFC]

On 12/11/2024 at 10:14, MarkBRFC said:

So the latest round of this farce is tomorrow, to be postponed to February I'm guessing?

 

3 minutes ago, wilsdenrover said:

I think, but am far from certain, it’s just been rearranged for the 17th February.

Hopefully I misheard 😬😬

Who is there to sell in Jan to keep us ticking over a little bit more?

[wilsdenrover]

1 minute ago, MarkBRFC said:

 

Who is there to sell in Jan to keep us ticking over a little bit more?

The money we’re saving on Gueye’s goal bonus should see us through. 

[RevidgeBlue]

8 minutes ago, MarkBRFC said:

 

Who is there to sell in Jan to keep us ticking over a little bit more?

Carter?

[RevidgeBlue]

12 minutes ago, wilsdenrover said:

I think, but am far from certain, it’s just been rearranged for the 17th February.

Hopefully I misheard 😬😬

What a surprise. Another transfer window will go by the wayside.

As mentioned by other posters Waggott needs specifically challenging on his previous assertion that there is "no impediment" to the owners funding the Club as normal.

To boil it down to it's simplest terms, this can't be correct as if it were, why would the owners be bothering to go to Court at all ?

The accounts also state in black and white that liquidity has only been maintained to date thanks to cost cutting and player sales which again contradicts his previous proclamations on the subject.

Don't suppose anyone will actually be able to extract a confession out of him that the owners don't want to fund the Club whilst they have to furnish personal guarantees but we should certainly  try our utmost and it should be satisfying seeing him squirm in the meantime.

[rigger]

If the owners have to put up an equal amount of money as a guarantee in India, what happens to that money ?

Edited November 13, 2024 by rigger

[Theopinionatedone]

4 minutes ago, RevidgeBlue said:

What a surprise. Another transfer window will go by the wayside.

As mentioned by other posters Waggott needs specifically challenging on his previous assertion that there is "no impediment" to the owners funding the Club as normal.

To boil it down to it's simplest terms, this can't be correct as if it were, why would the owners be bothering to go to Court at all ?

The accounts also state in black and white that liquidity has only been maintained to date thanks to cost cutting and player sales which again contradicts his previous proclamations on the subject.

Don't suppose anyone will actually be able to extract a confession out of him that the owners don't want to fund the Club whilst they have to furnish personal guarantees but we should certainly  try our utmost and it should be satisfying seeing him squirm in the meantime.

Mate, our fans won't say f all.

The fans forum won't say f all.

Nobody will say f all to anyone higher up at this club, they'll all just sit there and allow it to happen.

Our fanbase deserves a club that goes into liquidation.

[tomphil]

2 minutes ago, rigger said:

If the owners have to put up an equal amount of money as a guarantee in India, what happens to that money ?

Nothing if it's just in the form of a bank guarantee,

The only person who said they had to match what they sent pound for pound was Waggot i believe so it's likely a lie. Much more likely they just had to provide a legal guarantee from their bank of matching funds which may well be against personal assets or money.

[MarkBRFC]

19 minutes ago, RevidgeBlue said:

Carter?

If he hadn't got injured then he was a maybe I guess.

Think he's only due back at the end of Jan though so can probably scratch that one off.

[G Somerset Rover]

3 minutes ago, MarkBRFC said:

If he hadn't got injured then he was a maybe I guess.

Think he's only due back at the end of Jan though so can probably scratch that one off.

Yep. There is nobody else who would fetch much more than a million quid. I’d put good money on Cantwell having a v low release clause and nobody’s taking a punt (quite yet anyway).

(Hopefully) slightly squeaky bum time in Pune.

Edited November 13, 2024 by G Somerset Rover

[tomphil]

There'll be another Wharton instalment due after the new year i'd assume so that'll keep the lights on and maybe a smaller SS instalment as well.

[Crimpshrine]

13 minutes ago, RevidgeBlue said:

What a surprise. Another transfer window will go by the wayside.

As mentioned by other posters Waggott needs specifically challenging on his previous assertion that there is "no impediment" to the owners funding the Club as normal.

To boil it down to it's simplest terms, this can't be correct as if it were, why would the owners be bothering to go to Court at all ?

The accounts also state in black and white that liquidity has only been maintained to date thanks to cost cutting and player sales which again contradicts his previous proclamations on the subject.

Don't suppose anyone will actually be able to extract a confession out of him that the owners don't want to fund the Club whilst they have to furnish personal guarantees but we should certainly  try our utmost and it should be satisfying seeing him squirm in the meantime.

The financial statements in April said pretty much the same thing as in the ones issued yesterday – Venky’s need to obtain permission every time they want to send money.

I was recently lucky enough (not sure if that is the right phrase!) to talk to Suhail about the situation with the court hearings and Venky's ability to send money from India. This was back in September:

I asked why the official ( vague ) club statements contradict the financial statements issued by the club in April (on Companies House web site). The financial statements state that the owners need to apply to the courts each and every time they need to send money. Conversely, the club seem to maintain that there is 'no impediment' to the owners sending funds.

I'll put the conversation in Q and A format.

Q: Why do the Club maintain that funds can be sent without impediment while the financial statement from April states they can't?

A: The financial statement was correct at the time. The November hearing allowed £11 million to be transferred as long as a bond of the same amount was deposited in India. The November court hearing did not allow any further funds to be sent without going back to court. This was true in April when the financial statement was made - we were totally dependent on petitions to the courts. The court hearing scheduled for January (now November) was a petition to be allowed to send more funds. Something changed in July and the club was informed by the owners that they could now send funds without waiting for the next court hearing to take place. However, the requirement to post a bond against each payment remains. It is still a difficult situation.

Q: So what is the point of the next court hearing if it was originally scheduled to ask for permission to send funds?

A: The court hearing now has less importance but it may allow for a petition to remove the need for the additional bond but I don't really know if that will happen

Q: how long do you think the bond requirement will be in place?

A: I am not sure but the investigation is ongoing and may take a while.

Q: What are the implications if the court hearing is delayed again?

A: Very little, It is not really too important now

Q: So, in theory, the owners could send money tomorrow if they wanted to?

A: Yes, but with the added bond it is an expensive situation for the owners and the club is in a stable financial situation just at the moment.

Q: So the club are not asking for more funds imminently

A: Correct  

That was about it. I twigged a bit later that the July date coincides somewhat with the sale of the Neville house and Venky's possibly made a profit, paid off any tax they were deemed to have dodged and then deposited the rest of the cash back in India. This may have generated enough good will to have the restrictions loosened a bit but the end result is the same - they can only send funds with an associated bond.

This was in September but I don't think anything has changed since then.

[tomphil]

8 minutes ago, Crimpshrine said:

The financial statements in April said pretty much the same thing as in the ones issued yesterday – Venky’s need to obtain permission every time they want to send money.

I was recently lucky enough (not sure if that is the right phrase!) to talk to Suhail about the situation with the court hearings and Venky's ability to send money from India. This was back in September:

I asked why the official ( vague ) club statements contradict the financial statements issued by the club in April (on Companies House web site). The financial statements state that the owners need to apply to the courts each and every time they need to send money. Conversely, the club seem to maintain that there is 'no impediment' to the owners sending funds.

I'll put the conversation in Q and A format.

Q: Why do the Club maintain that funds can be sent without impediment while the financial statement from April states they can't?

A: The financial statement was correct at the time. The November hearing allowed £11 million to be transferred as long as a bond of the same amount was deposited in India. The November court hearing did not allow any further funds to be sent without going back to court. This was true in April when the financial statement was made - we were totally dependent on petitions to the courts. The court hearing scheduled for January (now November) was a petition to be allowed to send more funds. Something changed in July and the club was informed by the owners that they could now send funds without waiting for the next court hearing to take place. However, the requirement to post a bond against each payment remains. It is still a difficult situation.

Q: So what is the point of the next court hearing if it was originally scheduled to ask for permission to send funds?

A: The court hearing now has less importance but it may allow for a petition to remove the need for the additional bond but I don't really know if that will happen

Q: how long do you think the bond requirement will be in place?

A: I am not sure but the investigation is ongoing and may take a while.

Q: What are the implications if the court hearing is delayed again?

A: Very little, It is not really too important now

Q: So, in theory, the owners could send money tomorrow if they wanted to?

A: Yes, but with the added bond it is an expensive situation for the owners and the club is in a stable financial situation just at the moment.

Q: So the club are not asking for more funds imminently

A: Correct  

That was about it. I twigged a bit later that the July date coincides somewhat with the sale of the Neville house and Venky's possibly made a profit, paid off any tax they were deemed to have dodged and then deposited the rest of the cash back in India. This may have generated enough good will to have the restrictions loosened a bit but the end result is the same - they can only send funds with an associated bond.

This was in September but I don't think anything has changed since then.

What about the more recent share issue in the other vehicle that owns the training ground ?

Looked quite like a sum you'd expect from a large property sale.