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

[tomphil]

That's how i see it playing out even if they get around the court issues there is also the 20% tax to consider.

So boys and girls the days of relying on 15/20 million a year funding are over unless they can find a way to write that tax off as well.

This leaves us up the junction because we've cashed all but one of our chips in at once to keep the lights on.

[phili]

18 minutes ago, tomphil said:

That's how i see it playing out even if they get around the court issues there is also the 20% tax to consider.

So boys and girls the days of relying on 15/20 million a year funding are over unless they can find a way to write that tax off as well.

This leaves us up the junction because we've cashed all but one of our chips in at once to keep the lights on.

We have major cash flow issues at the moment. We seem to be paying all invoices after 90 days and stretching everything to the max. 

 

[tomphil]

4 minutes ago, phili said:

We have major cash flow issues at the moment. We seem to be paying all invoices after 90 days and stretching everything to the max. 

 

Probably waiting for the Raya instalment to drop, then there'll be another Wharton one so we'll plod in till Christmas at least i reckon.

 

[lraC]

54 minutes ago, RevidgeBlue said:

Reading upside downs explanation of the NOC I thought exactly the same.

Waggott glibly claiming that future Court Hearings should be a formality as "a precedent" had been set by a transfer of funds being allowed once and various other Club statements since insinuating that the financial issues were close to resolution are misleading at best and a downright lie at worst.

Maybe as someone (Wilesden Rover?) suggested these positive noises are for the benefit of our Creditors as much as anyone else.

That's a good point on the creditors, as there are cryptic messages being sent for sure. 

[G Somerset Rover]

8 minutes ago, tomphil said:

Probably waiting for the Raya instalment to drop, then there'll be another Wharton one so we'll plod in till Christmas at least i reckon.

 

Szmodics may keep the lights on slightly longer, but certainly beyond next summer at the very latest (Easter perhaps) they/we are goosed.

Edited July 12, 2024 by G Somerset Rover

[phili]

7 minutes ago, tomphil said:

Probably waiting for the Raya instalment to drop, then there'll be another Wharton one so we'll plod in till Christmas at least i reckon.

 

The training ground loan needed to have been paid back by end of June so I would say one of those has been used for that.

[tomphil]

7 minutes ago, phili said:

The training ground loan needed to have been paid back by end of June so I would say one of those has been used for that.

Or a rejig of the terms.

If its been bought back then can they pull the same stroke again in the future with it ?

[lraC]

8 minutes ago, phili said:

The training ground loan needed to have been paid back by end of June so I would say one of those has been used for that.

That's the Crossbaron bridging loan I take it?

What a mess.

[RoversClitheroe]

Let's just hope these people currently using subsidiaries to look into buy us have had a nudge that we are potentially about to sell. 

[phili]

14 minutes ago, lraC said:

That's the Crossbaron bridging loan I take it?

What a mess.

Yep, I am not sure they are Venky's friend or more a high interest loan operation.

[arbitro]

57 minutes ago, phili said:

We have major cash flow issues at the moment. We seem to be paying all invoices after 90 days and stretching everything to the max. 

 

What are the normal payment terms?

[lraC]

28 minutes ago, phili said:

Yep, I am not sure they are Venky's friend or more a high interest loan operation.

I bet the interest rate, will be eye watering, so unlikely to be friends. 

[phili]

23 minutes ago, arbitro said:

What are the normal payment terms?

30 days normally although a lot of our suppliers are now asking for payment in advance.

[Mercer]

29 minutes ago, arbitro said:

What are the normal payment terms?

Varies enormously by industry type (range from almost immediate to 90 days with some exceptions at 120 days) with agriculture amongst the shortest and construction amongst the longest. 

If a company is on 'cash before order' then alarm bells should be ringing as company has either already run up a pile of debt or credit rating is shot at.  Would be no surprise to me to see Rovers in this category.

Always advise clients to be mindful who they jump into bed with - a sale is only profitable when payment is safely banked!

[arbitro]

9 minutes ago, Mercer said:

Varies enormously by industry type (range from almost immediate to 90 days with some exceptions at 120 days) with agriculture amongst the shortest and construction amongst the longest. 

If a company is on 'cash before order' then alarm bells should be ringing as company has either already run up a pile of debt or credit rating is shot at.  Would be no surprise to me to see Rovers in this category.

Always advise clients to be mindful who they jump into bed with - a sale is only profitable when payment is safely banked!

In my experience the payment terms are agreed and are usually part of the terms and conditions of supply. The company I worked for tried to delay contractual payment terms and were threatened with solicitors letters on several occasions. If Rovers default by paying late the supplier is within their rights to charge interest.

[tomphil]

Just shows what con jobs they are they've knocked a bit off then are trying to scrape as much of it back as poss by stealth, Waggot tax alive and well.

Cup games will probably be dearer this season and the BBE shut of course.

[arbitro]

29 minutes ago, phili said:

30 days normally although a lot of our suppliers are now asking for payment in advance.

Interesting that suppliers are asking for an upfront payment. Being a poor creditor is another string to are the the Punekars how 😠.

[Rogerb]

Cash flow problems with nearly 9k season tickets bought doesn't bode well for the depths of winter.

[wilsdenrover]

7 hours ago, Crimpshrine said:

It is fairly easy to understand the situation by looking at the court papers.

They can't send any money without going to court.

A bond was applied to the previous payments that were allowed - probably because the ED was totally opposed to them sending any money at all.

 @Upside Down and @lraC have explained this countless times and even posted links to the relevant documents

The judge who first authorised funds to be sent (June ‘23) set out why  he believed a bond was an appropriate compromise to the arguments each side put forward.

[wilsdenrover]

2 hours ago, phili said:

The training ground loan needed to have been paid back by end of June so I would say one of those has been used for that.

Where have you got that date from?

 

[Bethnal]

1 hour ago, phili said:

30 days normally although a lot of our suppliers are now asking for payment in advance.

This stuff is the pre-amble. Missing wage payments is usually the harbinger of administration or sale, so I imagine we should all be keeping our ears open for word of that, but frankly embarrassing that payment terms are being missed. Imagine being this fucking bad at running a business and having the cheek to take home your £25k/month as CEO.

[tomphil]

The transfer instalments, sponsorship and tv money will be ring fenced for players wages and tax etc i'd say.  So it's everything else that will suffer the squeeze trying to survive on STs and matchday income.

[lraC]

15 hours ago, RevidgeBlue said:

Reading upside downs explanation of the NOC I thought exactly the same.

Waggott glibly claiming that future Court Hearings should be a formality as "a precedent" had been set by a transfer of funds being allowed once and various other Club statements since insinuating that the financial issues were close to resolution are misleading at best and a downright lie at worst.

Maybe as someone (Wilesden Rover?) suggested these positive noises are for the benefit of our Creditors as much as anyone else.

We have the word should in there again. Waggott wants to believe all is fine, as a precedent had been set, but has now been taken aback with the adjournments. Giving him the benefit of the doubt, perhaps he actually believed that. 

[Upside Down]

33 minutes ago, lraC said:

We have the word should in there again. Waggott wants to believe all is fine, as a precedent had been set, but has now been taken aback with the adjournments. Giving him the benefit of the doubt, perhaps he actually believed that. 

To be fair to the disgusting creature he probably knows fuck all about what's going on and will only be getting fed snippets of information.

[Ianrally]

On 12/07/2024 at 15:58, phili said:

30 days normally although a lot of our suppliers are now asking for payment in advance.

I presume the suppliers have requested payment by Pro-Forma invoice then?

The company I work for had many customers who had to be put on Pro -Forma because of habitual late payment. Half are still going and got themselves onto some kind of level playing field, but the other half eventually went into liquidation and we lost thousands. 
If this is the case with Rovers I would be very worried.