Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 14, 2015 8:39:51 GMT
Unfortunately though there are enough deluded people who will back him, he is now pressing ahead with a wild goose chase of an appeal not because he believes uwe is achievable but because he wants to gamble with more of the club's money to try and recoup his losses. It was clear two years ago that sains wanted out but instead of trying to negotiate a settlement that may have then been achievable he ploughed on with head buried firmly in the sand, wasting two years that could have been spent formulating plan b and wasting shedloads of the club's cash at the same time. An honourable man would now agree to write off the money he has 'invested' in the club, which was only necessary because of his own endless catalogue of mistakes both in management appointments and failed stadium projects and let someone else come forward with a clean slate. How do you know that we did not try to sort out a deal with Sainsburys before litigation? Ever tried to shift the mind of a soulless, faceless PLC who the judge herself has highlighted made no attempt to contact all parties involved of their decision to pull out of the contract? Remember who instigated litigation - it was not Rovers. I would love to know what the appointed Rovers' Solicitor who poured over the contract at the beginning said about it - what was the advice? If it was "all in order", then I would be thinking about employing a new lawyer to consider a clam for professional indemnity against the original firm for failing to spot an automatic get out clause rather than wasting money on an appeal. I think it is only about 5% of decisions that get overturned if memory serves right, although others may be able to be more concise. You have to prove that the judge was fundamentally wrong, which is not a easy hurdle to overcome.
Well at one stage Nick Higgs was very bullishly saying that he wasn't interested in a settlement with Sainsbury's, the contract was watertight, and they would have their pound of flesh. So that hints that he didn't try to sort out a deal and maybe even hints that he'd rejected one. As for them being failed by their legal team, there's a difference between doing as they say and listening to their opinion and making your mind up. They're usually hugely reluctant to tell people what to do. The contract won't have been entirely authored by one side. It was likely to have bits in it that either side was rather weren't there, but let's go with it because it probably won't come to that will it, so let's not make it a deal breaker. If you take a flyer on those things to get the thing signed and make progress..... is that the lawyers' fault? |
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 14, 2015 8:45:11 GMT
How do you know that we did not try to sort out a deal with Sainsburys before litigation? Ever tried to shift the mind of a soulless, faceless PLC who the judge herself has highlighted made no attempt to contact all parties involved of their decision to pull out of the contract? Remember who instigated litigation - it was not Rovers. I would love to know what the appointed Rovers' Solicitor who poured over the contract at the beginning said about it - what was the advice? If it was "all in order", then I would be thinking about employing a new lawyer to consider a clam for professional indemnity against the original firm for failing to spot an automatic get out clause rather than wasting money on an appeal. I think it is only about 5% of decisions that get overturned if memory serves right, although others may be able to be more concise. You have to prove that the judge was fundamentally wrong, which is not a easy hurdle to overcome.
Well at one stage Nick Higgs was very bullishly saying that he wasn't interested in a settlement with Sainsbury's, the contract was watertight, and they would have their pound of flesh. So that hints that he didn't try to sort out a deal and maybe even hints that he'd rejected one. As for them being failed by their legal team, there's a difference between doing as they say and listening to their opinion and making your mind up. They're usually hugely reluctant to tell people what to do. The contract won't have been entirely authored by one side. It was likely to have bits in it that either side was rather weren't there, but let's go with it because it probably won't come to that will it, so let's not make it a deal breaker. If you take a flyer on those things to get the thing signed and make progress..... is that the lawyers' fault? Seth So very true. But, if the summisation by Vaughan is accurate what underpinned the decision was not complicated. Did really need a lawyer to explain the meaning of time limit? |
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 14, 2015 8:52:36 GMT
Well at one stage Nick Higgs was very bullishly saying that he wasn't interested in a settlement with Sainsbury's, the contract was watertight, and they would have their pound of flesh. So that hints that he didn't try to sort out a deal and maybe even hints that he'd rejected one. As for them being failed by their legal team, there's a difference between doing as they say and listening to their opinion and making your mind up. They're usually hugely reluctant to tell people what to do. The contract won't have been entirely authored by one side. It was likely to have bits in it that either side was rather weren't there, but let's go with it because it probably won't come to that will it, so let's not make it a deal breaker. If you take a flyer on those things to get the thing signed and make progress..... is that the lawyers' fault? Seth So very true. But, if the summisation by Vaughan is accurate what underpinned the decision was not complicated. Did really need a lawyer to explain the meaning of time limit? I think that's a separate issue. There's the issue of the porous nature of the contract which some seem to blame on the lawyers, rather than on the people who chose to sign it, no doubt with all of implications of that having been explained to them by said lawyers. There's then the issue that, having signed it, they forgot what was in it or bothered to think that it mattered. |
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 14, 2015 9:09:47 GMT
Wasn't it said by the clubs lawyers that there was a "misunderstanding" so they misunderstood the contract?
|
|
Igitur
Joined: June 2014
Posts: 2,294 
|
Post by Igitur on Jul 14, 2015 9:18:41 GMT
Any chance of another Q&A session?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 14, 2015 9:29:00 GMT
Seth So very true. But, if the summisation by Vaughan is accurate what underpinned the decision was not complicated. Did really need a lawyer to explain the meaning of time limit? I think that's a separate issue. There's the issue of the porous nature of the contract which some seem to blame on the lawyers, rather than on the people who chose to sign it, no doubt with all of implications of that having been explained to them by said lawyers. There's then the issue that, having signed it, they forgot what was in it or bothered to think that it mattered. Yep, I get your point |
|
|
|
Post by Nobbygas on Jul 14, 2015 9:45:08 GMT
Seth So very true. But, if the summisation by Vaughan is accurate what underpinned the decision was not complicated. Did really need a lawyer to explain the meaning of time limit? I think that's a separate issue. There's the issue of the porous nature of the contract which some seem to blame on the lawyers, rather than on the people who chose to sign it, no doubt with all of implications of that having been explained to them by said lawyers. There's then the issue that, having signed it, they forgot what was in it or bothered to think that it mattered. To be fair, how many people on here have had their House Insurance policy explained to them by a Solicitor. How many have actually read through, and understood, all the clauses contained in the insurance policy? How many people on here are unaware of how many 'holes' there are in the typical House Insurance policy? Yet your house is probably the most expensive thing you'll ever buy. |
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 14, 2015 9:45:22 GMT
Any chance of another Q&A session?  |
|
LPGas
Stuart Taylor
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 1,240
|
Post by LPGas on Jul 14, 2015 10:10:01 GMT
Lets face it the winners here are Trash, they delayed the planning application long enough for Sainsburys to wriggle out of it. Ferguson has said its a awful decision for Rovers and Bristol but its his councillor for sport that's f******g responsible for this. Backed by the bitch who is now in charge of Bristol Sport. Only in Bristol |
|
LPGas
Stuart Taylor
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 1,240
|
Post by LPGas on Jul 14, 2015 10:15:48 GMT
I have to ask "how many of you have read the judgement thoroughly?"
I will start: Yes
|
|
Peter Parker
Global Moderator
Richard Walker
You have been sentenced to DELETION!
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 4,920
|
Post by Peter Parker on Jul 14, 2015 10:22:53 GMT
I have to ask "how many of you have read the judgement thoroughly?" I will start: Yes I've read it and it is complicated,
But it seems was Sainsbury’s did all they had to(however minimal) and an acceptable permission was not granted by the cut-off date. It really seems that simple through all the bluster of breaches and bad faith.
Compounded by the fact that we had to sign off on Sainsbury’s weak appeal on delivery hours before they could submit it, which in turn caused it's own delay irrespective of TRASH/Carstairs etc
|
|
Angas
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 2,067
|
Post by Angas on Jul 14, 2015 10:41:20 GMT
I have to ask "how many of you have read the judgement thoroughly?" I will start: Yes Yes. I think it needs reading more than once, personally, as it's only when you get to the end that certain things make sense (to me anyway). The thing I picked up on, apart from the obvious issue of dates, was close to the beginning. The issue of Sainsbury's apparently only being obliged to appeal once. The worst thing of all for me is this comment from the judge:- "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." Now it seems we are hanging our hats on the conclusion of that paragraph:- "However I have to decide what it means." Presumably hoping to prove she decided wrongly. |
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 14, 2015 10:43:38 GMT
I think that's a separate issue. There's the issue of the porous nature of the contract which some seem to blame on the lawyers, rather than on the people who chose to sign it, no doubt with all of implications of that having been explained to them by said lawyers. There's then the issue that, having signed it, they forgot what was in it or bothered to think that it mattered. To be fair, how many people on here have had their House Insurance policy explained to them by a Solicitor. How many have actually read through, and understood, all the clauses contained in the insurance policy? How many people on here are unaware of how many 'holes' there are in the typical House Insurance policy? Yet your house is probably the most expensive thing you'll ever buy. House insurance isn't complicated. |
|
alwaysgas
Harry Bamford
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 153
|
Post by alwaysgas on Jul 14, 2015 10:52:59 GMT
I have to ask "how many of you have read the judgement thoroughly?" I will start: Yes I've read it and it is complicated,
But it seems was Sainsbury’s did all they had to(however minimal) and an acceptable permission was not granted by the cut-off date. It really seems that simple through all the bluster of breaches and bad faith.
Compounded by the fact that we had to sign off on Sainsbury’s weak appeal on delivery hours before they could submit it, which in turn caused it's own delay irrespective of TRASH/Carstairs etc
That's why the directors quite rightly took advice from their legal team yesterday and they can now decide whether it is worth appealing or not. |
|
Igitur
Joined: June 2014
Posts: 2,294
|
Post by Igitur on Jul 14, 2015 11:19:42 GMT
|
|
Angas
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 2,067
|
Post by Angas on Jul 14, 2015 11:41:02 GMT
As we're learning that wording has to be incredibly closely studied, I hope the BoD realise that "we have been advised that we have very strong grounds for making a legal appeal" does not read quite the same as "we have been advised that we have very strong grounds for believing we will win a legal appeal".
|
|
alwaysgas
Harry Bamford
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 153
|
Post by alwaysgas on Jul 14, 2015 11:47:17 GMT
As we're learning that wording has to be incredibly closely studied, I hope the BoD realise that "we have been advised that we have very strong grounds for making a legal appeal" does not read quite the same as "we have been advised that we have very strong grounds for believing we will win a legal appeal". Hopefully they asked that question yesterday Ann. |
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 14, 2015 13:40:46 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 14, 2015 13:42:47 GMT
Meanwhile our official site has been humourosly trolled. Someone delete it please!  |
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 14, 2015 14:07:18 GMT
As we're learning that wording has to be incredibly closely studied, I hope the BoD realise that "we have been advised that we have very strong grounds for making a legal appeal" does not read quite the same as "we have been advised that we have very strong grounds for believing we will win a legal appeal". Hopefully they asked that question yesterday Ann. A bit like it was hopeful they read and understood the original contract |
|
