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

[DeeCee]

1 hour ago, rigger said:

Most of Devon, and imagine if the Cornish folk started to go.

Big following from the Duchy, probably up to 1,000.  3,000 on the waiting list for Argyle season tickets.

[bluebruce]

On 16/06/2025 at 19:03, JHRover said:

at the very best we tread water under a zombie administration making a competent job of whatever resources they chuck our way

I must have missed that part...

[wilsdenrover]

1 hour ago, bluebruce said:

I must have missed that part...

Perhaps you blinked.

[wilsdenrover]

One of the conditions of Venkys being able to send money over is an Affidavit (regarding the use of the funds) must be filed with the court within one working day of the funds being remitted.

An affidavit was filed  on the 16th June…

[wilsdenrover]

Just to add to my previous post.

This means it took Venkys three weeks from being given permission to send the £4.85 million to actually doing so.

I’m starting to suspect we’re not a priority… 

 

[paullarrygher]

Where can you see the Affidavit was submitted?

[wilsdenrover]

2 minutes ago, paullarrygher said:

Where can you see the Affidavit was submitted?

On the Delhi high court website…

Select case history then case wise.

Enter required info (w.p.(c) 7966 2023).

Select filing details. 

 

[lraC]

6 hours ago, wilsdenrover said:

One of the conditions of Venkys being able to send money over is an Affidavit (regarding the use of the funds) must be filed with the court within one working day of the funds being remitted.

An affidavit was filed  on the 16th June…

At least there is no impediment.

[JBiz]

10 hours ago, wilsdenrover said:

On the Delhi high court website…

Select case history then case wise.

Enter required info (w.p.(c) 7966 2023).

Select filing details. 

 

Is this a coincidence or do you think this is them putting the money in for tavares?

[MarkBRFC]

6 minutes ago, JBiz said:

Is this a coincidence or do you think this is them putting the money in for tavares?

I'm pretty sure they can't use that money for any transfers.

Think whatever they send has to be documented, like x amount for wages etc

[roverblue]

At least they have finally sent some money, we must have been close to not paying wages to get them to finally act.

[Tomphil2]

This will just be money or part of it that was requested months ago for running costs, most likely to pay down the overdraft on whats already been spent.

That's all they are allowed to send otherwise there wouldn't be a court case or restrictions.

Edited 12 hours ago by Tomphil2

[wilsdenrover]

34 minutes ago, JBiz said:

Is this a coincidence or do you think this is them putting the money in for tavares?

As Mark says the money has to be spent on exactly the things they requested it for - this was to fulfill statutory and contractual obligations for March - June.

Any fees we pay will have to be from self generated income - although clearly them being able to send monies over means funds earmarked for transfers don’t need diverting to pay wages etc instead. 

 

 

Edited 12 hours ago by wilsdenrover

[wilsdenrover]

2 minutes ago, Tomphil2 said:

This will just be money or part of it that was requested months ago for running costs, most likely to pay down the overdraft on whats already been spent.

That's all they are allowed to send otherwise there wouldn't be a court case or restrictions.

I’m assuming they’ve sent all of it on the basis I’m not sure how happy the court would be with Venkys insisting a sum needs sending but then remitting a lower figure.

It is only an assumption though.

[wilsdenrover]

I noticed one other thing yesterday.

An affidavit was also lodged in March 2024, another occasion on when funds were sent over (but where there was no additional court hearing)

This would seem to support the theory they’ve done a deal which allows them to send funds subject to the existing court conditions (but without the need for a further court hearing).

On this basis, I maintain (rightly or wrongly!) they only returned to court last month to try and vary those conditions (specifically seeking the removal of the guarantee).

In other words, they could have sent the money to the club when it was requested in March but chose to go back to court instead. 

 

[lraC]

18 minutes ago, wilsdenrover said:

I noticed one other thing yesterday.

An affidavit was also lodged in March 2024, another occasion on when funds were sent over (but where there was no additional court hearing)

This would seem to support the theory they’ve done a deal which allows them to send funds subject to the existing court conditions (but without the need for a further court hearing).

On this basis, I maintain (rightly or wrongly!) they only returned to court last month to try and vary those conditions (specifically seeking the removal of the guarantee).

In other words, they could have sent the money to the club when it was requested in March but chose to go back to court instead. 

 

I guess getting the need for a bond is paramount and given the reduction to 50% it was a tactic that worked. Whether they go back and try again, in the hope that they can get all impediments removed, remains to be seen.

A better option, would be to admit defeat and sell the club, of course. 

[SIMON GARNERS 194]

What a way to run a football Club,hamstrung by our own billionaire so-called Owners.

PLEASE PUT THE CLUB UP FOR SALE FFS!!

 

Edited 8 hours ago by SIMON GARNERS 194

[Rogerb]

In march 2024 £11 million reached the accounts of Venkys London limited NONE of that appears to have reached the accounts of Blackburn Rovers. It remains to be seen if this latest tranch of money follows a similar route. The club's accounts year end 30 June 2024 page 9 talk about permission to send £15 million to VLL agreed 12 march 2024 subject to certain conditions being met which could then be sent on to the club. The wording suggests at the time of preparing these accounts that hadn't happened bear in mind the accounts were signed off in December 2024

Edited 9 hours ago by Rogerb
Additional text

[wilsdenrover]

17 minutes ago, Rogerb said:

In march 2024 £11 million reached the accounts of Venkys London limited NONE of that appears to have reached the accounts of Blackburn Rovers. It remains to be seen if this latest tranch of money follows a similar route.

I think it may have done as the amount owed to the parent undertaking increased by almost that exact amount (£10,919,918) in the year ending 30/6/24 accounts.

You do have to wonder how the club made a profit but ended up owing more to the Venkys mind…

[Rogerb]

9 minutes ago, wilsdenrover said:

I think it may have done as the amount owed to the parent undertaking increased by almost that exact amount (£10,919,918) in the year ending 30/6/24 accounts.

You do have to wonder how the club made a profit but ended up owing more to the Venkys mind…

Thought they did this by an allotment of shares each time they sent money to the club. 28 June 2023 £21.665,000 was put in by an allotment of shares. With transfer income from January 2024 sales crazy they needed another 11 million by March

Edited 9 hours ago by Rogerb

[wilsdenrover]

3 minutes ago, Rogerb said:

Thought they did this by an allotment of shares each time they sent money to the club.

With this money they allotted shares in Venkys London Ltd, on the previous occasion they allotted shares in Venkateshwara London Ltd.

As to why they’ve stopped creating equity in BRFC and have instead chosen to add more to what the club owes the holding company 🤷‍♂️🤷‍♂️

[Crimpshrine]

16 hours ago, wilsdenrover said:

One of the conditions of Venkys being able to send money over is an Affidavit (regarding the use of the funds) must be filed with the court within one working day of the funds being remitted.

An affidavit was filed  on the 16th June…

Can we be certain that the affidavit is related to a payment ? Nothing showing on companies house regarding a new share allotment.

There are other affidavits listed against the case which don't coincide with payments and some that do.

[wilsdenrover]

I think so, there’s only one affidavit listed** which isn’t related to when we know a payment was authorised (whether with or without a court order).

I think it’s reasonable to assume the other one was related to a payment, whether one we’ve not heard of or where, for some reason, they sent the money in two tranches.***

In addition to this, I can’t see anything in any of the orders which requires one filing for any other reason.

** after the date at which filing one became a condition of sending funds (31/10/23)

*** having looked again I’m not so certain in this, but still believe the June affidavit relates to the £4.85 payment being sent - I’m going out now but will explain  my logic later on. (if anyone’s interested! 😁)

Edited 8 hours ago by wilsdenrover

[BlackburnEnd75]

Interesting that this conversation happens and within an hour there is an article containing similar information in the LET.

Proof that Jackson is a frequent reader of the forums?

[toogs]

31 minutes ago, BlackburnEnd75 said:

Interesting that this conversation happens and within an hour there is an article containing similar information in the LET.

Proof that Jackson is a frequent reader of the forums?

Wilsden deserves some royalties!