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

[wilsdenrover]

6 minutes ago, KentExile said:

Boooooo

I can promise you no one is more disappointed in me than I am. 

[Roversider]

1 hour ago, wilsdenrover said:

I can promise you no one is more disappointed in me than I am. 

Everyone appreciates what you're doing, many thanks for all your efforts.  I suspect that you must have the patience of a Saint!

[Old Codger]

20 minutes ago, Roversider said:

Everyone appreciates what you're doing, many thanks for all your efforts.  I suspect that you must have the patience of a Saint!

We are all very well trained for the job these days, given the amount of time we watched Travis and Hedges pass the ball backwards to break up our own attacks.

Raarrr.

[Makrover]

1 hour ago, wilsdenrover said:

No.

The Directorate of Enforcement were told in court last Friday to produce a copy of the complaint they’ve made to the Adjudicating Authority and a new hearing (today’s) was scheduled.

Today Venkys stated they hadn’t been provided with this copy (and neither had the court).

Because of this the judge rescheduled for tomorrow.

So it’s not a hearing about the tax stuff but the venkys (I think) have apparently put in a complaint to the adjudging authority and there denying it???

 

apologies if not

[wilsdenrover]

27 minutes ago, Makrover said:

So it’s not a hearing about the tax stuff but the venkys (I think) have apparently put in a complaint to the adjudging authority and there denying it???

 

apologies if not

The Complaint to the Adjudicating Authority has been made by the Directorate of Enforcement.

This is the procedure which follows their investigation and is basically them saying they believe Venkys have a case to answer.

The Venkys want to see the complaint as they want to know if the value of the  guarantees they’ve had to lodge and the properties they’ve had seized is higher than the sum involved in their alleged wrongdoings.

If It does, I think they’re going to argue this means the guarantee condition (for them remitting money overseas) should be removed.

Edited Wednesday at 19:47 by wilsdenrover

[wilsdenrover]

I think tomorrow is going to be (yet another) occasion where there isn’t time for the case to be heard. 

It is listed as case number 111 and the 24th which is a ‘supplemental matter’.

Supplemental matters are taken up when the court returns after lunch at 14:30 and the court finishes at 16:30 (Delhi time).

I think the word we’re all looking for is farcical.

Edited Wednesday at 19:47 by wilsdenrover

[Devon Rover]

3 hours ago, wilsdenrover said:

I think tomorrow is going to be (yet another) occasion where there isn’t time for the case to be heard. 

It is listed as case number 111 and the 24th which is a ‘supplemental matter’.

Supplemental matters are taken up when the court returns after lunch at 14:30 and the court finishes at 16:30 (Delhi time).

I think the word we’re all looking for is farcical.

That's definitely one word. I was thinking of the words "the lazy part-time bastards".

[wilsdenrover]

I think the judge may have done a runner as I’ve just tried to join the court proceedings and it says waiting for host…

In the meantime, here’s the order from yesterday:

[jodrell]

2 minutes ago, wilsdenrover said:

I think the judge may have done a runner as I’ve just tried to join the court proceedings and it says waiting for host…

In the meantime, here’s the order from yesterday:

Or Rudy has told him he doesn't like his dress code and told him not to wear a wig.

[wilsdenrover]

The Venkys are trying to be allowed to send money without the need for further guarantee payments.

They could always:

Send the money and make the guarantee payment (no court input needed) and then;

Go to court to try and get that payment refunded.

I wonder (well I don’t really) why they haven’t chosen this option…

 

Edited Thursday at 10:45 by wilsdenrover

[RevidgeBlue]

I've thought for a while these proceedings were fairly irrelevant from our point of view and it only affected how much it was costing the owners to fund us.

However with the last minute sale of Hyam and no replacement, Im wondering just how near the knuckle we actually are in terms of immediate cash flow etc.

The Hyam move went through so quickly and unexpectedly that it seems to me as though we must have been touting him about to Clubs in the last 48 -72 hours of the window desperately trying to shift him, and got a bite from Wrexham.

[Tomphil2]

The good old Nixon 'Watford eye Hyam' piece a few weeks ago was the flag for that one he, as per normal, was putting Dom up for sale for Rovers.

I doubt Watford ever even considered a genuine bid but to me it was obvious then what was happening. Did Rovers come out and say there's nothing in it no bid and we won't entertain any we need to keep him - Like Brizzle did to Wrexham - nope.

Just got Val saying the usual spiel he's happy to stay here but we'll do what's best for the club type stuff.

In other words show us your money.

[Tugayisgod]

https://www.skysports.com/share/13424971

[aletheia]

12 minutes ago, Tugayisgod said:

https://www.skysports.com/share/13424971

However, it is key to make clear that the ODSE Test does not have to taken by current owners, directors or senior executives and they do not have to apply. Only new prospective custodians will be required to apply for the test.

However incoming the Football Regulator is intent on making it clear that if it has any concerns about the suitability of an existing owner, director or senior executive, it will be able to intervene and take action

Edit Two howevers in  row.

Edited Thursday at 15:18 by aletheia

[Tugayisgod]

It was this section on particular that interested me.  Unfortunately though I don't believe the regulator will consider what's happening at our club sufficient to take any action. As long as the lights are kept on and the bills paid they'll be happy.

 

[aletheia]

Oh yep, I was encouraged at first (and thanks for posting). Just seems that they will be more interested in new applications (but then contradicted by the last para that they could look into existing set ups).

[Roverthechimp]

1 hour ago, RevidgeBlue said:

I've thought for a while these proceedings were fairly irrelevant from our point of view and it only affected how much it was costing the owners to fund us.

However with the last minute sale of Hyam and no replacement, Im wondering just how near the knuckle we actually are in terms of immediate cash flow etc.

The Hyam move went through so quickly and unexpectedly that it seems to me as though we must have been touting him about to Clubs in the last 48 -72 hours of the window desperately trying to shift him, and got a bite from Wrexham.

Would love to know what is actually happening with Pears. Think RuHail (eller SuDy??) had counted on 2m (ish) for him but something is not going to plan with that...

[Roverthechimp]

5 minutes ago, aletheia said:

Oh yep, I was encouraged at first (and thanks for posting). Just seems that they will be more interested in new applications (but then contradicted by the last para that they could look into existing set ups).

Think that the bit about existing set ups is a boast/threat/willy waving that will never be used (other than as per the current situation when a club/business is failing to meet its obligations to staff or HMRC)

[Exiled_Rover]

2 hours ago, RevidgeBlue said:

I've thought for a while these proceedings were fairly irrelevant from our point of view and it only affected how much it was costing the owners to fund us.

However with the last minute sale of Hyam and no replacement, Im wondering just how near the knuckle we actually are in terms of immediate cash flow etc.

The Hyam move went through so quickly and unexpectedly that it seems to me as though we must have been touting him about to Clubs in the last 48 -72 hours of the window desperately trying to shift him, and got a bite from Wrexham.

The opposite - Wrexham were sniffing around for a CB in that price range (they were after a bloke from Bristol City for £2m and told to jog on). 

 

[KentExile]

2 hours ago, Exiled_Rover said:

The opposite - Wrexham were sniffing around for a CB in that price range (they were after a bloke from Bristol City for £2m and told to jog on). 

 

Bristol turned Wrexham down for Vyner early in the day, and the size of the bids was quite public.  Would have been fairly easy for someone at Rovers to get on the phone to Wrexham "I hear you are looking to spend upwards of £2M on a centre back"

[Waggy76]

2 hours ago, KentExile said:

Bristol turned Wrexham down for Vyner early in the day, and the size of the bids was quite public.  Would have been fairly easy for someone at Rovers to get on the phone to Wrexham "I hear you are looking to spend upwards of £2M on a centre back"

Very possible! 

[wilsdenrover]

guarantee condition removed…

https://delhihighcourt.nic.in/app/showlogo/1757322518_a0cd37f819e860dc_587_79662023.pdf/2025

 

Edited 4 hours ago by wilsdenrover

[Ricky]

I’ve no idea if that’s good news or not but it should remove the blocker that seemed to be in place 

[roverblue]

just in time now that the window is closed and they don't have to spend anything.

[wilsdenrover]

3 minutes ago, Ricky said:

I’ve no idea if that’s good news or not but it should remove the blocker that seemed to be in place 

The blocker was of their own choosing but yes that excuse/reason (take your choice) is no longer there.
 

The order suggests the maximum fine Venkys will receive from the adjudicating authority will be around £7.7 million*

Mere chicken feed to them surely…

* assuming I’ve done the currency conversion correctly!!