All Activity

I dont get why people correlate it with potential transfer funds. They have to cover losses every year. It is in their best interests obviously to not have to have that guarantee in place purely to do that.

Given what's now happened at the club and the lengths they've gone to in order to implement this latest 'model' i don't think they'll be raising the wages and transfer budget anytime soon. This is Suhail and friends dream child now to be run on the breadline however it should leave the club in the best financial situation its been in for a while. Well since last time they so called straightened the books then sat back and let Waggot/TM and co plod along.

We will see. Assuming they become established and their value goes up and they want better money, I am sure we wont agree with that either. Just to clarify. You dont have any worries at all with our inability to get new contracts sorted for current players?

What if other mediocre Championship clubs offer those players average Championship salaries we “don’t agree with” ?

Sam Barnes is now with Altrincham, played 5 games so far

Surprisingly no!

The pattern will change when it comes to renewing the more recently signed players. They're not going to re sign players on contracts they don't agree with.

You just can’t shift that thought can you @DeeCee 😁😁

So the maximum fine that they MAY receive is a similar amount to what we've just profited from this transfer window. 🤔

So the maximum fine that they MAY receive is a similar amount to what we've just profited from this transfer window. 🤔

So the maximum fine that they MAY receive is a similar amount to what we've just profited from this transfer window. 🤔

I seem to remember that @glen9mullan posted this a while back (please correct me if I'm wrong) that SW had sourced outside funding for the ladies team as it would cost £600,000.00 per season to keep us adhering to the division's ruling. This may or not be before SW was potted, but I believe it was before. (To clarify, I loathed SW).

The Clash - Charlie Don’t Surf

Bucko posting on Ticktock, he's loving it.

I think it’s just the unknown at the moment. We haven’t seen enough of the new signings to really make a judgement. Still surprised we haven’t looked to bring in a free CB after the window closed. They would have had a bit of time to train during the international break.

I have concerns like everyone else but I think there's a few more than 10 if I'm being honest.

Unless things take an expected turn then I think you’re right re our interest (but I’ll keep an eye on it anyway ‘just in case’). I also had the thought they may now go after the difference between securities and maximum fine. Like you, I doubt they’d, if successful, pass this onto the club.

I would imagine this ends the interest we as fans have in this case? Venkys aren't facing any hurdles in sending money, so Blackburn Rovers aren't involved or potentially held back by this case. The only possible future ramification I can see, is that if Venkys succeed in getting the difference reimbursed between securities rendered and the maximum fine (which would be my next move if I were them), there's a vague chance they see that as money provided for Rovers already, since it was budgeted to help us, and might still be willing to put it into the club within FFP or P&S limits. Therefore won't be too stingy with the funds transferred for the next few years. That seems unlikely though, as they don't seem to particularly want to send us money, they just feel obliged.

Using the same numbers as the court order: Venkys ask to send circa £12.5 million without the need to make a guarantee payment Points out guarantee previously reduced to 50% Confirms monies (and value of properties) held by Directorate of Enforcement far exceeds the highest fine Venkys could receive. States court doesn’t see why further securities necessary. Venkys request (see 1) approved but points out remaining conditions remain Case (just this bit re guarantee, not the entire thing!) closed. I hope this helps.

Yeah I was just more so saying players who have been signed in the past year but I can see Carter and Pickering going in January if I’m honest

What is it you’d like clarifying?

No it’s a brand new £12 million to us but without the need for a further guarantee payment because of it. No guarantees needed for future remittances either.

For a simpleton like myself, is this the 12m guarantee reimbursed and 12m released to us. Or is it all future spend too? Edit:: It's 2025 and I have the literal worlds knowledge in my pocket. Chat gpt summary below ### 🔹 Currency Conversion (approx.) The Court order mentions liabilities and securities in Indian Rupees (₹). Assuming **₹1 = £0.0095 (approx. rate in Sept 2025)**: * **Liability under complaint**: ₹92.6 crores = **£8.8 million** * **Securities already furnished**: ₹314 crores = **£29.8 million** --- ### 🔹 What Has Happened So Far 1. **Earlier Permission (May 2025):** * Venkateshwara Hatcheries (VHPL) was earlier allowed to remit **£4.85 million** to its UK subsidiary (*Venky’s London Ltd*) but only after providing a **50% bank guarantee** (i.e., \~£2.4 million). 2. **Now (Sept 2025 Order):** * VHPL requested permission to remit a much larger amount — **£12.6 million** — to its UK subsidiary. * The government (Enforcement Directorate) objected, saying a case is under adjudication (complaint filed). * However, the Court noted that VHPL has already provided securities worth **£29.8 million**, which is far more than its potential liability of **£8.8 million**. * Therefore, the Court **allowed the remittance of £12.6 million WITHOUT requiring any bank guarantee**. --- ### 🔹 In Simple Layman’s Terms * VHPL wants to send money to its UK subsidiary to meet financial obligations. * Normally, the government might ask for a bank guarantee before allowing big remittances (to safeguard in case of violations). * But here, VHPL has already deposited securities with the Enforcement Directorate worth **over 3x its maximum liability**. * Because of this, the Court said **“you don’t need to give any extra bank guarantee — go ahead and send the money (£12.6m)”**. --- ### 🔹 What May Happen Next 1. **Immediate:** * VHPL can now legally remit **£12.6 million** to Venky’s London Ltd without providing a bank guarantee. 2. **Ongoing Case:** * The **complaint filed by the ED is still under adjudication**. The Adjudicating Authority will decide if VHPL actually violated any law (like FEMA). * If VHPL is found liable, the already furnished securities (worth £29.8m) can cover that liability (which is at most £8.8m). 3. **Future Orders:** * This permission is **interim** — meaning the Court may issue further directions in the main petition depending on how the adjudication proceeds. --- ✅ **Bottom Line for VHPL:** * You’ve got the green light to send the £12.6m to your UK subsidiary without tying up extra funds in guarantees. * But, the bigger case about whether any FEMA violations happened is still open, and final liability will be decided later. * Since securities already exceed the possible liability, you’re in a relatively safe position financially.

I wonder how much this case has already cost them in legal fees...

Rude boi and friend ain't having no woman telling em what's what !