Venky’s v Indian Government (a) - 12/11/2025 - if a ref can be secured

[RevidgeBlue]

22 minutes ago, JBiz said:

I just can’t get my head round the juxtaposition of knowing that all our problems go back to the Rao’s, but then wanting them to send money.

Might just be me, but I find it odd!

There are many problems with the ownership, however IF they were suddenly able and/or willing to fund the Club in the same way as they did prior to the Court Case, it would be one less thing to worry about.

(I don't actually think the outcome of the Court proceedings will make any difference to us, they've lost interest - we'll still get the subsistence level funding but it'll cost them less if they're successful)

[K-Hod]

34 minutes ago, JBiz said:

I just can’t get my head round the juxtaposition of knowing that all our problems go back to the Rao’s, but then wanting them to send money.

Might just be me, but I find it odd!

If they're insisting on owning the club, then surely we can insist on them funding it?

If not, then they should sell.

Straightforward. really!

[RevidgeBlue]

10 minutes ago, K-Hod said:

If they're insisting on owning the club, then surely we can insist on them funding it?

If not, then they should sell.

Straightforward. really!

Boom!

[JBiz]

22 minutes ago, K-Hod said:

If they're insisting on owning the club, then surely we can insist on them funding it?

If not, then they should sell.

Straightforward. really!

You’re suggesting they give a shit what you or I think, and that’s the problem.

I also hate the fact we’re in debt 200m+ to them, but apparently that’s something that doesn’t bother you or many others here. Pile more on.

[Leonard Venkhater]

57 minutes ago, JBiz said:

I just can’t get my head round the juxtaposition of knowing that all our problems go back to the Rao’s, but then wanting them to send money.

Might just be me, but I find it odd!

It is not just you. It is odd and very conflicted.

For me, it's not unlike the psychology of a kidnapper's victims, who feel anxious, whenever their captor is absent. They come to rely on their captor for food, safety and warmth!

I wish they would just go, but if they insist on staying, I want them to invest.

[RevidgeBlue]

3 minutes ago, JBiz said:

I also hate the fact we’re in debt 200m+ to them, but apparently that’s something that doesn’t bother you or many others here. Pile more on.

The only way more won't be "piled on" is if we get promoted which, you would think, would require some strategic investment in the first place.

[K-Hod]

17 minutes ago, JBiz said:

You’re suggesting they give a shit what you or I think, and that’s the problem.

I also hate the fact we’re in debt 200m+ to them, but apparently that’s something that doesn’t bother you or many others here. Pile more on.

As I mentioned in a separate post, it's effectively philanthropy, they won't get that money back, it's gone.

It bothers me, sure, but they will never see it again.

[JBiz]

6 minutes ago, RevidgeBlue said:

The only way more won't be "piled on" is if we get promoted which, you would think, would require some strategic investment in the first place.

We’re back at the “care and expertise” part of the story. If they spent a lot to get out of this league, they’d have to start with a CEO! Can you imagine Pasha being in control of a “war chest”?!

You’re correct that money will get piled on with us at 120% wage to turnover ratio, but that’s our current wage bill, which is also not competitive enough…! 

Its just fucked. One of the reasons it’s good for your health to try and separate “Rovers” aka the team, and the ownership debacle. It’s not easy. 

[philipl]

So we think the case was heard today but we all missed it?

[RevidgeBlue]

5 minutes ago, JBiz said:

We’re back at the “care and expertise” part of the story. If they spent a lot to get out of this league, they’d have to start with a CEO! Can you imagine Pasha being in control of a “war chest”?!

You’re correct that money will get piled on with us at 120% wage to turnover ratio, but that’s our current wage bill, which is also not competitive enough…! 

Its just fucked. One of the reasons it’s good for your health to try and separate “Rovers” aka the team, and the ownership debacle. It’s not easy. 

Just out of curiosity - did you feel uncomfortable with the Club technically being £130 m in debt to Jack Walker before his death as well?

I know the 2 situations aren't comparable in terms of the quality of ownership but it seems to me there are or were no realistic expectation the respective sums would ever be repaid so as such the fact we owe them money doesn't really concern me.

[philipl]

8 minutes ago, RevidgeBlue said:

Just out of curiosity - did you feel uncomfortable with the Club technically being £130 m in debt to Jack Walker before his death as well?

I know the 2 situations aren't comparable in terms of the quality of ownership but it seems to me there are or were no realistic expectation the respective sums would ever be repaid so as such the fact we owe them money doesn't really concern me.

Jack had already converted the debt to equity before he passed away.

[JBiz]

Just now, RevidgeBlue said:

Just out of curiosity - did you feel uncomfortable with the Club technically being £130 m in debt to Jack Walker before his death as well?

I know the 2 situations aren't comparable in terms of the quality of ownership but it seems to me there are or were no realistic expectation the respective sums would ever be repaid so as such the fact we owe them money doesn't really concern me.

I wasn’t ever concerned with the “ambition and expertise” from the top, where our previous owners concerned. I also didn’t want the previous owners to sell. I was happy with the trust too.

I’m no financial expert, but the way I see it, the more owed to the owners, the more difficult it is for prospective buyers. We can point to philanthropy and suggest that money is invested badly / lost - but we aren’t the ones who have to agree to sell the club. The Rao’s are, and they absent, stubborn, uninterested, and they hire cheap yes men.

[RevidgeBlue]

3 minutes ago, JBiz said:

I wasn’t ever concerned with the “ambition and expertise” from the top, where our previous owners concerned. I also didn’t want the previous owners to sell. I was happy with the trust too.

I’m no financial expert, but the way I see it, the more owed to the owners, the more difficult it is for prospective buyers. We can point to philanthropy and suggest that money is invested badly / lost - but we aren’t the ones who have to agree to sell the club. The Rao’s are, and they absent, stubborn, uninterested, and they hire cheap yes men.

Prospective owners will have their idea of the value of the Club dependent on which Division we are in and the owners would presumably have to decide whether to take a hit on any sale and write the remainder of the debt off. The only question is how much.

The only way I see it being a realistic proposition is if we were ever promoted.

[JBiz]

3 minutes ago, RevidgeBlue said:

Prospective owners will have their idea of the value of the Club dependent on which Division we are in and the owners would presumably have to decide whether to take a hit on any sale and write the remainder of the debt off. The only question is how much.

The only way I see it being a realistic proposition is if we were ever promoted.

Wouldn’t that put our price up by 300m though - I mean Club value.

[RevidgeBlue]

5 minutes ago, JBiz said:

Wouldn’t that put our price up by 300m though - I mean Club value.

Well hopefully - what would you say we're more attractive to an investor as

£50m as things stand now or £300m if we were promoted?

And which figure would the V's be more likely to sell at?

I'd say the latter in both cases.

[Waggy76]

Administration tomorrow would suit me! 

[aletheia]

1 hour ago, JBiz said:

I also hate the fact we’re in debt 200m+

Are we? I thought they had taken out loans and various financial instruments - this figure (who knows how accurate) is not owed by the club.

[RevidgeBlue]

34 minutes ago, philipl said:

Jack had already converted the debt to equity before he passed away.

Im aware, I was trying to get to the bottom of whether JBiz doesn't approve of the Benefactor model per se, or simply with ones he doesn't like.

[wilsdenrover]

1 hour ago, aletheia said:

Are we? I thought they had taken out loans and various financial instruments - this figure (who knows how accurate) is not owed by the club.

As of June ‘24 the club owed Venkys London £134 million.

[wilsdenrover]

2 hours ago, philipl said:

So we think the case was heard today but we all missed it?

Yes - the good news is I very much enjoyed my extra sleep 😁😁

[roversfan99]

5 hours ago, RevidgeBlue said:

There are many problems with the ownership, however IF they were suddenly able and/or willing to fund the Club in the same way as they did prior to the Court Case, it would be one less thing to worry about.

(I don't actually think the outcome of the Court proceedings will make any difference to us, they've lost interest - we'll still get the subsistence level funding but it'll cost them less if they're successful)

Why do you keep saying that they were willing to fund the club as if they were pumping money in?!

The vast majority of seasons prior to the court case, we either profited or were at even in terms of fees in v fees out.

Offsetting the natural losses that all non parachute payment Championship clubs incur is NOT the same as willingly funding the club.

This current season, our net spend will be not far away from zero in transfer fees. They will again have to offset the losses we will incur in the accounts. Nothing has changed in that regard.

It must be this confusion which has led to you defending Venkys and deflecting blame so much over the years.

[RevidgeBlue]

11 hours ago, roversfan99 said:

Why do you keep saying that they were willing to fund the club as if they were pumping money in?!

Offsetting the natural losses that all non parachute payment Championship clubs incur is NOT the same as willingly funding the club.

 

I think you're the one that's getting confused.

Im not saying they deserve massive credit for covering losses incurred due to their negligent running of the Club in the past but at least  they   covered/are covering them. You're talking as though these losses never occurred.

It also seems beyond dispute that they've been unwilling to keep putting as much money in since the Court case. Just the bare minimum necessary for cash flow purposes to keep the lights on whilst we sell whatever we can to minimise the overall amount they need to put in.

[Tomphil2]

14 hours ago, wilsdenrover said:

As of June ‘24 the club owed Venkys London £134 million.

Is that with or without what Akon owes VLL !

 

[roversfan99]

3 minutes ago, RevidgeBlue said:

I think you're the one that's getting confused.

Im not saying they deserve massive credit for covering losses incurred due to their negligent running of the Club in the past but at least  they   covered/are covering them. You're talking as though these losses never occurred.

It also seems beyond dispute that they've been unwilling to keep putting as much money in since the Court case. Just the bare minimum necessary for cash flow purposes to keep the lights on whilst we sell whatever we can to minimise the overall amount they need to put in.

But they are doing so now. They are admittedly being more aggressive cutting the wage bill etc but they are still doing the same thing.

You speak as if they were willingly putting in money for the betterment of the club. Thats not the case. All Championship clubs without parachute payments are propped up by owners. Clubs at this level cant be self sustainable. Their negligence hasnt helped those losses, but we would have incured losses either way and they would have had to offset them. It will be the case again in the June 2025 accounts and in this current newly started June 2026 year, they again will probably have to make up another £15-20m.

The year we sold Wharton, that was a freak sale, a one off. The only reason we made a small profit.

You look in the seasons before the court case. Tomasson's first, we spent £4m. The one before under Mowbray, we sold Armstrong and didnt spend anything. The one before, we didnt spend any real fees. The one before, we covered the majority of the Gallagher fee by selling Raya so maybe a £1.5m net fee. The one before we did spent £10m. The one before, in League 1, maybe just over a million spent. The one before, we made about £10m selling players under Coyle and spent £250k. The one before, very little spent.

Last summer we spent only a small chunk of the Szmodics and this summer it seemingly will be pretty much a net spend of nil. Point being, in only 2 seasons out of the last maybe 10, we have spent anything of note. The season we came up and the season when Tomasson joined and even that was only £4m.

Point being, we barring one off exceptional sales will ALWAYS make a loss as a Championship club. They will HAVE to make those losses up. All other Championship clubs are the same but no one describes that as their owners being "willing to pump money in." Because thats not what it is.

[RevidgeBlue]

So do we know what happened with the case yesterday?