Venky’s v Indian Government (a)

[wilsdenrover]

Two days until the next court date - even I’m not sure if it’s worth paying attention any more though. 

 

Edited 22 hours ago by wilsdenrover

[RevidgeBlue]

1 minute ago, wilsdenrover said:

Two days until the next court date - even I’m not sure if it’s worth paying attention any more though. 

 

What's that for, to decide how much they get fined?

[wilsdenrover]

4 minutes ago, RevidgeBlue said:

What's that for, to decide how much they get fined?

No, that’s an entirely separate thing.

This is the ongoing saga where the last instalment was the withdrawal of the guarantee requirement.

 

[RevidgeBlue]

2 minutes ago, wilsdenrover said:

No, that’s an entirely separate thing.

This is the ongoing saga where the last instalment was the withdrawal of the guarantee requirement.

 

But there's nothing left to argue about on that score is there? It's been decided.

Unless the Authorities are trying to argue the guarantee should be reinstated.

[Tomphil2]

Always always worth keeping an eye on what these lot are doing.

[wilsdenrover]

24 minutes ago, RevidgeBlue said:

But there's nothing left to argue about on that score is there? It's been decided.

Unless the Authorities are trying to argue the guarantee should be reinstated.

Venkys initial petition to the court  in 2023 was to do with monies they felt they should be allowed to send over in regard to their 2022/2023 ‘commitments’

This has yet to be ruled on.

Amongst the various other applications Venkys have made is one from September ‘24 requesting the court orders the Authorities to close their investigation.

This has yet to be ruled on either.

These are the two matters due to be heard on Wednesday.

As to why they’re still pursuing this 🤷‍♂️🤷‍♂️🤷‍♂️🤷‍♂️

 

 

Edited 21 hours ago by wilsdenrover

[RevidgeBlue]

5 minutes ago, wilsdenrover said:

Venkys initial petition to the court  in 2023 was to do with monies they felt they should be allowed to send over in regard to their 2022/2023 ‘commitments’

This has yet to be ruled on.

So hypothetically, if the Court ruled in their favour they could send another lump of money over?

Bit pointless if as RG claims it doesn't have any bearing on the transfer situation.

Thanks as always, for your patience in trying to explain this. If you can't be bothered tuning in we can always hear about it from Jackson in about 2 months time.

[Miller11]

All this comes down to now is their arrogance. They don’t like being told what to do. They sold off our best players rather than put money in a bond that they objected to. Now the requirement for that bond is gone they have no inclination to improve our situation or reinvest any of those funds brought in back into the squad.

lets be 100% clear, neither the Indian courts or FFP/P&S rules are preventing investment in Rovers - they just don’t want to.

[wilsdenrover]

Just now, RevidgeBlue said:

So hypothetically, if the Court ruled in their favour they could send another lump of money over?

Bit pointless if as RG claims it doesn't have any bearing on the transfer situation.

Thanks as always, for your patience in trying to explain this. If you can't be bothered tuning in we can always hear about it from Jackson in about 2 months time.

They don’t need a court ruling to send funds now, all they need to do is comply with the existing conditions the court has imposed.

That’s the reason I’m curious as to why they’re continuing with this.

Oh and you’re welcome.

As an aside, without me providing an update, do you think Jackson will report on it at all? 😁😁 

[wilsdenrover]

5 minutes ago, Miller11 said:

All this comes down to now is their arrogance. They don’t like being told what to do. They sold off our best players rather than put money in a bond that they objected to. Now the requirement for that bond is gone they have no inclination to improve our situation or reinvest any of those funds brought in back into the squad.

lets be 100% clear, neither the Indian courts or FFP/P&S rules are preventing investment in Rovers - they just don’t want to.

As I’m sure you know, they were in court in September wanting to be allowed to send funds without the guarantee requirement.

The court said ‘that’s fine’ but it appears nothing has happened since.

It would seem they want no restrictions on sending money (control freaks?) but they don’t actually want to send it.

 

 

[RevidgeBlue]

10 minutes ago, wilsdenrover said:

They don’t need a court ruling to send funds now, all they need to do is comply with the existing conditions the court has imposed.

That’s the reason I’m curious as to why they’re continuing with this.

I thought not.

All incredibly odd.

[wilsdenrover]

Number 42 on the list.

I’m sure this isn’t what Douglas Adams had in mind.

[Upside Down]

5 hours ago, wilsdenrover said:

As I’m sure you know, they were in court in September wanting to be allowed to send funds without the guarantee requirement.

The court said ‘that’s fine’ but it appears nothing has happened since.

It would seem they want no restrictions on sending money (control freaks?) but they don’t actually want to send it.

 

 

Is there still a requirement for them to supply an end user certificate perhaps?

[wilsdenrover]

2 minutes ago, Upside Down said:

Is there still a requirement for them to supply an end user certificate perhaps?

I’ve seen nothing which removes anything other than the guarantee condition.

Unless I’ve missed something, this means the following are ‘still in play’:

 

 

[RevidgeBlue]

5 minutes ago, wilsdenrover said:

I’ve seen nothing which removes anything other than the guarantee condition.

Unless I’ve missed something, this means the following are ‘still in play’:

 

 

That's likely to be it then.

Hardly worth blasting the money away on legal fees trying to get them removed.

[wilsdenrover]

Just now, RevidgeBlue said:

That's likely to be it then.

Hardly worth blasting the money away on legal fees trying to get them removed.

You’d have thought that but this is the Venkys we’re talking about. 

[Upside Down]

1 hour ago, wilsdenrover said:

I’ve seen nothing which removes anything other than the guarantee condition.

Unless I’ve missed something, this means the following are ‘still in play’:

 

 

No doubt that's one of the biggest obstacles in them being able to do whatever the fuck it is they've been doing for the last 15 years.

[roverblue]

They clearly don't want the scrutiny over why they are sending the money over to the UK, you can only imagine its because in the past its not all actually come to Rovers.

[...]

Please. Just sell us.

[wilsdenrover]

3 hours ago, roverblue said:

They clearly don't want the scrutiny over why they are sending the money over to the UK, you can only imagine its because in the past its not all actually come to Rovers.

It would be interesting to hear their argument for why this scrutiny should be removed.