|
Post by Topper Gas on Aug 1, 2015 9:47:51 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. Sorry but before you start having a pop at other forum users get your facts right,in the Courts view Sainsbury's have won, hence why previous undisclosed offers have now been brought to the Judges attention, when she was asked to consider Sainsbury's costs. I'm not sure if she did say this ubut the suggestion NH should have accepted Sainsbury's offer is a real kick in the teeth if she did say that. Fans thinking Sainsbury's will make another increased offer now are deluded, our only, faint, hope is the Appeal will succeed and Sainsbury's but I'm understand only a few succeed hence why we have to pay Sainsbury's costs now not after the Appeal. Unless your an NH family member I can't understand how anyone can support him rejecting Sainsbury's offer today as, at the moment, that decision as cost us the full amount of the Wonga loan of over £3m including interest.
|
|
kingswood Polak
Without music life would be a mistake
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 10,263
|
Post by kingswood Polak on Aug 1, 2015 9:52:57 GMT
It has always been about one mans ego .... This is an absolute slap in the face for ALL true fans ! Lie after lie after lie .... Total contempt for fans ....in the pursuit of glory and a retirement pot. Enough for me now .... 45 years as a loyal fan .....I stayed away all last season in a mini protest in my own mind against the appalling running of my club ... I cannot and will not put up with this any more ... Playground bully boy and his henchman ... I'm done until he leaves ... It's not my club as long as he continues bumbling, blustering and right royally destroying this club. You see, this is the reality but there still seems to be a core of die hard Higgs fans, that or they are in abject denial, they must live in cloud Cuckoo land and still believe in him when all the evidence leads to the fact that we have a bumbling oaf of a man with an ego trip playing out in his head, as chairman. I understand why he is appealing but to drag the entire club through this is just wrong. To see the fans split is just wrong, to ban people just wrong, to lie just wrong. Higgs has left a trail of devastation wherever he puts himself and I just despair that our loyal fans have not been up to dealing with him. It's as if he got Derren Brown to put the fans in a torpor like state. Mass hypnosis. Fill their wee heads with a big dream and some still believe this is about a stadium Ffs. This is about one mans ego, no more & no less. The problem being that it leaves fans, such as you & I, feeling we are not a part of that club. He has done more damage in his time here than any other. Any logically thinking supporter would want to know how the club is to pay the mounting debts and continue to survive as a functioning FL club but it seems there are still many who appease Higgs. I don't understand it and never will. There is loyalty and there is blind loyalty and the latter is dangerous
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 1, 2015 9:55:23 GMT
Some bloody good posts on here this morning.
|
|
|
Post by bluebeard on Aug 1, 2015 9:57:04 GMT
So, Higgs told us in March that "no offer had been received and only one would be acceptable". It seems that Sainsburys subsequently made 3 separate offers in April and May. I do not believe for a second that this was a gesture of goodwill on their part. They knew there was a risk of having to fulfil the contract and they will know there is now a risk of the appeal going against them.
Higgs probably did genuinely believe that the contract was watertight. Clearly it isn't but, having been advised to sign it by the legal team, I really don't know what people expect him to have done or said differently since? The stadium is the only way he can realistically get his loans back so IMO it's his money he is gambling with not ours.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 1, 2015 10:02:11 GMT
So, Higgs told us in March that "no offer had been received and only one would be acceptable". It seems that Sainsburys subsequently made 3 separate offers in April and May. I do not believe for a second that this was a gesture of goodwill on their part. They knew there was a risk of having to fulfil the contract and they will know there is now a risk of the appeal going against them. Higgs probably did genuinely believe that the contract was watertight. Clearly it isn't but, having been advised to sign it by the legal team, I really don't know what people expect him to have done or said differently since? The stadium is the only way he can realistically get his loans back so IMO it's his money he is gambling with not ours. Except for the wonga loan cash which is secured on the stadium not against a personal guarantee and these are the funds he said that were being used to fight Sainsburys. He might have to dig into his bank account to pay it off soon though.
|
|
|
Post by Henbury Gas on Aug 1, 2015 10:08:11 GMT
It has always been about one mans ego .... This is an absolute slap in the face for ALL true fans ! Lie after lie after lie .... Total contempt for fans ....in the pursuit of glory and a retirement pot. Enough for me now .... 45 years as a loyal fan .....I stayed away all last season in a mini protest in my own mind against the appalling running of my club ... I cannot and will not put up with this any more ... Playground bully boy and his henchman ... I'm done until he leaves ... It's not my club as long as he continues bumbling, blustering and right royally destroying this club. You see, this is the reality but there still seems to be a core of die hard Higgs fans, that or they are in abject denial, they must live in cloud Cuckoo land and still believe in him when all the evidence leads to the fact that we have a bumbling oaf of a man with an ego trip playing out in his head, as chairman. I understand why he is appealing but to drag the entire club through this is just wrong. To see the fans split is just wrong, to ban people just wrong, to lie just wrong. Higgs has left a trail of devastation wherever he puts himself and I just despair that our loyal fans have not been up to dealing with him. It's as if he got Derren Brown to put the fans in a torpor like state. Mass hypnosis. Fill their wee heads with a big dream and some still believe this is about a stadium Ffs. This is about one mans ego, no more & no less. The problem being that it leaves fans, such as you & I, feeling we are not a part of that club. He has done more damage in his time here than any other. Any logically thinking supporter would want to know how the club is to pay the mounting debts and continue to survive as a functioning FL club but it seems there are still many who appease Higgs. I don't understand it and never will. There is loyalty and there is blind loyalty and the latter is dangerous So based on what you have just posted my good friend (and i don't disagree with your post), do you think our match day attendance will go down based on what you said, or as i believe, 90% of your average fan do not give a flying f*** and just want to watch football, have a beer and a pastie !
|
|
eppinggas
Administrator
Ian Alexander
Don't care
Joined: June 2014
Posts: 8,177
|
Post by eppinggas on Aug 1, 2015 10:10:03 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. I can assure you Sir - I have an open mind. My opinion is based on 25 years of watching the Gas and following events on and off the field. I recently attended the High Court and exchanged words with Nick Higgs - I actually thought he came across very well. In the event of us losing - he just needed to put his hand up - admit defeat and move on to Plan B. Maybe there was a chance he could reach out to the majority of dis-enfranchised fans and try to re-build the relationship that is obviously broken. That did not happen. He comes across as passionate and I am sure 'thinks' he has the best interests of the football club at heart. Unfortunately there is no-one at Board level to tell him he has right royally f*cked this whole situation up. It now appears he is gambling yet more money and wasting more time. This appeal process could drag on for years. Our Club cannot possibly attract any out-side investment whilst we are perennially stuck in the Courts and in limbo. My open mind leads me to the inevitable conclusion that we are currently f*cked. I would love to be proved wrong.
|
|
|
Post by michaelb on Aug 1, 2015 10:10:47 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 Indeed ! just because I shop at Tesco's doesn't mean its mine. I pay for a product, just like standing on the terraces. One question nobody seems to have asked, getting back on tract is: why would anyone let alone Sainsburys offer to pay £1.5M when they are safe in the knowledge the contract is no longer extant? would you I wouldn't. I'm starting to believe that Mr Higgs is refusing to roll over for a bully and could well be doing th right thing.
|
|
kingswood Polak
Without music life would be a mistake
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 10,263
|
Post by kingswood Polak on Aug 1, 2015 10:11:32 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. I haven't said we should have accepted the offer but it would be awfully nice if the chairman engaged with the lifeblood of the club. Lets face it, we have had so many misrepresentations from this chair and club and each time it feels like a kick to the head. Your analogy is fine, if you are buying a car as that is normally a personal thing but this affects thousands of people. Pat the end of the day I think our chairman would have more support and maybe be understood if only he didn't look down upon us as this band on "internet warriors who I won't engage with" i am minded of King Canute whenever I think of Higgs now. I see you are using the old chestnut of litigation. The chairman thrives upon posts like this. I remember the Oliver Norburn thread, on the official forum being full of such posts. Oddly enough that forum was closed very soon after. I would guess the admin team would either delete or inform any poster that had got to that stage but, then again, I wouldn't put it past the club to try & take a fan to court. That would be a new low. It seems we set low standards but are very good at surpassing those. At least we are successful at something lol
|
|
|
Post by bluebeard on Aug 1, 2015 10:12:04 GMT
It has always been about one mans ego .... This is an absolute slap in the face for ALL true fans ! Lie after lie after lie .... Total contempt for fans ....in the pursuit of glory and a retirement pot. Enough for me now .... 45 years as a loyal fan .....I stayed away all last season in a mini protest in my own mind against the appalling running of my club ... I cannot and will not put up with this any more ... Playground bully boy and his henchman ... I'm done until he leaves ... It's not my club as long as he continues bumbling, blustering and right royally destroying this club. You see, this is the reality but there still seems to be a core of die hard Higgs fans, that or they are in abject denial, they must live in cloud Cuckoo land and still believe in him when all the evidence leads to the fact that we have a bumbling oaf of a man with an ego trip playing out in his head, as chairman. I understand why he is appealing but to drag the entire club through this is just wrong. To see the fans split is just wrong, to ban people just wrong, to lie just wrong. Higgs has left a trail of devastation wherever he puts himself and I just despair that our loyal fans have not been up to dealing with him. It's as if he got Derren Brown to put the fans in a torpor like state. Mass hypnosis. Fill their wee heads with a big dream and some still believe this is about a stadium Ffs. This is about one mans ego, no more & no less. The problem being that it leaves fans, such as you & I, feeling we are not a part of that club. He has done more damage in his time here than any other. Any logically thinking supporter would want to know how the club is to pay the mounting debts and continue to survive as a functioning FL club but it seems there are still many who appease Higgs. I don't understand it and never will. There is loyalty and there is blind loyalty and the latter is dangerous I don't think it's a case of being fans of Higgs or otherwise. It's more a case of assessing where we are and what we should do next. You can look back at how we got here and it is indeed a catalogue of disasters. You can also conclude that this is one big ego trip for NH. But the fact remains that a successful outcome for him will be a successful outcome for the club.
|
|
eppinggas
Administrator
Ian Alexander
Don't care
Joined: June 2014
Posts: 8,177
|
Post by eppinggas on Aug 1, 2015 10:14:09 GMT
It has always been about one mans ego .... This is an absolute slap in the face for ALL true fans ! Lie after lie after lie .... Total contempt for fans ....in the pursuit of glory and a retirement pot. Enough for me now .... 45 years as a loyal fan .....I stayed away all last season in a mini protest in my own mind against the appalling running of my club ... I cannot and will not put up with this any more ... Playground bully boy and his henchman ... I'm done until he leaves ... It's not my club as long as he continues bumbling, blustering and right royally destroying this club. You see, this is the reality but there still seems to be a core of die hard Higgs fans, that or they are in abject denial, they must live in cloud Cuckoo land and still believe in him when all the evidence leads to the fact that we have a bumbling oaf of a man with an ego trip playing out in his head, as chairman. I understand why he is appealing but to drag the entire club through this is just wrong. To see the fans split is just wrong, to ban people just wrong, to lie just wrong. Higgs has left a trail of devastation wherever he puts himself and I just despair that our loyal fans have not been up to dealing with him. It's as if he got Derren Brown to put the fans in a torpor like state. Mass hypnosis. Fill their wee heads with a big dream and some still believe this is about a stadium Ffs. This is about one mans ego, no more & no less. The problem being that it leaves fans, such as you & I, feeling we are not a part of that club. He has done more damage in his time here than any other. Any logically thinking supporter would want to know how the club is to pay the mounting debts and continue to survive as a functioning FL club but it seems there are still many who appease Higgs. I don't understand it and never will. There is loyalty and there is blind loyalty and the latter is dangerous Great Post. Apparently "That's Life" and George Michael are both of the opinion that "you just got to have faith".
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 1, 2015 10:15:32 GMT
So, Higgs told us in March that "no offer had been received and only one would be acceptable". It seems that Sainsburys subsequently made 3 separate offers in April and May. I do not believe for a second that this was a gesture of goodwill on their part. They knew there was a risk of having to fulfil the contract and they will know there is now a risk of the appeal going against them. Higgs probably did genuinely believe that the contract was watertight. Clearly it isn't but, having been advised to sign it by the legal team, I really don't know what people expect him to have done or said differently since? The stadium is the only way he can realistically get his loans back so IMO it's his money he is gambling with not ours. The offer was a tool to ensure that they could claim costs, and it appears to have worked. If his legal advisors told them that it was a belt and braces 100% watertight contract he'll have good grounds to sue them. Let's see if that happens shall we? Is he entitled to take back the money lost due to his own poor decision making? What he's gambling with, unless he's prepared to accept the losses and write the money off, is the security of the club. Don't forget Watola in all of this, he's been a central figure in the mess that's been played out in recent years.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 1, 2015 10:15:47 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 Indeed ! just because I shop at Tesco's doesn't mean its mine. I pay for a product, just like standing on the terraces. One question nobody seems to have asked, getting back on tract is: why would anyone let alone Sainsburys offer to pay £1.5M when they are safe in the knowledge the contract is no longer extant? would you I wouldn't. I'm starting to believe that Mr Higgs is refusing to roll over for a bully and could well be doing th right thing. The offer of £1.5 million was made BEFORE the court case and declined, but revealed after the judgement was received to enable costs to be allocated. It isn't made known to the judge before the verdict in case it affects their judgement, presumably. There is no offer of £1.5m on the table, and indeed there will be no offer of anything unless we win the appeal. All we're currently looking at is an ever-growing legal bill.
|
|
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 10:16:31 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 Indeed ! just because I shop at Tesco's doesn't mean its mine. I pay for a product, just like standing on the terraces. One question nobody seems to have asked, getting back on tract is: why would anyone let alone Sainsburys offer to pay £1.5M when they are safe in the knowledge the contract is no longer extant? would you I wouldn't. I'm starting to believe that Mr Higgs is refusing to roll over for a bully and could well be doing th right thing. They thought the contract was dead as has been agreed by a judge Prior to that an offer(s) were made at mediation. That doesnt admit guilt just weighing up the risk of 1.5m against potentially losing the case What was our negotiating position? If what sainsburys say is true about a judge telling to accept then again you must question are legal advice and negotiating stance Either that or we ignored our legal bods There will be no offers now unless we win the appeal, but sainsburys are painting the picture they have many things in their favour and we are chasing I wait to hear a response to sainsburys claims
|
|
kingswood Polak
Without music life would be a mistake
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 10,263
|
Post by kingswood Polak on Aug 1, 2015 10:16:20 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. Thanks. That makes good reading
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 1, 2015 10:18:01 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 1, 2015 10:18:07 GMT
One question nobody seems to have asked, getting back on tract is: why would anyone let alone Sainsburys offer to pay £1.5M when they are safe in the knowledge the contract is no longer extant? would you I wouldn't. I'm starting to believe that Mr Higgs is refusing to roll over for a bully and could well be doing th right thing. Because making that offer paved the way for us being liable for their costs.
|
|
eppinggas
Administrator
Ian Alexander
Don't care
Joined: June 2014
Posts: 8,177
|
Post by eppinggas on Aug 1, 2015 10:19:23 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 WTF is the "Hidden Agenda"? You seem obsessed by it - yet no-one apart from yourself ever makes reference to it. There seems to be a very clear Agenda that our Club has been run very badly and that the fans deserve better. Please explain what you mean by hidden agenda - or stop making reference to it because it is meaningless to everyone else.
|
|
|
Post by Topper Gas on Aug 1, 2015 10:22:15 GMT
NH response to the offer is now on the OS, personally I think he's talking nonsense saying Sainsbury's costs were cut in half due to the complexity of the case, as with all legal cases they asked for too much but still got a good payment. You do have to wonder if NH has a clue what he's doing.
What is clear is that the gloves are now off and Sainsbury's won't mess about in seeking payment of thier costs.
|
|
|
Post by Henbury Gas on Aug 1, 2015 10:22:46 GMT
So who do we believe now.... Sainsbury or Nick Higgs ?
|
|