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

[Forever Blue]

So there’s still no impediment, just a choice about if/when they send money. 

[lraC]

39 minutes ago, Forever Blue said:

So there’s still no impediment, just a choice about if/when they send money. 

I really don't think you understand the meaning of the word impediment.

If they could send funds with no, affidavit, no bond and no court permission, they there would be no impediment, but all 3 of these exists.

They can send funds, so long as these 3 conditions (Impediments) are met.

[Tomphil2]

Previous to the court case they sent money when it was needed or when they felt like it but now they have to ask first and follow a set of rules laid out by the court, if they don't then they can't.

Therefore there is an impediment.

[wilsdenrover]

Just in case anyone is interested (oh and hello Elliott 🙋‍♂️😁)

During the course of the court proceedings the Venkys attorney has filed 5 affidavits.

The first was on the 20th June 2023 and I believe was in relation to them setting out their initial case for funds to be sent.

The second was on the 15th November 2023 - 15 days after a court order gave them permission to send £11 million (subject, amongst other things, to such an affidavit being lodged confirming the intended use of the funds)

The third was on the 2nd January 2024 - I cannot explain this one.

The fourth was on the 11th March 2024 - just one day before a No Objection Certificate was issued (without a court date but presumably in light of the Venkys meeting the court’s conditions, including the filing of an affidavit).

The final one was on the 16th June - 21 days after the court agreed to funds being sent with the bond reduced (but the affidavit requirement remaining).

Anyone still reading??😁

In relation  to the allotting of shares with regards to these monies…

The first sum authorised by the court (before the requirement to file an affidavit was added) was £3.54 million on the 23rd June 2023.

On 14th October 2024 £3.685 million of shares were allotted in Venkateshwara London a limited (the company which owns the training ground).

The second sum authorised by the court was on 31st October 2023 for £11 Million.

On the 19th March 2024 £11 million of shares were allotted in Venkys London Limited.

I believe, but clearly can’t be certain, these two payments and share allotments are related.

That would leave the £15 million from March 2024 and the more recent £4.85 million to be turned into shares at some stage**

** or perhaps it could be left as a debt owed by Venkys London to Venkys Hatcheries but I consider this unlikely.

Well done to anyone who got this far 😁😁- I’m more than happy for people to point out where any assumptions I’ve made are (or could be) incorrect.

 

 

 

Edited 2 hours ago by wilsdenrover

[wilsdenrover]

1 hour ago, Forever Blue said:

So there’s still no impediment, just a choice about if/when they send money. 

 

46 minutes ago, lraC said:

I really don't think you understand the meaning of the word impediment.

If they could send funds with no, affidavit, no bond and no court permission, they there would be no impediment, but all 3 of these exists.

They can send funds, so long as these 3 conditions (Impediments) are met.

I can see where @Forever Blue is coming from with this because, whilst there are restrictions, it is not outside of Venky’s’ control to meet them.

Yes they’ve hoops to jump through but it is entirely within their hands as to whether they do so or not.

Re the court permission, for reasons I’ve set out before, I don’t think they need this anymore unless they’re wanting to try and get the conditions changed as well.

Edited 2 hours ago by wilsdenrover

[lraC]

3 minutes ago, wilsdenrover said:

 

I can see where @Forever Blue is coming from with this because, whilst there are restrictions, it is not outside of Venky’s’ control to meet them.

Yes they’ve hoops to jump through but it is entirely within their hands as to whether they do so or not.

Re the court permission, for reasons I’ve set out before, I don’t think they need this anymore unless they’re wanting the conditions that let them do so to be changed. 

I can see where he is coming from too, but as most posters know, impediment is just another word for conditions and as most also know there are conditions to be met. Yes they can meet them and send the funds, but it does not mean that they don’t exist. 

[lraC]

23 minutes ago, wilsdenrover said:

Just in case anyone is interested (oh and hello Elliott 🙋‍♂️😁)

During the course of the court proceedings the Venkys attorney has filed 5 affidavits.

The first was on the 20th June 2023 and I believe was in relation to them setting out their initial case for funds to be sent.

The second was on the 15th November 2023 - 15 days after a court order gave them permission to send £11 million (subject, amongst other things, to such an affidavit being lodged confirming the intended use of the funds)

The third was on the 2nd January 2024 - I cannot explain this one.

The fourth was on the 11th March 2024 - just one day before a No Objection Certificate was issued (without a court date but presumably in light of the Venkys meeting the court’s conditions, including the filing of an affidavit).

The final one was on the 16th June - 21 days after the court agreed to funds being sent with the bond reduced (but the affidavit requirement remaining).

Anyone still reading??😁

In relation  to the allotting on shares with regards to these monies…

The first sum authorised by the court (before the requirement to file an affidavit was added) was £3.54 million on the 23rd June 2023.

On 14th October 2024 £3.685 million of shares were allotted in Venkateshwara London a limited (the company which owns the training ground).

The second sum authorised by the court was on 31st October 2023 for £11 Million.

On the 19th March 2024 £11 million of shares were allotted in Venkys London Limited.

I believe, but clearly can’t be certain, these two payments and share allotments are related.

That would leave the £15 million from March 2024 and the more recent £4.85 million to be turned into shares at some stage**

** or perhaps it could be left as a debt owed by Venkys London to Venkys Hatcheries but I consider this unlikely.

Well done to anyone who got this far 😁😁- I’m more than happy for people to point out where any assumptions I’ve made are (or could be) incorrect.

 

 

 

Not hard to read. It’s a well articulated post and thanks for making it.

[wilsdenrover]

3 minutes ago, lraC said:

I can see where he is coming from too, but as most posters know, impediment is just another word for conditions and as most also know there are conditions to be met. Yes they can meet them and send the funds, but it does not mean that they don’t exist. 

It’s all semantics really isn’t it.

I think the important thing is they shouldn’t be allowed to use these hindrances as an excuse for not funding the club properly.

Yes, as you say, they exist, but no they do not prevent them from fulfilling their obligations to the club.

If they don’t want to do this properly they should just fuck off.

[TugaysMarlboro]

Whichever side of the fence you sit on, the outcome is no investment in the squad from the owners. I think we can universally agree on that.

[lraC]

8 minutes ago, wilsdenrover said:

It’s all semantics really isn’t it.

I think the important thing is they shouldn’t be allowed to use these hindrances as an excuse for not funding the club properly.

Yes, as you say, they exist, but no they do not prevent them from fulfilling their obligations to the club.

If they don’t want to do this properly they should just fuck off.

Absolutely 

[Forever Blue]

1 hour ago, lraC said:

I really don't think you understand the meaning of the word impediment.

If they could send funds with no, affidavit, no bond and no court permission, they there would be no impediment, but all 3 of these exists.

They can send funds, so long as these 3 conditions (Impediments) are met.

There’s an irony in you telling me that I don’t know what an impediment is, then telling me it’s a ‘condition’🥹 

An impediment is a serious obstruction to doing something. That’s a literal definition. There is no serious obstruction to Venky’s sending Rovers money, just a choice. 
 

So when Waggott said there were no impediments, he was right. There are just ‘conditions’ that Venky’s have to agree to, which are in no way onerous. 
 

So as I’ve always said, it is Venkys choice whether they send the money. There is no impediment, legal or otherwise. 

[Forever Blue]

59 minutes ago, wilsdenrover said:

It’s all semantics really isn’t it.

I think the important thing is they shouldn’t be allowed to use these hindrances as an excuse for not funding the club properly.

Yes, as you say, they exist, but no they do not prevent them from fulfilling their obligations to the club.

If they don’t want to do this properly they should just fuck off.

Absolutely it is semantics,  but for some reason it’s an obsession for IraC. This thread is littered with him trying to score points on the back of that word. It’s strange behaviour, not least because saying there’s a genuine impediment gives Venky’s an excuse for not funding the club and instead selling all the best players to keep the lights on. 
 

Very odd.