|
Post by bttrsblue on Jul 13, 2015 11:53:14 GMT
It's been 10 years since I've had to read something like that, and I would have saved myself the trouble if it didn't posses my with the same morbid fascination as watching a cheap horror movie on late night TV. Two questions though, and I know it's easy to be wise after the event, but there are two troubling sentences from early on in this judgement: 'The terms of this deal had been agreed in principle by negotiation between Mr Jamie Baker, a development surveyor employed by Sainsbury’s, and Mr Nick Higgs and Mr Toni Watola on behalf of the Club...' and later: 'There is little doubt that the Agreement is tortuously, laboriously and in some respects badly, drafted. It makes any draftsman itch to have a try at it. However I have to decide what it means.' Firstly, f******g watertight they said! If a high court judge, not to mention those of us who have worked with complicated contracts before, can't work out what it says, then in what universe can this contact be described as 'watertight'? And secondly, where were our barristers and solicitors when this contact for sale was being drafted? Am I to believe that we could have been spared all this uncertainty, all this expense and all this trouble if we treated the multi-million pound sale of our one major asset with the care it deserved and delegated the job of drafting the contact to professionals? I've deleted a more detailed rant because it rambled on and on and on, when it's actually sufficient to say that it's evident the BoD have been feeding us complete bulls***, they weren't competent to negotiate and draft the contact, as evidenced by the incomprehensible bundle of bollocks they produced, and I don't trust them spending more of the clubs money on pursuing the matter through the appellate court system. For those who aren't aware, the high court works at a frenzied pace compared to the appeal courts and the club cannot afford for this uncertainty to continue. It's past time they made plans for Rovers without the UWE because right now they're gambling with the clubs future. I don't think Higgs and Watola drafted the contract - they negotiated the agreement which the contract was based on.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 13, 2015 11:56:36 GMT
It's been 10 years since I've had to read something like that, and I would have saved myself the trouble if it didn't posses my with the same morbid fascination as watching a cheap horror movie on late night TV. Two questions though, and I know it's easy to be wise after the event, but there are two troubling sentences from early on in this judgement: 'The terms of this deal had been agreed in principle by negotiation between Mr Jamie Baker, a development surveyor employed by Sainsbury’s, and Mr Nick Higgs and Mr Toni Watola on behalf of the Club...' and later: 'There is little doubt that the Agreement is tortuously, laboriously and in some respects badly, drafted. It makes any draftsman itch to have a try at it. However I have to decide what it means.' Firstly, f******g watertight they said! If a high court judge, not to mention those of us who have worked with complicated contracts before, can't work out what it says, then in what universe can this contact be described as 'watertight'? And secondly, where were our barristers and solicitors when this contact for sale was being drafted? Am I to believe that we could have been spared all this uncertainty, all this expense and all this trouble if we treated the multi-million pound sale of our one major asset with the care it deserved and delegated the job of drafting the contact to professionals? I've deleted a more detailed rant because it rambled on and on and on, when it's actually sufficient to say that it's evident the BoD have been feeding us complete bulls***, they weren't competent to negotiate and draft the contact, as evidenced by the incomprehensible bundle of bollocks they produced, and I don't trust them spending more of the clubs money on pursuing the matter through the appellate court system. For those who aren't aware, the high court works at a frenzied pace compared to the appeal courts and the club cannot afford for this uncertainty to continue. It's past time they made plans for Rovers without the UWE because right now they're gambling with the clubs future. I must admit Timothy, when I read that you can understand why this has failed so miserably
I agree with all the points you make
|
|
|
Post by timothyq on Jul 13, 2015 12:00:03 GMT
I don't think Higgs and Watola drafted the contract - they negotiated the agreement which the contract was based on. Sorry, poorly worded. Whilst obviously the language used in the contract was 'drafted' by professionals, the negotiations were obviously poorly carried out. Otherwise, we would have been left with a contact which could be practically understood by legal professionals without the need to go to court. Had we handed negotiations over to a professional third party who acted within perameters set by Toni / Higgs then we would not now be suffering for their sloppiness several years on.
|
|
|
Post by manchestergas on Jul 13, 2015 12:01:28 GMT
Toni in happier times:
|
|
kingswood Polak
Without music life would be a mistake
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 10,283
|
Post by kingswood Polak on Jul 13, 2015 12:04:24 GMT
Agreed but, IF he is as much of a gashead as everyone keeps telling me, then he can sort a repayment plan out. We are now, as I see it, in a worse position than when when we had to leave Eastville but at least we have the mem as collateral. I just can't see that Higgs has any credibility Ian. We may even have to sell the mem and rent. I never ever thought we would go backwards but this one very stubborn man has managed to mismanage things so badly that we are a bloody laughing stock. Why won't he listen, why does it always have to be his way or the highway ? I am now more worried, in the immediacy, about the loan. It may be a blessing as it's known that this particular company has sometimes found investment instead of calling loans in. I hope and I pray that there are investors on the horizon. With Higgs at the helm, we are going nowhere but out of football. The guy has no ability to accept, with grace, his own foibles and fault. That's an awful trait mate. We all duck up but most of us can accept and even apologise for our duck ups. I see this as inevitable. The verdict was inevitable. Sainsburys were clear they didn't want to buy and a long time beforehand. Regardless of their circuitous ways of getting out of it, the law is with them. That Higgs knew this and then borrowed more money to fight it, shows unbelievable stupidity. No, his credibility or what was left of it, left with the Wycombe appeal for me. His every move now will be met with suspicion. He really needs to look at himself and fully understand just how many people he has hurt and let down. He has split the fan base but thank god DC brought some pride back, he has put us near to financial ruin and he has got us out of the football league while pursuing something that he knew to be dead. I am sure a psychiatrist would call him delusional and more. I am bloody angry and upset so I use emotive and strong words but when I heard the word appeal, it just broke that final string. He's a Dog, chasing his own tail. Apologies to all Dogs. What next , or was plan B an appeal ? One thing I am sure of I would never like to have you in my corner Mr Polak - he who has never tried will never fail because he has no balls There is a time when the best Generals know when to pull back. There is a point where tactical retreat is the only way. Your opinion of me has no bearing on this. It's those that give continued backing, who have given the chairman his air of invincibility and have enabled him. Battles are not won by continuing along a path that has no advantage to be taken.
|
|
|
Post by clockendgas on Jul 13, 2015 12:06:45 GMT
Don't worry Henbury said the yanks are coming to save the day. just like they have done in the middle east, no worries then
|
|
LPGas
Stuart Taylor
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 1,240
|
Post by LPGas on Jul 13, 2015 12:12:14 GMT
"Accordingly I find that Sainsbury’s must succeed because of the construction of Schedule 1 to the Agreement [2.11] which seems to me to be an insuperable barrier to the Club. If this is wrong (and I do not think it is), I find that the Club succeeds."
So it is down as to whether the judge thought that Sainsburys did not need to submit a revised application for increased delivery hours, despite the fact that (A) Sainsburys admitted that the original application was weak and that (2)they were advised by councillors to wait until the political climate had changed, (the political climate being set by the Judicial Review)
If I was Higgs I would appeal
|
|
kingswood Polak
Without music life would be a mistake
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 10,283
|
Post by kingswood Polak on Jul 13, 2015 12:22:16 GMT
Don't worry Henbury said the yanks are coming to save the day. just like they have done in the middle east, no worries then First time I managed a giggle. Thanks.
|
|
|
Post by Topper Gas on Jul 13, 2015 12:22:47 GMT
Agreed but, IF he is as much of a gashead as everyone keeps telling me, then he can sort a repayment plan out. We are now, as I see it, in a worse position than when when we had to leave Eastville but at least we have the mem as collateral. I just can't see that Higgs has any credibility Ian. We may even have to sell the mem and rent. I never ever thought we would go backwards but this one very stubborn man has managed to mismanage things so badly that we are a bloody laughing stock. Why won't he listen, why does it always have to be his way or the highway ? I am now more worried, in the immediacy, about the loan. It may be a blessing as it's known that this particular company has sometimes found investment instead of calling loans in. I hope and I pray that there are investors on the horizon. With Higgs at the helm, we are going nowhere but out of football. The guy has no ability to accept, with grace, his own foibles and fault. That's an awful trait mate. We all duck up but most of us can accept and even apologise for our duck ups. I see this as inevitable. The verdict was inevitable. Sainsburys were clear they didn't want to buy and a long time beforehand. Regardless of their circuitous ways of getting out of it, the law is with them. That Higgs knew this and then borrowed more money to fight it, shows unbelievable stupidity. No, his credibility or what was left of it, left with the Wycombe appeal for me. His every move now will be met with suspicion. He really needs to look at himself and fully understand just how many people he has hurt and let down. He has split the fan base but thank god DC brought some pride back, he has put us near to financial ruin and he has got us out of the football league while pursuing something that he knew to be dead. I am sure a psychiatrist would call him delusional and more. I am bloody angry and upset so I use emotive and strong words but when I heard the word appeal, it just broke that final string. He's a Dog, chasing his own tail. Apologies to all Dogs. What next , or was plan B an appeal ? Higgs reminds me of hitler in the bunker thinking he can still win the war, if he appeals he really has lost the plot, we have the tent and the clown now. Even today;s articel on the OS suggests he still can't accept defeat, why not just say we respect the Judges decision and will now consider our position rather than threaten an appeal which we clearly can't afford and are probably 99% certain of losing? The fact Sainsbury's never supported the JR was probably the sign we need to forget them and either look for a new partner or give up on the UWE, I wonder how much of the club's money has been wasted since then?
|
|
Peter Parker
Global Moderator
Richard Walker
You have been sentenced to DELETION!
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 4,920
|
Post by Peter Parker on Jul 13, 2015 12:26:08 GMT
"Accordingly I find that Sainsbury’s must succeed because of the construction of Schedule 1 to the Agreement [2.11] which seems to me to be an insuperable barrier to the Club. If this is wrong (and I do not think it is), I find that the Club succeeds." So it is down as to whether the judge thought that Sainsburys did not need to submit a revised application for increased delivery hours, despite the fact that (A) Sainsburys admitted that the original application was weak and that (2)they were advised by councillors to wait until the political climate had changed, (the political climate being set by the Judicial Review) If I was Higgs I would appeal unless I have misread in the report, we had to agree to their technically weak submission, which we did, so...
edit
I also find that an Acceptable Store Planning Permission could not have been obtained before the Termination Date because (i) the Club unequivocally assented to the timing and terms of the s.73 application and (ii) Planning Counsel did not approve an Appeal within [2.11] of Schedule 1. 122. Mr Wonnacott also submits that withdrawing the s.73 application would have been a breach of contract since withdrawing an appeal would have been the opposite of “prosecuting the Appeal with due diligence”. In any event, he says that withdrawing the Appeal would have triggered the Cut Off Date immediately thus entitling Sainsbury’s to serve a Termination Notice immediately. This seems to me to be an overly technical constru
|
|
|
Post by timothyq on Jul 13, 2015 12:27:47 GMT
"Accordingly I find that Sainsbury’s must succeed because of the construction of Schedule 1 to the Agreement [2.11] which seems to me to be an insuperable barrier to the Club. If this is wrong (and I do not think it is), I find that the Club succeeds." So it is down as to whether the judge thought that Sainsburys did not need to submit a revised application for increased delivery hours, despite the fact that (A) Sainsburys admitted that the original application was weak and that (2)they were advised by councillors to wait until the political climate had changed, (the political climate being set by the Judicial Review) If I was Higgs I would appeal Appeal courts are very complicated, the facts would be as stated (which doesn't look like a problem) and a panel of judges / law lords would listen to legal arguments from both sides and it would be a majority verdict based on if the judges reason was correct. If we were to appeal I would expect the entire judgement to be reviewed, so that the case may not end us replying on 2.11, as the judges could disagree with the trial judges ruling on 2.11 but also disagree with her ruling on Sainsbury's other complaints. The process will be slow and very expensive as the legal arguments may become even more technical and require more preparation and time spend in court. To make matters worse, if we're operating within a grey area of common law, which it appears we are, then whatever the verdict from the CoA we might end up in the Supreme Court. Put simply, if we go down the appeal route we could still be in the process in three years time with a mountain of debt and no end in sight. I always thought ending up in the appeal system would be a disaster, the decisions Higgs needs to make is whether it is a bigger disaster than simply walking away and finding a way to get the club on a sound financial footing without gambling on the outcome of a court case.
|
|
vaughan
Joined: June 2014
Posts: 1,237
|
Post by vaughan on Jul 13, 2015 12:28:52 GMT
According to Watola in clip provided above by Manchestergas, we should be playing Northampton at UWE (2015-16 season)
Sometimes you just want to weep.
The reality is that they knew that there were major problems with Sainsbury's attitude on proceeding with the contract and were happy to keep telling us news that we wanted to hear.
I propose one litmus test for this BOD - credibility.
Higgs and Watola will keep playing the "victim" card and some will be naive enough to tear up their Nectar cards in show of unity around "poor old Bristol Rovers".
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 13, 2015 12:31:18 GMT
There are only so many time you can say it before concluding that people just don't want to accept what happened. One more time for Henbury. Sainsbury's (rightly according to today's news) regarded the contract is dead, they were happy to leave it at that. They brought the action as a direct response to the writ that Higgs issued. The contract is dead. So, as far as I can tell, is the writ. They could, if they thought it was in their interests, issue a claim against us for their costs. I don't think they will though.Do you think that's because they want to quickly draw a line under this and move on or are there previous precedents involving them where they haven't ? They will be patting themselves on the back this morning and will be happy with where they are. If we think we have found grounds to drag them to appeal (which we will lose) they will want their costs covered and will most likely bolt on their costs for the hearing that has just ended.
|
|
|
Post by a more piratey game on Jul 13, 2015 12:39:32 GMT
Just back from the court. 7-8 Gasheads in attendance, 1 sh*thead, and Alistair Durdan. No other representation. The verdict was passed down - literally from the judge in the form of a report. The Sh*t had just finished training for the bar, so he gave us all a steer on the outcome. Basically she finds in Salisbury favor. A guidance on Schedule 1 (2.11) was given that she felt that this clause was not satisfied. The clause relates to planning permission for the buyer (Sainsburys) had to obtain, and from my quick assessment involved the stop dates that were not met. hello again - I was one of the 7-8. There was a bit of a clue when we couldn't see the Chairman or FD in court. We had hoped they'd be with their legal team in a conference room until late, but it was a forlorn hope the judge spoke for about 15 seconds, saying things that didn't mean anything to most of us. Then she left, and we pored over papers, wondering what had happened. To call it a non-event would over-state the level of action. I'm not sure what we expected, but this was much much less than whatever it was the best analyst seemed to be the Ted (who was a trainee barrister, as per bttrs above), although billy ocean was also giving it a good shot. For once in a lifetime at least, the two of them seemed to agree - Sainsbury's had been cast as the villain, and proven to have behaved badly, but they won every round on legal points that might not be the final verdict, but it was take of everyone in the room at the time. The Ted put something on OTIB, which I haven't read yet. Agree with bttrs that there seemed to be little grounds for appeal, so the club's statement might just be a bit of bluster to try to save a sliver of face
|
|
Peter Parker
Global Moderator
Richard Walker
You have been sentenced to DELETION!
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 4,920
|
Post by Peter Parker on Jul 13, 2015 12:40:02 GMT
If we appeal on this "Inconsistently applied technicality" is any Judge really going to find the contract any less complex and in our favour
Surely that is a massive financial risk
|
|
|
Post by timothyq on Jul 13, 2015 12:40:09 GMT
According to Watola in clip provided above by Manchestergas, we should be playing Northampton at UWE (2015-16 season) Sometimes you just want to weep. The reality is that they knew that there were major problems with Sainsbury's attitude on proceeding with the contract and were happy to keep telling us news that we wanted to hear. I propose one litmus test for this BOD - credibility. Higgs and Watola will keep playing the "victim" card and some will be naive enough to tear up their Nectar cards in show of unity around "poor old Bristol Rovers". Agree, agree, agree. We may be unhappy that Sainsbury's sought a legal excuse to end the contract (regardless of whether we agree with the Judges ruling), but their actions shouldn't have come as a surprise and this situation was probably recoverable if we put together a decent 'plan B' years ago. Instead the BoD have deluded themselves that they had a 'watertight' contract and now all they've got to fall back on is the bitter contention that the judge got it wrong.
|
|
Peter Parker
Global Moderator
Richard Walker
You have been sentenced to DELETION!
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 4,920
|
Post by Peter Parker on Jul 13, 2015 12:43:08 GMT
According to Watola in clip provided above by Manchestergas, we should be playing Northampton at UWE (2015-16 season) Sometimes you just want to weep. The reality is that they knew that there were major problems with Sainsbury's attitude on proceeding with the contract and were happy to keep telling us news that we wanted to hear. I propose one litmus test for this BOD - credibility. Higgs and Watola will keep playing the "victim" card and some will be naive enough to tear up their Nectar cards in show of unity around "poor old Bristol Rovers". Agree, agree, agree. We may be unhappy that Sainsbury's sought a legal excuse to end the contract (regardless of whether we agree with the Judges ruling), but their actions shouldn't have come as a surprise and this situation was probably recoverable if we put together a decent 'plan B' years ago. Instead the BoD have deluded themselves that they had a 'watertight' contract and now all they've got to fall back on is the bitter contention that the judge got it wrong. We let Plan B lapse by not renewing the planning permission.
Am interested to know what the apparent change of legal team was about
|
|
|
Post by gasheadpirate on Jul 13, 2015 12:44:23 GMT
As Fraser in Dad's Army used to say 'we're doomed!'
Saddled with debt and no chance of our stadium, where can Rovers go from here? Administration or a slow and painful death? Can't see knights in shining armour coming to invest in the club now. The judge condemning the drafting of the contract is telling when building contracts was supposed to be Higgs' business. His position has got to be untenable now bit who is there to replace him?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 13, 2015 12:52:59 GMT
If we appeal on this "Inconsistently applied technicality" is any Judge really going to find the contract any less complex and in our favour Surely that is a massive financial risk Also, in all this indignant bluster about appeals, are they forgetting that the reason they gave the High Court that this case should be fast tracked was that UWE wouldn't stay on board if it wasn't resolved by round about now?
|
|
|
Post by gashead1979 on Jul 13, 2015 13:01:20 GMT
Bound to be a City fan knocking that up right now think you will find more than one or two actually knocking one out over their laptop as we cry over ours, dirty red scum or over their brother/sister/mum/dad* *delete as appropriate
|
|