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 10:24:01 GMT
So Rovers say a judge didnt say we should accept a 1.5m deal
Who do you trust when both sides are economical with the truth?
|
|
eppinggas
Administrator
Ian Alexander
Don't care
Joined: June 2014
Posts: 8,173
|
Post by eppinggas on Aug 1, 2015 10:24:35 GMT
Sainsbury's
|
|
|
Post by Henbury Gas on Aug 1, 2015 10:27:24 GMT
|
|
|
Post by bluebeard on Aug 1, 2015 10:28:12 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. This seems to be a big issue for a lot of people. But how and when should he have engaged? The Watertight line makes him look silly now but it would have been even sillier to say publicly that it wasn't. if the decision on whether or not to settle for £1.5m had been thrown open to the fan base, I am sure opinions would have been divided. And we don't know for sure that offers made under these circumstances aren't confidential anyway.
|
|
|
Post by michaelb on Aug 1, 2015 10:29:29 GMT
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 Yes, I fully understand all that, my point is though why at any stage of the proceedings would any one offer a settlement if they were safe in the knowledge they were on a winner. Equally anyone who believed their case was "watertight" would not accept it. Its all very well companies and individuals using the disclaimer of the offer being made without liability etc which is often quoted in legal proceedings, but IMO its just smoke when parties are actually concerned that they will get caught out if it goes to court. Also I would be very surprised if the Judge told them to accept it, over the years I have had legals represent me in various matters and never once have i been "told" maybe suggested
|
|
dagnogo
Joined: June 2014
Posts: 872
|
Post by dagnogo on Aug 1, 2015 10:30:30 GMT
It's not rejecting the £1.5m folk have an issue with.
It's the demanding of £15m. If Sainsbury's think the contract is watertight, why would they ever agree to paying half the fee?
|
|
|
Post by michaelb on Aug 1, 2015 10:31:12 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. Genuine question, please educate me here, what costs If we had settled out of court ?
|
|
kingswood Polak
Without music life would be a mistake
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 10,263
|
Post by kingswood Polak on Aug 1, 2015 10:31:47 GMT
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 ! I don't think we will see the attendances we had last season but that will depend upon results. I think last season was one where we saw the real and old Bristol Rovers rise again. It was lovely while it lasted. I cannot see how this will not affect the playing side. One thing naturally bleeds into another. The entire fabric of the club is affected by this. I think you're partially right in that a large part of the fan base don't care, as long as they get their football fix but DC will be affected as his budget will inevitably be cut, according to cloth. We saw a real backs to the wall mentality last season but I fear we will now be a club that is like an injured Fish, in a bigger fish tank. Forgive me for that crap analogy but it's all I can come up with after a blazing row with SWMBO. Ian, I fear for the very existence of the club mate. I only hope that certain rumours of new investment are true. I only see us getting through this if we get new people in and there would never be a better time IMO To give a short answer, if we somehow manage to keep results good then most will not be bothered but I just cannot see how this case, along with its subsequent and punitive costs, cannot affect the playing side. Imagine the costs alone, being given to DC !
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 1, 2015 10:32:19 GMT
So who do we believe now.... Sainsbury or Nick Higgs ? Got a link to the statement where they claim that Judy says we should have accepted the compensation offer?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 1, 2015 10:36:22 GMT
PUBLISHED 10:56 1st August 2015 Mrs. Justice Proudman's willingness to allow us permission to appeal her judgment against the club further demonstrates the complexity of this case and the fact that the initial decision in favour of Sainsbury's last month was far from clear-cut. The club considers that the judge's decision further vindicates its decision to take action to compel Sainsbury's to complete purchase of the Memorial Stadium site. The case remains very much in the balance and the judge felt it should be considered further by the Court of Appeal. It is clear from the judgment most of the arguments relied upon by Sainsbury’s to justify their refusal to complete were incorrect, and were not accepted by the judge. Our case relied upon at least five points, of which we succeeded with all bar one. The remaining point will form the vanguard of the appeal. The club and our legal team therefore feel confident we can overturn the judgment in the Court of Appeal. In its statement yesterday, Sainsbury's claimed the judge said the club should have accepted the £1.5 million it offered to settle the case. That statement is INCORRECT. While it is true Sainsbury's made a cash offer to extricate itself from the litigation, the offer was derisory in the context of the value of the claim. It was not acceptable to the club as it did not come close to compensating us for the losses and costs incurred as a result of Sainsbury's refusal to honour the contract, or the lost time in relation to developing the UWE Stadium. Whilst the decision to order the club to make an interim payment of £375,000 in respect of costs is disappointing, this order will be reversed should the club succeed at the Court of Appeal. The figure represents a significant discount on what Sainsbury's could have expected in the usual course of events, and further indicates the judge's difficulties with their claim. In fact the figure is less than half the total costs Sainsbury's were claiming. The board of directors remains focused on delivering the UWE Stadium and securing the long-term future of the club. Read more at www.bristolrovers.co.uk/news/article/rovers-explain-rejection-of-derisory-sainsburys-offer-2585761.aspx#RDdD7JKFAH7RXYbj.99
|
|
kingswood Polak
Without music life would be a mistake
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 10,263
|
Post by kingswood Polak on Aug 1, 2015 10:37:56 GMT
Sue the judge ?
|
|
dagnogo
Joined: June 2014
Posts: 872
|
Post by dagnogo on Aug 1, 2015 10:38:14 GMT
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. He's a boring troll who gets his kicks from responses like yours. Don't give him the oxygen.
|
|
|
Post by Henbury Gas on Aug 1, 2015 10:39:01 GMT
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. He's a boring troll who gets his kicks from responses like yours. Don't give him the oxygen. Troll, thats ripe coming from you
|
|
dagnogo
Joined: June 2014
Posts: 872
|
Post by dagnogo on Aug 1, 2015 10:40:05 GMT
He's a boring troll who gets his kicks from responses like yours. Don't give him the oxygen. Troll, thats ripe coming from you Ooh good comeback.
|
|
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 10:41:11 GMT
I get the impression Rovers think we won all the main points except one and we should have won that and its no big deal the appeal judge will see that maybe
We can quote the original decision wording all.day but in the end.it was decided sainsburys held trumps
Do we understand that concept?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 1, 2015 10:41:13 GMT
Because making that offer paved the way for us being liable for their costs. Genuine question, please educate me here, what costs If we had settled out of court ? Had we accepted the offer (they knew that was unlikely as it was around 10% of what Higgs seems to have wanted) then we wouldn't be liable for their costs. In fact, a lot of the costs wouldn't have existed as there would have been no court case. An interim award of £375k has been made, we are told that is less than half of what they claimed. If we lose the appeal we will cop for the full costs to date plus the additional costs for the appeal process. I hope Higgs is confident about what he's doing here, it could end up with just Sainsbury's legal bill being a million quid, and he suggested a few weeks ago that we were already into our legal costs for half a million. This could end up being 2 million in costs alone.
|
|
|
Post by bluebeard on Aug 1, 2015 10:42:14 GMT
So Rovers say a judge didnt say we should accept a 1.5m deal Who do you trust when both sides are economical with the truth? Both sides will spin the facts and make statements they believe will help their negotiating position. This is a categoric denial by the club of a comment made by a representative of Sainsburys. it's probably them that's got it wrong on this one.
|
|
kingswood Polak
Without music life would be a mistake
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 10,263
|
Post by kingswood Polak on Aug 1, 2015 10:42:37 GMT
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. This seems to be a big issue for a lot of people. But how and when should he have engaged? The Watertight line makes him look silly now but it would have been even sillier to say publicly that it wasn't. if the decision on whether or not to settle for £1.5m had been thrown open to the fan base, I am sure opinions would have been divided. And we don't know for sure that offers made under these circumstances aren't confidential anyway. Had he engaged with us then I feel he would have gained a lot of support. Let's face it, the British love the underdog. I just feel he has never been able or willing to trust us fans and so it leads to speculation. A man who was able to engage with the fans cou,d have used that power well. I am sure he would have garnered a lot of support if only he had trusted the fans.
|
|
|
Post by Henbury Gas on Aug 1, 2015 10:42:42 GMT
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 ! I don't think we will see the attendances we had last season but that will depend upon results. I think last season was one where we saw the real and old Bristol Rovers rise again. It was lovely while it lasted. I cannot see how this will. To affect the playing side. One thing naturally bleeds into another. The entire fabric of the club is affected by this. I think you're partially right in that a large part of the fan base don't care, as long as they get their football fix but DC will be affected as his budget will inevitably be cut, according to cloth. We saw a real backs to the wall mentality last season but I fear we will now be a club that is like an injured Fish, in a bigger fish tank. Forgive me for that crap analogy but it's all I can come up with after a blazing row with SWMBO. Ian, I fear for the very existence of the club mate. I only hope that certain rumours of new investment are true. I only see us getting through this if we get new people in and there would never be a better time IMO To give a short answer, if we somehow manage to keep results good then most will not be bothered but I just cannot see how this case, along with its subsequent and punitive costs, cannot affect the playing side. Imagine the costs a,one being given to DC ! Again i agree with what you say and if this comes to pass, i can only see us ending back in the National League again and a slow boat to oblivion i can see in the near future gates down to a core level of 4000-5000 at best
|
|
|
Post by bluebeard on Aug 1, 2015 10:49:55 GMT
I get the impression Rovers think we won all the main points except one and we should have won that and its no big deal the appeal judge will see that maybe We can quote the original decision wording all.day but in the end.it was decided sainsburys held trumps Do we understand that concept? I'm not sure what your point is here but the wording of the decision is relevant as it explains how the decision was reached. If you don't agree with a decision then surely you need to challenge the rationale behind it?
|
|