Juhi Chawla's husband Jay Mehta recalls being ‘almost destroyed' by debt trap, made a ‘small investment' of $75 million in KKR during ‘a difficult time'
Shah Rukh Khan purchased his cricket team Kolkata Knight Riders in 2007 but he wasn't the sole owner of the company. To date, SRK owns the team along with his Red Chillies Entertainment partner Juhi Chawla and her husband Jay Mehta. When the trio bought the team, they brought a lot of glamour to a new format of cricket and soon after, even though there team wasn't the best performer, they were getting all the limelight, thanks to the superstar owner. In an earlier interview, Jay spoke about investing in the team and said that even though people around him told him he 'crazy' about making this investment, he was confident that this would work.
In a chat shared on Institute for Management Development IMD's YouTube channel, Jay was asked to share some words of wisdom after his many years of business experience and he shared, 'First of all, don't take on too much debt because we got into a debt trap and it almost destroyed us. Secondly, you have to build a great team, try and hire the best people and going forward… I think, again curiosity, reading a lot, learning about business practices, things like that. Keeping yourself informed about what's going on and keeping yourself ahead of the curve. I think those are important things.'
Jay said that his business was going through a difficult time when he got a chance to invest in cricket and so he, along with his other partners, made an investment of $75 million to buy KKR. 'In between all this, when we were also going through the difficult times, I got an opportunity to invest in cricket. Everybody said you are crazy, completely crazy. I said, 'look, I really believe in this. I want to do it'. When the auction came up, it was like a $75 million acquisition and I had partnered with a friend of mine to do this but other people were actually taken the document and not understood the business model and when you looked at the business model, it was a cash flow model,' he said.
ALSO READ | Sandeep Reddy Vanga slams Deepika Padukone for playing 'dirty PR games', 'putting down a younger actor' after being replaced by Triptii Dimri | Controversy explained
Jay shared that the investment was 'very small' but he believed that this format of the fame was going to become big. 'So the investment was very small and I really believed that okay, this is really going to turn around and cricket is going to become big, like American football in the US, or football in Europe. So I took a punt, invested in it and it's inarguably the best investment I have made,' he said.
KKR has won three Indian Premiere League titles so far.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
an hour ago
- Time of India
Coco Gauff advances to French Open final after defeating Lois Boisson
Coco Gauff secured a spot in the French Open final with a straight-sets victory over Lois Boisson. The No. 2 seed will face World No. 1 Aryna Sabalenka in Saturday's final, a rematch of their 2023 US Open meeting. Gauff seeks her first Roland Garros title after two previous near-misses Coco Gauff defeated Lois Boisson in straight sets to reach her second French Open final, where she will face World No. 1 Aryna Sabalenka (AP Photo/Aurelien Morissard) Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads American Coco Gauff advanced to the 2024 French Open final with a 6-1, 6-2 win over French wildcard Lois Boisson on Thursday. The second-seeded Gauff required just 68 minutes to eliminate Boisson, who had reached the semifinal stage in her Grand Slam singles ranked No. 361 in the world at the start of the tournament, had earned a breakout run by defeating top-10 opponents Jessica Pegula and Mirra Andreeva. However, Gauff controlled the match from the baseline, targeting Boisson's backhand and minimizing unforced errors to prevent any repeat read: Russia's Mirra Andreeva suffers shock defeat by France's Lois Boisson in French Open semifinal. Who is she? Despite briefly leveling the second set, Boisson was broken again and could not recover. Gauff closed out the match quickly, reaching her second career French Open final after finishing as runner-up in Gauff will meet World No. 1 Aryna Sabalenka in the French Open final on Saturday. The matchup will be their 11th career meeting and first at Roland Garros . The two players have split their previous 10 defeated four-time French Open champion Iga Swiatek in the other semifinal, 7-6, 4-6, 6-0, to reach her first final at Roland Garros. She will be seeking her fourth career Grand Slam title, adding to her two Australian Open titles and 2023 US Open previously beat Sabalenka in the 2023 US Open final and again at the WTA Finals, both on hard courts. Their most recent clay-court matchup occurred in Madrid, where Sabalenka won 6-3, read: French Open players often make schedule requests. No one wanted to miss the Champions League final This final appearance marks Gauff's latest effort to claim a major title on clay. She lost to Swiatek in both the 2022 French Open final and the 2023 semifinal. The 21-year-old from Delray Beach, Florida, will now look to win her second career Grand Slam title and her first on clay.
Time of India
an hour ago
- Time of India
Supreme Court Ruling On Gun Companies: Supreme Court Blocks Mexico's Gun Lawsuit Against US Companies, ET LegalWorld
The U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday spared two American gun companies from a lawsuit by Mexico's government accusing them of aiding illegal firearms trafficking to drug cartels and fueling gun violence in the southern neighbor of the United States. The justices in a 9-0 ruling authored by liberal Justice Elena Kagan overturned a lower court's ruling that had allowed the lawsuit to proceed against firearms maker Smith & Wesson and distributor Interstate Arms. The lower court had found that Mexico plausibly alleged that the companies aided and abetted unlawful sales routing guns to Mexican drug cartels, harming its government. Advt Advt Join the community of 2M+ industry professionals Subscribe to our newsletter to get latest insights & analysis. Download ETLegalWorld App Get Realtime updates Save your favourite articles Scan to download App The justices embraced the argument made by the companies for dismissal of Mexico's suit under a 2005 U.S. law called the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act that broadly shields gun companies from liability for crimes committed with their products. The Boston-based 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals had decided in 2024 that the alleged conduct by the companies fell outside these Supreme Court decided that while it has little doubt that U.S. companies are aware of some unlawful sales to Mexican gun traffickers, Mexico's lawsuit failed to allege that the companies had aided and abetted such illegal firearms sales by deliberately helping to bring about the transactions."Mexico's plausible allegations are of 'indifference' rather than assistance," Kagan wrote. "They are of the manufacturers merely allowing some unidentified 'bad actors' to make illegal use of their wares." The case came to the Supreme Court at a complicated time for U.S.-Mexican relations as President Donald Trump pursues on-again, off-again tariffs on Mexican goods. Trump has also accused Mexico of doing too little to stop the flow of synthetic drugs such as fentanyl and migrant arrivals at the lawsuit, filed in Boston in 2021, accused the two companies of violating various U.S. and Mexican laws. Mexico claims that the companies have deliberately maintained a distribution system that included firearms dealers who knowingly sell weapons to third-party, or "straw," purchasers who then traffic guns to cartels in suit also accused the companies of unlawfully designing and marketing their guns as military-grade weapons to drive up demand among the cartels, including by associating their products with the American military and law enforcement. The gun companies said they make and sell lawful avoid its lawsuit being dismissed under the 2005 law, Mexico was required to plausibly allege that the companies aided and abetted illegal gun sales and that such conduct was the "proximate cause" - a legal principle involving who is responsible for causing an injury - of the harms claimed by Mexico. The Supreme Court, which heard arguments in the case on March 4, declined to resolve the proximate cause question after finding that Mexico's suit failed to adequately allege aiding and Arrocha Olabuenaga, the legal adviser for Mexico's Foreign Ministry, vowed that Mexico will continue pursuing its legal fight."While we are disappointed with the decision from this Supreme Court, we are convinced of the strength of our arguments and the evidence that upholds them, and we are encouraged by the support at home and abroad for Mexico's actions," he in the lawsuit had sought monetary damages of an unspecified amount and a court order requiring Smith & Wesson and Interstate Arms to take steps to "abate and remedy the public nuisance they have created in Mexico."The Second Amendment Foundation, a gun rights group that backed the U.S. gun companies in the case, welcomed Thursday's ruling."The lawsuit, dreamt up by multiple gun control groups, had one goal - bankrupt the American firearms market by allowing civil liability to apply for the criminal misuse of its products," the group said in a social media post. "Thankfully the Supreme Court stepped in and squashed it."Gun violence fueled by trafficked U.S.-made firearms has contributed to a decline in business investment and economic activity in Mexico and forced its government to incur unusually high costs on services including healthcare, law enforcement and the military, according to the a country with strict firearms laws, has said most of its gun homicides are committed with weapons trafficked from the United States and valued at more than $250 million Perez Ricart, an international affairs researcher at Mexico's Center for Economic Research and Teaching (CIDE), criticized the ruling."Once again, the industry is shielded. It doesn't matter how many bullets cross the border or how many people are killed on the Mexican side. Bullets are not the only things that kill; so does the legal impunity guaranteed by Washington," Ricart said in a social media post.
New Indian Express
an hour ago
- New Indian Express
'I was never a believer in road shows, lives of people far more important': Gautam Gambhir
MUMBAI: India's head coach Gautam Gambhir on Thursday questioned the necessity of holding road shows to celebrate sporting triumphs after a stampede during Royal Challengers Bengaluru's IPL victory celebrations led to the death of 11 fans near the Chinnaswamy Stadium. Gambhir, who has been part of two IPL title-winning celebrations in Kolkata and India's 2007 T20 World Cup-winning campaign, urged everyone to be "responsible citizens" and not conduct functions when people are not ready for it. When asked about the Bengaluru tragedy on Wednesday, the former BJP MP gave a sharp reply. "Obviously that is a very important question and I need to answer that. I was never a believer that we need to have road shows. I had the same statement to make even after winning (the T20 World Cup) in 2007 that we should not have road shows," Gambhir told mediapersons during a pre-departure press conference for the England tour. Gambhir as a captain of Kolkata Knight Riders had attended two felicitation functions organised by the Mamata Banerjee-led TMC government at the Eden Gardens in 2012 and 2014 but there were no road shows. For Gambhir, lives are paramount and he urged everyone to be careful in near future. "I think lives of people are far more important and I will continue to say that. In future we can be little bit aware of not keeping these kind of road shows. We can probably have it in a closed door or something like in a stadium.
