The Gas
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 484
|
Post by The Gas on Aug 1, 2015 5:41:13 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. I'd forgotten about the "without prejudice" letters sent out by my claims department which could not be mentioned in Court.
Then again, I did retire 20+ years ago.
|
|
The Gas
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 484
|
Post by The Gas on Aug 1, 2015 5:49:09 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 real question that now needs answering is how are we going to pay the £375k costs ordered by the Judge to be paid within 6 weeks
Just looked up the date of the AGM.
It was on 3rd March 2015 when NH said "no offer had been received from Sainsbury".
I can only assume that the first offer of a settlement was after that date, otherwise NH needs to explain his comment.
The real question now is, how are we going to pay the £375k Court costs within six weeks as I believe the club is strapped for cash at the moment.
|
|
|
Post by Topper Gas on Aug 1, 2015 7:13:23 GMT
Surely they haven't spent all the Wonga loan already? I thought that was taken out for a "specific cause" not just for day to day bills?
I suppose it all now comes down to the outcome of the Appeal, if NH wins it seems he was right to turn down the offer, if he losses he's cost the club around £2.5m, or the full cost of the Wonga loan of over £3m. Add that to the present debts and his Chairmanship will have cost us well over £8m in losses?
To be fair to Sainsbury's whilst they killed the UWE project it does seem they were prepared to meet the expenses the club had incurred on the project. Who knows if NH had been prepared to have been reasonable we might have got even more out of them during the negotiations?
I think most of us would have accepted a Sainsbury's pay off, if it meant at least the club's future was secure at the Mem.
|
|
Thatslife
"Decisions are made by those who turn up"
Joined: June 2014
Posts: 669
|
Post by Thatslife on Aug 1, 2015 7:49:37 GMT
To all you naysayers out there I ask this, have you never ever bought and sold a car / house? The process of negotiation usually takes several rounds of offerers, refusals, counter offers etc only in this case we have a bunch of naysayers urging a settlement at the first smell of money, it's like you taking you mate along when you buy a car and every time the salesman offers a price your mate say take it take it take it.
The main point here is that there has been an offer, all that's outstanding now is the amount.
I just hope the Sainsbury's legal team don't read this forum, it would just encourage more low ball offers.
Faith is belief without proof, HAVE SOME.
Some of the comments on here are bordering being slanderous, I urge all to be aware that not only will Sainsbury legal team be reading these posts but BRFC's team will be as well.
One last point and then I will get down from the pulpit. NOBODY, except maybe a fool, releases details of negotiations until they they are complete, except maybe if they are trying to drum up support for their offer, Sainsbury have released these figures hoping that pressure from supporters will make BRFC accept the offer. Seems it's starting to work.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 1, 2015 7:52:32 GMT
I don't believe the offer is still on the table, is it. Sainsburys have won, why on Earth would they chuck money at us now?
|
|
Peter Parker
Global Moderator
Richard Walker
You have been sentenced to DELETION!
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 4,920
|
Post by Peter Parker on Aug 1, 2015 7:57:59 GMT
I don't believe the offer is still on the table, is it. Sainsburys have won, why on Earth would they chuck money at us now? Course it isnt. They won and even if we win the appeal i suspect Sainsburys legal bods think we wont be awarded anything near 15m damages. If we wanted 15m i suspect either we didnt want to negotiate or we we went in asking for more and a.settlement would never be attainable. Sainsburys wouldnt pay 15m to not have the land and would hang on. If our assumptions are correct and they had lost. Paid us and sold for housing they would have been no worse off but gained a few quid interest rather than paying us. I wouldnt have taken 1.5 but i am sure we could have eeked more from them. I doubt are legals woyld say 15m was a realistic settlement
|
|
|
Post by manchestergas on Aug 1, 2015 8:32:40 GMT
The offer is gone. They won.
Mr Higgs gambled and lost (for now).
A new offer might be made. We might win an appeal. I have my doubts but we will see.
|
|
|
Post by Henbury Gas on Aug 1, 2015 8:33:39 GMT
I don't believe the offer is still on the table, is it. Sainsburys have won, why on Earth would they chuck money at us now? Course it isnt. They won and even if we win the appeal i suspect Sainsburys legal bods think we wont be awarded anything near 15m damages. If we wanted 15m i suspect either we didnt want to negotiate or we we went in asking for more and a.settlement would never be attainable. Sainsburys wouldnt pay 15m to not have the land and would hang on. If our assumptions are correct and they had lost. Paid us and sold for housing they would have been no worse off but gained a few quid interest rather than paying us. I wouldnt have taken 1.5 but i am sure we could have eeked more from them. I doubt are legals woyld say 15m was a realistic settlement so if Sainsbury Have "Won" why are we going to appeal ? I fully expect a larger offer just before the case is in front of the court
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 1, 2015 8:35:57 GMT
Course it isnt. They won and even if we win the appeal i suspect Sainsburys legal bods think we wont be awarded anything near 15m damages. If we wanted 15m i suspect either we didnt want to negotiate or we we went in asking for more and a.settlement would never be attainable. Sainsburys wouldnt pay 15m to not have the land and would hang on. If our assumptions are correct and they had lost. Paid us and sold for housing they would have been no worse off but gained a few quid interest rather than paying us. I wouldnt have taken 1.5 but i am sure we could have eeked more from them. I doubt are legals woyld say 15m was a realistic settlement so if Sainsbury Have "Won" why are we going to appeal ? I fully expect a larger offer just before the case is in front of the court You're daft.
|
|
Peter Parker
Global Moderator
Richard Walker
You have been sentenced to DELETION!
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 4,920
|
Post by Peter Parker on Aug 1, 2015 8:38:07 GMT
Course it isnt. They won and even if we win the appeal i suspect Sainsburys legal bods think we wont be awarded anything near 15m damages. If we wanted 15m i suspect either we didnt want to negotiate or we we went in asking for more and a.settlement would never be attainable. Sainsburys wouldnt pay 15m to not have the land and would hang on. If our assumptions are correct and they had lost. Paid us and sold for housing they would have been no worse off but gained a few quid interest rather than paying us. I wouldnt have taken 1.5 but i am sure we could have eeked more from them. I doubt are legals woyld say 15m was a realistic settlement so if Sainsbury Have "Won" why are we going to appeal ? I fully expect a larger offer just before the case is in front of the court Of course they won. Thats why we are appealing. I wouldnt be suprosed if we got another offer, but.no chance it will be 15m meanwhile. Maybe now sainsburys will offer 1.5 again but waive the costs
|
|
|
Post by manchestergas on Aug 1, 2015 8:42:03 GMT
It will go down if it comes. Maybe 1.5m minus Sainsburys costs. We pay our own costs, so it will practically nothing in the mix. Oh well we will see.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 1, 2015 8:45:15 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. Fantastic explanation, thank you.
|
|
eppinggas
Administrator
Ian Alexander
Don't care
Joined: June 2014
Posts: 8,177
|
Post by eppinggas on Aug 1, 2015 8:51:55 GMT
To all you naysayers out there I ask this, have you never ever bought and sold a car / house? The process of negotiation usually takes several rounds of offerers, refusals, counter offers etc only in this case we have a bunch of naysayers urging a settlement at the first smell of money, it's like you taking you mate along when you buy a car and every time the salesman offers a price your mate say take it take it take it. The main point here is that there has been an offer, all that's outstanding now is the amount. I just hope the Sainsbury's legal team don't read this forum, it would just encourage more low ball offers. Faith is belief without proof, HAVE SOME. Some of the comments on here are bordering being slanderous, I urge all to be aware that not only will Sainsbury legal team be reading these posts but BRFC's team will be as well. One last point and then I will get down from the pulpit. NOBODY, except maybe a fool, releases details of negotiations until they they are complete, except maybe if they are trying to drum up support for their offer, Sainsbury have released these figures hoping that pressure from supporters will make BRFC accept the offer. Seems it's starting to work. You are either as deluded as Nick Higgs - or you are Nick Higgs.
|
|
|
Post by a more piratey game on Aug 1, 2015 9:19:34 GMT
To all you naysayers out there I ask this, have you never ever bought and sold a car / house? The process of negotiation usually takes several rounds of offerers, refusals, counter offers etc only in this case we have a bunch of naysayers urging a settlement at the first smell of money, it's like you taking you mate along when you buy a car and every time the salesman offers a price your mate say take it take it take it. The main point here is that there has been an offer, all that's outstanding now is the amount. I just hope the Sainsbury's legal team don't read this forum, it would just encourage more low ball offers. Faith is belief without proof, HAVE SOME. Some of the comments on here are bordering being slanderous, I urge all to be aware that not only will Sainsbury legal team be reading these posts but BRFC's team will be as well. One last point and then I will get down from the pulpit. NOBODY, except maybe a fool, releases details of negotiations until they they are complete, except maybe if they are trying to drum up support for their offer, Sainsbury have released these figures hoping that pressure from supporters will make BRFC accept the offer. Seems it's starting to work. You are either as deluded as Nick Higgs - or you are Nick Higgs. I'm Spartacus
|
|
Thatslife
"Decisions are made by those who turn up"
Joined: June 2014
Posts: 669
|
Post by Thatslife on Aug 1, 2015 9:21:43 GMT
To all you naysayers out there I ask this, have you never ever bought and sold a car / house? The process of negotiation usually takes several rounds of offerers, refusals, counter offers etc only in this case we have a bunch of naysayers urging a settlement at the first smell of money, it's like you taking you mate along when you buy a car and every time the salesman offers a price your mate say take it take it take it. The main point here is that there has been an offer, all that's outstanding now is the amount. I just hope the Sainsbury's legal team don't read this forum, it would just encourage more low ball offers. Faith is belief without proof, HAVE SOME. Some of the comments on here are bordering being slanderous, I urge all to be aware that not only will Sainsbury legal team be reading these posts but BRFC's team will be as well. One last point and then I will get down from the pulpit. NOBODY, except maybe a fool, releases details of negotiations until they they are complete, except maybe if they are trying to drum up support for their offer, Sainsbury have released these figures hoping that pressure from supporters will make BRFC accept the offer. Seems it's starting to work. You are either as deluded as Nick Higgs - or you are Nick Higgs. Deluded??? Just because I have a different take on what's happening, if I am deluded then your sir are have a closed mind.
|
|
|
Post by Henbury Gas on Aug 1, 2015 9:24:16 GMT
You are either as deluded as Nick Higgs - or you are Nick Higgs. Deluded??? Just because I have a different take on what's happening, if I am deluded then your sir are have a closed mind. He is also a founder member of the HA Group of 5
|
|
Peter Parker
Global Moderator
Richard Walker
You have been sentenced to DELETION!
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 4,920
|
Post by Peter Parker on Aug 1, 2015 9:28:04 GMT
Deluded??? Just because I have a different take on what's happening, if I am deluded then your sir are have a closed mind. He is also a founder member of the HA Group of 5 Who are the 5 pillars then
|
|
|
Post by a more piratey game on Aug 1, 2015 9:34:56 GMT
He is also a founder member of the HA Group of 5 Who are the 5 pillars then 'Pillars'. I like that
|
|
kingswood Polak
Without music life would be a mistake
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 10,263
|
Post by kingswood Polak on Aug 1, 2015 9:39:57 GMT
No I haven't sorry but I remember it being discussed on here and the article. I am just going to be straight up and tell you that I can't be arsed to search it out. I did tweet the new PR man and the club asking why there was the denial of any offer, however derisory, I had the usual of no reply. The norm is that if they feel I am not right then they will become pretty agitated and then they reply
|
|
|
Post by Curly Wurly on Aug 1, 2015 9:43:44 GMT
To all you naysayers out there I ask this, have you never ever bought and sold a car / house? The process of negotiation usually takes several rounds of offerers, refusals, counter offers etc only in this case we have a bunch of naysayers urging a settlement at the first smell of money, it's like you taking you mate along when you buy a car and every time the salesman offers a price your mate say take it take it take it. The main point here is that there has been an offer, all that's outstanding now is the amount. I just hope the Sainsbury's legal team don't read this forum, it would just encourage more low ball offers. Faith is belief without proof, HAVE SOME. Some of the comments on here are bordering being slanderous, I urge all to be aware that not only will Sainsbury legal team be reading these posts but BRFC's team will be as well. One last point and then I will get down from the pulpit. NOBODY, except maybe a fool, releases details of negotiations until they they are complete, except maybe if they are trying to drum up support for their offer, Sainsbury have released these figures hoping that pressure from supporters will make BRFC accept the offer. Seems it's starting to work. The boat has sailed mate. There will only be further negotiation with Sainsbury's if the appeal is upheld.
|
|