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

[AVE1875]

Let's be honest, the reason they publicly release statements advising they're still invested in the club is because if they sell up the remuneration they get will likely be ceased by the Indian Government in some way or will sit in their UK company so it stays out of the Indian Government's jurisdiction (which is clearly just there for face value) where they won't be able to do anything with it as they can't breach the UK market.

That is the only reason I can believe, it is simply all smoke and mirrors. Claim they are invested yet haven't visited Ewood Park in years or done much in the form of smart business.

It will all come out in the wash should us fans see a change over of owners, when and if that ever happens.

[tomphil]

That's a fair point actually, if they sold it tomorrow for 25 mill and cut the losses how would they get that money back into India ?

Or more importantly back into their own pockets and not into the VH group accounts which would then surely be liable for a large wad of tax ?

As iv'e always said it's more suited to their group accounts to lose ten or twenty mill through the club, up until now of course. 

Selling it might be pretty pointless for a whole host of reasons seeing as they don't need the money personally and the hassle involved and potential skeletons mean they'd rather just leave it and ignore it whilst (up until recently) enjoying any tax perks it might have provided.

[lraC]

18 minutes ago, tomphil said:

That's a fair point actually, if they sold it tomorrow for 25 mill and cut the losses how would they get that money back into India ?

Or more importantly back into their own pockets and not into the VH group accounts which would then surely be liable for a large wad of tax ?

As iv'e always said it's more suited to their group accounts to lose ten or twenty mill through the club, up until now of course. 

Selling it might be pretty pointless for a whole host of reasons seeing as they don't need the money personally and the hassle involved and potential skeletons mean they'd rather just leave it and ignore it whilst (up until recently) enjoying any tax perks it might have provided.

I can't imagine for one minute they would be liable for any tax, as they loss would be eye watering.

[wilsdenrover]

13 hours ago, wilsdenrover said:

Me neither.

Also, if they could fund if it is pulled, why have the overdraft in the first place? 🤔🤨

Just to add to my own post.

i don’t know what the interest rate on the overdraft is now but until May’24 it was 2% above the above base rate.

What business would choose this over being funded interest free by their owners?

 

[Rogerb]

4 minutes ago, wilsdenrover said:

Just to add to my own post.

i don’t know what the interest rate on the overdraft is now but until May’24 it was 2% above the above base rate.

What business would choose this over being funded interest free by their owners?

 

One with owners they couldn't rely on.!

[wilsdenrover]

2 hours ago, Forever Blue said:

Yea, and you were told repeatedly that something had changed, hence the club informing us that there was no future impediment. This happened earlier than July. You refused to believe it, but produced no evidence to the contrary. 
 

You’ve now decided to believe Pasha, who is a prominent figure in the club you refused to believe a few months ago. 
 

 Very odd.

The most recent Venkys London accounts include the following wording (my emboldening):

‘if the court does not permit the release of future funds there will be a significant impact on BRFC’s ability to trade and therefore on the group remaining a going concern’

These accounts were signed off by the owners on the 9th July this year, therefore any change (if there really has been one) would appear to have taken place after this date.

Clearly not everybody at the club has been truthful - working out whether anyone has been in the tricky (impossible?) part.

 

Edited November 20, 2024 by wilsdenrover

[Forever Blue]

6 minutes ago, wilsdenrover said:

The most recent Venky London accounts include the following wording (my emboldening):

‘if the court does not permit the release of future funds there will be a significant impact on BRFC’s ability to trade and therefore on the group remaining a going concern’

These accounts were signed off by the owners on the 9th July this year, therefore any change (if there really has been one) would appear to have taken place after this date.

Clearly not everybody at the club has been truthful - working out whether anyone has been in the tricky (impossible?) part.

 

haha very convenient that pasha is now stating the changes to funding rules happened in July….just after the accounts were signed off. 

Edited November 20, 2024 by Forever Blue

[lraC]

2 minutes ago, wilsdenrover said:

The most recent Venky London accounts include the following wording (my emboldening):

‘if the court does not permit the release of future funds there will be a significant impact on BRFC’s ability to trade and therefore on the group remaining a going concern’

These accounts were signed off by the owners on the 9th July this year, therefore any change (if there really has been one) would appear to have taken place after this date.

Clearly not everybody at the club has been truthful - working out whether anyone has been in the tricky (impossible?) part.

 

It is in there for a reason and no doubt the accountants insisted on it.

The certificate of no objection seems to be the key to this, which I assume can only be issued, if a court hearing actually takes place.

From what I believe, we will run out of funds around April next year. 

[wilsdenrover]

5 minutes ago, Forever Blue said:

haha very convenient that pasha is now stating the changes to funding rules happened in July….just after the accounts were signed off. 

At least if he’s lying he’s making sure the backstory holds up 😁

[wilsdenrover]

5 minutes ago, lraC said:

It is in there for a reason and no doubt the accountants insisted on it.

The certificate of no objection seems to be the key to this, which I assume can only be issued, if a court hearing actually takes place.

From what I believe, we will run out of funds around April next year. 

Overdraft due for renewal in May next year…

[lraC]

1 minute ago, wilsdenrover said:

Overdraft due for renewal in May next year…

That could be a fun decision for the bankers, if they do their due diligence. 

[rigger]

1 minute ago, wilsdenrover said:

Overdraft due for renewal in May next year…

I wonder if season tickets will be on sale, at that time ?

[Forever Blue]

3 minutes ago, wilsdenrover said:

At least if he’s lying he’s making sure the backstory holds up 😁

🤣 exactly what I thought. They’ve covered more tracks than Seb Coe. 

[tomphil]

6 hours ago, lraC said:

I can't imagine for one minute they would be liable for any tax, as they loss would be eye watering.

If 25 million was paid into the VH bank account it would count as income and it's the reverse of 20 million going out every year, so surely that would be liable and also maybe over here as well so a double whammy making a sale pointless for the money they'd get.

[wilsdenrover]

26 minutes ago, tomphil said:

If 25 million was paid into the VH bank account it would count as income and it's the reverse of 20 million going out every year, so surely that would be liable and also maybe over here as well so a double whammy making a sale pointless for the money they'd get.

The UK and India has a double taxation treaty so any tax due would be UK only.

[wilsdenrover]

6 hours ago, lraC said:

I can't imagine for one minute they would be liable for any tax, as they loss would be eye watering.

They bought for £25 million (I think) so there would  be CGT payable on any sale sum above this amount (minus the cost of buying and selling).

Edited November 20, 2024 by wilsdenrover

[Upside Down]

41 minutes ago, wilsdenrover said:

They bought for £25 million (I think) so there would  be CGT payable on any sale sum above this amount (minus the cost of buying and selling).

Wouldn't there also be some sort of tax when repatriating the money to India?

[Paul Mellelieu]

10 hours ago, Blue blood said:

Lol, quick! 

You're right though, it doesn't need you to be an economist it's plain common sense. 

Are you really suggesting that halving our supporter base is good for the long term viability for the club or the town businesses? Are you really saying an extra 12k match day supporters wouldn't benefit the town or club? 

You may say it's peanuts compared to who works for the club but what happens at the next round of downsizing or when we inevitably fall into league 1? What happens in 20 years time when we have a further reduced fanbase? Bar Wharton all the players sold to keep the lights on or get the goals to keep us up cost money - Armstrong, Sami, Brereton. What's going to happen now the production line is slowing? 

If you can't see the downward trend of the club and the impact that has on people and businesses I'm not going to convince you. But it seems pretty plain to see. 

If you think I think that, you haven't read my posts on this thread.

[wilsdenrover]

7 minutes ago, Upside Down said:

Wouldn't there also be some sort of tax when repatriating the money to India?

I don’t believe so as the double taxation treaty between the UK and India means tax is only payable in the country where the business resides.

[Leonard Venkhater]

9 hours ago, Forever Blue said:

But you’re swallowing your mate Pasha’s statements 🤣 

 

Can you see the problem?

"Your mate, Pasha"?!

You can't have been reading Crimpshire's contributions, if you are writing something like that..

[Forever Blue]

31 minutes ago, Leonard Venkhater said:

"Your mate, Pasha"?!

You can't have been reading Crimpshire's contributions, if you are writing something like that..

Don’t take it too literally, I’m just surprised at the recent turn of events. I must have missed the memo about good old Pash’s unimpeachable character. 

[tomphil]

3 hours ago, wilsdenrover said:

The UK and India has a double taxation treaty so any tax due would be UK only.

What percentage ?

[Paul Mellelieu]

14 hours ago, tomphil said:

Iv'e tried to explain that several times over but he doesn't want to know it's easier to cry about doom that asses the situation using other examples.

The only one some want to ever flag up is Bury for some bizarre reason yet i'd say another decade of this and we are more likely to end up like them if this ownership continues and something finally gives.

The general idea amongst a lot of still attending fans seems to be 'ah well they keep chucking in 20 mill and paying the bills so one day we'll get lucky'.

Well those days are gone now so what next ?

 

It's difficult arguing with someone who is happy to tell half-truths.  I have given a number of examples where admin led to numerous job losses and unpaid bills.  Google will help you here.  No-one knows what will happen next, but I think grooing into admin is about as likely as the owners selling the club.

[Upside Down]

20 minutes ago, Paul Mellelieu said:

It's difficult arguing with someone who is happy to tell half-truths.  I have given a number of examples where admin led to numerous job losses and unpaid bills.  Google will help you here.  No-one knows what will happen next, but I think grooing into admin is about as likely as the owners selling the club.

And you keep telling half truths as numerous people have pointed out numerous times that there have already been job losses and unpaid bills with the current ownership, yet you continue to ignore these stone cold facts.

[JHRover]

In an administration scenario the club would still need to function. It would still need to 'maintain' Ewood Park and Brockhall, it would still have an academy, football team, club shop, matches to host and everything else.

When Derby, Portsmouth, Bolton, etc. etc. etc. went into admin they continued to play their matches, and presumably weren't run by volunteers during that time.

Liquidation is another matter entirely as the whole lot goes but given that fate hasn't yet fallen on any club comparable to Rovers I'd be reasonably confident that wouldn't happen here (unless something very dodgy goes on).

So I'm struggling to understand which people Venkys and Mr Cutback Waggott are currently employing at this scaled back, downgraded operation would suddenly be made redundant in the event of administration.

Is the suggestion that there are legions of non-essential staff currently on the payroll? If so I would ask why.

Or is the suggestion that administrators would get rid of essential staff? If so who and how would we continue to operate as a football club in those circumstances?

I think it is unlikely given Waggott and Venkys have orchestrated cutbacks, downgrading and downsizing at just about every opportunity they can find over the last 6-7 years at least. It seems logical that they are by and large only employing people now that they have to employ to ensure that the operation keeps on functioning.

Of course a change of ownership MIGHT see job losses. It also MIGHT see job growth. Nobody knows until it happens. 

Had Eustace not pulled a couple of surprise wins out the bag at the end of last season we'd be in League One now and I'm pretty sure with that there would have been quite a few job losses. 

That's the danger in being employed at a football club, especially one run by cowboys. Sooner or later there's a pretty good chance of relegation and financial difficulties and with that a risk of job losses. Not nice but nothing new in the world of football or indeed many other forms of entertainment.