Thats the whole point, you can’t put out a statement of fact unless it is fact. If someone told you it was highly likely that something was going to go in your favour and would you then go and state publicly that it has gone in your favour? As much as I hate these clowns and what they’ve done to our club in this instance there is nothing else the statement could have said.

There’s absolutely no way anyone with an ounce of business acumen would categorically guarantee anything that is reliant on a third party. Hence the use of the word should which is entirely appropriate in this situation. The big factor we need to consider here is that the court case now only revolves around technical and procedural issues which would strongly hint that it is due to be resolved without severe repercussions or impact on their business. This is also backed up by the fact that court have listed this for a final hearing in August. it’s not the news that most of us wanted but it looks like we are stuck with them for the foreseeable.

This company, Venkys Overseas Ltd is a company registered in Jersey and this is just the date the company was added to CH here for compliance. The company was actually incorporated in May 2011.

As per my previous post the precedent has now been set and that is what will be used for any future ruling unless any of the circumstances or facts regarding the investigation into VHPL change (in particular in relation to remittances made to VLL or BRFC). As Glen has posted the cash flow problems at the time were well documented although denied by SW. It’s worth noting that HMRC use the threat of winding up orders all the time as part of their debt recovery process. It would seem that BRFC had an “arrangement to pay” in place on which they didn’t deliver. In this situation the full amount outstanding will usually then become due immediately. The fact here is no winding up order was made, in fact one was never even applied for through the courts let alone granted and the amount was settled in full. Whilst less than ideal this kind of thing goes on all the time. I agree that going to court every few months is less than ideal and ultimately unsustainable in the long term (land very costly). However, this investigation and the associated restrictions from the Indian Authorities will at some point be concluded and come to an end. Despite our feelings toward them I wouldn’t under estimate Venkys power, both financially and legally.

It’s one of the research companies, I’ll post which one on Monday as which actual group company it was escapes me (and trust me, there are a lot). In the meantime this document is publicly available and should be some interesting reading: https://www.careratings.com/upload/CompanyFiles/PR/22112022071856_Venkateshwara_Hatcheries_Private_Limited.pdf

That’s correct. The precedent relates to the decision on whether or not funds can be released and not any pre-requisite information required to support the application. So if they do exactly as they did at the last hearing then it’s highly likely the ruling will go in their favour. If however, for example they added a further say £5m to the application for transfer funds then no precedent would exist for that scenario. @tomphil I see your point that in a normal situation this would neither be acceptable or sustainable. However, this is Venkys. We already know they’ve spent huge sums of money on legal fees just to get this to the High Court and in addition to that remember as well as the two court orders made for circa £3.5m and £11m of funding it is actually technically costing them double those amounts as they are giving bankers guarantees for the same amount to the Indian Authorities. It seems crazy but when you think they’ve thrown over £200m into Rovers for absolutely no return you realise the sums of money available to them. I’ve tried to do some research into the structure and funding of their empire but being based in India means factual information is limited. From a couple of ratings agencies I’ve managed to find that there is one particular company in the VH Group that has a huge cash reserve and seems to proved most of the funding for the other members of the group.

I would agree with Andy, legal cases always rely heavily on precedent and as you say this has already been set so unless there is a specific or major change in the circumstances around the case then I think it’s likely they will rule in favour of VHPL again.

Not sure I’d agree with that, having to take the Indian authorities to the High Court to sanction the release of funds to cover operating costs would suggest to me it is, or was, very real.

As Herbie says this would be highly unlikely. I’m also fairly sure there are restrictions around an entity borrowing money to raise its issued share capital. Also, I don’t think this relates to previous money sent being converted to share capital as the the date of the increase in share capital is 10th October and going by previous filings for VLL and VHL this appears to be the date of the equity infusion rather than the filing date at CH. Speculation of course though.

That’s correct, that’s the company that owns the training ground, probably the final portion of the payment due to the club for the sale of the training ground. However, does this then mean that the restrictions on Venkys sending money to overseas group companies have been lifted? It would appear so.

I can’t see how at the moment the latest revelation changes anything. It appears that of the circa £220m that VHP have remitted to VLL to provide funding for BRFC, £3m or so of this money was actually remitted to another venture and not BRFC but this was not declared. The fact that the true destination of this £3m wasn’t declared is the issue here. It would appear that the remaining £217m or so has been properly allocated and although Indian Tax and Investment Law isn’t an area I know too much about I’d think there’s little the authorities can do on that. The value of assets being seized are pocket change to Venkys but the fact that the IG are seizing assets would suggest Venkys dispute their findings and therefore are refusing to repay these amounts, leaving asset freezing / seizure as the only way for the IG to get security for the alleged amounts owed.

I was surprised and a bit underwhelmed by this appointment, for me he was someone that is a familiar name but nobody was really aware of what he had actually done. After a bit of research coupled with the views of fans from his previous clubs I am a little more optimistic. It would appear as though this is a step up from Coyle, to be honest thought the only thing that matters is that he keeps us up, although I would really hope it turns into more than that. If he does, then a positive summer transfer window is needed and I just can't see that happening under Venkys.

Baffling appointment, I have a bad feeling about this one although I really hope he proves me wrong. Underwhelming to say the least, for me we may as well have stuck with Coyle as this offers no improvement over what we had, take into account he has brought no backroom staff and I think we are actually worse off. Also, anyone else find the "Head Coach" title slightly bizarre??