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

[tomphil]

Another back of a fag packet statement released like the last one.

[J*B]

Outcome of the WATR meeting, I would speculate?

[tomphil]

My god that facebook Rovers page is lacking virtually any grasp of the real situation whatsoever no wonder they get away with repeating the same half arsed statements.

 

[wilsdenrover]

12 minutes ago, sverrehh said:

https://www.instagram.com/p/C_BOm2OMDug/?igsh=MXgydmU0dWd3c2V3ZA==

 

What a load of twaddle.

[RevidgeBlue]

31 minutes ago, wilsdenrover said:

What a load of twaddle.

By their own admission they've secured the required permissions to fund the Club though.

Hoisting themselves by their own petard yet again.

[wilsdenrover]

Just now, RevidgeBlue said:

By their own admission they've secured the required permissions to fund the Club though.

Hoisting themselves by their own petard yet again.

Yep

Statement eulogises the new structure for identifying key areas of improvement including the first team and claims the owner’s will support the club as and when needed.

The combination of these two things surely indicates we’ll be unlocking that war chest in the next few days…

Unless, and surely it can’t be this, they’re just talking bollocks again.

(I still don’t think they have got those permissions but am happy to agree to disagree as you suggested to someone else yesterday)

 

[Moptop1]

1 hour ago, tomphil said:

My god that facebook Rovers page is lacking virtually any grasp of the real situation whatsoever no wonder they get away with repeating the same half arsed statements.

 

I’ve putting many things on there and it gets blocked.

[tomphil]

When you offer them the actual words written into the accounts they still don't want to know there's a problem.

Anyway looks like i'm blocked now.

[den]

2 hours ago, J*B said:

Outcome of the WATR meeting, I would speculate?

I would hope not.

[simongarnerisgod]

that my view of the statement

[Herbie6590]

“We can…but we won’t…” 🤷‍♂️

[tomphil]

Said safely in the knowledge there's at least 10 million dropping in sales instalments in the next 6 months.

[Forever Blue]

It’s encouraging just how many negative posts there on the Rovers twitter page in response to the statement from the owners. 

[Forever Blue]

1 hour ago, Herbie6590 said:

“We can…but we won’t…” 🤷‍♂️

Which means there’s no tangible benefit to the club of their ownership.

[Crimpshrine]

4 hours ago, sverrehh said:

https://www.instagram.com/p/C_BOm2OMDug/?igsh=MXgydmU0dWd3c2V3ZA==

 

How to say nothing in as many words as possible. Purposefully vague and confusing.

"Financially supporting the club in whatever way" - translates as selling players

If they can send funds from India whenever they like, why not say that in the statement? - because it wouldn't be true.

"the owners have already secured required permissions to give full financial support to the club" - true, they have gained permission twice ( £3,540,000 and £11,000,000 ). Now they need to be granted permission again to send more funds ( the postponed court hearing )

They refer to litigation just to muddy the waters - this is presumably the ED's case against Venky's and not Venky's requests for permission to send funds out of the country.

I was 99% convinced that they can't send funds until after the next court case. I am now 100% convinced.

[Crimpshrine]

4 hours ago, J*B said:

Outcome of the WATR meeting, I would speculate?

There hasn't been a meeting since the court case was postponed

[Leonard Venkhater]

4 hours ago, tomphil said:

My god that facebook Rovers page is lacking virtually any grasp of the real situation whatsoever no wonder they get away with repeating the same half arsed statements.

 

How many of those posters are real? I assumed that many of them were plants!

Mind you, millions voted for Trump!

[J*B]

2 minutes ago, Crimpshrine said:

There hasn't been a meeting since the court case was postponed

Apologies, there was mention of a meeting on Friday. 

[Crimpshrine]

3 hours ago, RevidgeBlue said:

By their own admission they've secured the required permissions to fund the Club though.

Hoisting themselves by their own petard yet again.

Don't be fooled - it's a very cleverly worded reference to the previous 2 court hearings. In my opinion.

[tomphil]

3 minutes ago, Leonard Venkhater said:

How many of those posters are real? I assumed that many of them were plants!

Mind you, millions voted for Trump!

There'll be plants but most are just completely ignorant of the facts and still trotting out 20 mill per year, nobody will buy us, they are naive bollocks.

By the way i think it's pretty much acknowledged that if it wasn't for rigging more probably did actually vote for him than the other fella.

But the US has always been a madhouse and i'm sure we'd end up with the Yank equivalent of Venkys if they did sell !

[RTM08]

43 minutes ago, Forever Blue said:

Which means there’s no tangible benefit to the club of their ownership.

Keep saying this, if they refuse to add any money in and won't even attend games to run the club in person, then the club may as well be fan-run.

At least whilst having no money we'd  have people who had the best interests of the club at heart.

The only argument against that is that a rich owner acts as a guarantor - but with this court issue Venkys can't even do that.

[JHRover]

"Will not impact on the operational aspects of the club" is another favourite that he's trotted out 2-3 times now.

Of course operationally it probably is business as usual. He's given his instructions by the shadow director and acts on those, beyond that he has his little fiefdom and turns up for the prawn sandwiches on matchday and pats himself on the back for making sure the grass seed invoice is paid on time and paying someone to hurriedly power wash the Blackburn End 2 days before the new season starts.

All business as usual to him and everyone else employed down there.

The fact this is being funded through selling off players rather than the owners matters not to him or to the operation of the club on a day to day basis.

Of course it isn't business as usual if when the assets run out there's no other funding options.

[tomphil]

If there is enough income in instalments due to cover the next 12 months running costs then why can't they just stick a couple of million in for players instead of the huge tranches of funds to run the club ?

Surely that's what backers do at clubs in bigger cities with double our income who can meet most of their liabilities on their own ?

Isn't that what backing a club rather than propping it up is all about ....

[lraC]

12 hours ago, sverrehh said:

https://www.instagram.com/p/C_BOm2OMDug/?igsh=MXgydmU0dWd3c2V3ZA==

 

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? 

[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"?