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

[lraC]

5 hours ago, Upside Down said:

Well it shows every major event that happened since 2021. It's designed to be a resource for people who want to understand what has been happening. It took a lot of time and effort to put together and required reading and re reading court and legal documents hence the reason I have a decent understanding of the situation.

I wasn't personally feeding you a length btw. However, since comprehension of the English language is not something you appear to be particularly adept at I'm not surprised that you've misunderstood what I was saying.

Incredible after all the effort that you put into doing that, how disrespectful that is. 

[RevidgeBlue]

10 hours ago, Upside Down said:

I'm happy to let forever blue and rev die on that hill.

They got taken for mugs by believing the words put out by waggot and the club and aren't man enough to concede their position.

I'm wondering if this ongoing court case is actually in relation to the first attempt to send over ~£20million that they were initially denied by the ED. So far it's been circa £3.6, £11.8 and now £4.5 million that's been sent over, all with full receipts for where it went.

Could it be that the other £15 million was deemed a separate item and they simply met the conditions imposed by the courts and ED? This came right after the house was sold also.

I didn't get "taken for mugs" about anything.

People can argue until the cows come home whether the conditions imposed by the Court are an "impediment" or not.

Either way, the owners haven't been sending over like they used to, but clearly they can if they want, because they've just sent £4.85 million over. So to the extent that they haven't been sending money, it's because they CHOOSE not to, not because the Court has said they can't.

That to me is far worse than them wanting to send money but being unfairly blocked by the Court from doing so.

As the most vociferous critics of Venkys, I'm surprised you and Ira persist with this fixation about "there's no impediment" then. First of all there clearly isn't in real terms, as money has now been sent over several times.

But more importantly, if there was a genuine impediment to them funding us, then that's the kind of thing that those who are mildly sympathetic to them (such as the buffoons/plants on the Club website) latch on to as an excuse to feel sorry for them.

Edited yesterday at 06:49 by RevidgeBlue

[lraC]

9 minutes ago, RevidgeBlue said:

I didn't get "taken for mugs" about anything.

People can argue until the cows come home whether the conditions imposed by the Court are an "impediment" or not.

Either way, the owners haven't been sending over like they used to, but clearly they can if they want, because they've just sent £4.85 million over. So to the extent that they haven't been sending money, it's because they CHOOSE not to, not because the Court has said they can't.

That to me is far worse than them wanting to send money but being unfairly blocked by the Court from doing so.

As the most vociferous critics of Venkys, I'm surprised you and Ira persist with this fixation about "there's no impediment" then. First of all there clearly isn't in real terms, as money has now been sent over several times.

But more importantly, if there was a genuine impediment to them funding us, then that's the kind of thing that those who are mildly sympathetic to them (such as the buffoons/plants on the Club website) latch on to as an excuse to feel sorry for them.

Believe me, when I say, I am an extremely fierce critic of the regime and have no desire to defend them for not sending funds.

It is complete of their own doing that the restrictions have been put in place, namely the NOC, Bond, permission from the court and now apparently the need for an affidavit and I am not for one second excusing them for not sending funds, I am 100% critical of the mess that they have created that has brought about these impediments, restrictions, barriers, or whatever else, we choose to call them

Thankfully, they have been able to comply with them and still send funds and I am hopeful that these remaining in place, leads them to think twice about their ownership and in turn, makes them realise that carrying on, is futile and they agree to sell the club. 

[RevidgeBlue]

9 hours ago, wilsdenrover said:

It would appear that the Venkys and the Directorate of Endorcement have done a deal where the DE will issue the no objection certificate so long as the Venkys meet all the conditions previously imposed by the court.

Whether this deal (assuming it exists - I’m basing this on the certificate which was issued March ‘24 without a court case) includes the DE okaying funds being sent for transfers is anyone’s guess (although I believe most would think not).

If it does, then yes, this would include Venkys having to give the £2.5 million (in your example) to the ED  by way of a guarantee. 

 

Again, maybe the owners never specifically asked the Court for transfer funding as actually they felt all this was quite a convenient excuse for them not having to send as much over as previously and were rather scared the Court might say "Yes"?

Hence just create the impression that funding for transfers would not be allowed.

Either way we're not being funded properly so the situation is completely unsatisfactory whichever way up you look at it. 

It's just a subjective matter of opinion as to which interpretation of events is the worst look. Whether Waggott got told telling a white lie and they can't fund us properly (Upside Down and Ira) or whether there's nothing actually stopping them funding us but they just dont want to. (Me and FB).

[RevidgeBlue]

5 minutes ago, lraC said:

Believe me, when I say, I am an extremely fierce critic of the regime and have no desire to defend them for not sending funds.

It is complete of their own doing that the restrictions have been put in place, namely the NOC, Bond, permission from the court and now apparently the need for an affidavit and I am not for one second excusing them for not sending funds, I am 100% critical of the mess that they have created that has brought about these impediments, restrictions, barriers, or whatever else, we choose to call them

Thankfully, they have been able to comply with them and still send funds and I am hopeful that these remaining in place, leads them to think twice about their ownership and in turn, makes them realise that carrying on, is futile and they agree to sell the club. 

I know you're one of their fiercest critics which is why I'm suggesting dont give them any means, no matter how tenuous, by which some people might think they're being slightly hard done to.

The conditions haven't prompted a sale so far, but that was with a Szmodics and Adam Wharton and Raya sell on fee tucked up their sleeve as insurance. The cupboard is practically bare now and the tipping point may arrive after Carter is sold and Brittain/Travis/Tronstad either walk out for nothing or depart for nominal fees due to their contractual situations.

[lraC]

5 minutes ago, RevidgeBlue said:

I know you're one of their fiercest critics which is why I'm suggesting dont give them any means, no matter how tenuous, by which some people might think they're being slightly hard done to.

The conditions haven't prompted a sale so far, but that was with a Szmodics and Adam Wharton and Raya sell on fee tucked up their sleeve as insurance. The cupboard is practically bare now and the tipping point may arrive after Carter is sold and Brittain/Travis/Tronstad either walk out for nothing or depart for nominal fees due to their contractual situations.

I am genuinely not giving them any means. These conversations about the impediments have come about, due to my interpretation of what that word means and what other peoples is.

I am not for one minute excusing them for not sending funds, quite the opposite. In my view to end up in this position through gross miss management and through manipulating, and miss representing, what funds being sent, for the benefit of the football club, were really used for.

I would rather putt his conversation to bed and accept that some people understand the word in a different way than I do, which I am fine with and carry on, perhaps with my little bit if input in raising ideas and posting my thoughts, on how we rid ourselves, of these people.

Matter closed, so far as I am concerned. 

[RevidgeBlue]

3 minutes ago, lraC said:

Matter closed, so far as I am concerned. 

Apologies if it came across as a pop at you, it wasn't you who was being objectionable about it.

[Wheelton Blue]

Ultimately, we should simply judge them on how well they run the club both on and off the pitch.

And we all know the answer to that.

[lraC]

9 minutes ago, RevidgeBlue said:

Apologies if it came across as a pop at you, it wasn't you who was being objectionable about it.

No problem at all.

I am all for healthy debate and let's face it, most on here have the same goal.

It would be a boring place, if we all had the same views and opinions. 

[Mattyblue]

This thread is classic brfcs, page after page over semantics and dictionary definitions.

End of the day would a committed owner that wanted the best for Blackburn Rovers work within the judicial framework they’ve been placed in and still properly fund the club? Yes, but as they don’t want the best for Blackburn Rovers, they won’t, but at least now they have legalities to hide behind.

[RevidgeBlue]

3 minutes ago, Mattyblue said:

This thread is classic brfcs, page after page over semantics and dictionary definitions.

End of the day would a committed owner that wanted the best for Blackburn Rovers work within the judicial framework they’ve been placed in and still properly fund the club? Yes, but as they don’t want the best for Blackburn Rovers, they won’t, but at least now they have legalities to hide behind.

You've pretty much nailed it there.

Yes, they shouldn't have got themselves in the position they have with the Indian Authorities in the first place, but they have the wherewithal to work round it and SHOULD have the willingness to do so as well.

[wilsdenrover]

1 hour ago, RevidgeBlue said:

Again, maybe the owners never specifically asked the Court for transfer funding as actually they felt all this was quite a convenient excuse for them not having to send as much over as previously and were rather scared the Court might say "Yes"?

Hence just create the impression that funding for transfers would not be allowed.

Either way we're not being funded properly so the situation is completely unsatisfactory whichever way up you look at it. 

It's just a subjective matter of opinion as to which interpretation of events is the worst look. Whether Waggott got told telling a white lie and they can't fund us properly (Upside Down and Ira) or whether there's nothing actually stopping them funding us but they just dont want to. (Me and FB).

Of course we can’t know this but it certainly sounds like a plausible Venkys’ “ not our fault guv” tactic.

Everything appears (to me at least) as if they’re doing the bare minimum, and even then reluctantly so and at the last possible moment (before the shit hits the fan).

As is often asked on this and other threads, why won’t they sell the club??

[Tomphil2]

If there is one thing this ownership has proved very good at it's the smoke and mirrors tactics.

[wilsdenrover]

1 minute ago, Tomphil2 said:

If there is one thing this ownership has proved very good at it's the smoke and mirrors tactics.

Exactly, you can see this within the structure (I use that word loosely!)  they’ve developed (multiple heads of etc).

It makes it difficult to nail down who is to blame for any single mistake and makes it easy to be distracted from the fact everything is ultimately their fault.

[JHRover]

Plus the conveyor belt of boardroom, management and coaching staff - again a direct result of their poor recruitment, negligence, cost cuts, lies and lack of ambition - enables them to continually hide behind a 'new era' as each new manager/CEO/Head of can come along and ask for a clean slate, forget about the past, nothing to do with me, lessons have been learned and the cycle starts all over again. 

[StubbsUK]

It shouldn’t be forgotten that the reason the owners have conditions on sending money is because they broke the law, it’s a situation entirely of their own making.

[wilsdenrover]

21 minutes ago, JHRover said:

Plus the conveyor belt of boardroom, management and coaching staff - again a direct result of their poor recruitment, negligence, cost cuts, lies and lack of ambition - enables them to continually hide behind a 'new era' as each new manager/CEO/Head of can come along and ask for a clean slate, forget about the past, nothing to do with me, lessons have been learned and the cycle starts all over again. 

Unfortunately some people fall for this.

 

Edited yesterday at 09:50 by wilsdenrover

[Tomphil2]

A lot of people fall for it just read some of the comments on social media after the ever late to the party LT did a piece on the latest money transfer.....

'Backing the club as always see'

'Bust tomorrow without them'

'Moan when they don't send money, moan when they do'

etc etc

I know a lot are plants and bots but a lot aren't they are just so totally out of touch with what goes on beyond the bits that make media.

[Upside Down]

17 hours ago, lraC said:

Incredible after all the effort that you put into doing that, how disrespectful that is. 

Water off a duck's back. 

I like that the point I made in my initial post has been proven by subsequent posts by the two in question.

It was a lot of work putting that together, the only reason I haven't kept it up to date is that I haven't got the time. I had to read all of that stuff a few times to get my head around it, @wilsdenrover has a far better grasp of that stuff than I do and was a huge help for which I am grateful.

When you look at the facts of the situation you can clearly see that they can't just send money willy nilly like they used to. The amounts they have been given permission to send have been minimal and there's been a bit of a fight to be able to send it.

It's amazing the levels of double think that goes on with the organisation. Can't send money over due to the investigation yet simultaneously claiming that there's no issues with sending money.

Why anyone would believe a word that comes from them is beyond me.

[phili]

14 hours ago, RevidgeBlue said:

Again, maybe the owners never specifically asked the Court for transfer funding as actually they felt all this was quite a convenient excuse for them not having to send as much over as previously and were rather scared the Court might say "Yes"?

In the original case Venkys asked for permission to send funds for transfers and the judge declined, saying the courts would only permit the sending of essential funds to maintain their investment. This is why they have to send a detailed audit of what invoices the funds are being used for, to ensure no funds are used for anything other than essential funding to ensure the business does not go bust.

[Tomphil2]

Which is to be expected as if you are under suspicion of what they were/are and being investigated they aren't going to allow millions to leave the country and go to agents and other British or worldwide football clubs.

Stands to reason really.

[wilsdenrover]

13 minutes ago, phili said:

In the original case Venkys asked for permission to send funds for transfers and the judge declined, saying the courts would only permit the sending of essential funds to maintain their investment. This is why they have to send a detailed audit of what invoices the funds are being used for, to ensure no funds are used for anything other than essential funding to ensure the business does not go bust.

Can I ask where you’ve got that from as I can’t see any reference to requesting funds for transfers ( or the judge rejecting the same) in the original order.

Just to add, the only condition for the first payment was the guarantee - the other conditions were added later.

Edited 17 hours ago by wilsdenrover

[Upside Down]

2 minutes ago, wilsdenrover said:

Can I ask where you’ve got that from as I can’t see any reference to requesting funds for transfers ( or the judge rejecting the same) in the original order.

I think he may be referring to the initial request for 26 million.

As we all know, not much if any would have gone towards transfers.

It's interesting though that it went from 26 million to just under 4 to pay the bills. It definitely begs the question of what were they doing with all that money and where was it going because as we're all well aware, they weren't shelling out for loads of new players or stadium upgrades. 

I think a large part of their failures is simply down to them bing thick, arrogant and lazy, but you'd be foolish to say there's nothing dodgy been going on.

[wilsdenrover]

9 minutes ago, Upside Down said:

I think he may be referring to the initial request for 26 million.

As we all know, not much if any would have gone towards transfers.

It's interesting though that it went from 26 million to just under 4 to pay the bills. It definitely begs the question of what were they doing with all that money and where was it going because as we're all well aware, they weren't shelling out for loads of new players or stadium upgrades. 

I think a large part of their failures is simply down to them bing thick, arrogant and lazy, but you'd be foolish to say there's nothing dodgy been going on.

Maybe, but that only mentioned ‘financial commitments’ - there was no reference to transfer funds (or anything else for that matter ).

The £26 million was what they wanted to be able to send to which the DoE objected (hearing of 7/6/23)

The £3.54 million was the sum they said was needed to prevent HMRC issuing a winding up order. (hearing of 23/6/23) 

As an interim measure, the judge (in trying to balance the two sides) allowed this lower sum to be remitted. 

Edited 17 hours ago by wilsdenrover

[Upside Down]

1 hour ago, wilsdenrover said:

Maybe, but that only mentioned ‘financial commitments’ - there was no reference to transfer funds (or anything else for that matter ).

The £26 million was what they wanted to be able to send to which the DoE objected (hearing of 7/6/23)

The £3.54 million was the sum they said was needed to prevent HMRC issuing a winding up order. (hearing of 23/6/23) 

As an interim measure, the judge (in trying to balance the two sides) allowed this lower sum to be remitted. 

Definitely begs the question of what was the other 22 million for?

We've managed to survive the last few years on less than 20 million total so how were they needing to send 15 million a year? Where was it all going?