As I’ve nothing better to do 😁, I’ve had another read of the court order dated 23/6/2023 which sets out Venkys’ argument… They appear to be saying (because of the timing of their investment) the 2004 FEMA Regulations are relevant (not the 2022 ones). Under the 2004 Regs they’d need permission (due to the investigation) from the bank to send funds - something the bank had been happy to provide. Under the 2022 Regs they need permission from the Directorate of Enforcement - something the DoE are unwilling to give. This argument is yet to be fully considered in court… What has happened is - the £3.54 million being approved as an interim measure + A series of separate applications either requesting permission to send further funds or to vary the conditions required to do so. An absolute shitload of adjournments.

Southend are playing Cardiff and St Mirren are playing MK Dons at the same stadium so there’s no guarantee our matches will be against Spanish teams.

12pm

It’s not our first rodeo.

I wonder what sort of take up they’ll have for these 🙄 https://www.rovers.co.uk/news/2025/june/25/2025-26-etc-trial-dates-announced/ Oh and ‘changes in structure’ - that’s one way of putting it. https://www.rovers.co.uk/news/2025/june/25/rovers-women-trial-dates-confirmed/ ‘Begin a new journey’ - what an absolute piss take.

I’ve no particular issue with four senior centre backs and then relying on youngsters. It was the club who suggested (by seeking a left footed CB and to retain Batth) they didn’t think four is enough.

I’d forgotten that one! We can’t be blocking those (dare I say cheaper) youngsters with better, more experienced players can we.

Based on that article: We wanted to sign a left sided CB and for Batth to stay but now we’d be happy with signing the first but relying on a youngster in place of the latter. A right winger is a priority so Weinmann not staying doesn’t alter our plans. Re the first - presumably the club are happy for our defence to be weakened then - if not why, does it appear we’re not pursuing a Batth replacement? Re the second - if Weinmann leaving doesn’t alter our plans what were we going to do with him if he stayed?? Everyday there are more questions than answers.

I’m going to do some more speculating here. The £26 million was requested (as evidenced in order of 7/6/23) for Venkys London Ltd, Venkys Overseas Limited and Venkateshwara London Limited - but with no details as to proportions. The Order dated 31/10/23 then tells us this £26 million was to cover their commitments for the year 23-24 (suggesting ‘payment in advance’) Venkys Overseas Limited is the company which they claimed was for rearing of ducks etc (source - Directorate of Enforcement press release 2/9/23) As you know, Venkateshwara London Limited own the training ground - I’d postulate some of that £26 million was to enable them to pay instalments due (to the club) on the purchase of this. The fact they then took out the loan against the training ground (I think someone may have suggested £9 million?) possibly supports this. In October ‘23 the next £11 million was requested - the breakdown in the relevant order (31/10/23) indicates this was also for 23-24 commitments (which I’d suggest makes this part of the initial £26 million) £3.54 million sent + £11 million sent + £9 million loan on training ground = £23.54 million (not far off - maybe the remainder was for rearing more chickens🤔 * ) * Despite the aforementioned DoE press release stating no business activity being initiated in the eleven years since Venkys Overseas was incorporated 🧐🤨 (nothing dodgy in trying to send more funds to them then…) I’ve made a few assumptions along the way there so I might be spot on but equally I could be entirely wrong!! Edited to add an additional thought… The £15 million in March ‘24 could be the payment in advance for 24-25. Is this figure lower than the year before because of Adam Wharton…

Maybe, but that only mentioned ‘financial commitments’ - there was no reference to transfer funds (or anything else for that matter ). The £26 million was what they wanted to be able to send to which the DoE objected (hearing of 7/6/23) The £3.54 million was the sum they said was needed to prevent HMRC issuing a winding up order. (hearing of 23/6/23) As an interim measure, the judge (in trying to balance the two sides) allowed this lower sum to be remitted.

Can I ask where you’ve got that from as I can’t see any reference to requesting funds for transfers ( or the judge rejecting the same) in the original order. Just to add, the only condition for the first payment was the guarantee - the other conditions were added later.

Suck on that Balaji

I’m around 7 miles away (as the crow flies) dry here at the moment too. A nice uneventful hour once they get back on would be good. 🤞

You took ‘retain this portion’ literally didn’t you 😀😀

No I’m not - how very dare you 😁😁 I meant to tire Bumrah out not increase his fitness/form. 😀

Potentially - opinions may differ on whether this will actually happen.

Too late 😁 - don’t you dare hit the hide button 😁😁

Additional court conditions… The club’s auditors have to provide a certificate confirming the use of the funds. Venkateshwara Hatcheries have to submit bank statements for both Venkys London and BRFC to substantiate the use (and final destination) of the funds.

I think the rain will end up the winner today but getting some overs in Bumrah’s legs might benefit us later in the series.

£4.85 million for one quarter x 4 = very close to the much vaunted £20 million a year 🤔🧐

Perhaps we should do @K-Hod a list to take to the next fans’ forum 😁😁 I’ll make a start (and apologise for going so off topic at the same time 😁): Was the overdraft facility renewed in May and if so were the terms at least as favourable as before? Can you confirm that the owners now only have to return to court to send monies if they’re also seeking to vary the condition placed upon them to do so? During the period of the investigation, have the owners ever sought permission (either through the courts or directly with the Directorate of Enforcement) to send player purchase funds? (and if not, why not?)

and also how they got on with renewing the overdraft facilities in May.

Just to correct the LT’s error - the request was made to the court on the 22nd April, the 26th May was when the court issued the order granting permission.

I assume this one will be a second string but you never know with our lot…

Maybe it’s just the calm before the storm.