Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 4, 2015 16:07:37 GMT
It does clearly say that the £1.5m was the final offer after other "derisory offers". I'd therefore say we would all turn down offers of a couple of hundred grand if we were confident in winning. The final offer of £1.5m was still low, so if Rovers had said £15m as an opener in response to £100k, then said £10m in response to £500k, as examples, then £1.5m as a final offer was a long way short of the negotiation or bartering... But it was still far higher than we have at present? 'That would have been a fabulous goal if it had gone in.'
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 4, 2015 19:18:53 GMT
Toni Watola said on Made in Bristol that the statement released by Sainsbury was NOT true. Has anyone actually seen / heard this statement by Sainsbury's, or is it just that the BEP reported it as having been said by them?
|
|
|
Post by fanatical on Aug 4, 2015 19:19:55 GMT
|
|
kingswood Polak
Without music life would be a mistake
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 10,278
|
Post by kingswood Polak on Aug 5, 2015 14:34:59 GMT
"declined to comment on if Sainsbury made an offer what was acceptable." Just that comment didn't make sense to me? Surely they'd accept an offer which was acceptable to them, or wasn't he prepared to comment what was an acceptable offer?
If the latter, like you, I don't blame him! Sorry if my message was ambiguous.
He was not prepared to comment on what was an acceptable offer although he said he had his own opinion but the matter had not been discussed by the Board.
And apparently they had not had a board meeting lol. I guess it goes to show that both SC directors were either genuinely not aware of the meeting or had not been invited to attend. I spoke to Brian Seymour-Smith and he told me that there has been no meeting, I believe what he says. It seems that poor Bri was not aware of this meeting and, if true, it further makes a mockery of the two directors places. I will see him before the game on Saturday and see what he has to say.
|
|
|
Post by PessimistGas on Aug 5, 2015 15:02:38 GMT
I'd have a wild guess at 1 in 10? Even if we win who'd bet against Sainsbury's then Appealing that result? As the judge is allowing the appeal, may, as unlikely as it sounds, give Sainsbury food for thought. As I see it, and I am no legal expert, the judge allowed the appeal to go ahead because it's not a legal point that's being appealed but an opinion on that point, more a question of interpretation of that point., not the point itself. There again I could be barking up the wrong tree completely That is my understanding. Unfortunately the original judgement can only be overturned if it is clear that no reasonable person could have come to conclusion reached. We're f*cked.
|
|
The Gas
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 484
|
Post by The Gas on Aug 5, 2015 15:50:39 GMT
Sorry if my message was ambiguous.
He was not prepared to comment on what was an acceptable offer although he said he had his own opinion but the matter had not been discussed by the Board.
And apparently they had not had a board meeting lol. I guess it goes to show that both SC directors weeper either genuinely not aware of the meeting or had not been invited to attend. I spoke to Brian Seymour-Smith and he told me that there has been no meeting, I be,I've what he says. It seems that poor Bri was not aware of this meeting and, if true, it further makes a mockery of the two directors places. I will see him before the game on Saturday and see what he has to say. Good to see you are back in the fold supporting The Gas at games.
|
|
Peter Parker
Global Moderator
Richard Walker
You have been sentenced to DELETION!
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 4,920
|
Post by Peter Parker on Aug 5, 2015 16:22:09 GMT
As the judge is allowing the appeal, may, as unlikely as it sounds, give Sainsbury food for thought. As I see it, and I am no legal expert, the judge allowed the appeal to go ahead because it's not a legal point that's being appealed but an opinion on that point, more a question of interpretation of that point., not the point itself. There again I could be barking up the wrong tree completely That is my understanding. Unfortunately the original judgement can only be overturned if it is clear that no reasonable person could have come to conclusion reached. We're f*cked.
As usual, the club could actually explain what is happening a bit better. All we have been told is we have been given leave to appeal. We won 4 or 5 points (irrelevant) but lost on one and apparently have good grounds to appeal based on the interpretation of a technicality of a clusterf**k of contract.
That is all well in good but what is the process?
If another judge(s) thinks/interprets the clause differently can they overturn the original ruling? Or do they have to believe the
If the new judge(s) decides that they disagree with the verdict but understand the reasoning behind it, does the original decision have to be upheld? Does the judge(s) have to believe the original decision is fundamentally flawed
Rovers have gone on about this one point we lost on. Presumably the new judge gets to review the whole contract and as such can find in favour of/or against Rovers/Sainsbury’s on any of the other clauses etc?
|
|
alwaysgas
Harry Bamford
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 153
|
Post by alwaysgas on Aug 5, 2015 16:41:46 GMT
That is my understanding. Unfortunately the original judgement can only be overturned if it is clear that no reasonable person could have come to conclusion reached. We're f*cked.
As usual, the club could actually explain what is happening a bit better. All we have been told is we have been given leave to appeal. We won 4 or 5 points (irrelevant) but lost on one and apparently have good grounds to appeal based on the interpretation of a technicality of a clusterf of contract.
That is all well in good but what is the process?
If another judge(s) thinks/interprets the clause differently can they overturn the original ruling? Or do they have to believe the
If the new judge(s) decides that they disagree with the verdict but understand the reasoning behind it, does the original decision have to be upheld? Does the judge(s) have to believe the original decision is fundamentally flawed
Rovers have gone on about this one point we lost on. Presumably the new judge gets to review the whole contract and as such can find in favour of/or against Rovers/Sainsbury’s on any of the other clauses etc?
There will be three judges and they will listen to the grounds of the appeal Rovers that have been allowed to challenge. If they think that Rovers are right and that the points would have made a fundalmental difference they could overturn the judgement. The decision does not have to be unanimous.
|
|
brizzle
Lindsay Parsons
No Buy . . . No Sell!
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 4,293
|
Post by brizzle on Aug 5, 2015 16:50:16 GMT
As usual, the club could actually explain what is happening a bit better. All we have been told is we have been given leave to appeal. We won 4 or 5 points (irrelevant) but lost on one and apparently have good grounds to appeal based on the interpretation of a technicality of a clusterf of contract.
That is all well in good but what is the process?
If another judge(s) thinks/interprets the clause differently can they overturn the original ruling? Or do they have to believe the
If the new judge(s) decides that they disagree with the verdict but understand the reasoning behind it, does the original decision have to be upheld? Does the judge(s) have to believe the original decision is fundamentally flawed
Rovers have gone on about this one point we lost on. Presumably the new judge gets to review the whole contract and as such can find in favour of/or against Rovers/Sainsbury’s on any of the other clauses etc?
There will be three judges and they will listen to the grounds of the appeal Rovers that have been allowed to challenge. If they think that Rovers are right and that the points would have made a fundalmental difference they could overturn the judgement. The decision does not have to be unanimous. A very succinct summing up that is. Not too much room for argument (or debate) there, is there? Keep calm and carry on is my advice.
|
|
|
Post by bluebeard on Aug 5, 2015 19:29:20 GMT
That is my understanding. Unfortunately the original judgement can only be overturned if it is clear that no reasonable person could have come to conclusion reached. We're f*cked.
As usual, the club could actually explain what is happening a bit better. All we have been told is we have been given leave to appeal. We won 4 or 5 points (irrelevant) but lost on one and apparently have good grounds to appeal based on the interpretation of a technicality of a clusterf of contract.
That is all well in good but what is the process?
If another judge(s) thinks/interprets the clause differently can they overturn the original ruling? Or do they have to believe the
If the new judge(s) decides that they disagree with the verdict but understand the reasoning behind it, does the original decision have to be upheld? Does the judge(s) have to believe the original decision is fundamentally flawed
Rovers have gone on about this one point we lost on. Presumably the new judge gets to review the whole contract and as such can find in favour of/or against Rovers/Sainsbury’s on any of the other clauses etc?
The club made a statement saying that, contrary to Sainsburys claims, the judge had NOT recommended that rovers take a £1.5m settlement. Clear enough to me but uproar and 10 pages of debate on here. Who the hell is going to take on the challenge of drafting a statement explaining, to you lot, the intricacies of a complex high court appeal?
|
|
Peter Parker
Global Moderator
Richard Walker
You have been sentenced to DELETION!
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 4,920
|
Post by Peter Parker on Aug 5, 2015 19:37:56 GMT
As usual, the club could actually explain what is happening a bit better. All we have been told is we have been given leave to appeal. We won 4 or 5 points (irrelevant) but lost on one and apparently have good grounds to appeal based on the interpretation of a technicality of a clusterf of contract.
That is all well in good but what is the process?
If another judge(s) thinks/interprets the clause differently can they overturn the original ruling? Or do they have to believe the
If the new judge(s) decides that they disagree with the verdict but understand the reasoning behind it, does the original decision have to be upheld? Does the judge(s) have to believe the original decision is fundamentally flawed
Rovers have gone on about this one point we lost on. Presumably the new judge gets to review the whole contract and as such can find in favour of/or against Rovers/Sainsbury’s on any of the other clauses etc?
The club made a statement saying that, contrary to Sainsburys claims, the judge had NOT recommended that rovers take a £1.5m settlement. Clear enough to me but uproar and 10 pages of debate on here. Who the hell is going to take on the challenge of drafting a statement explaining, to you lot, the intricacies of a complex high court appeal? We dont need masses of detail, it.seems a couple of people on here have managed to simply explain the appeal process. That is all that is required. Heaven forbid fans take an interest on what the club are doing after being sold down the river or screwing the contract up. I'd feel happier if i knew what we were actually arguing as a rebuttal to the judges interpretation and mine and others interpretation of said clause. Or minor technicality as BRFC put it
|
|
|
Post by Henbury Gas on Aug 6, 2015 7:00:36 GMT
The club made a statement saying that, contrary to Sainsburys claims, the judge had NOT recommended that rovers take a £1.5m settlement. Clear enough to me but uproar and 10 pages of debate on here. Who the hell is going to take on the challenge of drafting a statement explaining, to you lot, the intricacies of a complex high court appeal? We dont need masses of detail, it.seems a couple of people on here have managed to simply explain the appeal process. That is all that is required. Heaven forbid fans take an interest on what the club are doing after being sold down the river or screwing the contract up. I'd feel happier if i knew what we were actually arguing as a rebuttal to the judges interpretation and mine and others interpretation of said clause. Or minor technicality as BRFC put it
Not sure the club would put that out as it may be possible ammo for Sainsberry legal bods
|
|
Peter Parker
Global Moderator
Richard Walker
You have been sentenced to DELETION!
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 4,920
|
Post by Peter Parker on Aug 6, 2015 7:13:32 GMT
We dont need masses of detail, it.seems a couple of people on here have managed to simply explain the appeal process. That is all that is required. Heaven forbid fans take an interest on what the club are doing after being sold down the river or screwing the contract up. I'd feel happier if i knew what we were actually arguing as a rebuttal to the judges interpretation and mine and others interpretation of said clause. Or minor technicality as BRFC put it
Not sure the club would put that out as it may be possible ammo for Sainsberry legal bods I don't mean literally what our argument is. Just I don't understand are argument and where we are going to come at this from
'we' keep banging on about this one point and a minor technicality and we wiped the floor with Sainsbury's on everything else
We are relying on a different set of judges interpreting a clause the original judge thinks in the context of the contract we can not overcome.
The way I read it was Sainsbury's fulfilled their obligations to the contract, to which BRFC had to agree to the content of Sainsbury's appeal. Once it failed, Job done for Sainsbury's.
We missed the cut-off with our own application which appears to have been inexplicably been brought forward from the original date, which again would require BRFC's consent
|
|
kingswood Polak
Without music life would be a mistake
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 10,278
|
Post by kingswood Polak on Aug 6, 2015 9:21:52 GMT
And apparently they had not had a board meeting lol. I guess it goes to show that both SC directors weeper either genuinely not aware of the meeting or had not been invited to attend. I spoke to Brian Seymour-Smith and he told me that there has been no meeting, I be,I've what he says. It seems that poor Bri was not aware of this meeting and, if true, it further makes a mockery of the two directors places. I will see him before the game on Saturday and see what he has to say. Good to see you are back in the fold supporting The Gas at games. Who am I kidding when I try to stay away, I miss the banter and camaraderie.
|
|
LPGas
Stuart Taylor
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 1,240
|
Post by LPGas on Aug 6, 2015 9:24:31 GMT
Not sure the club would put that out as it may be possible ammo for Sainsberry legal bods I don't mean literally what our argument is. Just I don't understand are argument and where we are going to come at this from
'we' keep banging on about this one point and a minor technicality and we wiped the floor with Sainsbury's on everything else
We are relying on a different set of judges interpreting a clause the original judge thinks in the context of the contract we can not overcome.
The way I read it was Sainsbury's fulfilled their obligations to the contract, to which BRFC had to agree to the content of Sainsbury's appeal. Once it failed, Job done for Sainsbury's.
We missed the cut-off with our own application which appears to have been inexplicably been brought forward from the original date, which again would require BRFC's consent
All our legal team have to do is to apply our argument to a previous case where the decision was made the other way. That is one way you can win a case through history!
I really hope we win not just for ourselves but it may encourage others to take on these b'stards
|
|
Peter Parker
Global Moderator
Richard Walker
You have been sentenced to DELETION!
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 4,920
|
Post by Peter Parker on Aug 6, 2015 9:47:36 GMT
I don't mean literally what our argument is. Just I don't understand are argument and where we are going to come at this from
'we' keep banging on about this one point and a minor technicality and we wiped the floor with Sainsbury's on everything else
We are relying on a different set of judges interpreting a clause the original judge thinks in the context of the contract we can not overcome.
The way I read it was Sainsbury's fulfilled their obligations to the contract, to which BRFC had to agree to the content of Sainsbury's appeal. Once it failed, Job done for Sainsbury's.
We missed the cut-off with our own application which appears to have been inexplicably been brought forward from the original date, which again would require BRFC's consent
All our legal team have to do is to apply our argument to a previous case where the decision was made the other way. That is one way you can win a case through history!
I really hope we win not just for ourselves but it may encourage others to take on these b******s
I agree. The problem is from my understanding, is we help facilitate Sainsbury's obligations. Seems a bit erroneous to say they breached the contract when we helped them fulfil their contractual obligations
|
|
kingswood Polak
Without music life would be a mistake
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 10,278
|
Post by kingswood Polak on Aug 6, 2015 12:10:20 GMT
All our legal team have to do is to apply our argument to a previous case where the decision was made the other way. That is one way you can win a case through history!
I really hope we win not just for ourselves but it may encourage others to take on these b******s
I agree. The problem is from my understanding, is we help facilitate Sainsbury's obligations. Seems a bit erroneous to say they breached the contract when we helped them fulfil their contractual obligations Surely the argument there would be that we had no choice but to do so as Sainsbury's were not going to place the appeal ? Christ, this really is a comedy of errors and some very circuitous moves by them. As I understand it the deadline was missed by 20 days. I guess it's all academic now and now it will be down to the appeal judges, to see if the case holds "water"lol
|
|
Peter Parker
Global Moderator
Richard Walker
You have been sentenced to DELETION!
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 4,920
|
Post by Peter Parker on Aug 6, 2015 12:23:33 GMT
I agree. The problem is from my understanding, is we help facilitate Sainsbury's obligations. Seems a bit erroneous to say they breached the contract when we helped them fulfil their contractual obligations Surely the argument there would be that we had no choice but to do so as Sainsbury's were not going to place the appeal ? Christ, this really is a comedy of errors and some very circuitous moves by them. As I understand it the deadline was missed by 20 days. I guess it's all academic now and now it will be down to the appeal judges, to see if the case holds "water"lol If you read the judgment. Sainsbury's only had to make one appeal to get the delivery hours.
That appeal had to be signed off by BRFC, we had to be happy with it. How can we then argue the appeal wasn't good enough? and this was all well before the cut-off date
|
|
|
Post by droitwichgas on Aug 6, 2015 12:45:04 GMT
Surely the argument there would be that we had no choice but to do so as Sainsbury's were not going to place the appeal ? Christ, this really is a comedy of errors and some very circuitous moves by them. As I understand it the deadline was missed by 20 days. I guess it's all academic now and now it will be down to the appeal judges, to see if the case holds "water"lol If you read the judgment. Sainsbury's only had to make one appeal to get the delivery hours.
That appeal had to be signed off by BRFC, we had to be happy with it. How can we then argue the appeal wasn't good enough? and this was all well before the cut-off date
Desperation? Wasn't our argument we weren't experts so just assumed the appeal was good enough? Although whilst our defence seemed to be Sainsbury's dragged their feet I can't recall the Judge commenting on that in her Judgment? Also, if we had concners about deadlines why did we agree they could bring the deadline forward by 6 months??
|
|
LPGas
Stuart Taylor
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 1,240
|
Post by LPGas on Aug 6, 2015 15:14:17 GMT
Didn't someone for the BCC say that Sainsburys appeal was amateurish? or words to that effect?
|
|