Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 24, 2015 20:36:20 GMT
That may depend on what you are trying to prove. If you want to demonstrate that they do not intend to complete the purchase then I'm not sure it would be a great idea to use evidence of them making efforts to ensure that aspects of the contract are fulfilled?
|
|
|
Post by onedaytheuwe on Jan 24, 2015 20:41:53 GMT
If that's the case ( see above) then let's call the court case off. Give us the money and we will re-establish our great time in Bath again... We are NOT stopping them access are we
|
|
|
Post by onedaytheuwe on Jan 24, 2015 20:42:46 GMT
If that's the case ( see above) then let's call the court case off. Give us the money and we will re-establish our great time in Bath again... We are NOT stopping them access are we
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 24, 2015 21:19:08 GMT
If that's the case ( see above) then let's call the court case off. Give us the money and we will re-establish our great time in Bath again... We are NOT stopping them access are we If that's a reply to me, I'll answer with the same question straight back to you. Are we preventing Sainsbury's from completing the contract? I have no idea. We know very little of what's actually happening and even if we had access to the full contract and all communication that has been exchanged we probably wouldn't be any wiser without expert advice to explain what it all means. All we can do is guess. Maybe we are stopping things from progressing (if I had agreed to sell my home for 'X' 3 years ago knowing at the time that my next home would also cost 'X', but in the meantime the place I was moving to had gone up by a few million quid I may be tempted to try to find a way out whilst blaming the other people involved), maybe Sainsbury's no longer want to complete (they do seem to have previous for doing this), maybe the contract has expired, maybe there is some dispute as to how contract conditions are to be fulfilled, who knows, not me that's for sure.
|
|
|
Post by Topper Gas on Jan 24, 2015 22:29:04 GMT
We seem to be going around in circles on this particular issue but surely Sainsburys only supported the Appeal after Rovers threatened to issue a writ and force them into entering the appeal. As the other poster says, for some reason Sainsbury's decided early last year they didn't want to proceed for some unexplainable reason, whatever it is they must feel it's worthwhile running to a trial hearing. Does the fact that no politician seems to be supporting us anymore suggest it might be a good defence??
|
|
|
Post by CountyGroundHotel on Jan 25, 2015 0:43:31 GMT
Completely wrong on my view Seth. I'm not expecting a change in heart from Sainsburys & the odds are they want out, & if they could've got out easily then this contract would already be history (they just don't need to drag their feet or need the adverse publicity). So the question remains why they haven't, one none of you are even brave enough to consider. Once again, how do you know that they haven't already told Higgs that they are not only out but also the reasons why, within the terms of the contract, they believe that they are entitled to walk away? It could be that Higgs is just disputing their interpretation of the contract, in which case, he had better be employing Nick Freeman and not Nick Cotton or it could get very costly. Oh do read what is posted and keep up. As I have said all along it is my opinion / conjecture that Sainsburys have not legally exited the contract, based on some facts ie no confirmation to the markets. What you and all the others, who seem to want Rovers proven to be wrong, have failed is to provide any evidence that Sainsburys have legally exited the contract. But hey you have no evidence I have no evidence, you can carry on being a f**king hypocrite and present your opinion as fact as long as you want. Where we are at is both sides will now provide written evidence to the high court which will be put in front of a judge, he (I believe) can make one of two rulings either rovers don't have a leg to stand on (going against my view) or that there is a case to be heard (going against everyone else's view on here). I don't believe (but happy to be corrected) that he can judge against Sainsburys at that stage. Now if the judge goes the first way I'll unhappily come on here and admit I was barking up the wrong tree. But if he goes the second way none of the rest of you will come admitting your wrong, actually you'll probably all come back saying how you knew Sainsburys were on a sticky wicket, but hey that hypocrites for you.
|
|
|
Post by CountyGroundHotel on Jan 25, 2015 0:45:14 GMT
If that's the case ( see above) then let's call the court case off. Give us the money and we will re-establish our great time in Bath again... We are NOT stopping them access are we If that's a reply to me, I'll answer with the same question straight back to you. Are we preventing Sainsbury's from completing the contract? I have no idea. We know very little of what's actually happening and even if we had access to the full contract and all communication that has been exchanged we probably wouldn't be any wiser without expert advice to explain what it all means. All we can do is guess. Maybe we are stopping things from progressing (if I had agreed to sell my home for 'X' 3 years ago knowing at the time that my next home would also cost 'X', but in the meantime the place I was moving to had gone up by a few million quid I may be tempted to try to find a way out whilst blaming the other people involved), maybe Sainsbury's no longer want to complete (they do seem to have previous for doing this), maybe the contract has expired, maybe there is some dispute as to how contract conditions are to be fulfilled, who knows, not me that's for sure. f**k me you need a bigger straw to clutch
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 25, 2015 1:09:31 GMT
We seem to be going around in circles on this particular issue but surely Sainsburys only supported the Appeal after Rovers threatened to issue a writ and force them into entering the appeal. As the other poster says, for some reason Sainsbury's decided early last year they didn't want to proceed for some unexplainable reason, whatever it is they must feel it's worthwhile running to a trial hearing. Does the fact that no politician seems to be supporting us anymore suggest it might be a good defence?? Not true - go speak to Charlotte she will put you right
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 25, 2015 1:10:08 GMT
Once again, how do you know that they haven't already told Higgs that they are not only out but also the reasons why, within the terms of the contract, they believe that they are entitled to walk away? It could be that Higgs is just disputing their interpretation of the contract, in which case, he had better be employing Nick Freeman and not Nick Cotton or it could get very costly. Oh do read what is posted and keep up. As I have said all along it is my opinion / conjecture that Sainsburys have not legally exited the contract, based on some facts ie no confirmation to the markets. What you and all the others, who seem to want Rovers proven to be wrong, have failed is to provide any evidence that Sainsburys have legally exited the contract. But hey you have no evidence I have no evidence, you can carry on being a f******g hypocrite and present your opinion as fact as long as you want. Where we are at is both sides will now provide written evidence to the high court which will be put in front of a judge, he (I believe) can make one of two rulings either rovers don't have a leg to stand on (going against my view) or that there is a case to be heard (going against everyone else's view on here). I don't believe (but happy to be corrected) that he can judge against Sainsburys at that stage. Now if the judge goes the first way I'll unhappily come on here and admit I was barking up the wrong tree. But if he goes the second way none of the rest of you will come admitting your wrong, actually you'll probably all come back saying how you knew Sainsburys were on a sticky wicket, but hey that hypocrites for you. Dear oh dear You have an opinion, why the invective?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 25, 2015 1:12:08 GMT
Once again, how do you know that they haven't already told Higgs that they are not only out but also the reasons why, within the terms of the contract, they believe that they are entitled to walk away? It could be that Higgs is just disputing their interpretation of the contract, in which case, he had better be employing Nick Freeman and not Nick Cotton or it could get very costly. Oh do read what is posted and keep up. As I have said all along it is my opinion / conjecture that Sainsburys have not legally exited the contract, based on some facts ie no confirmation to the markets. What you and all the others, who seem to want Rovers proven to be wrong, have failed is to provide any evidence that Sainsburys have legally exited the contract. But hey you have no evidence I have no evidence, you can carry on being a f******g hypocrite and present your opinion as fact as long as you want.Where we are at is both sides will now provide written evidence to the high court which will be put in front of a judge, he (I believe) can make one of two rulings either rovers don't have a leg to stand on (going against my view) or that there is a case to be heard (going against everyone else's view on here). I don't believe (but happy to be corrected) that he can judge against Sainsburys at that stage. Now if the judge goes the first way I'll unhappily come on here and admit I was barking up the wrong tree. But if he goes the second way none of the rest of you will come admitting your wrong, actually you'll probably all come back saying how you knew Sainsburys were on a sticky wicket, but hey that hypocrites for you. All part of the Hidden agenda on here against Bristol Rovers football club
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 25, 2015 1:14:22 GMT
Oh do read what is posted and keep up. As I have said all along it is my opinion / conjecture that Sainsburys have not legally exited the contract, based on some facts ie no confirmation to the markets. What you and all the others, who seem to want Rovers proven to be wrong, have failed is to provide any evidence that Sainsburys have legally exited the contract. But hey you have no evidence I have no evidence, you can carry on being a f******g hypocrite and present your opinion as fact as long as you want.Where we are at is both sides will now provide written evidence to the high court which will be put in front of a judge, he (I believe) can make one of two rulings either rovers don't have a leg to stand on (going against my view) or that there is a case to be heard (going against everyone else's view on here). I don't believe (but happy to be corrected) that he can judge against Sainsburys at that stage. Now if the judge goes the first way I'll unhappily come on here and admit I was barking up the wrong tree. But if he goes the second way none of the rest of you will come admitting your wrong, actually you'll probably all come back saying how you knew Sainsburys were on a sticky wicket, but hey that hypocrites for you. All part of the Hidden agenda on here against Bristol Rovers football club Really?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 25, 2015 1:17:34 GMT
All part of the Hidden agenda on here against Bristol Rovers football club Really? We are all entitled to our opinion - that's all it is an opinion like all the posts above - no solid facts
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 25, 2015 1:19:56 GMT
We are all entitled to our opinion - that's all it is an opinion like all the posts above - no solid facts Of course. So, for clarity, in your opinion, some opinions on here are part of an agenda to bring the club down? Really?
|
|
|
Post by swissgas on Jan 25, 2015 1:24:54 GMT
Sainsburys could be on a sticky wicket if they decide to build a glue factory at the Mem
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 25, 2015 1:33:28 GMT
Sainsburys could be on a sticky wicket if they decide to build a glue factory at the Mem nick did say at the meeting back in july [?] he couldnt give a f**k if sainsburys built a glue factory
|
|
|
Post by swissgas on Jan 25, 2015 1:51:32 GMT
Sainsburys could be on a sticky wicket if they decide to build a glue factory at the Mem nick did say at the meeting back in july [?] he couldnt give a f if sainsburys built a glue factory I think the hidden agenda line is that he said glue factory and the unswerving loyalist line is that he said chewing gum factory. But his words may be subject to change dependent on conditions in the adhesives market.
|
|
|
Post by CountyGroundHotel on Jan 25, 2015 4:18:42 GMT
nick did say at the meeting back in july [?] he couldnt give a f if sainsburys built a glue factory I think the hidden agenda line is that he said glue factory and the unswerving loyalist line is that he said chewing gum factory. But his words may be subject to change dependent glue conditions in the adhesives market. Definately glue factory, unless he did 2 Q&As in which case it could be both ......
|
|
|
Post by CountyGroundHotel on Jan 25, 2015 4:34:28 GMT
Oh do read what is posted and keep up. As I have said all along it is my opinion / conjecture that Sainsburys have not legally exited the contract, based on some facts ie no confirmation to the markets. What you and all the others, who seem to want Rovers proven to be wrong, have failed is to provide any evidence that Sainsburys have legally exited the contract. But hey you have no evidence I have no evidence, you can carry on being a f******g hypocrite and present your opinion as fact as long as you want. Where we are at is both sides will now provide written evidence to the high court which will be put in front of a judge, he (I believe) can make one of two rulings either rovers don't have a leg to stand on (going against my view) or that there is a case to be heard (going against everyone else's view on here). I don't believe (but happy to be corrected) that he can judge against Sainsburys at that stage. Now if the judge goes the first way I'll unhappily come on here and admit I was barking up the wrong tree. But if he goes the second way none of the rest of you will come admitting your wrong, actually you'll probably all come back saying how you knew Sainsburys were on a sticky wicket, but hey that hypocrites for you. Dear oh dear You have an opinion, why the invective? Not sure what invective you mean? f**king is a cute way of checking people are actually reading what is written & not what they hope was written. And hypocrite is just my opinion (you've graciously / condescendingly confirmed we're allowed opinions) of people like you. Never did apologise for blaming Rovers over the Woking fiasco did you.
|
|
Peter Parker
Global Moderator
Richard Walker
You have been sentenced to DELETION!
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 4,920
|
Post by Peter Parker on Jan 25, 2015 8:23:09 GMT
Once again, how do you know that they haven't already told Higgs that they are not only out but also the reasons why, within the terms of the contract, they believe that they are entitled to walk away? It could be that Higgs is just disputing their interpretation of the contract, in which case, he had better be employing Nick Freeman and not Nick Cotton or it could get very costly. Oh do read what is posted and keep up. As I have said all along it is my opinion / conjecture that Sainsburys have not legally exited the contract, based on some facts ie no confirmation to the markets. What you and all the others, who seem to want Rovers proven to be wrong, have failed is to provide any evidence that Sainsburys have legally exited the contract. But hey you have no evidence I have no evidence, you can carry on being a f******g hypocrite and present your opinion as fact as long as you want. Where we are at is both sides will now provide written evidence to the high court which will be put in front of a judge, he (I believe) can make one of two rulings either rovers don't have a leg to stand on (going against my view) or that there is a case to be heard (going against everyone else's view on here). I don't believe (but happy to be corrected) that he can judge against Sainsburys at that stage. Now if the judge goes the first way I'll unhappily come on here and admit I was barking up the wrong tree. But if he goes the second way none of the rest of you will come admitting your wrong, actually you'll probably all come back saying how you knew Sainsburys were on a sticky wicket, but hey that hypocrites for you. Where is everyone saying that their is no case? I think we have all debated what sainsburys line of attack/defense might be, but i dont think anyone has declared their is no case to be heard or that a judge will definitley take sainsburys side
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 25, 2015 8:34:39 GMT
If you didn't see the Panorama programme on Tescos watch it on I player. It really shows how they bully there suppliers and local councils. Sainsburys will be no different. Notice Charlotte Leslie has gone quiet, what with Sainsburys being a huge Tory benefactor. Don't be silly, Lord Sainsbury was a working Labour Peer and a Minister in Tony Blairs government, he donated over £18 million to Labour over a 10 year period. I was unaware of the Tory associations of other members of the family, but the Labour Lord was chairman of Sainsburys for many years rather setting the tone for the companies political stance...although I can't find any evidence that it has ever contributed to any political party.
|
|