WARNING TO BUSINESSES CONSIDERING…
WARNING TO BUSINESSES CONSIDERING FINANCELY / FG CAPITAL ADVISORS
I normally avoid posting publicly about commercial disputes, but after nearly a year of delays, missed deliverables, contradictory explanations, and refusal to provide accountability, I believe it is important to share my experience with Financely, Financely-Group, and FG Capital Advisors regarding a 50MW funding engagement.
My company entered into a formal engagement governed by:
A Mandate signed in July 2025; and
A Deal Overview issued in November 2025.
Under these agreements, substantial fees were paid:
USD 52,500 under the Mandate;
USD 26,500 specifically for “Advisors”; and
Additional charges including GBP 1,350 despite prior assurances of “no additional costs.”
The agreements contained specific timelines and deliverables, including:
financial model preparation;
term sheets;
investor documentation (PPM);
lender commitments;
escrow/bank setup;
onboarding of administrators/trustees; and
investor engagement activities.
As of May 2026, many of these deliverables remain incomplete or substantially delayed.
Most concerning is that:
timelines originally presented contractually were later described as merely “indicative”;
funding representations were later reframed;
payments were inconsistently described by different members of the organization; and
repeated requests for documentary evidence of completed work were not properly addressed.
In writing dated 7 May 2026, Financely acknowledged that advisor appointments — despite payment having been taken months earlier — had still not been completed.
The original timelines included deliverables due as early as July–September 2025. Several remain outstanding 7–10 months later.
I have now issued a formal Letter of Claim requesting either:
Immediate completion of all contractual deliverables with documentary evidence; or
A full refund due to non-performance and failure of consideration.
I strongly advise any business considering engagement with Financely / FG Capital Advisors to:
conduct extensive due diligence;
request independently verifiable references;
insist on clearly enforceable milestone obligations;
avoid vague “indicative” timelines;
carefully document all communications; and
ensure payment structures are properly protected.
This post reflects my documented experience and is supported by contractual documents, payment records, and written correspondence currently retained for potential legal and regulatory proceedings.
RESPONSE TO FINANCELY’S REPLY
We have noted Financely’s response. Unfortunately, rather than addressing the documented contractual deliverables and missed timelines, Financely has resorted to personal attacks and allegations that I categorically dispute.
All communications have been conducted by email. Fortunately, the Mandate, Deal Overview, payment records, and emails from Financely provide a written record of the engagement. There is documentary evidence supporting the concerns raised in my original post.
We categorically reject Financely's allegations and personal attacks.
Our engagement was specifically for solar project funding, with clearly defined milestones and timelines in a signed, binding mandate.
The issue is straightforward: Financely failed to deliver within the agreed timelines and subsequently attempted to unilaterally change the terms of the signed agreement. Its own written communications support our position.
The website's general terms and conditions were neither incorporated into nor referenced in the signed mandate and cannot retrospectively override the agreed contractual terms.
For transparency and in the public interest, we have published a detailed account of our experience with Financely Group, including the chronology of events and supporting evidence. Readers can find it by searching for **"Our Experience with Financely Group" by Narendra Info Ltd.**
We stand by our review and welcome any lawful action Financely considers appropriate. We are prepared to present the documentary evidence through the appropriate legal channels.
**We prefer documented facts and transparency over personal attacks and intimidation.**
Reply from Financely
This is a bad-faith post by a counterparty who brought a non-viable proposal and has shown no intent to resolve anything. He prefers public allegations over meeting basic requirements.
Edit: Updated after the reviewer added further falsehoods. He will not intimidate us. We intend to escalate this review for defamation.
He approached us with a purported KTT transfer of billions from an NBFC with no banking history.
We refused it and advised structured debt. His projects (up to 100 MW) had near-zero equity and material information gaps. Payments were delayed by up to one month. He could not fund a £4,000 budget increase, which is normal for routine project finance advisory work.
That is why work stopped.
We still incorporated the SPVs, prepared a lender shortlist, and finalized the offering memorandums. Consultants are not on exclusive call for one client who does not pay on time. We engage third parties whose time is not controlled by him.His claims fail one by one:
Timelines were always conditional on equity, verified information, and timely payments. He supplied none of these consistently.
Fees covered work performed. They do not entitle him to force an unfinanceable structure or a refund when he is the source of the delay and the failure of consideration.
Advisor appointments and further steps could not be completed while he failed to fund the next stage and provide required information.
His only references are disgruntled parties whose deals collapsed due to non-disclosure, non-genuine arrangements, or involvement in high-yield private placement programs. It is the standard network of people who seek shortcuts and refuse process.
This is textbook joker-broker behaviour. These are individuals who appear with an internet connection, a thin story, and the expectation that serious advisory work will be performed for free or on deferred terms while they lack respect for process, documentation, equity requirements, and payment schedules.
They treat consultants as on-demand resources rather than professionals who engage third parties and manage calendars.
When the structure cannot be financed on their terms, they publish incomplete accounts and recycle allegations from other failed counterparties who operated the same way.
The rise of these personas is simple: low barriers to entry online allow anyone to present as a deal source without capital, without track record, and without willingness to fund the work required to make a transaction real.
Rude messages and threats to staff complete the picture.
Terms of service: https://www.financely-group.com/terms-of-service
The step remains clear: meet the equity, documentation, and payment conditions in full, or the engagement is finished. We have no interest in continuing otherwise.