Chief Executive Officer / India
What we accepted, changed and chose not to own
- Two owned, one managed
- 3 campuses
- 360 employees; ₹148 crore FY26 company revenue
- CEO reporting team
- 7 executives
- ₹112 crore FY27 operating plan; capital separate
- Events, operations and estates
- 34 years
- July 1992 entry; CEO and executive director since January 2019
Decisions & consequences
01Paying for the transition time my calendar had omitted
In 2022 I approved a commercially attractive sequence of events by looking at public opening and closing dates. The organisers' installation and dismantling possession periods were held in separate schedules. The public calendar showed a short gap; the actual undertaking required time in which one organiser could leave and the next could prepare. Rohan Dezqari's operating review examined eleven proposed transitions. Seven had a supported sequence and four required rescheduling. I had accepted a summary that concealed the condition most likely to make the promise fail.
The commercial team wanted to retain the announced dates and ask the site teams to compress the transitions. Organisers had already planned around the calendar, so changing it carried real cost and reputational consequences. Rohan asked that qualified facilities and safety owners retain control of the methods and handover conditions. I supported that boundary and accepted responsibility for renegotiating the four affected transitions rather than turn a commercial error into pressure for an unsupported operating shortcut.
We paid ₹1.2 crore in agreed customer refunds and rebooking support. That was an actual remedy cost, not a theoretical provision described as though it had already been settled. The revised calendar recorded public event days and the associated possession periods together. Commercial colleagues could see the interval being committed before confirming another booking. The seven supported transitions did not become a claim that every event would proceed without difficulty; their operating arrangements still required the normal responsible approvals.
The outcome was a corrected sequence and an expensive lesson in what I had chosen to review. We did not describe the remedy as a customer-retention success or attach an unsupported revenue benefit to it. I would insist on the full possession account before approving a concentrated programme again. A hall can appear empty to a visitor and still be committed to the work that makes the next event possible. The chief executive's calendar should recognise that work before the organisation promises the same space twice in different forms.
Keeping the anchor relationship without giving it the whole calendar
In 2023 a major organiser proposed an exclusive arrangement carrying ₹9 crore in annual minimum venue fees. Its planned use comprised thirty-six public event days and forty-two installation and dismantling days. The fee was attractive, and commercial colleagues believed the anchor relationship would make planning easier. The exclusivity provisions, however, affected what other organisers could bring to the campus beyond the headline count of public days. I asked the board to examine the shape of the calendar we would be agreeing to, not only the annual fee.
The organiser had a reasonable interest in protecting its event franchise and securing predictable access. Our commercial sponsor argued that a strong anchor could be worth more than a collection of uncertain smaller bookings. I agreed that unfilled dates were not automatically valuable merely because they remained available. I nevertheless preferred a broader proposition for the estate, with room for other formats and relationships. Legal and operating colleagues developed a counterproposal that changed the scope rather than simply deleting a clause from the original offer.
We spent ₹38 lakh on negotiation and calendar planning. The agreed nonexclusive contract covered twenty-four public event days and thirty preparation days, with ₹6.2 crore annual contracted fees. The organiser retained a meaningful place in the programme, while the estate preserved access for other business under the revised terms. These were different service scopes. The ₹2.8 crore difference between annual figures was neither a saving nor a like-for-like measure of value, and contracted fees were not the same as cash already collected or profit.
The board accepted the smaller anchor commitment with the opportunity cost explicit. We still had to sell and deliver the rest of the calendar; the decision did not establish that a diverse programme would necessarily produce a higher return. I would make the full access implications part of the first commercial discussion next time, before the attractive fee becomes the reference point for every later objection. The useful leadership choice was to define the business we wanted the campus to support while preserving a relationship that could still work within it.
Expanding through a management mandate after declining another owned campus
A 2024 expansion proposal envisaged a third owned convention campus at an estimated ₹168 crore development commitment. We had spent ₹2.4 crore on feasibility work, and the project team had developed a credible physical concept. The unsettled question was the operating enterprise behind it: the event mix, the depth of the management team and the commitments we would carry while another property established its programme. I did not regard a plausible building as sufficient evidence that the company should own and operate it at that point.
The development sponsor preferred proceeding because we had already learned the site and could build to our own requirements. Rohan was concerned about stretching experienced managers across another ownership project while existing campuses still needed attention. Nadia Zelvethi asked us to compare the proposed commitment with a different opportunity: managing a separately owned venue whose owner retained the asset and capital responsibilities. That route offered less control over the property and a different financial return. It was not simply a cheaper version of the same undertaking.
The board declined the ownership proposal and approved the management mandate after its own review. Mobilisation cost ₹3.6 crore. The first full financial year, ending March 2026, produced ₹4.8 crore management fees, included within Vemzari's ₹148 crore total revenue. The separate owner remained responsible for its property and agreed capital duties; our company remained responsible for the service obligations it accepted. Legal, financial and operating owners established the actual division of authority. We did not assume that another owner's balance sheet removed our execution or relationship risk.
The ₹2.4 crore feasibility cost remained incurred, and the ₹168 crore proposal was not reported as cash saved. The selected model gave the company a third-campus operating relationship without a third owned asset. It also limited our ability to decide property changes independently and required continuing coordination with the owner. I would test those ownership and control alternatives earlier in a future expansion, before the physical design acquires enough momentum to make a different enterprise model feel like abandonment. The result was a deliberate choice of responsibility, not proof that management contracts are universally preferable to ownership.
Changing the event mix after listening beyond the campus boundary
In 2025 we reviewed late amplified-event proposals after neighbouring occupiers raised recurring concerns about the experience outside one campus. The commercial calendar included twelve proposed events whose formats and timing needed examination. Organisers wanted clarity early because promotion and supplier commitments depended on the date. Site colleagues wanted acoustic treatment and operating coordination assessed by qualified specialists before commercial promises were renewed. The issue could not be settled by assuming that an event was acceptable merely because it fitted inside the building.
I asked for the technical review and the commercial alternatives to be considered together. Some organisers preferred retaining the late format and relying on additional treatment. Neighbours wanted their concerns to affect what the venue accepted, not only produce another meeting. We approved ₹2.1 crore for defined acoustic and coordination work, subject to the relevant professional assessment and permissions. That expenditure was not represented as proof of universal compliance or a promise that no sound would be audible beyond the property. The responsible specialists retained the actual conditions and methods.
Of the twelve proposed events, five moved to daytime formats, four were declined and three remained pending at the review date. Those were decisions on this reviewed set, not a permanent prohibition on every late event. The altered formats required organisers to reconsider their own propositions, and declining four opportunities reduced the immediate commercial programme. We did not assign an invented revenue loss to proposals that had not all become equivalent completed bookings. The three pending cases stayed outside confirmed commitments until their conditions were resolved.
The result was a changed event mix and a funded programme, with further observation still needed. It did not establish that every neighbour was satisfied or that the issue could never recur. I would involve the surrounding occupiers earlier when developing a new format, before a promoted date makes every alternative expensive. A venue estate is part of a place even when its customers travel from elsewhere. The chief executive must allow that continuing relationship to change the commercial offer, rather than treat it as a communications problem after the offer has already been sold.