They needed (wording in the law) a ‘reason to believe’ a contravention had taken place to do this. How high a bar this is is anyone’s guess.

Just to add to my earlier reply. During the last hearing the judge said something along the lines of ‘if there has been serious wrongdoing things will be different’. I took that as meaning if the investigation goes against the Venkys he’ll put a stop to allowing funds being sent. (I still don’t know how an appeal would affect this).

You quoted my post as I hid it 😁 (decided wasn’t worth going over old ground). I’m hoping they’re found guilty and don’t pay the penalty. I hope that as if they don’t pay it a prison sentence comes into play.

Probably! There’s a limit for how long you have to lodge an appeal but I don’t think there was one for it being heard (I’ve opened a bottle of wine since reading it 😁😁). I don’t know the answer re the blocker, sorry.

It would but I think it would only cover ‘dodgy’ funds. Lets hope they’ve found plenty.

There’s a treaty between the UK and India which covers this. Still needs a UK court order but the UK judge would consider the said treaty in coming to their decision.

Up to 3x just relates to the funds transferred. Seizing the property (or sale proceeds) is on top of this. I assume the judge would have to justify adding the latter for there to be any chance of the court in England issuing the necessary order.

There’s an appeals process (either party can instigate). The appeal can also be appealed (again by either party) I think (and hope!!) that’s as far as things can go.

Thanks, my most recent post reveals why whether it’s sold or not doesn’t matter (I should have read the law more carefully before asking the question!!)

Further little update… On top of the up to 3 x financial penalty: The Adjudicating Authority can also impose that any property related to the contravention be confiscated to the Indian Government. So if they’ve still got Alexander House this could be seized, and if they’ve sold it the proceeds of the sale could be seized. This would obviously require an English Court to issue an order to this effect. Personally I hope the Authority squeeze until the pips squeak.

No idea sorry. I’ve read the relevant law and it says the convening of the Adjudicating Authority will be announced in the Official Gazette. I’ve found the website for this but it doesn’t seem possible to search by ‘the accused’. I was prepared to read through the last few weeks to see if I could find Venkys but when I click on a file nothing happens.

The below formed part of the last court order: At the time I didn’t think much of this, but I’ve since discovered the Adjudicating Authority are who the Directorate of Enforcement (respondent no.2) refer a case to once they’ve gathered their evidence of a violation. That authority then hears the case and decides if and what penalty to impose. Maybe things are about to move forward… Edited to add: I’ve also just discovered the maximum penalty that can be imposed is three times the sum involved in the breach. (Unfortunately I don’t think the provision in the law imposing a jail sentence of up to five years will be applicable).

I’m not sure we’re near that stage yet - if/when the money runs out I’m guessing they’ll start borrowing against the training ground etc etc.

From the court order dated 31/10/2023:

Indeed, and if the Directorate of Enforcement had their way then Venkys wouldn’t be allowed to send monies whatever conditions were attached. It makes you wonder what they’ve found out/suspect but not yet revealed.

Is our FFP leeway not affected by the fact the owner’s didn’t add any equity in the 23/24 financial year? I thought this reduced the allowable loss for that year from £13 million to £5 million.

Those figures (seized property and guarantees to date) are confirmed within the most recent court order. They were part of a Venky’s’ argument as to why the guarantee condition should be removed from future remittances.

stunningly poor

What formation are England playing today? - I’ve looked at the selection and can’t work it out (not that I’ve tried that hard 😁😁)

In fairness to Chaddy… That article both quotes Ismael as saying he wants 90% by the first day of pre season AND as saying the trip is later in pre-season than usual so that 90% can be on it.

When the Venkys first went to court the reason for wanting the money sending was set out as the below: No mention of potential job losses, detriment to the team etc - purely ‘we’d lose all our money and people will think we’re useless’ - I find that very telling. Well, funnily enough (dickheads) you’re not getting your money back and people know you’re a bunch of incompetent buffoons. In summary, fuck off Venkys.

malevolent.

with the club trying to spin it as a good thing.

We could try Sheffield United’s approach of buying players we don’t have the money to pay for.

They went to court because they didn’t want to pay any bond at all, whether they’ll be ‘happy’ to pay the 50% is anyone’s guess. I don’t think there’s been any official confirmation re transfer fees as the question hasn’t been asked (judge that as you will…) If as a result of the judge’s order there is a shortfall I think we’re limited on who we could sell to raise the funds (another loan on the training ground maybe…) I’m sure others will comment on your final sentence 😁.