Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 31, 2015 21:11:19 GMT
Given this lifting of the veil, I wonder what the truth behind 'no acceptable offer received' is.
Ironically, in a literal sense, it's clearly true, otherwise he'd have accepted it. I just wonder what his take on 'acceptable', 'offer' and 'received' are, and how everyone else might view whatever it was (or wasn't).
|
|
LPGas
Stuart Taylor
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 1,240
|
Post by LPGas on Jul 31, 2015 21:13:09 GMT
Well I am no Higgs lover, but I wouldn't have accepted £1.5million if I was in his place, it may be that the appeal gets us a lot more than that. As little as I know about the law, I really don't think that a judge would recommend taking a settlement, especially one so low. I think the best thing is to say nothing in return, after all it could be a load of hogwash
|
|
mjg
Mickey Barrett
Joined: September 2014
Posts: 48
|
Post by mjg on Jul 31, 2015 21:15:48 GMT
Henbury, do you think the majority shareholder in a business always pays the bills? In a small business, a one man band, they probably do. I work in a family owned £1bn GBP turnover business and ultimately the shareholders stand to lose if it fails, but on a day to day basis the successful business they have built pays the bills and the shareholders only get called upon if and when there is a gap. Most successful businesses operate without a gap. Are we a tinpot one man band? Your post suggests we are, and based on the last few years it would be a brave person that argues differently.
I expect that the reason JS have talked about the settlement offers is because they came into play at the hearing today. As I think I mentioned in an earlier post, if a party to litigation makes an offer in a particular way, and that offer is bettered at trial, the court will take into account, when deciding who pays the costs, that the losing party should have taken the offer on the table. At that stage confidentiality around costs and offers is no longer a consideration. On that basis I don't see that the JS offers were any admission of guilt but instead were likely to have been a balanced view of risk against cost, and have been pitched to put maximum pressure on the club knowing that if the club rejected the offer and lost at trial JS were probably going to get all of their costs. It seems possible that we fell into the trap of thinking that because they offered us something we were in a strong position. Maybe, at the end of the appeal process, we will be proved to have been right but by then it might be too late. if it's true that we held out for £15m against on offer of 1/10th of that, and that a mediation didn't get us closer then you do have to wonder what actually has been going on and who has been driving the settlement discussions. Today's grant of permission to appeal is clearly a good thing, but who knows where this latest throw of the dice will lead.
|
|
|
Post by Henbury Gas on Jul 31, 2015 21:16:21 GMT
Surprised you got one to be honest.... i give you a £10 for it... As you've jumped sideways I presume that you now accept that Higgs doesn't pay the bills, the vast majority of the money that floods into Watola's till comes direct from us terrace scum. But let's not get sidetracked here, there is a very serious question hanging over from the first page of this thread. Did Higgs state that no settlement offer had been made by Sainsbury's? To use an analogy of my business, if a customer buys computer equipment from my shop, that don't give them the right to tell me how i spend that Money At the end of the day we are only customers of Bristol Rovers, not owners
|
|
|
Post by Henbury Gas on Jul 31, 2015 21:23:25 GMT
Henbury, do you think the majority shareholder in a business always pays the bills? In a small business, a one man band, they probably do. I work in a family owned £1bn GBP turnover business and ultimately the shareholders stand to lose if it fails, but on a day to day basis the successful business they have built pays the bills and the shareholders only get called upon if and when there is a gap. Most successful businesses operate without a gap. Are we a tinpot one man band? Your post suggests we are, and based on the last few years it would be a brave person that argues differently. I expect that the reason JS have talked about the settlement offers is because they came into play at the hearing today. As I think I mentioned in an earlier post, if a party to litigation makes an offer in a particular way, and that offer is bettered at trial, the court will take into account, when deciding who pays the costs, that the losing party should have taken the offer on the table. At that stage confidentiality around costs and offers is no longer a consideration. On that basis I don't see that the JS offers were any admission of guilt but instead were likely to have been a balanced view of risk against cost, and have been pitched to put maximum pressure on the club knowing that if the club rejected the offer and lost at trial JS were probably going to get all of their costs. It seems possible that we fell into the trap of thinking that because they offered us something we were in a strong position. Maybe, at the end of the appeal process, we will be proved to have been right but by then it might be too late. if it's true that we held out for £15m against on offer of 1/10th of that, and that a mediation didn't get us closer then you do have to wonder what actually has been going on and who has been driving the settlement discussions. Today's grant of permission to appeal is clearly a good thing, but who knows where this latest throw of the dice will lead. Yes Higgs runs the club like a one man band... when was the last time another director was mentioned in anything by Higgs ? And the retail side of things.... they have not got a clue what there customer want
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 31, 2015 21:26:11 GMT
As you've jumped sideways I presume that you now accept that Higgs doesn't pay the bills, the vast majority of the money that floods into Watola's till comes direct from us terrace scum. But let's not get sidetracked here, there is a very serious question hanging over from the first page of this thread. Did Higgs state that no settlement offer had been made by Sainsbury's? To use an analogy of my business, if a customer buys computer equipment from my shop, that don't give them the right to tell me how i spend that Money At the end of the day we are only customers of Bristol Rovers, not owners If Higgs presented the relationship in this way then your argument would hold water, he doesn't, so it doesn't. Back to the point, did Higgs state that there had been no discussions regarding a settlement with Sainsbury's, if so, how does the timing of that statement sit with what has been reported today? I think this is a very important point.
|
|
|
Post by Henbury Gas on Jul 31, 2015 21:32:23 GMT
To use an analogy of my business, if a customer buys computer equipment from my shop, that don't give them the right to tell me how i spend that Money At the end of the day we are only customers of Bristol Rovers, not owners If Higgs presented the relationship in this way then your argument would hold water, he doesn't, so it doesn't. Back to the point, did Higgs state that there had been no discussions regarding a settlement with Sainsbury's, if so, how does the timing of that statement sit with what has been reported today? I think this is a very important point. If Sainsbury made their offer just before the case stated, then Higgs was correct in his statement, if they offered the money some time ago then you are correct I'm sure if they made a serious offer then he would have taken it
|
|
|
Post by Topper Gas on Jul 31, 2015 21:36:23 GMT
According to the posts at the time Severncider suggested NH stated this at the AGM. I assume Sainsbury's legal advisors thought that £1.5m was the maximum the court would award if Rovers legal team put forward a good case in court. If so, how does NH think he's going to recover £15m/30m?
|
|
mjg
Mickey Barrett
Joined: September 2014
Posts: 48
|
Post by mjg on Jul 31, 2015 21:37:05 GMT
It was likely to have been impossible to have talked about settlement discussions or any negotiations until today, so it is hard to criticize the club on that basis. On the other hand a denial that there had been any discussions or negotiations is now clearly inaccurate, and would have been at the time. It shouldn't have been that hard to have said, when asked about offers or discussions, something factual like 'we are looking forward to arguing our case at trial and any discussions prior to then about an earlier resolution would be confidential'. An agreed statement to this effect would be normal, uncontroversial (admittedly irritating for most of us) but not open to allegations of lies after the event. It's not really that tricky......
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 31, 2015 21:48:10 GMT
According to the posts at the time Severncider suggested NH stated this at the AGM. I assume Sainsbury's legal advisors thought that £1.5m was the maximum the court would award if Rovers legal team put forward a good case in court. If so, how does NH think he's going to recover £15m/30m? OK, so, the AGM was March, it was reported today that mediation started in April. If that's correct them nobody would have beem misled by it being stated at the AGM that no offers had been discussed.
|
|
|
Post by PessimistGas on Jul 31, 2015 21:56:16 GMT
Lie after lie after lie.
|
|
LPGas
Stuart Taylor
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 1,240
|
Post by LPGas on Jul 31, 2015 22:07:06 GMT
Truth is whilst we call ourselves supporters, we are but customers, although I wish to point out no one in my household is a Sainsburys customer.
|
|
The Gas
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 484
|
Post by The Gas on Jul 31, 2015 22:32:29 GMT
According to the posts at the time Severncider suggested NH stated this at the AGM. I assume Sainsbury's legal advisors thought that £1.5m was the maximum the court would award if Rovers legal team put forward a good case in court. If so, how does NH think he's going to recover £15m/30m? Yes you are correct.
The real question is when did Sainsbury first offer the £1.5m. If it was after NH said no offer had been received, he has not lied. If it was before he said no offer had been received, he has some serious questions to answer.
As I have no idea of the date the first offer was made, I cannot comment on this.
|
|
The Gas
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 484
|
Post by The Gas on Jul 31, 2015 22:36:10 GMT
don't forget the legal costs that wouldn't have been incurred as well. Higgs & co want their money back and 1.5m won't cover it, so they continue to gamble the club's future for their own self interest. Unfortunately there are still a sizeable number who would defend higgs even if we ended up in administration, always someone else's fault. We are still quite a few million quid away from Rovers going into administration. Reading between the lines here, they think they are sat on a £15m asset, so the debts are nowhere near enough yet for them to hand over control of that asset to an administrator. Of course, that hinges on the BoD being able and willing to meet the costs of running the FC and fighting Sainsbury's, and dealing with Wonga. Wonder what Jelf, Bradshaw, Ware and our SC reps said when they were asked if they should accept £1.5m?I believe the SC reps were never asked their opinion and this revelation is as much a surprise for them as it is for us.
|
|
LJG
Peter Beadle
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 969
|
Post by LJG on Jul 31, 2015 22:37:59 GMT
Neither does Higgs so what's the relevance of that? last time i looked he is the majority share holder... Slavica Eccleston is the majority shareholder in Formula 1. That dunt mean the leccy bill for the track lights at Silverstone plop onto her doormat.
|
|
The Gas
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 484
|
Post by The Gas on Jul 31, 2015 22:39:15 GMT
To be honest I am surprised that Sainsbury's offer of £1.5m was not mentioned in Court.
I can only assume that they were not able to, if it was likely to prejudice their case.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 31, 2015 22:45:43 GMT
To be honest I am surprised that Sainsbury's offer of £1.5m was not mentioned in Court. I can only assume that they were not able to, if it was likely to prejudice their case. EP saying that Sainsbury's claim to have made the offer due to the sensitive nature of the case rather than them feeling contracturally oblidged to offer a settlement.
|
|
The Gas
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 484
|
Post by The Gas on Jul 31, 2015 23:07:49 GMT
To be honest I am surprised that Sainsbury's offer of £1.5m was not mentioned in Court. I can only assume that they were not able to, if it was likely to prejudice their case. EP saying that Sainsbury's claim to have made the offer due to the sensitive nature of the case rather than them feeling contracturally oblidged to offer a settlement. Yes, I saw that.
But why did Sainsbury not mention the offer of £1.5m during the trial. It was not public knowledge then and I would have thought would have helped their case.
I am asking would that disclosure in Court have prejudiced their case or perhaps they were not able to disclose that for some unknown reason.
I am just curious for an answer.
|
|
|
Post by manchestergas on Aug 1, 2015 0:24:37 GMT
The offer could have been made in various ways: (a) a without prejudice save as to costs offer (b) as part of the arbitration which is reported to have occurred I understand and (c) as a formal Part 36 offer. With regards (a) the whole point of a without prejudice offer is that it is made without prejudice to the proceedings. You can make the offer and make admissions without prejudice to a view to settlement and you know it will not be referred to in the main hearing. The save as to costs bit is that you can refer to in the costs hearing after the substantive hearing. Basically I made the offer, it was rejected and I won, I want more costs! However, the offer and any admissions associated with it are not referred to in the main hearing to avoid it being seen as a sign of weakness or any admissions getting in as evidence. otherwise people just will clam up and not settle. Explanation: www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=6d99f4ce-2801-4050-ba52-bfe7af9990a1With regards (b) again arbitration/mediation is designed to allow the parties to make admissions and offers again without fear if it breaks down it is referred to in the substantive hearing. A formal Part 36 offer is slightly different. Part 36 offers are provided for in the Civil Procedure Rules (CPR). Such an offer has been referred to above. If the Sainsbury offer was a Part 36 offer basically it means the costs award will be higher if rejected: www.out-law.com/en/topics/dispute-resolution-and-litigation/settlement/part-36-offers-to-settle/So basically the offers would not have been mentioned at the substantive hearing and indeed unless an 'open offer' are barred from being referred to in such a hearing. Settlement offers are all part of the tactics of a case. It is not surprising Sainsbury made an offer even if they were fairly sure they would win. Usually you only get 70 percent of your costs back, and the court pushes you towards settlement and arbitration/mediation.
|
|
|
Post by gasheadnaboo on Aug 1, 2015 1:10:55 GMT
Pahahaha £1.5m!? Higgs probably loses that every 9 months! Bless.
|
|