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

[Tomphil2]

22 minutes ago, den said:

Is the guarantee demanded in cash rather than just a written guarantee. Anyone know?

That would be the difference i suspect between bond and guarantee, one being actual funds held separate the other provided by their bank against something.

Nobody seems to know although i suppose it could be a combination of the two.

Either way and i'm not defending them here it's a difficult one because it either burdens the company with potential debt that it normally just loses in the books.  Or it ties up massive liquidity personal or otherwise, 10/20 million a time is a stretch for anyone if it's ongoing in that form.

[den]

12 minutes ago, Tomphil2 said:

That would be the difference i suspect between bond and guarantee, one being actual funds held separate the other provided by their bank against something.

Nobody seems to know although i suppose it could be a combination of the two.

Either way and i'm not defending them here it's a difficult one because it either burdens the company with potential debt that it normally just loses in the books.  Or it ties up massive liquidity personal or otherwise, 10/20 million a time is a stretch for anyone if it's ongoing in that form.

Thanks. Either way it just has to be a really big problem for them. More so when it goes on for year after year. When Waggott says it has no bearing on the financing of the club, he can’t possibly know that’s correct. Honesty with the (dwindling number) of fans doesn’t exist with this lot. If it’s a problem, say it is.

[lraC]

40 minutes ago, DutchRover said:

My point would be that that is still contradictory to Suhail and Waggott's statements as to there not being an impediment. If their legal appeal is that the guarantee is an impediment to funding the club then we as fans have a right to argue that as well, and therefore Suhail did lie when he said there is no impediment (technicalities notwithstanding). And the yearly accounts clearly show the drop of in funding as a consequence of the court case being brought against Venkys.

As to whether the removal of the guarantee would increase our funding, that also seems unlikely...
As I said above, they ought to be able to afford £40m a year to continue the alleged £20m funding and the matched £20m bond, unless they are in serious financial difficulty.

A clear and concise statement is required from the club, instead of the one that is current subject to interpretation.

Something along the lines of:

After todays court appeal, it has now been agreed that the bond required is 50% of the amount used to fund the club. The owners intend to fund £20m and are therefore prepared to out a £10m bond up to do so. This means the club can meet it's financial obligations and also have an amount to help ensure we have a squad, capable of challenging at the right end of the league.

Does that not seem far better than "There is no legal impediment in the owners funding the club? 

[wilsdenrover]

2 hours ago, RevidgeBlue said:

Come on, he's trying to get restrictions lifted altogether - he's hardly likely to argue in Court they aren't really a problem!

In reality there ISNT any real impediment to funding as it stands now - they merely have to cover monies sent with other funds which would merely affect their liquidity at the Bank a bit - but only if they're down to their last £20m or so.

My guessing is they still won't send any funds even if any and all restrictions are lifted.

Of course not, but why go to court at all if they aren’t a problem*

*Obviously they are a problem of Venkys own choosing because (as you say) they could just cover the monies without a second thought.

[lraC]

1 minute ago, wilsdenrover said:

Of course not, but why go to court at all if they aren’t a problem*

*Obviously they are a problem of Venkys own choosing because (as you say) they could just cover the monies without a second thought.

I suspect it has cost them to keep on making these appeals, so as you correctly say, why would they keep going back to court, paying the relevant fees and their lawyers, when there is no problem. Of course there is a problem, but they want certain people, including the fans, to accept that there isn't.

I wonder why?

[wilsdenrover]

1 hour ago, den said:

Is the guarantee demanded in cash rather than just a written guarantee. Anyone know?

The way the Venkys’ barrister worded things this morning gave the impression the guarantee monies are sent to the authorities.

He referred to ‘them’ having both the guarantee monies and the seized properties (and specified the sums involved for both)

It was almost a ‘what more do they want?’ moment.

 

Edited 4 hours ago by wilsdenrover

[wilsdenrover]

47 minutes ago, lraC said:

A clear and concise statement is required from the club, instead of the one that is current subject to interpretation.

Something along the lines of:

After todays court appeal, it has now been agreed that the bond required is 50% of the amount used to fund the club. The owners intend to fund £20m and are therefore prepared to out a £10m bond up to do so. This means the club can meet it's financial obligations and also have an amount to help ensure we have a squad, capable of challenging at the right end of the league.

Does that not seem far better than "There is no legal impediment in the owners funding the club? 

Just on this point.

I think I heard them discussing this option.

I’m certain the case was then (whatever the option under discussion was) the hearing was then adjourned for both sides to take client instructions. 

[lraC]

6 minutes ago, wilsdenrover said:

Just on this point.

I think I heard them discussing this option.

I’m certain the case was then (whatever the option under discussion was) the hearing was then adjourned for both sides to take client instructions. 

So more legal costs for an issue that is not causing them any problems?

They must think we are daft.

[wilsdenrover]

Just now, lraC said:

So more legal costs for an issue that is not causing them any problems?

They must think we are daft.

Some of us are.

[lraC]

16 minutes ago, wilsdenrover said:

The way the Venkys’ barrister worded things this morning gave the impression the guarantee monies are sent to the authorities.

He referred to ‘them’ having both the guarantee monies and the seized properties (and specified the sums involved for both)

It was almost a ‘what more do they want?’ moment.

 

Sounds like they must have been very naughty!!!

[DutchRover]

3 hours ago, Tomphil2 said:

I'd say it's because it then stands as a 200 million investment on the company portfolio that will guarantee a return when - IF- it ever reaches the Prem.

Even Venkys will have to answer to their own bankers etc occasionally and despite how it's run like on a whim the club is actually a company investment not a personal one.

Interesting, is there potentially a way to leverage the shareholders in the company against the mismanagement of the company asset/investment then? Or do Venkys own too many of the shares?

[DutchRover]

12 minutes ago, lraC said:

So more legal costs for an issue that is not causing them any problems?

They must think we are daft.

This is what makes me think that accounting wise they have set a very specific figure to fund the club through the loans, which they refuse to budge on, hence the guarantee manifestly impeding investment in the club. As to why they cannot/will not budge who knows...

[lraC]

1 minute ago, DutchRover said:

This is what makes me think that accounting wise they have set a very specific figure to fund the club through the loans, which they refuse to budge on, hence the guarantee manifestly impeding investment in the club. As to why they cannot/will not budge who knows...

That would still mean they could send some funds, but not nothing at all.

There is probably something hidden that we are not aware, where putting extra funds into a bond, is far riskier that we as fans think. 

[DutchRover]

1 minute ago, lraC said:

That would still mean they could send some funds, but not nothing at all.

There is probably something hidden that we are not aware, where putting extra funds into a bond, is far riskier that we as fans think. 

I mean the accounts show they sent across £5-10m at a few points since the court-case to keep the lights on so-to speak, but it is clear they have been unwilling to do so unless it endangered bankruptcy of day-to-day operations. Certainly they have not invested what Suhail/Waggot claim and almost none of it has gone to improving the club, facilities or players.

[bluebruce]

3 hours ago, lraC said:

It was always very cleverly worded by Waggott and as usual just a smokescreen, to yet again, hoodwink the fans into believe that everything is okay and the wonderful owners we have, will continue to fund us.

Some, of the fans, accepted the no impediment line, but some knew better and saw that there was one huge impediment and here we have it today, confirmed in court that we were yet again, lied to.

It wasn't cleverly worded, it was just a lie. An impediment isn't something that categorically prevents something, it is a hindrance, an obstacle, an encumberance.

To say there are no impediments was always a lie. To have to allocate twice as much money is definitely an obstacle. It can be crossed, but absolutely it impairs the ease with which money can be sent.

[funny-old-game]

5 hours ago, arbitro said:

The judge has just said "Right you bastards. Sell Blackburn Rovers, sack the imbeciles who run it, apologise to the fans of that club and be damned in hell for the suffering you have caused".

If only Carlsberg did Indian courts.

Bloody hell Tony, that's 2 bits of humour in 2 days!  Have you got a bird on the go 😉

[arbitro]

2 minutes ago, funny-old-game said:

Bloody hell Tony, that's 2 bits of humour in 2 days!  Have you got a bird on the go 😉

I prefer to call it Gallows Humour Tony 😂

[funny-old-game]

1 minute ago, arbitro said:

I prefer to call it Gallows Humour Tony 😂

Certainly feels like the slowest walk to the gallows this last 15yrs 🤮

[lraC]

19 minutes ago, bluebruce said:

It wasn't cleverly worded, it was just a lie. An impediment isn't something that categorically prevents something, it is a hindrance, an obstacle, an encumberance.

To say there are no impediments was always a lie. To have to allocate twice as much money is definitely an obstacle. It can be crossed, but absolutely it impairs the ease with which money can be sent.

I could be wrong, but I think the word legal was place there, to make it seem right. There is no legal impediment, but you are spot on and I have been a pains to state to other posters on here, that there is a huge impediment to them funding.

[wilsdenrover]

8 minutes ago, lraC said:

I could be wrong, but I think the word legal was place there, to make it seem right. There is no legal impediment, but you are spot on and I have been a pains to state to other posters on here, that there is a huge impediment to them funding.

https://www.rovers.co.uk/news/2024/january/27/club-statement/
 

https://www.rovers.co.uk/news/2024/march/18/club-statement--18-03-24-/

[lraC]

21 minutes ago, wilsdenrover said:

https://www.rovers.co.uk/news/2024/january/27/club-statement/
 

https://www.rovers.co.uk/news/2024/march/18/club-statement--18-03-24-/

Careful use of the word should, in the second one. 

I think a separate statement was made by Waggott with the no legal impediment line trotted out.

All in all, we have been fed a load of bull.

[JHRover]

My fingers remain tightly crossed that this is going to break them and their cruel grip on BRFC.

Either by them being found guilty of serious crimes once that investigation eventually completes, forcing them to relinquish control, or in the meantime by these clearly onerous requirements on funding preventing/discouraging them from keeping the show on the road.

As with the Oyston era at Blackpool the only way we are getting rid of this lot is with the help of higher authority. As long as things remain ongoing on that front I'll stay hopeful.

[Tomphil2]

3 hours ago, den said:

Thanks. Either way it just has to be a really big problem for them. More so when it goes on for year after year. When Waggott says it has no bearing on the financing of the club, he can’t possibly know that’s correct. Honesty with the (dwindling number) of fans doesn’t exist with this lot. If it’s a problem, say it is.

Aye that's my point really as although they are fabulously wealthy i think that wealth is overstated and is all assets combined.

The way they fund the club from what we see is the main VH group sends money for bills from its huge monthly turnover and the club via VLL just sits in the accounts somewhere soaking excess money up.

So to send 10/20 mill a year over with the same amount guarantees against the business or assets is then stacking up extra debt against it all.  Otherwise securing against personal money/assets if it goes on and on is tying huge amounts of money up and of course one wrong move or the govt decide to shaft them they'll keep the money or hold it forever, especially say if a full war breaks out over there.

We moan quite rightly because they are in danger of dragging Rovers down again after propping it up off the pitch for years but it really isn't a straight forward issue unless restrictions are lifted.

Even then i doubt previous levels of funding will ever be reinstated given their profit margins are now massively reduced due to price increase of raw materials. As you say though it's nothing like the slant SwagHail and the apprentice tea boy are putting on it and i suspect there are alarm bells on standby down there.

[Tomphil2]

2 hours ago, DutchRover said:

Interesting, is there potentially a way to leverage the shareholders in the company against the mismanagement of the company asset/investment then? Or do Venkys own too many of the shares?

Last time i looked at VH group there seemed quite a few shareholders although i presume the family are the biggest.

There were some heavy hitters on their board as well, retired army officials etc.

I doubt they've all been fully in favour of their company sending 15 million or more per year to a British company that provides nothing in return other than large tv exposure to the 'Venky' bit of the company.

One does wonder how all this came about in the first place, inside job ???

[Brian-Potter]

On the shareholder thing just need clarify the owenship structure. Assuming by shareholders you are referring to those of Venkys India Ltd which is a public company listed on the stock exchange in which VHPL own a large proportion of the shares. VHPL is 100% privately owned and owns VLL (amongst numerous other companies) which in turn owns BRFC. Venkys India Ltd has nothing directly to do with Rovers. 
 

I posted a link a while back to the latest ratings agency report on VHPL which gives an insight into its structure, borrowings and cash position. It's rating is A+++ with extremely strong liquidity.