|
Post by Curly Wurly on Jul 13, 2015 14:47:50 GMT
True, but the thought of another 4 year wait to get another scheme through planning permission, etc.etc.etc. would surely lead to UWE moving on. £30m wasn't enough to build and complete UWE anyway. I don't think it ever was, but Higgs' writ confirmed that the build price has now increased. And Wonga are going to want paying, that'll be another £2m that has to come from somewhere. I did say £30m+ I know how hard it is to give up following the effort put in to date, but surely someone has to disuade Nick from pursuing an undoubtedly fruitless and expensive appeal. Time to pay off MSP (if we can) and take stock.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 13, 2015 14:50:41 GMT
I know how hard it is to give up following the effort put in to date, but surely someone has to disuade Nick from pursuing an undoubtedly fruitless and expensive appeal. Time to pay off MSP (if we can) and take stock. The voice of reason. Give nick a call, see if you can get him to see sense.
|
|
|
Post by Curly Wurly on Jul 13, 2015 15:06:27 GMT
I know how hard it is to give up following the effort put in to date, but surely someone has to disuade Nick from pursuing an undoubtedly fruitless and expensive appeal. Time to pay off MSP (if we can) and take stock. The voice of reason. Give nick a call, see if you can get him to see sense. Ha ha!
|
|
|
Post by brisgas123 on Jul 13, 2015 15:47:43 GMT
I hope to God we don't appeal. MOVE ON YOU CLOWN, HIGGS. I say we wait for that 'investment' and then try to redevelop the Mem.
|
|
irishrover
Global Moderator
Joined: June 2014
Posts: 3,372
|
Post by irishrover on Jul 13, 2015 16:05:29 GMT
I don't think this is very good news on the whole.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 13, 2015 16:17:10 GMT
I hope to God we don't appeal. MOVE ON YOU CLOWN, HIGGS. I say we wait for that 'investment' and then try to redevelop the Mem. Exactly. Move on, let go the `dream`. Rovers still have football league grants to utilise so revamp the Mem. Its the only option now.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 13, 2015 16:19:05 GMT
I hope to God we don't appeal. MOVE ON YOU CLOWN, HIGGS. I say we wait for that 'investment' and then try to redevelop the Mem. Exactly. Move on, let go the `dream`. Rovers still have football league grants to utilise so revamp the Mem. Its the only option now. Just need to obtain the planning permission.
|
|
tuckbox
Joined: June 2014
Posts: 19
|
Post by tuckbox on Jul 13, 2015 16:23:54 GMT
True, but the thought of another 4 year wait to get another scheme through planning permission, etc.etc.etc. would surely lead to UWE moving on. It wouldn't take 4 years to get planning permission for a residential development which would bring in c£15m. The important thing is that the value of The Mem remains part of the football club and does not get used to repay the incompetent fools who have risked all to achieve nothing. The Mem is not an asset of the football club, it does not belong to the football club. It is owned by the holding company that owns the football club, which is owned by the Directors. They could sell the Mem and pocket the money.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 13, 2015 16:24:25 GMT
Unless someone can find a spare £30+ million it won't make any difference. I guess we all 'eagerly' await UWE's response to this clusterf Radio Bristol just read a statement from UWE. They are sticking with us.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 13, 2015 16:27:38 GMT
Exactly. Move on, let go the `dream`. Rovers still have football league grants to utilise so revamp the Mem. Its the only option now. Just need to obtain the planning permission. Which they let lapse, I know. Even Higgs biggest foe wouldn't say that would be hard to get a second time.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 13, 2015 16:28:58 GMT
They could sell the Mem and pocket the money. If they waste the equity recklessly chasing pipe dreams, the end result is the same, isn't it? Edit. UWE know something about new owners / investers, that's the only reason they would consider hanging in there.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 13, 2015 16:31:45 GMT
It wouldn't take 4 years to get planning permission for a residential development which would bring in c£15m. The important thing is that the value of The Mem remains part of the football club and does not get used to repay the incompetent fools who have risked all to achieve nothing. The Mem is not an asset of the football club, it does not belong to the football club. It is owned by the holding company that owns the football club, which is owned by the Directors. They could sell the Mem and pocket the money. Well aware of that one fella.
|
|
Angas
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 2,068
|
Post by Angas on Jul 13, 2015 16:45:59 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 The Agreement obligated Sainsbury's to appeal once. Which they did. And lost. (Wrong timing - ie while the JR was ongoing). No obligation to appeal further unless their Planning Counsel anticipated a 60% or more chance of success. "111. On 23 June 2014 the Club wrote to Sainsbury’s enclosing an opinion from counsel, Mr Douglas Edwards QC, giving his opinion that ... an application to amend Condition 11 would have a greater than 60% chance of success. Mr Edwards did not however qualify as Planning Counsel within the definition of that term as he was not appointed by Sainsbury’s." If I were Higgs I think I'd wish the Agreement had been better drafted.
|
|
Angas
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 2,068
|
Post by Angas on Jul 13, 2015 16:51:06 GMT
They could sell the Mem and pocket the money. If they waste the equity recklessly chasing pipe dreams, the end result is the same, isn't it? Edit. UWE know something about new owners / investers, that's the only reason they would consider hanging in there. Or they just don't want to be seen to be kicking a man when he's down. Plenty of time for them to walk away nicely.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 13, 2015 16:57:14 GMT
If they waste the equity recklessly chasing pipe dreams, the end result is the same, isn't it? Edit. UWE know something about new owners / investers, that's the only reason they would consider hanging in there. Or they just don't want to be seen to be kicking a man when he's down. Plenty of time for them to walk away nicely. Haven't seen or heard the statement, but surprised that they bothered to make anyone available to give one at this stage. I would have thought they would have sent for Higgs and asked what his next move was?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 13, 2015 16:59:03 GMT
Or they just don't want to be seen to be kicking a man when he's down. Plenty of time for them to walk away nicely. Haven't seen or heard the statement, but surprised that they bothered to make anyone available to give one at this stage. I would have thought they would have sent for Higgs and asked what his next move was? He did say in his interview that he was going to ring them today so he probably didn't.
|
|
vaughan
Joined: June 2014
Posts: 1,237
|
Post by vaughan on Jul 13, 2015 17:05:52 GMT
Sorry guys, but we mucked up big-time.
We knew that Sainsbury's wanted out in 2013. November 2013 - there was a reported blazing row about this.
We allowed Sainsbury's to appeal on delivery times (5am to midnight) and naively agreed (Watola did not object by his own eveidence) for them to go ahead with this 73s appeal - this was a mistake as they were only bound in the contract to one appeal and this was rejected by BCC.
We then, after JR went into our favour in March 2014, delayed too much in forcing Sainsbury's to make a second appeal (we did this ourselves at our expense after going to court because Sainsbury's refused and wanted out). Because of our delay in initiating this second appeal, we never made the cut-off date of November 26th 2014, despite our appeal being successful via BCC.This gave Sainsbury's the legal right to walk away.
Sainsbury's saw us coming and did enough through the provisions of the contract to avoid going through with the contract.
It was not a technicality. It was a 39-page verdict on contract law and morality has nothing to do with it.
Amateurish in the way we allowed Sainsbury's to wriggle out, plus an initial badly worded contract (see judge).
We will not win an appeal IMO. Higgs appeals to emotion and yes we were "used and abused" , but the law is cold-hearted in the extreme.
|
|
|
Post by fatherjackhackett on Jul 13, 2015 17:24:06 GMT
Exactly. Move on, let go the `dream`. Rovers still have football league grants to utilise so revamp the Mem. Its the only option now. Just need to obtain the planning permission. Again...
|
|
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 17:46:05 GMT
Sorry guys, but we mucked up big-time. We knew that Sainsbury's wanted out in 2013. November 2013 - there was a reported blazing row about this. We allowed Sainsbury's to appeal on delivery times (5am to midnight) and naively agreed (Watola did not object by his own eveidence) for them to go ahead with this 73s appeal - this was a mistake as they were only bound in the contract to one appeal and this was rejected by BCC. We then, after JR went into our favour in March 2014, delayed too much in forcing Sainsbury's to make a second appeal (we did this ourselves at our expense after going to court because oSainsbury's refused and wanted out). Because of our delay in initiating this second appeal, we never made the cut-off date of November 26th 2014, despite our appeal being successful via BCC.This gave Sainsbury's the legal right to walk away. Sainsbury's saw us coming and did enough through the provisions of the contract to avoid going through with the contract. It was not a technicality. It was a 39-page verdict on contract law and morality has nothing to do with it. Amateurish in the way we allowed Sainsbury's to wriggle out, plus an initial badly worded contract (see judge). We will not win an appeal IMO. Higgs appeals to emotion and yes we were "used and abused" , but the law is cold-hearted in the extreme. And.from what i read we had to agree and be satisfied with their weak appeal for them to submit it. We could have sent.it back asking for it to be improved based on our experts advice if we sought any or just trusted Sainsburys
|
|
vaughan
Joined: June 2014
Posts: 1,237
|
Post by vaughan on Jul 13, 2015 18:12:21 GMT
Even more bitter that we engaged the experts when it "was our turn" and won the appeal, although this was after JR and local elections.
My main point is that we should have known that Sainsbury's effectively wanted to lose their planning appeal and acted accordingly.
From March 27th 2014 (JR review decision date), we should have been working backwards from 26th November 2014 (contractual cut-off date) and ensuring that an appeal was won. We should have gone to court to ensure that a second appeal was lined up, knowing that Sainsbury's would never agree to one.
My verdict is that we let the undoubted moral right on our side (Sainsbury's were stalling and not displaying best endeavours) take our eye off the ball about the cut-off date.
The main issues for me are that 1. Higgs (Captain Leaky) and trusted associates failed on the biggest stage despite assurances of "watertight" contracts but 2. he also hid essential truths from supporters. It is clear that BRFC BOD knew in 2013 that Sainsbury's had no intention of fulfilling this agreement and kept this quiet on purpose during post JR decision euphoria. Despicable behavious and removes the moral high ground that Higgs is now taking ref Sainsbury's. The evidence is all there to support my views.
IMO, his ego is too fragile to trust, hence the bravado about appeals.
|
|