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

[wilsdenrover]

15 minutes ago, Rogerb said:

I'm not convinced the reduction to 50 per cent has been implemented by the Court. It's my belief this was proposed by the judge and he sent both parties legal representatives away to discuss with their instructing parties with a view to considering this a few days later. The subsequent hearing never happened and is still awaited.

No, it’s definitely been implemented - the hearing you’re referring to was 20th May, the hearing when the reduction was applied was 26th May.

 

Edited Thursday at 10:15 by wilsdenrover

[RevidgeBlue]

2 minutes ago, wilsdenrover said:

No, it’s definitely been implemented - order dated 26th May.

Agreed.

Aren't the further hearings that are scheduled if they ever get heard) to discuss whether the need for a guarantee can be removed altogether?

[wilsdenrover]

8 minutes ago, RevidgeBlue said:

Agreed.

Aren't the further hearings that are scheduled if they ever get heard) to discuss whether the need for a guarantee can be removed altogether?

The other hearing currently pending (5th August) is a continuation of the original case - this is Venkys wanting to be able to send funds with no conditions whatsoever*

Last month’s case was a separate (albeit clearly linked) appeal looking for the removal of the guarantee condition only.

* other conditions are such things as the club’s auditors providing  an end use certificate within three days of the remittance being received (ie confirming the monies will be used for the requested purpose only).

Edited Thursday at 10:23 by wilsdenrover

[RevidgeBlue]

4 minutes ago, wilsdenrover said:

The other hearing currently pending (5th August) is a continuation of the original case - this is Venkys wanting to be able to send funds with no conditions whatsoever*

Last month’s case was a separate (albeit clearly linked) appeal looking for the removal of the guarantee condition only.

* other conditions are such things as the club’s auditors providing  an end use certificate within three days of the remittance being received (ie confirming the monies will be used for the requested purpose only).

Ah I thought the purpose of last month's case was purely to be allowed to send over £4.85m.

With a by product of the hearing being that the "bond" was reduced to 50% on the basis that there'd previously been argument that 100% was too onerous etc.

[wilsdenrover]

10 hours ago, RevidgeBlue said:

Ah I thought the purpose of last month's case was purely to be allowed to send over £4.85m.

With a by product of the hearing being that the "bond" was reduced to 50% on the basis that there'd previously been argument that 100% was too onerous etc.

This next bit is speculation on my part (but I will show my workings 🧐)

If Venkys were willing to pay the 100% guarantee I don’t think they’d have needed to go to court re the £4.85 million.

I’m basing this on the fact they were given permission to send monies in March ‘24 without a judge ordering the authorities to allow this*

With all this in mind, whilst the May case included a request for funds to be sent, I think their main motivation for the appeal was the removal of the guarantee.

* I also have a slight recollection of a poster on here saying Pasha had confirmed a ‘deal had been done’.

I’m presuming that deal was along the lines of  ‘if you keep to the current court conditions we’ll give you permission’ 

I wouldn’t want to rely on that source though (Pasha, not whoever that poster was 😁).

 

 

Edited Thursday at 20:50 by wilsdenrover

[Upside Down]

9 hours ago, wilsdenrover said:

This next bit is speculation on my part (but I will show my workings 🧐)

If Venkys were willing to pay the 100% guarantee I don’t think they’d have needed to go to court re the £4.85 million.

I’m basing this on the fact they were given permission to send monies in March ‘24 without a judge ordering the authorities to allow this*

With all this in mind, whilst the May case included a request for funds to be sent, I think their main motivation for the appeal was the removal of the guarantee.

* I also have a slight recollection of a poster on here saying Pasha had confirmed a ‘deal had been done’.

I’m presuming that deal was along the lines of  ‘if you keep to the current court conditions well give you permission’ 

I wouldn’t want to rely on that source though (Pasha, not whoever that poster was 😁).

 

 

My understanding of the situation:

Law requires NOC from ED to send funds due to venkys being under investigation 

ED rejectes venkys application for NOC

Venkys go to court to challenge the decision 

Judge rules on a compromise whereby certain criteria are met for the granting of a NOC (100% guarantee, end user certificate etc)

Venkys start new case challenging the bond

It is agreed to reduce the amount to 50%

 

[wilsdenrover]

14 minutes ago, Upside Down said:

My understanding of the situation:

Law requires NOC from ED to send funds due to venkys being under investigation ✔️

ED rejectes venkys application for NOC✔️

Venkys go to court to challenge the decision ✔️

Judge rules on a compromise whereby certain criteria are met for the granting of a NOC (100% guarantee, end user certificate etc)✔️

Venkys start new case challenging the bond✔️

It is agreed to reduce the amount to 50%✔️

 I feel like a teacher 😁 (have a gold star ⭐️😁) 

 

 

[lraC]

2 hours ago, wilsdenrover said:

 

At least there is no impediment. 😂 

[RevidgeBlue]

On 13/06/2025 at 00:28, lraC said:

At least there is no impediment. 😂 

Arguing about semantics and the definition of "impediment" really but I'd still maintain in reality there isn't because there's nothing whatsoever to prevent them from complying with those conditions if they WANT to. 

[Tomphil2]

Apart from giving an Indian govt dept who doesn't want them sending ANY money abroad millions and millions they might never see again, before a rupee has landed at the club itself.

I have a grain of understanding the reluctance on that but zero sympathy as it's another self created problem that is dragging the club down....again.

Billionaires, huge business, many whizz kid accountants and solicitors you'd expect now after about 4 yrs since they knew this was coming they'd have found a way around it or accepted the untenable situation and sold (or tried) to sell the club.

However what advice and information have they had from this end in the SwagHail era ?

'Oh don't worry we have players to sell, costs to cut and then can grow more to sell from the academy under the right head coach.'

In other words leave it to us we'll be fine but we really want to cling onto our jobs and gravy train which we know would end as soon as you sold it !

[lraC]

2 hours ago, RevidgeBlue said:

Arguing about semantics and the definition of "impediment" really but I'd still maintain in reality there isn't because there's nothing whatsoever to prevent them from complying with those conditions if they WANT to. 

I agree.

The impediments in place, don’t prevent them from sending funds, but whether it’s semantics or not, there are impediments and that’s a fact.

[Gamst]

46 minutes ago, lraC said:

I agree.

The impediments in place, don’t prevent them from sending funds, but whether it’s semantics or not, there are impediments and that’s a fact.

The only reason they don’t invest is by choice and not by impediment. Their wealth means they can easily afford to support the club with modest investment (eg a couple of decent signings and new contracts for our better players). If they don’t have the desire to properly fund the club then they need to sell up. It all makes zero sense. 

[phili]

The guarantee is in place due to the ED not wanting Venkys transfering all their cash overseas and not being able to pay the fine. 

They have already had $7m of property assets seized in India to pay for the investigation into them. I am pretty sure if they lose the case any guarantee funds they have placed with the ED already will be lost to pay part of the fine.

[wilsdenrover]

2 hours ago, phili said:

The guarantee is in place due to the ED not wanting Venkys transfering all their cash overseas and not being able to pay the fine. 

They have already had $7m of property assets seized in India to pay for the investigation into them. I am pretty sure if they lose the case any guarantee funds they have placed with the ED already will be lost to pay part of the fine.

I’d quite like them being unable to pay the fine as then a jail term comes into play. 

[Exiled_Rover]

3 hours ago, phili said:

The guarantee is in place due to the ED not wanting Venkys transfering all their cash overseas and not being able to pay the fine. 

They have already had $7m of property assets seized in India to pay for the investigation into them. I am pretty sure if they lose the case any guarantee funds they have placed with the ED already will be lost to pay part of the fine.

They clearly KNOW they're going to lose the case, which is why they're so reluctant to put any money into the bond with the government.

[Exiled_Rover]

59 minutes ago, wilsdenrover said:

I’d quite like them being unable to pay the fine as then a jail term comes into play. 

It'll obviously never come to that - this is change found between the cushions of the sofa for them - but again it does beg the question with all of this going on why are they hanging onto a very public PR disaster? 

Surely they'd sell and batten down the hatches?

[Leonard Venkhater]

3 hours ago, wilsdenrover said:

I’d quite like them being unable to pay the fine as then a jail term comes into play. 

Well, I'd want the judge to be donning the proverbial black cap!