Venky’s v Indian Government (a)

[Mashed Potatoes]

7 hours ago, Norbert Rassragr said:

Right now, I feel we just need to go bust and start again. Do a Rangers, Bury etc. This club is a zombie club, with all sorts of nefarious parasites controlling it. Let it die. I've had enough of being violated by crooks and idiots and want to see something that represents the town of Blackburn and it's people. Something that people can really get behind.

The FA and Premier League are not fit for purpose and should be scrapped. Too many clubs have gone down similar paths as we're seeing in Sheffield Wednesday. Before them we've had Bury, Bolton, Morecambe and countless others taken over by all sorts of scoundrels. Hell, North Korea nearly owned Notts County.

None of the clubs you refer to had their issues from being in the Premier League - which is the most popular football league in the world - so I have no idea why you have dragged them in to it. The FA don't have sufficient jurisdiction - it is the EFL who have the jurisdiction. The new system for the independent regulator provides for more protection for clubs from unsatisfactory owners.

[Norbert Rassragr]

It's all a bunch of corrupt gits who are in charge of football. I got the names wrong but none of them have been willing to adhere to concepts like scrutiny, accountability and integrity. They'd sell their children into slavery for the right price.

 

When will this new regulatory body really going? And will it actually do what football fans want with regards to dodgy owners? Or is it window dressing because a proper body would incur the wrath of UEFA/FIFA for 'outside interference' ?

[Mattyblue]

‘Can you fulfil your 38/46 games?’ ‘You can? Great, crack on then’.

That’s the only regulating the governing bodies fixture organisers of English football do.

[arbitro]

Chelsea have been charged by the FA for 74 offences of alleged breaches of FA agent regulations and third party investment in players.

From the article the paragraph below caught my eye. My initial reaction is to draw comparisons with what we know about our owners dealings. Purely hypothetical on my part but it could explain why they don't want any potential buyer poring over their own dealings.

Sky Sports News' chief correspondent, Kaveh Solhekol, said due diligence carried out by Chelsea's owners, BlueCo, during the takeover process "is believed to have uncovered payments connected to transfers to offshore companies and players' families and representatives.

 

[lraC]

3 hours ago, arbitro said:

Chelsea have been charged by the FA for 74 offences of alleged breaches of FA agent regulations and third party investment in players.

From the article the paragraph below caught my eye. My initial reaction is to draw comparisons with what we know about our owners dealings. Purely hypothetical on my part but it could explain why they don't want any potential buyer poring over their own dealings.

Sky Sports News' chief correspondent, Kaveh Solhekol, said due diligence carried out by Chelsea's owners, BlueCo, during the takeover process "is believed to have uncovered payments connected to transfers to offshore companies and players' families and representatives.

 

I have always thought this was the sort of reason for our owners refusing point blank to listen to any offers.

History tells us that Abramovich was unlikely to have sold Chelsea, had he not been forced to do so and he we now have these allegations coming to light.

There is a story in todays Guardian about him being under investigation for claims of corruption and money laundering, yet he seemed to get through the FA fit and proper test, with no problems.

Seeing what we have with Rovers takeover and listening to some of the threats made in the past and more recently to people, who dared to question the regime, it strikes me that there is something sinister to hide at Rovers too.

The badly advised line has had it's time, yet they still refuse to entertain the merest sniff of an offer to buy, which in my opinion, is due to fear of what is now buried out of sight. 

I am sure like with Chelsea it would come to light, if a proper investigation took place or if due diligence, was applied to the accounts and a deep dive was carried out, but that's just my opinion on it. 

[lraC]

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/sep/07/roman-abramovich-under-investigation-jersey-corruption-money-laundering-claims

[bob fleming]

On 08/09/2025 at 14:38, wilsdenrover said:

guarantee condition removed…

https://delhihighcourt.nic.in/app/showlogo/1757322518_a0cd37f819e860dc_587_79662023.pdf/2025

 

Sorry about this, I don't think I understand!

Is this Court mullarkey over and done with following the removal of the guarantee condition? Is that the end of it? Or is there more Court shenanigans to follow? And if so when?

Reason is that I've just listened to Andy Bayes talking on line and he gave the impression that this was still ongoing. Alongside that absolutely nothing has been reported about it in the local press (with apologies if I've missed it).

Thanks again Wilsden or indeed anyone else who can clarify.

 

 

[RevidgeBlue]

1 hour ago, bob fleming said:

Sorry about this, I don't think I understand!

Is this Court mullarkey over and done with following the removal of the guarantee condition? Is that the end of it? Or is there more Court shenanigans to follow? And if so when?

Reason is that I've just listened to Andy Bayes talking on line and he gave the impression that this was still ongoing. Alongside that absolutely nothing has been reported about it in the local press (with apologies if I've missed it).

Thanks again Wilsden or indeed anyone else who can clarify.

 

 

Bayes is probably not aware of the latest hearing would be my guess.

Think Wilesden has summarised it as the need to provide a guarantee when sending funds over has been removed and the maximum they can be fined is £7.7m

No doubt he'll correct me if Im wrong.

[wilsdenrover]

13 hours ago, bob fleming said:

Sorry about this, I don't think I understand!

Is this Court mullarkey over and done with following the removal of the guarantee condition? Is that the end of it? Or is there more Court shenanigans to follow? And if so when?

Reason is that I've just listened to Andy Bayes talking on line and he gave the impression that this was still ongoing. Alongside that absolutely nothing has been reported about it in the local press (with apologies if I've missed it).

Thanks again Wilsden or indeed anyone else who can clarify.

 

 

The investigation into the Venkys has reached the Adjudicating Authority stage who will decide if and what punishment (fine) they’ll receive.

The court cases instigated by the Venkys will next be heard in November, the website isn’t currently working so I can’t check the exact date (I think it’s the 12th).

As far as I recall (can’t double check as above) they’ll now just be arguing over which version of the relevant law should have applied to the monies mentioned in Venkys original petition to the courts.

This mattered as under the preceding version they would’ve had the certificate needed to send monies over but under the new version they did not (as the legislation change included changing which institution issues this certificate).

I don’t see why it matters any more as the various interim orders have allowed Venkys to send monies anyway.

Maybe they’ll be trying to remove the remaining conditions (having to show the money is used for its stated purpose).

I hope that makes sense.

 

[Tomphil2]

Or get their properties back that were allegedly 'seized' to the value of the VLL anomalies ?

[Upside Down]

48 minutes ago, wilsdenrover said:

The investigation into the Venkys has reached the Adjudicating Authority stage who will decide if and what punishment (fine) they’ll receive.

The court cases instigated by the Venkys will next be heard in November, the website isn’t currently working so I can’t check the exact date (I think it’s the 12th).

As far as I recall (can’t double check as above) they’ll now just be arguing over which version of the relevant law should have applied to the monies mentioned in Venkys original petition to the courts.

This mattered as under the preceding version they would’ve had the certificate needed to send monies over but under the new version they did not (as the legislation change included changing which institution issues this certificate).

I don’t see why it matters any more as the various interim orders have allowed Venkys to send monies anyway.

Maybe they’ll be trying to remove the remaining conditions (having to show the money is used for its stated purpose).

I hope that makes sense.

 

I've suspected for a while that their real grievance is with them having to supply the end user certificate.

[bob fleming]

It certainly does, thank you.

So, November comes, the worst that could happen is a fine of £7.7m? A drop in the ocean for our billionaire chicken crazed negligent overlords you'd think. 

Key point being "I don’t see why it matters any more as the various interim orders have allowed Venkys to send monies anyway." - so any talk of November being a significant date - particularly when the case is adjourned again and put back until Feb after the transfer window - would be a little disingenuous as a reason for not providing (transfer) funds.

[wilsdenrover]

28 minutes ago, bob fleming said:

It certainly does, thank you.

So, November comes, the worst that could happen is a fine of £7.7m? A drop in the ocean for our billionaire chicken crazed negligent overlords you'd think. 

Key point being "I don’t see why it matters any more as the various interim orders have allowed Venkys to send monies anyway." - so any talk of November being a significant date - particularly when the case is adjourned again and put back until Feb after the transfer window - would be a little disingenuous as a reason for not providing (transfer) funds.

No, the court case and the investigation are two separate things (albeit the former is only happening because of the latter).

The Adjudicating Authority will rule re any fine (max circa £7.7-£8.5 million depending on source of exchange rate used) - I believe they have a year to do so (I’m not sure whether this is from submission of the complaint by the Directorate of Enforcement or from when they then first convene).

Edited 2 hours ago by wilsdenrover

[wilsdenrover]

31 minutes ago, Upside Down said:

I've suspected for a while that their real grievance is with them having to supply the end user certificate.

I think when one ‘reason’ disappears another one takes its place.