Unfortunately some people fall for this.

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.

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??

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.

The original writ petition by the Venky’s was, as you said, in relation to not being allowed to send £26 million. This writ is yet to be fully resolved (I know right!!) what has happened in the meantime is: In June ‘23 the judge allowed the circa £3.6 million to be sent across as an interim measure. The Venky’s have made separate applications (a case within a case if you like) to: * be able to send £11 million across (heard and approved 31/10/23) * be able to send monies without the need for a guarantee (first of many adjournments 23/9/24 - currently listed for 5th August) * be able to send £4.85 million across (heard and approved 26/5/25) Hope that helps.

Or it might rain all day 😬

Nothing wrong with the one you used.

I’d have gone with ad nauseam.

It’s all semantics really isn’t it. I think the important thing is they shouldn’t be allowed to use these hindrances as an excuse for not funding the club properly. Yes, as you say, they exist, but no they do not prevent them from fulfilling their obligations to the club. If they don’t want to do this properly they should just fuck off.

I can see where @Forever Blue is coming from with this because, whilst there are restrictions, it is not outside of Venky’s’ control to meet them. Yes they’ve hoops to jump through but it is entirely within their hands as to whether they do so or not. Re the court permission, for reasons I’ve set out before, I don’t think they need this anymore unless they’re wanting to try and get the conditions changed as well.

Just in case anyone is interested (oh and hello Elliott 🙋‍♂️😁) During the course of the court proceedings the Venkys attorney has filed 5 affidavits. The first was on the 20th June 2023 and I believe was in relation to them setting out their initial case for funds to be sent. The second was on the 15th November 2023 - 15 days after a court order gave them permission to send £11 million (subject, amongst other things, to such an affidavit being lodged confirming the intended use of the funds) The third was on the 2nd January 2024 - I cannot explain this one. The fourth was on the 11th March 2024 - just one day before a No Objection Certificate was issued (without a court date but presumably in light of the Venkys meeting the court’s conditions, including the filing of an affidavit). The final one was on the 16th June - 21 days after the court agreed to funds being sent with the bond reduced (but the affidavit requirement remaining). Anyone still reading??😁 In relation to the allotting of shares with regards to these monies… The first sum authorised by the court (before the requirement to file an affidavit was added) was £3.54 million on the 23rd June 2023. On 14th October 2024 £3.685 million of shares were allotted in Venkateshwara London a limited (the company which owns the training ground). The second sum authorised by the court was on 31st October 2023 for £11 Million. On the 19th March 2024 £11 million of shares were allotted in Venkys London Limited. I believe, but clearly can’t be certain, these two payments and share allotments are related. That would leave the £15 million from March 2024 and the more recent £4.85 million to be turned into shares at some stage** ** or perhaps it could be left as a debt owed by Venkys London to Venkys Hatcheries but I consider this unlikely. Well done to anyone who got this far 😁😁- I’m more than happy for people to point out where any assumptions I’ve made are (or could be) incorrect.

I think so, there’s only one affidavit listed** which isn’t related to when we know a payment was authorised (whether with or without a court order). I think it’s reasonable to assume the other one was related to a payment, whether one we’ve not heard of or where, for some reason, they sent the money in two tranches.*** In addition to this, I can’t see anything in any of the orders which requires one filing for any other reason. ** after the date at which filing one became a condition of sending funds (31/10/23) *** having looked again I’m not so certain in this, but still believe the June affidavit relates to the £4.85 payment being sent - I’m going out now but will explain my logic later on. (if anyone’s interested! 😁)

With this money they allotted shares in Venkys London Ltd, on the previous occasion they allotted shares in Venkateshwara London Ltd. As to why they’ve stopped creating equity in BRFC and have instead chosen to add more to what the club owes the holding company 🤷‍♂️🤷‍♂️

I think it may have done as the amount owed to the parent undertaking increased by almost that exact amount (£10,919,918) in the year ending 30/6/24 accounts. You do have to wonder how the club made a profit but ended up owing more to the Venkys mind…

Play off final date is Saturday 23rd May - get those hotel rooms booked lads!* * just in case we miss out on the autos (I’m channeling my inner Chaddy 😁😁).

I noticed one other thing yesterday. An affidavit was also lodged in March 2024, another occasion on when funds were sent over (but where there was no additional court hearing) This would seem to support the theory they’ve done a deal which allows them to send funds subject to the existing court conditions (but without the need for a further court hearing). On this basis, I maintain (rightly or wrongly!) they only returned to court last month to try and vary those conditions (specifically seeking the removal of the guarantee). In other words, they could have sent the money to the club when it was requested in March but chose to go back to court instead.

I’m assuming they’ve sent all of it on the basis I’m not sure how happy the court would be with Venkys insisting a sum needs sending but then remitting a lower figure. It is only an assumption though.

As Mark says the money has to be spent on exactly the things they requested it for - this was to fulfill statutory and contractual obligations for March - June. Any fees we pay will have to be from self generated income - although clearly them being able to send monies over means funds earmarked for transfers don’t need diverting to pay wages etc instead.

On the Delhi high court website… Select case history then case wise. Enter required info (w.p.(c) 7966 2023). Select filing details.

No, it obviously should work both ways. But there’s a difference between someone saying they think a player is a good/bad signing and them writing a player off/thinking they’re the next messiah before a ball has been kicked.

Just to add to my previous post. This means it took Venkys three weeks from being given permission to send the £4.85 million to actually doing so. I’m starting to suspect we’re not a priority…

You don’t but you can learn from your mistakes. ie. if you’ve previously written off players before they’ve played for the club and then they do ok maybe don’t then go and write off further players in the same way.

One of the conditions of Venkys being able to send money over is an Affidavit (regarding the use of the funds) must be filed with the court within one working day of the funds being remitted. An affidavit was filed on the 16th June…

As of 31st March ‘24 we had £3,237,414 of future fee payment liabilities contingent on promotion to the PL. I wouldn’t put it past our lot to see avoiding having to pay this sum as a positive.

I wonder if there is an option even though they’ve not said so. My reasoning - the Rover’s site says: 1. An initial three years 2 Until at least 2028.