Venky’s v Indian Government (a) - 5/8/2025 - Post-Season Friendly (s/t late postponements)

[wilsdenrover]

Case currently being heard - Rovers being discussed:

guarantees currently at £25ish million (I think I did the currency conversion correctly)

everything the Venkys advocate is saying sounds like there’s an impediment to sending monies…

‘We need to send money…salaries to pay…etc etc’

They want need for guarantee removing.

Edited 16 hours ago by wilsdenrover

[wilsdenrover]

Telling the judge to end his investigation and make a decision, been going on since 2023 etc.

’guarantee is unfair and onerous’

hearing just concluded - didn’t quite catch end bit but I think judge suggested reducing guarantee to 50% and then set a new date to give advocates time to take instructions.

Maybe Waggott doesn’t  think the guarantee is an impediment but the words and emotion the Venky’s advocate just used make it plain that they do.

 

Edited 16 hours ago by wilsdenrover

[arbitro]

3 minutes ago, wilsdenrover said:

Telling the judge to end his investigation and make a decision, been going on since 2023 etc.

’guarantee is unfair and onerous’

 

Unfair and onerous?

Sounds like the last fifteen years for Rovers fans.

[wilsdenrover]

6 minutes ago, arbitro said:

Unfair and onerous?

Sounds like the last fifteen years for Rovers fans.

His exact words.

[arbitro]

The judge has just said "Right you bastards. Sell Blackburn Rovers, sack the imbeciles who run it, apologise to the fans of that club and be damned in hell for the suffering you have caused".

If only Carlsberg did Indian courts.

[KentExile]

10 hours ago, Upside Down said:

If they need someone to fill in I'd be more than happy to do the job of judge, jury and executioner.

I read that as Judge Judy for a second, I thought you had a secret to tell us 😉 

Edited 15 hours ago by KentExile

[47er]

1 hour ago, wilsdenrover said:

’guarantee is unfair and onerous’

Easily avoided though. Simply----- don't try to cheat the tax authorities

[DutchRover]

So Venky's own lawyer is arguing there is an impediment to funding the club; good work Waggott/Suhail... another lie for the list

 

[wilsdenrover]

8 minutes ago, DutchRover said:

So Venky's own lawyer is arguing there is an impediment to funding the club; good work Waggott/Suhail... another lie for the list

 

He was very passionate about it, imo verging on the desperate.

[DutchRover]

More ammunition for Glenn and the coalition...

We had all worked it out by the lack of investment, yearly accounts, and sudden change when the court case started, but really daft for Suhail and Waggott to try and claim "no impediment". They can't even claim a technicality or that it was just the lawyer arguing as it would undermine the legal case they are pursuing, ergo it can only be a lie to the fans.

Edited 15 hours ago by DutchRover

[wilsdenrover]

Just now, DutchRover said:

More ammunition for Glenn and the coalition...

We had all worked it out by the lack of investment and sudden change when the court case started, but really daft for Suhail and Waggott to try and claim "no impediment", even if they can claim a technicality or something.

They’re dancing on the head of a pin.

Yes the owners can send money but the far more important factor is they won’t (either because of the guarantee or they don’t want to and the guarantee is a handy excuse).

[DutchRover]

I'm sure they could try and claim that technically they can send funds if they match the guarantee, but that would presumably undermine their legal argument that the guarantee/court case is an impediment to sending money to the club.

If we assume they have set aside £20m in liquidity each year to fund the club (as so often alleged by Suhail et al), their argument would be that if half of that goes into the Central Bank bond rather than the club it is an impediment, and for whatever reason they cannot or will not match a guarantee that would require £40m to be set aside just for the club (including the guarantee).

The court would probably rightly argue that the guarantee should not be an impediment to a billion dollar corporation who are alleged to have avoided tax. 

Either way Suhail was still lying when he was talking about "no impediment/restriction" to funding the club as it is demonstrably not the case, and they are arguing in court that there is an impediment. 

As a further point, rewatching the 3 amigos interview, Suhail mentioned that the £300m is a loan from the owners, not a liquid injection. Does anyone have an explanation why they might be doing this for tax/business purposes?

[wilsdenrover]

7 minutes ago, DutchRover said:

I'm sure they could try and claim that technically they can send funds if they match the guarantee, but that would presumably undermine their legal argument that the guarantee/court case is an impediment to sending money to the club.

If we assume they have set aside £20m in liquidity each year to fund the club (as so often alleged by Suhail et al), their argument would be that if half of that goes into the Central Bank bond rather than the club it is an impediment, and for whatever reason they cannot or will not match a guarantee that would require £40m to be set aside just for the club (including the guarantee).

The court would probably rightly argue that the guarantee should not be an impediment to a billion dollar corporation who are alleged to have avoided tax. 

Either way Suhail was still lying when he was talking about "no impediment/restriction" to funding the club as it is demonstrably not the case, and they are arguing in court that there is an impediment. 

As a further point, rewatching the 3 amigos interview, Suhail mentioned that the £300m is a loan from the owners, not a liquid injection. Does anyone have an explanation why they might be doing this for tax/business purposes?

He’s wrong (I’ll let others judge whether intentionally or otherwise) - I don’t have the figures in front of me but it’s about £210 million ‘loan’ and £90m shares.

The  shares includes their initial purchase of the club, I imagine the rest of them are simply to comply with FFP rules.

Edited 14 hours ago by wilsdenrover

[Tomphil2]

I'd say it's because it then stands as a 200 million investment on the company portfolio that will guarantee a return when - IF- it ever reaches the Prem.

Even Venkys will have to answer to their own bankers etc occasionally and despite how it's run like on a whim the club is actually a company investment not a personal one.

[roverblue]

If they managed to rush this to the front of the queue when it was arranged for August maybe things are even worse than we thought behind the scenes.

The noise around the women's team finances, back office staff redundancies and then the larger than expected released list further strengthens the view.

[MarkBRFC]

2 minutes ago, roverblue said:

If they managed to rush this to the front of the queue when it was arranged for August maybe things are even worse than we thought behind the scenes.

The noise around the women's team finances, back office staff redundancies and then the larger than expected released list further strengthens the view.

I might be wrong, but isn't the one in August a different case to this and still scheduled?

[wilsdenrover]

5 minutes ago, roverblue said:

If they managed to rush this to the front of the queue when it was arranged for August maybe things are even worse than we thought behind the scenes.

The noise around the women's team finances, back office staff redundancies and then the larger than expected released list further strengthens the view.

 

3 minutes ago, MarkBRFC said:

I might be wrong, but isn't the one in August a different case to this and still scheduled?

This one is a new ‘appeal’ with the sole intention of removing the guarantee requirement. 

It’s at the top of the queue as the listing system starts with new matters, then goes on to ongoing matters and then final matters.

How a final hearing ever gets heard is beyond me!
 

 

[Tomphil2]

They will get desperate because in usual fashion they've left it to chance let it rumble on and now go into panic mode because at some point in the near future the club will run out of money.

All that has been obvious all along to all but the Venky cheerleaders in the fanbase.

That means panic sales, expensive external borrowings etc OR they have to pay the tariff to send money OR ...SELL !

I cannot see this ending well for anyone tbh unless the judge bends over.

[wilsdenrover]

1 minute ago, Tomphil2 said:

They will get desperate because in usual fashion they've left it to chance let it rumble on and now go into panic mode because at some point in the near future the club will run out of money.

All that has been obvious all along to all but the Venky cheerleaders in the fanbase.

That means panic sales, expensive external borrowings etc OR they have to pay the tariff to send money OR ...SELL !

I cannot see this ending well for anyone tbh unless the judge bends over.

I must admit he did look wiling to assume the position 😁😁

 

[RevidgeBlue]

1 hour ago, wilsdenrover said:

He was very passionate about it, imo verging on the desperate.

Come on, he's trying to get restrictions lifted altogether - he's hardly likely to argue in Court they aren't really a problem!

In reality there ISNT any real impediment to funding as it stands now - they merely have to cover monies sent with other funds which would merely affect their liquidity at the Bank a bit - but only if they're down to their last £20m or so.

My guessing is they still won't send any funds even if any and all restrictions are lifted.

[paullarrygher]

As flagged in the September hearing, what Pasha and Waggott are saying to fans/media is the total opposite from what Venky's are arguing in court. They say no impediment to funding, lawyers say there is an "immense financial burden".

Elliott Jackson needs to call that out as at the moment he's taking the club's word for it that the bond is no issue for Venky's despite all evidence to the contrary.

[lraC]

It was always very cleverly worded by Waggott and as usual just a smokescreen, to yet again, hoodwink the fans into believe that everything is okay and the wonderful owners we have, will continue to fund us.

Some, of the fans, accepted the no impediment line, but some knew better and saw that there was one huge impediment and here we have it today, confirmed in court that we were yet again, lied to.

[Brian-Potter]

35 minutes ago, RevidgeBlue said:

Come on, he's trying to get restrictions lifted altogether - he's hardly likely to argue in Court they aren't really a problem!

In reality there ISNT any real impediment to funding as it stands now - they merely have to cover monies sent with other funds which would merely affect their liquidity at the Bank a bit - but only if they're down to their last £20m or so.

My guessing is they still won't send any funds even if any and all restrictions are lifted.

Exactly, let's be realistic he is a barrister trying to persuade the court to lift the restriction. He's hardly going to stand in front of the judge and say it would be good if you could lift this, it's not really a problem but would be nice if you did. Of course he's going to be passionate, beg and lay it on as thick as possible. Any barrister worth their salt would.

Waggott and Co have been very careful  in how they've worded the no impediment thing, as legally, there is no impediment or restriction. The issue is they need to match every £ with the same amount in a bond / guarantee. So legally they can send as much money as they like, practically it makes it very difficult for them financially.

 

 

[den]

Is the guarantee demanded in cash rather than just a written guarantee. Anyone know?

[DutchRover]

My point would be that that is still contradictory to Suhail and Waggott's statements as to there not being an impediment. If their legal appeal is that the guarantee is an impediment to funding the club then we as fans have a right to argue that as well, and therefore Suhail did lie when he said there is no impediment (technicalities notwithstanding). And the yearly accounts clearly show the drop of in funding as a consequence of the court case being brought against Venkys.

As to whether the removal of the guarantee would increase our funding, that also seems unlikely...
As I said above, they ought to be able to afford £40m a year to continue the alleged £20m funding and the matched £20m bond, unless they are in serious financial difficulty.