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

[G Somerset Rover]

I have a sneaky feeling Callum Brittain will in fact, not, be signing a bumper new contract. Nor will anyone else. ‘Get your bags packed for Boro/Sheff Utd/Southampton, son.’

For those like me that just want the end game sooner rather than later, let’s hope Wharton doesn’t go for silly money this summer because I bet they’re praying for it.

Edited yesterday at 12:20 by G Somerset Rover

[sammie]

Just now, G Somerset Rover said:

I have a sneaky feeling Callum Brittain will in fact not, be signing a bumper new contract. Nor will anyone else.

’Get your bags packed for Boro/Sheff Utd/Southampton, son’.

yep, the contract talk was definitely a cover up, can see players like Cantwell, Travis and Tronstad leaving too.

[paullarrygher]

We need to get Elliott Jackson to change his reporting on this court case. He's taking the club's word at face value but as these documents show Venky's have major obstacles to funding the club and we're reliant on the decisions of Indian courts to pay essential bills.

[lraC]

1 minute ago, paullarrygher said:

We need to get Elliott Jackson to change his reporting on this court case. He's taking the club's word at face value but as these documents show Venky's have major obstacles to funding the club and we're reliant on the decisions of Indian courts to pay essential bills.

He must know only too well, there no impediment line, was total bollox. 

[Browjd]

As per above, Elliott Jackson needs to be all over this. There is no corporate world in which you cannot respond to this without significant scrutiny. 

[JHRover]

11 minutes ago, G Somerset Rover said:

I have a sneaky feeling Callum Brittain will in fact, not, be signing a bumper new contract. Nor will anyone else. ‘Get your bags packed for Boro/Sheff Utd/Southampton, son.’

For those like me that just want the end game sooner rather than later, let’s hope Wharton doesn’t go for silly money this summer because I bet they’re praying for it.

Absolutely. It will be like Christmas came early for Venkys and their stooges if Wharton goes for mega money. The sell on cash will sort their problems out for another 6 months and to add an extra layer of cringeworthiness to it they'll probably plaster the social media accounts with 'one of our own' stuff expecting more free credit for it.

Surely even the most 'head in sand' supporters can accept that this situation, running for over 2 years and counting, is utterly unacceptable, unsustainable and intolerable? It baffles me that so many seem convinced that the current regime represents safety and stability despite clear evidence before us that the clubs continuing existence remains dependent on the outcome of court hearings on the other side of the world. The ease with which some have been able to close their minds to and ignore this crisis and then make out as though the current situation is better than the alternative is very strange. 

Get rid of this. Our football club should not be getting dragged through the Indian courts and the sooner it ends the better.

The lack of media coverage about this crisis is a disgrace and should never be forgotten.

[wilsdenrover]

23 minutes ago, lraC said:

It’s referring back to when an amount of just over £3.5m was allowed to be sent, but only with a bank guarantee and a no objection certificate (Two impediments).

Whats more in interesting now is its now being stated that the club is not under a cloud of suspicion YET (see section 12 below) but also that the ED are against any funds being transferred.

In my opinion the earliest they may now be able to send any will be after the hearing on 03/08/25 and I think we are very close to the edge.

They can send the monies requested in March now with a reduced guarantee payment of 50% - all other terms of sending that money are as per the order in October ‘23

The part about the club not being under suspicion yet etc  is taken from the ‘23 order too.

Edited yesterday at 12:36 by wilsdenrover

[lraC]

4 minutes ago, wilsdenrover said:

They can send the monies requested in March now with a reduced guarantee payment of 50% - all other terms of sending that money are as per the order in October ‘23

Absolutely correct, the No objection certificate (Impediment 1) and the reduced bond (impediment 2) still exist, so it is down to the owners now, to decide if they want to risk more bond money or wait until 03/08/25 and hope the impediments are lifted.

My guess is they will send no money until at least that next hearing. 

[wilsdenrover]

Just now, lraC said:

Absolutely correct, the No objection certificate (Impediment 1) and the reduced bond (impediment 2) still exist, so it is down to the owners now, to decide if they want to risk more bond money or wait until 03/08/25 and hope the impediments are lifted.

My guess is they will send no money until at least that next hearing. 

The below extract from the order suggests the Venkys will be back in court appealing to remove the guarantee requirement  the next time ‘the shit hits the fan’ (aka ‘the appropriate stage’).

Whether this will be before the next hearing or not might hinge on how much of what’s not tied down at the club they can sell off first.

[RevidgeBlue]

26 minutes ago, lraC said:

It’s referring back to when an amount of just over £3.5m was allowed to be sent, but only with a bank guarantee and a no objection certificate (Two impediments).

Whats more in interesting now is its now being stated that the club is not under a cloud of suspicion YET (see section 12 below) but also that the ED are against any funds being transferred.

In my opinion the earliest they may now be able to send any will be after the hearing on 03/08/25 and I think we are very close to the edge.

Thanks. I've managed to download the entire thing now.

I found the judgment very unclear and a lot of the language used about the Club not being under suspicion etc and the monetary amounts were the same as at earlier hearings .

However unless the judgment was simply citing the 2023 order for reference purposes, it looks to me as though it was ordered that they could send up to £11m again but with a 50% Bank Guarantee this time as opposed to a full one as previously.

With a further hearing date due to decide whether the need for a guarantee can be completely removed altogether.

The ED were seemingly objecting to money being sent at all on the basis that the transfer would not comply with the Country's foreign exchange regulations and that the V's were still under investigation but were seemingly over-ruled again.

So it seemed to me that if we can actually get before the Court, they're not stopping money being sent over at this stage.

What i found striking however was the fact that we're having to go back cap in hand to the Court already indicating the Wharton/ Szmodics/Raya money etc has run out. Also the amounts we claimed we needed on the previous occasion seem odd - unless I'm reading it wrong it's claimed the tax due on the wages was the same amount as the wages themselves.

To be fair the £4.9m requested by Suhail this time round to cover 3 months equates to the £20m p.a. they've always claimed they sent over. Exactly where it's all going though bearing in mind the massive cost savings and cuts we've made over the last few years I've no idea.

[Wheelton Blue]

9 minutes ago, lraC said:

Absolutely correct, the No objection certificate (Impediment 1) and the reduced bond (impediment 2) still exist, so it is down to the owners now, to decide if they want to risk more bond money or wait until 03/08/25 and hope the impediments are lifted.

My guess is they will send no money until at least that next hearing. 

In which case, there is an short term 4.9m hole to plug. Ergo, player sales.

[wilsdenrover]

4 minutes ago, RevidgeBlue said:

Thanks. I've managed to download the entire thing now.

I found the judgment very unclear and a lot of the language used about the Club not being under suspicion etc and the monetary amounts were the same as at earlier hearings .

However unless the judgment was simply citing the 2023 order for reference purposes, it looks to me as though it was ordered that they could send up to £11m again but with a 50% Bank Guarantee this time as opposed to a full one as previously.

With a further hearing date due to decide whether the need for a guarantee can be completely removed altogether.

The ED were seemingly objecting to money being sent at all on the basis that the transfer would not comply with the Country's foreign exchange regulations and that the V's were still under investigation but were seemingly over-ruled again.

So it seemed to me that if we can actually get before the Court, they're not stopping money being sent over at this stage.

What i found striking however was the fact that we're having to go back cap in hand to the Court already indicating the Wharton/ Szmodics/Raya money etc has run out. Also the amounts we claimed we needed on the previous occasion seem odd - unless I'm reading it wrong it's claimed the tax due on the wages was the same amount as the wages themselves.

To be fair the £4.9m requested by Suhail this time round to cover 3 months equates to the £20m p.a. they've always claimed they sent over. Exactly where it's all going though bearing in mind the massive cost savings and cuts we've made over the last few years I've no idea.

All of point 4 of the new order is cut and pasted from the 2023 order. 

Edited yesterday at 12:52 by wilsdenrover

[lraC]

1 minute ago, wilsdenrover said:

The below extract from the order suggests the Venkys will be back in court appealing to remove the guarantee requirement  the next time ‘the shit hits the fan’ (aka ‘the appropriate stage’).

Whether this will be before the next hearing or not might hinge on how much of what’s not tied down at the club they can sell off first.

That's stating, the senior counsel for the petitioner (Venky's) want the requirement for a bank guarantee removing. For now it has been reduced to 50% hence two impediments remaining, until considered at an appropriate stage. 

They have spelt relieved wrong and it reads relived, but that can be forgiven, perhaps. 

[wilsdenrover]

1 minute ago, lraC said:

That's stating, the senior counsel for the petitioner (Venky's) want the requirement for a bank guarantee removing. For now it has been reduced to 50% hence two impediments remaining, until considered at an appropriate stage. 

They have spelt relieved wrong and it reads relived, but that can be forgiven, perhaps. 

Agreed, I was just stating the appropriate stage will be dictated by when Venkys next drag themselves to court which may or may not be the date in August.

I agree completely re the impediments by the way. 

[lraC]

1 minute ago, wilsdenrover said:

Agreed, I was just stating the appropriate stage will be dictated by when Venkys next drag themselves to court which may or may not be the date in August.

I agree completely re the impediments by the way. 

I knew you were with it, but hopefully our conversation, has helped some people get a better grasp of it too, as it is a bit miss leading. 

[RevidgeBlue]

26 minutes ago, lraC said:

He must know only too well, there no impediment line, was total bollox. 

It depends on your definition of "impediment".

To me if you can send money over but have to jump through a few administrative hoops to do it - that's inconvenient, but not really an impediment.

If you can't send money over because the Court have said no - now  THAT'S an impediment.

It seems at the moment the Court are allowing money to be sent. Maybe the "impediment" such as it is is not being able to get the Case heard due to time constraints?

We seem to have been able to get the case heard fairly swiftly on this occasion though when we needed it.

[wilsdenrover]

Just now, RevidgeBlue said:

It depends on your definition of "impediment".

To me if you can send money over but have to jump through a few administrative hoops to do it - that's inconvenient, but not really an impediment.

If you can't send money over because the Court have said no - now  THAT'S an impediment.

It seems at the moment the Court are allowing money to be sent. Maybe the "impediment" such as it is is not being able to get the Case heard due to time constraints?

We seem to have been able to get the case heard fairly swiftly on this occasion though when we needed it.

Here is how I see it…

The bank guarantee is only an impediment if the Venkys aren’t willing to fund it.

Evidence suggests they’re only willing to fund it when the situation absolutely forces them to do so.

Ergo (imo) it’s an impediment. 

 

 

[RevidgeBlue]

9 minutes ago, wilsdenrover said:

All of point 4 of the new order is cut and pasted from the 2023 order. 

But it applies now I presume?

So therefore they could send up to £11m over (if they wanted) with a 50% guarantee.

[lraC]

3 minutes ago, RevidgeBlue said:

It depends on your definition of "impediment".

To me if you can send money over but have to jump through a few administrative hoops to do it - that's inconvenient, but not really an impediment.

If you can't send money over because the Court have said no - now  THAT'S an impediment.

It seems at the moment the Court are allowing money to be sent. Maybe the "impediment" such as it is is not being able to get the Case heard due to time constraints?

We seem to have been able to get the case heard fairly swiftly on this occasion though when we needed it.

Impediment means to have a hindrance or obstruction in doing something and that is certainly the case with the bank and the NOC. 

I think the word inconvenient has a much less stringent meaning, as in, the need to send it to be checked first, before being given the green light. That in my view is inconvenient, but having to add 50% and previously 100% to any funding, in order to send it, is not an inconvenience but a pretty severe impediment. 

[wilsdenrover]

1 minute ago, RevidgeBlue said:

But it applies now I presume?

So therefore they could send up to £11m over (if they wanted) with a 50% guarantee.

No, point 7 of the new order gives permission for the sum sought to be remitted to be sent , point one of the new order states the sum sought to be £4.85 million.

[wilsdenrover]

9 minutes ago, RevidgeBlue said:

It depends on your definition of "impediment".

To me if you can send money over but have to jump through a few administrative hoops to do it - that's inconvenient, but not really an impediment.

If you can't send money over because the Court have said no - now  THAT'S an impediment.

It seems at the moment the Court are allowing money to be sent. Maybe the "impediment" such as it is is not being able to get the Case heard due to time constraints?

We seem to have been able to get the case heard fairly swiftly on this occasion though when we needed it.

Apologies for quoting  the same post twice but re the bit I’ve emboldened:

A No Objection Certificate was issued for £15 million in March ‘24 - this was done without the court’s intervention.

Persumably on that occasion the Venkys were willing to pay the guarantee in full and this time they weren’t.

 

[RevidgeBlue]

7 minutes ago, wilsdenrover said:

No, point 7 of the new order gives permission for the sum sought to be remitted to be sent , point one of the new order states the sum sought to be £4.85 million.

Ah - got it!.

I've only just noticed that specific wording and the the numbering on the new order etc.

🤭

Thanks for your patience and concise explanations!

[funny-old-game]

28 minutes ago, RevidgeBlue said:

Thanks. I've managed to download the entire thing now.

I found the judgment very unclear and a lot of the language used about the Club not being under suspicion etc and the monetary amounts were the same as at earlier hearings .

However unless the judgment was simply citing the 2023 order for reference purposes, it looks to me as though it was ordered that they could send up to £11m again but with a 50% Bank Guarantee this time as opposed to a full one as previously.

With a further hearing date due to decide whether the need for a guarantee can be completely removed altogether.

The ED were seemingly objecting to money being sent at all on the basis that the transfer would not comply with the Country's foreign exchange regulations and that the V's were still under investigation but were seemingly over-ruled again.

So it seemed to me that if we can actually get before the Court, they're not stopping money being sent over at this stage.

What i found striking however was the fact that we're having to go back cap in hand to the Court already indicating the Wharton/ Szmodics/Raya money etc has run out. Also the amounts we claimed we needed on the previous occasion seem odd - unless I'm reading it wrong it's claimed the tax due on the wages was the same amount as the wages themselves.

To be fair the £4.9m requested by Suhail this time round to cover 3 months equates to the £20m p.a. they've always claimed they sent over. Exactly where it's all going though bearing in mind the massive cost savings and cuts we've made over the last few years I've no idea.

ED were seemingly objecting to money being sent at all on the basis that the transfer would not comply with the Country's foreign exchange regulations and that the V's were still under investigation.

 

Just as a reminder, what are ED investigating?

[lraC]

Not wanting to really start up this impediment argument all over again and it is the last I will EVER say on the matter, but I teach (as a hobby) a Spanish youth some English, so the meaning of certain words, is part of my every day life and does help him with his college work.

We regularly refer to both the Oxford and Cambridge dictionaries, for clarification on words, as you can imagine, getting the meaning wrong, and translating it to from English to Spanish and vice versa, can prove to be important.

The Oxford Dictionary meanings for both words is below.

Inconvenient = A hindrance, trouble or difficulty

Impediment = Something that interferes with a process, power or right. 

 

Edited yesterday at 13:28 by lraC

[lraC]

35 minutes ago, RevidgeBlue said:

Thanks. I've managed to download the entire thing now.

I found the judgment very unclear and a lot of the language used about the Club not being under suspicion etc and the monetary amounts were the same as at earlier hearings .

However unless the judgment was simply citing the 2023 order for reference purposes, it looks to me as though it was ordered that they could send up to £11m again but with a 50% Bank Guarantee this time as opposed to a full one as previously.

With a further hearing date due to decide whether the need for a guarantee can be completely removed altogether.

The ED were seemingly objecting to money being sent at all on the basis that the transfer would not comply with the Country's foreign exchange regulations and that the V's were still under investigation but were seemingly over-ruled again.

So it seemed to me that if we can actually get before the Court, they're not stopping money being sent over at this stage.

What i found striking however was the fact that we're having to go back cap in hand to the Court already indicating the Wharton/ Szmodics/Raya money etc has run out. Also the amounts we claimed we needed on the previous occasion seem odd - unless I'm reading it wrong it's claimed the tax due on the wages was the same amount as the wages themselves.

To be fair the £4.9m requested by Suhail this time round to cover 3 months equates to the £20m p.a. they've always claimed they sent over. Exactly where it's all going though bearing in mind the massive cost savings and cuts we've made over the last few years I've no idea.

You are very welcome.

Glad you manged to sort it.