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

[Tomphil2]

Another huge Venky coincidence it gets removed a week after the window closes.

You genuinely couldn't make it up but you could however have predicted it !

[wilsdenrover]

5 minutes ago, Tomphil2 said:

Another huge Venky coincidence it gets removed a week after the window closes.

You genuinely couldn't make it up but you could however have predicted it !

January war chest though right??

[MarkBRFC]

I don't think it would have mattered if it had got removed back in May.

This transfer window would have played out exactly the same as it has done.

[RevidgeBlue]

23 minutes ago, wilsdenrover said:

guarantee condition removed…

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

 

Im sure I speak for everyone in thanking you for your sterling efforts in covering this saga and explaining to everyone in simple terms what it all means Wilesden. 🙂

It'll probably be a couple of weeks before the "professional" reporter over at the LT even realises there's been a hearing.

So now it seems there genuinely is "no impediment" to funding - whether a serious one or merely an inconvenient one.

Wonder if this will mean we see the financial handbrakes lifted a bit in January?

Somehow I doubt it but if so they could start by reinstating the women's team.

 

[wilsdenrover]

On 03/09/2025 at 12:25, wilsdenrover said:

I found out the other day how long the Adjudicating Authority has to make a decision but no dare not say 😬

This is before you add on all the appeals which are allowed 😬😬

In terms of this case, and based entirely on gut instinct, I think the judge might be minded to remove the guarantee condition. 

As it doesn’t happen very often I would like to play the I was right card 😁😁

[RevidgeBlue]

16 minutes ago, Tomphil2 said:

Another huge Venky coincidence it gets removed a week after the window closes.

You genuinely couldn't make it up but you could however have predicted it !

I agree. Incredibly convenient.

And yet.....on the face of it the timing wasn't actually the owners fault unless they can influence the Court listing process.

Wonder what the excuse will be for not spending in January? Should we start a sweepstake?

[wilsdenrover]

 

7 minutes ago, RevidgeBlue said:

I agree. Incredibly convenient.

And yet.....on the face of it the timing wasn't actually the owners fault unless they can influence the Court listing process.

Wonder what the excuse will be for not spending in January? Should we start a sweepstake?

How’s this one sound?:

One of the remaining conditions to them remitting money is the club’s auditor must issue an end use certificate within three working days so…

Current auditor binned off towards end of December, new one not appointed until early February.

 

Edited 6 hours ago by wilsdenrover

[Tomphil2]

22 minutes ago, RevidgeBlue said:

I agree. Incredibly convenient.

And yet.....on the face of it the timing wasn't actually the owners fault unless they can influence the Court listing process.

Wonder what the excuse will be for not spending in January? Should we start a sweepstake?

Well at least there shouldn't be any pressing need to sell anyone else in Jan...... 🤔

[RevidgeBlue]

2 minutes ago, Tomphil2 said:

Well at least there shouldn't be any pressing need to sell anyone else in Jan...... 🤔

Who's left to sell?

Pears/ Tronstad?

[roverblue]

So looks like there is £12million winging its way to rovers asap? Biggest chunk of money they have sent since the one end of 2023?

[wilsdenrover]

1 minute ago, roverblue said:

So looks like there is £12million winging its way to rovers asap? Biggest chunk of money they have sent since the one end of 2023?

They sent £15 million in March ‘24 (without going to court).

[RevidgeBlue]

Others have made the same point many times previously but (when allowed) it's always the same sort of amount despite numerous cost savings over the years isn't it?

[philipl]

There is no certainty the money held under guarantee will come to Rovers. I fear it will be needed to dig us out of relegation doodoo whereas when it was being deposited with the Courts it could have been used to get us into the Premier League.

The 7.7m fine could have been far worse. I would imagine there was enormous relief in the Pune compound.

Still remains ridiculous stupidity of people so wealthy getting themselves into such a stew back in 2010 ....

Which includes buying the Rovers

[Tomphil2]

1 hour ago, RevidgeBlue said:

Who's left to sell?

Pears/ Tronstad?

Carter, Pickering, Yuki  if they all have a good first half of the season.

Cantwell also.

Edited 4 hours ago by Tomphil2

[wilsdenrover]

11 minutes ago, philipl said:

There is no certainty the money held under guarantee will come to Rovers. I fear it will be needed to dig us out of relegation doodoo whereas when it was being deposited with the Courts it could have been used to get us into the Premier League.

The 7.7m fine could have been far worse. I would imagine there was enormous relief in the Pune compound.

Still remains ridiculous stupidity of people so wealthy getting themselves into such a stew back in 2010 ....

Which includes buying the Rovers

Just for clarity, this is the most it could be and, as the adjudication is yet to be made, there may be no fine at all.

 

Edited 4 hours ago by wilsdenrover

[Tomphil2]

If the fine is 7 mill the 12 mill to Rovers will suddenly become 5 million then it's on to the January sales.....

[...]

Anyone able to bullet point this for me while I make tea 😃😊

[Crimpshrine]

Sounds like bad news to me.

They can now go back to plodding along, sending over the bare minimum in funding whenever required but taking no other interest in he club whatsoever. Venky's will see it as a problem solved but Pasha will continue to cut costs - that's his job.

They will expect us all to be truly grateful and, sadly, a large proportion of the fan base will be. 

 

[bluebruce]

2 hours ago, wilsdenrover said:

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!!

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

[B16Rover]

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.

 

Edited 4 hours ago by B16Rover

[wilsdenrover]

3 minutes ago, B16Rover said:

For a simpleton like myself, is this the 12m guarantee reimbursed and 12m released to us.  Or is it all future spend too?

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.

[wilsdenrover]

45 minutes ago, ... said:

Anyone able to bullet point this for me while I make tea 😃😊

What is it you’d like clarifying?

Edited 3 hours ago by wilsdenrover

[wilsdenrover]

Using the same numbers as the court order:

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

I hope this helps.

Edited 3 hours ago by wilsdenrover

[bluebruce]

12 minutes ago, wilsdenrover said:

Using the same numbers as the court order:

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

I hope this helps.

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.

[wilsdenrover]

2 minutes ago, bluebruce said:

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.

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.