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 10:53:15 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? Im not saying you cant or shouldnt challenge a decision But winning the.other points doesnt count for much if the opposition have the trump.card does it If we lose an appeal will we bleat how we won every round but were only knocked out in the last ten seconds of round twelve
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 1, 2015 10:55:34 GMT
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. beat me to it 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. so assuming sainsburys costs [ so far] are 800 thousand ours must be similar this really is cards all in time , would i go all in ?, yes if i felt i was right BUT ONLY if it wouldnt clean me out. LETS HOPE IT DOESNT
|
|
kingswood Polak
Without music life would be a mistake
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 10,278
|
Post by kingswood Polak on Aug 1, 2015 10:57:38 GMT
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 Personally, I only went to 4 home games last season. This was because I am just getting tired of the uncertainty and in seeing the club I love, being turned into a joke. When you have City fans trying to comfort you then you know things aren't right. I don't mind being called all sorts of names but I will cherry pick games. I, along with many others, have found other things to do and that are better value. I used to feel part of a huge extended family. It used to be FUN Ian. Maybe it's an age thing & I just can't be arsed with the constant limbo state and in seeing a decent young manager have to make cutbacks and maybe I am just a cantankerous toss pot but I don't feel part of the club now. From talking win other, in my peer group, it seems a good few feel the same way. One important thing that many don't seem to get is that, whilst this continues, we are losing the next generation of gasheads. Have a look around you when you next go, the mix of age groups is disproportionate and heavily biased to the older supporter. Ah well, as the Mrs often says, it is what it is. The grumbling of this idiot savant will not make a difference.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 1, 2015 11:00:41 GMT
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. beat me to it 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. so assuming sainsburys costs [ so far] are 800 thousand ours must be similar this really is cards all in time , would i go all in ?, yes if i felt i was right BUT ONLY if it wouldnt clean me out. LETS HOPE IT DOESNT Sorry, didn't mean to jump in, I'm sure you ahve a better grasp of what's being played out here than I have. What's the old saying, ''never gamble more than you can afford to lose''. I just hope that if we ultimately lose Higgs takes it on the chin and covers it all himself rather than leaving the club millions more in debt.
|
|
kingswood Polak
Without music life would be a mistake
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 10,278
|
Post by kingswood Polak on Aug 1, 2015 11:02:51 GMT
beat me to it 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. so assuming sainsburys costs [ so far] are 800 thousand ours must be similar this really is cards all in time , would i go all in ?, yes if i felt i was right BUT ONLY if it wouldnt clean me out. LETS HOPE IT DOESNT Sorry, didn't mean to jump in, I'm sure you ahve a better grasp of what's being played out here than I have. What's the old saying, ''never gamble more than you can afford to lose''. I just hope that if we ultimately lose Higgs takes it on the chin and covers it all himself rather than leaving the club millions more in debt. But we have people who believe NH has already put in 5 million of his own money !
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 1, 2015 11:05:58 GMT
beat me to it 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. so assuming sainsburys costs [ so far] are 800 thousand ours must be similar this really is cards all in time , would i go all in ?, yes if i felt i was right BUT ONLY if it wouldnt clean me out. LETS HOPE IT DOESNT Sorry, didn't mean to jump in, I'm sure you ahve a better grasp of what's being played out here than I have. What's the old saying, ''never gamble more than you can afford to lose''. I just hope that if we ultimately lose Higgs takes it on the chin and covers it all himself rather than leaving the club millions more in debt. I WAS ALWAYS SLOW none of us really have a grasp bamber we feed on scraps,
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 1, 2015 11:06:52 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. I've not seen the comment as part of a statement by Sainsbury's, I've only seen that the EP reported it as having been said by them. Just spent 5 mins thrashing around the web and can't find that statement.
|
|
kingswood Polak
Without music life would be a mistake
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 10,278
|
Post by kingswood Polak on Aug 1, 2015 11:15:25 GMT
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. I've not seen the comment as part of a statement by Sainsbury's, I've only seen that the EP reported it as having been said by them. Just spent 5 mins thrashing around the web and can't find that statement. I sent an email to the guy who wrote the article, asking him to explain how he came to the conclusion that this will only be about damages and that the stadium is now not going to be funded if we win. I will post the reply, if I get one. I also sent messages to the club and new PR man asking the same question. No replies as yet. It would seem that either the evil post has it wrong or they know something that has not yet been placed in the public domain. Surely, if UWE sticks with this, then if we win the appeal, the contract would still be live and the original plan would still be in play ?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 1, 2015 11:21:14 GMT
I've not seen the comment as part of a statement by Sainsbury's, I've only seen that the EP reported it as having been said by them. Just spent 5 mins thrashing around the web and can't find that statement. I sent an email to the guy who wrote the article, asking him to explain how he came to the conclusion that this will on,y be about damages and that the stadium is now not going to be funded if we win. I will post the reply, if I get one. I also sent messages to the club and new PR man asking the same question. No replies as yet. It would seem that either the evil post has it wrong or they know something that has not yet been placed in the public domain. Surely, if UWE sticks with this, then if we win the appeal, the contract would still be live and the original plan would still be in play ? But UWE won't stick with it, the reason for requested a short court date was that UWE wanted a decision. Or did I misunderstand something? Anyway, I don't do Twitter, has Geoff had anything to say about the latest news?
|
|
RG2 Gas
Andy Spring
Joined: June 2014
Posts: 229
|
Post by RG2 Gas on Aug 1, 2015 11:26:27 GMT
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? Im not saying you cant or shouldnt challenge a decision But winning the.other points doesnt count for much if the opposition have the trump.card does it If we lose an appeal will we bleat how we won every round but were only knocked out in the last ten seconds of round twelve Or we were only in the relegation zone for 70 minutes?
|
|
kingswood Polak
Without music life would be a mistake
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 10,278
|
Post by kingswood Polak on Aug 1, 2015 11:26:36 GMT
I sent an email to the guy who wrote the article, asking him to explain how he came to the conclusion that this will on,y be about damages and that the stadium is now not going to be funded if we win. I will post the reply, if I get one. I also sent messages to the club and new PR man asking the same question. No replies as yet. It would seem that either the evil post has it wrong or they know something that has not yet been placed in the public domain. Surely, if UWE sticks with this, then if we win the appeal, the contract would still be live and the original plan would still be in play ? But UWE won't stick with it, the reason for requested a short court date was that UWE wanted a decision. Or did I misunderstand something? Anyway, I don't do Twitter, has Geoff had anything to say about the latest news? In short, no he hasn't. I don't think he is interested to be honest. He really has moved on and has done pretty well. Considering he was a Rovers player, he seems to be well tolerated by the 82. I found his savaging of Higgs embarrassing for us. It was so easy for him to get under NH's skin.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 1, 2015 11:38:23 GMT
But UWE won't stick with it, the reason for requested a short court date was that UWE wanted a decision. Or did I misunderstand something? Anyway, I don't do Twitter, has Geoff had anything to say about the latest news? In short, no he hasn't. I don't think he is interested to be honest. He really has moved on and has done pretty well. Considering he was a Rovers player, he seems to be well tolerated by the 82. I found his savaging of Higgs embarrassing for us. It was so easy for him to get under NH's skin. We have our wires crossed here. I was thinking about ex-Chairman Geoff. But now you mention it, yes, that Twentyman Vs Higgs interview was a bit ''akward'' wasn't it.
|
|
|
Post by PeterHooper57 on Aug 1, 2015 11:42:42 GMT
Time for Higgs to come out of the long grass, man up and tell the rovers supporters what the **** actually is going on, I do not care about the UWE ground, as BRFC lost in court and at best on appeal will only be entitled to damages, which in my humble opinion they are unlikely to get. I am more concerned about the debt this whole fiasco is costing. Higgs should pay for this **** up out of his own pocket IMO, if he has crippled the club finacially then I for one will not be too happy. He had his day in court and lost. End of. UTG
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 1, 2015 11:48:19 GMT
Time for Higgs to come out of the long grass, man up and tell the rovers supporters what the **** actually is going on, I do not care about the UWE ground, as BRFC lost in court and at best on appeal will only be entitled to damages, which in my humble opinion they are unlikely to get. I am more concerned about the debt this whole fiasco is costing. Higgs should pay for this **** up out of his own pocket IMO, if he has crippled the club finacially then I for one will not be too happy. He had his day in court and lost. End of. UTG Totally agree. Nobody forced him to sign a contract with a termination date. I'll bet that the Briz fans who think we tricked them out of their home are wetting themselves laughing as they watch Higgs lose the equity in the ground.
|
|
kingswood Polak
Without music life would be a mistake
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 10,278
|
Post by kingswood Polak on Aug 1, 2015 11:54:57 GMT
In short, no he hasn't. I don't think he is interested to be honest. He really has moved on and has done pretty well. Considering he was a Rovers player, he seems to be well tolerated by the 82. I found his savaging of Higgs embarrassing for us. It was so easy for him to get under NH's skin. We have our wires crossed here. I was thinking about ex-Chairman Geoff. But now you mention it, yes, that Twentyman Vs Higgs interview was a bit ''akward'' wasn't it. Geoff D blocked me after smirk gate. I don't know if he has commented. He blocked Sophie too. She asked for an apology when it was showing he was wrong but we know Geoff doesn't do sorry. I do know he said the court case wasn't even close as someone copied his tweet and posted it onto Facebook.
|
|
|
Post by Henbury Gas on Aug 1, 2015 12:02:32 GMT
Time for Higgs to come out of the long grass, man up and tell the rovers supporters what the **** actually is going on, I do not care about the UWE ground, as BRFC lost in court and at best on appeal will only be entitled to damages, which in my humble opinion they are unlikely to get. I am more concerned about the debt this whole fiasco is costing. Higgs should pay for this **** up out of his own pocket IMO, if he has crippled the club finacially then I for one will not be too happy. He had his day in court and lost. End of. UTGHas he not put any money into the club yet then ?
|
|
kingswood Polak
Without music life would be a mistake
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 10,278
|
Post by kingswood Polak on Aug 1, 2015 12:04:11 GMT
Time for Higgs to come out of the long grass, man up and tell the rovers supporters what the **** actually is going on, I do not care about the UWE ground, as BRFC lost in court and at best on appeal will only be entitled to damages, which in my humble opinion they are unlikely to get. I am more concerned about the debt this whole fiasco is costing. Higgs should pay for this **** up out of his own pocket IMO, if he has crippled the club finacially then I for one will not be too happy. He had his day in court and lost. End of. UTGHas he not put any money into the club yet then ? Yes but it's ALL covered unlike us fans. That's the big difference. He has every penny as good as guaranteed back.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 1, 2015 12:09:49 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 ! You are spot on and that's why Higgs has been able do as he pleases.
|
|
|
Post by PeterHooper57 on Aug 1, 2015 12:14:05 GMT
Time for Higgs to come out of the long grass, man up and tell the rovers supporters what the **** actually is going on, I do not care about the UWE ground, as BRFC lost in court and at best on appeal will only be entitled to damages, which in my humble opinion they are unlikely to get. I am more concerned about the debt this whole fiasco is costing. Higgs should pay for this **** up out of his own pocket IMO, if he has crippled the club finacially then I for one will not be too happy. He had his day in court and lost. End of. UTGHas he not put any money into the club yet then ? Yes, sure he has, all probably underpinned by guarantee by the club it self. Personally, I am happy to watch the gas at the MEM; I just hope in a couple of seasons time that opportunity is still available, I just fear Higgs is gambling with the longevity of the club, the club we all as a group support until the day we die. UTG
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 1, 2015 12:29:25 GMT
I sent an email to the guy who wrote the article, asking him to explain how he came to the conclusion that this will on,y be about damages and that the stadium is now not going to be funded if we win. I will post the reply, if I get one. I also sent messages to the club and new PR man asking the same question. No replies as yet. It would seem that either the evil post has it wrong or they know something that has not yet been placed in the public domain. Surely, if UWE sticks with this, then if we win the appeal, the contract would still be live and the original plan would still be in play ? But UWE won't stick with it, the reason for requested a short court date was that UWE wanted a decision. Or did I misunderstand something? Anyway, I don't do Twitter, has Geoff had anything to say about the latest news? He said that £1.5m wouldn't cover the lawyers postage or something like that.
|
|