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

[G Somerset Rover]

11 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.

Great update, thanks. So in summary, they clearly do not want to pay these associated bonds. If this stance does not / cannot change, then we will reach a crossroads sooner or later with no starlets left to sell.

Edited November 13, 2024 by G Somerset Rover

[wilsdenrover]

32 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.

That date must have been after 9th July as that’s the date of the strategic report in the Venky London Ltd accounts (which has a reference to needing the court’s permission to send funds)

[lraC]

38 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.

That's an absolutely brilliant post, but given the post made by Tomphil are we talking a bank guaranteed here, or a bond with hard cash deposited? Also I assume this is at risk, but in what circumstances would the forfeit the bond, or have to pay the value of the bank guarantee, dependent on what applies?

[wilsdenrover]

The Venky London accounts also mention that since the balance sheet date the club has entered into transfer arrangements amounting to a net receivable amount of £4.76 million.

Given the reporting date, that must all relate to the summer transfer window.

 

[Crimpshrine]

12 minutes ago, wilsdenrover said:

That date must have been after 9th July as that’s the date of the strategic report in the Venky London Ltd accounts (which has a reference to needing the court’s permission to send funds)

I guess so. He wasn't specific about the date. I can't say I understand everything fully even now. 

The financial statements issued yesterday still seem to state they need court permission to send funds which doesn't really agree with what Suhail said to me. Maybe they simply repeated the 'going concern' as a continuation from the last financial statements as it is convenient for them ?

[wilsdenrover]

14 minutes ago, lraC said:

That's an absolutely brilliant post, but given the post made by Tomphil are we talking a bank guaranteed here, or a bond with hard cash deposited? Also I assume this is at risk, but in what circumstances would the forfeit the bond, or have to pay the value of the bank guarantee, dependent on what applies?

If it turns out they said the funds were for Rovers and instead they went elsewhere.

In other words, for further breaches of the rules they’re already being investigated for.

 

 

[RevidgeBlue]

6 minutes ago, Crimpshrine said:

I guess so. He wasn't specific about the date. I can't say I understand everything fully even now. 

The financial statements issued yesterday still seem to state they need court permission to send funds which doesn't really agree with what Suhail said to me. Maybe they simply repeated the 'going concern' as a continuation from the last financial statements as it is convenient for them ?

Do we have any proof that they actually have to lodge or have lodged a financial bond equivalent to any monies sent over? Because that's not really what the Court judgment which was reproduced on here says.

Either way, be it a financial bond or personal guarantees, the net effect is the same, they don't seem willing to do it.

[wilsdenrover]

Something has happened today  - no idea what it means yet (but it’s in response to Venkys requesting the removal of the need to provide a guarantee)

Srl.No.	Date	Filing Details
1	2024-11-13	REPLY Filed by ZOHEB HOSSAIN On Behalf of UNION OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC AFFAIRS & ORS. Vide Diary No : 5203519/2024

Edited November 13, 2024 by wilsdenrover

[wilsdenrover]

4 minutes ago, RevidgeBlue said:

Do we have any proof that they actually have to lodge or have lodged a financial bond equivalent to any monies sent over? Because that's not really what the Court judgment which was reproduced on here says.

Either way, be it a financial bond or personal guarantees, the net effect is the same, they don't seem willing to do it.

I’ve always presumed no money changes hand but every £ of guarantee is a £ the Venkys must ensure is in their account (to which the guarantee is linked).

 

 

 

 

[Brainfreeze]

Quote

20 minutes ago, wilsdenrover said:

Something has happened today  - no idea what it means yet (but it’s in response to Venkys requesting the removal of the need to provide a guarantee)

Srl.No.	Date	Filing Details
1	2024-11-13	REPLY Filed by ZOHEB HOSSAIN On Behalf of UNION OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC AFFAIRS & ORS. Vide Diary No : 5203519/2024

Is that anything to do with this?

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/139652447/

Edited November 13, 2024 by Brainfreeze

[SIMON GARNERS 194]

How did you come to get a meeting with Suhail Shadow Crimphrine?

We cant continue being run like this.

[wilsdenrover]

7 minutes ago, Brainfreeze said:

Is that anything to do with this?

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/139652447/

It’s to do with the below (which in itself is associated with what you’ve linked to):

https://dhcappl.nic.in/dhcorderportal/GetOrder.do?ID=svn/2024/100025571727103544988_38119_79662023.pdf

 

Edited November 13, 2024 by wilsdenrover
To fix link

[JHRover]

At what point do the Football League get involved with this disgrace?

They've been putting the Reading owner under pressure and threatening sanctions in public in response to his running of them, including demanding that he deposit funds in a secure account to fund the running of the club. 

Why is the situation any different here?

 

[islander200]

33 minutes ago, JHRover said:

At what point do the Football League get involved with this disgrace?

They've been putting the Reading owner under pressure and threatening sanctions in public in response to his running of them, including demanding that he deposit funds in a secure account to fund the running of the club. 

Why is the situation any different here?

 

Because the reading owner was missing wage payments etc and bills weren't being paid.

I agree the situation is a disgrace but the football authorities ain't going to get involved until such a time we cant pay wages or we ain't able to pay our bills

 

[Jimmy612]

Anyone know whether the case was deferred again, or has there actually been a conclusion this time? 

[Herbie6590]

1 hour ago, JHRover said:

At what point do the Football League get involved with this disgrace?

They've been putting the Reading owner under pressure and threatening sanctions in public in response to his running of them, including demanding that he deposit funds in a secure account to fund the running of the club. 

Why is the situation any different here?

 

We pay our bills on time (thanks to Raya, Wharton & Szmodics).

[Paul Mellelieu]

8 minutes ago, Herbie6590 said:

We pay our bills on time (thanks to Raya, Wharton & Szmodics).

And I assume that V's would pick up the tab if we didn't have these player sales.

[Herbie6590]

8 minutes ago, Paul Mellelieu said:

And I assume that V's would pick up the tab if we didn't have these player sales.

That’s what SW is relying on else he’s potentially personally liable for insolvent trading…

[wilsdenrover]

Venkys have done forecasting until 2028 ( I hope that’s just a statutory requirement!):

Edited November 13, 2024 by wilsdenrover

[wilsdenrover]

8 minutes ago, Herbie6590 said:

That’s what SW is relying on else he’s potentially personally liable for insolvent trading…

He’s a rat, he’ll know exactly when to abandon the sinking ship. 

[RevidgeBlue]

2 minutes ago, wilsdenrover said:

Venkys have done forecasting until 2028 ( I hope that’s just a statutory requirement!):

So according to that they're prepared to put enough money in to keep us afloat even if Bank facilities are withdrawn but seemingly aren't prepared to put any money in currently. Hmmmm.........

Noticeable that "the model" now relies unashamedly on player sales.

Lots to look forward to for the next few years!

[RevidgeBlue]

3 minutes ago, wilsdenrover said:

He’s a rat, he’ll know exactly when to abandon the sinking ship. 

In the meantime worth the gamble on £300k p.a. plus a massive annual pension contribution.

[wilsdenrover]

25 minutes ago, RevidgeBlue said:

So according to that they're prepared to put enough money in to keep us afloat even if Bank facilities are withdrawn but seemingly aren't prepared to put any money in currently. Hmmmm.........

Noticeable that "the model" now relies unashamedly on player sales.

Lots to look forward to for the next few years!

A perfect example of lip service?

[rigger]

Get them half season tickets on sale.

[Rogerb]

1 hour ago, RevidgeBlue said:

In the meantime worth the gamble on £300k p.a. plus a massive annual pension contribution.

The time he announces his retirement will be a big red flag.