Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 16, 2015 22:25:55 GMT
I read that offer as them knowing what was likely to happen in court and purely as a mitigation measure, but not being intellectually superior to a post-lobotomy newt, I'm probably wrong. Ok then, they acknowledged there was a risk of some degree of obligation. An astute observation, I think you do yourself a disservice sir. A lot has happened since the hearing, so my memory isn't that clear, but I seem to remember that, as we rejected it, we couldn't claim costs, or maybe damages in excess of the offer? Hopefully someone with a better memory (or someone who can be bothered to trawl through hundreds of old posts) can confirm what the significance of that (rejected) offer was?
|
|
|
Post by mentors on Nov 16, 2015 22:41:03 GMT
Stella 18 X 440 @ £12, what's not to like...and they fulfilled their responsibilities within the contract, according to the judge-I have much more profound moral issues with shopping at Aldi.
|
|
|
Post by bluebeard on Nov 16, 2015 22:42:59 GMT
Time will tell whether NH is acting on serious, professional advice or whether he is simply fiddling while Rome burns. As far as I can recall, the settlement offer was first reported by The Post and it was legitimised by the club's categoric denial of the suggestion that the judge said it should have been accepted. Sainsburys offer would definitely have been made "without prejudice" which, as you say, means that it cannot be construed as an admission of liability. It also means that it should have no bearing whatsoever on the judge's interpretation of the evidence presented or the remedies available to the successful party.
|
|
|
Post by bluebeard on Nov 16, 2015 22:46:09 GMT
Stella 18 X 440 @ £12, what's not to like...and they fulfilled their responsibilities within the contract, according to the judge-I have much more profound moral issues with shopping at Aldi. Have you not heard of the Tesco Price Match? And the judge may yet be proved wrong. But crack on mate, hopefully your loyal custom will help finance the huge settlement.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 16, 2015 22:51:54 GMT
Time will tell whether NH is acting on serious, professional advice or whether he is simply fiddling while Rome burns. As far as I can recall, the settlement offer was first reported by The Post and it was legitimised by the club's categoric denial of the suggestion that the judge said it should have been accepted. Sainsburys offer would definitely have been made "without prejudice" which, as you say, means that it cannot be construed as an admission of liability. It also means that it should have no bearing whatsoever on the judge's interpretation of the evidence presented or the remedies available to the successful party. Here we go, Was it that costs were awarded against us as we lost the case but had already rejected a settlement?
|
|
|
Post by mentors on Nov 16, 2015 22:54:15 GMT
Stella 18 X 440 @ £12, what's not to like...and they fulfilled their responsibilities within the contract, according to the judge-I have much more profound moral issues with shopping at Aldi. Have you not heard of the Tesco Price Match? And the judge may yet be proved wrong. But crack on mate, hopefully your loyal custom will help finance the huge settlement. In which case I'll be contributing to a good cause, but I'll carry on using Sainsburys because a) I want to, and b) I'm 60 and pay for my own groceries not 16 and still living off Mum and Dad like most on here. p.s. I'm not your mate
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 16, 2015 22:58:56 GMT
Have you not heard of the Tesco Price Match? And the judge may yet be proved wrong. But crack on mate, hopefully your loyal custom will help finance the huge settlement. In which case I'll be contributing to a good cause, but I'll carry on using Sainsburys because a) I want to, and b) I'm 60 and pay for my own groceries not 16 and still living off Mum and Dad like most on here. p.s. I'm not your mate You're a ridiculous s**thead wind up merchant, though.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 16, 2015 23:04:03 GMT
Stella 18 X 440 @ £12, what's not to like...and they fulfilled their responsibilities within the contract, according to the judge -I have much more profound moral issues with shopping at Aldi.Care to expand on that? BTW, I agree, Judy says they did nothing wrong, let's see what the appeal brings, but if we had wanted out of the deal and Higgs had used similar tactics he would be carried shoulder high and celebrated as a tactical genius.
|
|
|
Post by bluebeard on Nov 16, 2015 23:08:29 GMT
Have you not heard of the Tesco Price Match? And the judge may yet be proved wrong. But crack on mate, hopefully your loyal custom will help finance the huge settlement. In which case I'll be contributing to a good cause, but I'll carry on using Sainsburys because a) I want to, and b) I'm 60 and pay for my own groceries not 16 and still living off Mum and Dad like most on here. p.s. I'm not your mate Touche. But I'm no spring chicken myself and I definitely pay for my own groceries. The tone of my post wasn't meant to be personal but it reflects my irritation at people mocking those who choose to boycott Sainsburys. It won't hurt them financially but if it gained momentum and attracted publicity it could hurt them reputationally. As long as there is a glimmer of hope, protest isn't entirely futile.
|
|
|
Post by mentors on Nov 16, 2015 23:18:04 GMT
In which case I'll be contributing to a good cause, but I'll carry on using Sainsburys because a) I want to, and b) I'm 60 and pay for my own groceries not 16 and still living off Mum and Dad like most on here. p.s. I'm not your mate Touche. But I'm no spring chicken myself and I definitely pay for my own groceries. The tone of my post wasn't meant to be personal but it reflects my irritation at people mocking those who choose to boycott Sainsburys. It won't hurt them financially but if it gained momentum and attracted publicity it could hurt them reputationally. As long as there is a glimmer of hope, protest isn't entirely futile. Touché to you, it's all a bit tongue in cheek, if I knew you I'm sure I'd be proud to be your mate. Protest is fine as long as it's justified, ours isn't because Sainsburys has done nothing wrong legally and I always find it a but rich when anything football related attempts to mount the moral high horse.
|
|
|
Post by bluebeard on Nov 16, 2015 23:23:57 GMT
Was it that costs were awarded against us as we lost the case but had already rejected a settlement? No, I don't think it was? I do know the club categorically denied that the judge said the offer should have been accepted. As for your other point, maybe Higgs would have been praised for getting us out of an onerous contract. More likely though, it would simply be accepted and he would be lambasted for taking us into it in the first place. But isn't it more about the relative impact? Sainsburys the retail giant, would simply buy another site. We are a small local business with limited resources and we are being left well and truly in the s***.
|
|
kingswood Polak
Without music life would be a mistake
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 10,278
|
Post by kingswood Polak on Nov 17, 2015 8:24:13 GMT
In which case I'll be contributing to a good cause, but I'll carry on using Sainsburys because a) I want to, and b) I'm 60 and pay for my own groceries not 16 and still living off Mum and Dad like most on here. p.s. I'm not your mate Touche. But I'm no spring chicken myself and I definitely pay for my own groceries. The tone of my post wasn't meant to be personal but it reflects my irritation at people mocking those who choose to boycott Sainsburys. It won't hurt them financially but if it gained momentum and attracted publicity it could hurt them reputationally. As long as there is a glimmer of hope, protest isn't entirely futile. Trouble is we are being asked to do this by the club as they asked in an article on the official site. I am not drawn to do anything for a chairman who has been shown to stretch the truth and who has disengaged from the fanbase. If he had been honest and not kept on telling porkies, such as I see no reason why the deal not go ahead, this was when he already knew Sainsburys wanted out, then I would maybe consider it. In all honesty, I think our own board has been dishonest with the fans but now feel it's fine to tell us not to shop there. That's a bit rich, given the background to this.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 17, 2015 8:35:52 GMT
Touche. But I'm no spring chicken myself and I definitely pay for my own groceries. The tone of my post wasn't meant to be personal but it reflects my irritation at people mocking those who choose to boycott Sainsburys. It won't hurt them financially but if it gained momentum and attracted publicity it could hurt them reputationally. As long as there is a glimmer of hope, protest isn't entirely futile. Trouble is we are being asked to do this by the club as they asked in an article on the official site. I am not drawn to do anything for a chairman who has been shown to stretch the truth and who has disengaged from the fanbase. If he had been honest and not kept on telling porkies, such as I see no reason why the deal not go ahead, this was when he already knew Sainsburys wanted out, then I would maybe consider it. In all honesty, I think our own board has been dishonest with the fans but now feel it's fine to tell us not to shop there. That's a bit rich, given the background to this. A classic case of 'you can fool some of the people some of the time' KP.
|
|
simonj
Archie Stevens
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 817
|
Post by simonj on Nov 17, 2015 9:26:54 GMT
Simple for me, stuff em, I refuse to go to Sainsbury's. On one hand business is business, on the other extreme profit above all else shows true colours, and theirs isn't blue. Personal thing, so not overly interested in the obligation to shareholders, PLC etc.
|
|
gonzales
Tiger got to sleep, bird got to land; Man got to tell himself he understand.
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 55
|
Post by gonzales on Nov 17, 2015 11:31:27 GMT
Was embarrassed to chip in earlier but now I feel I must. Its the only place open at 7am to get decent coffee, I live by the Glos Rd on, so I went down to get some. I got some eggs too, just poached some, worst eggs I've had for a long time - tasteless yokes. Never again, I'm sticking to my principle from now on. F-Sainsbury's.
|
|
irishrover
Global Moderator
Joined: June 2014
Posts: 3,372
|
Post by irishrover on Nov 17, 2015 13:15:43 GMT
Was it that costs were awarded against us as we lost the case but had already rejected a settlement? No, I don't think it was? I do know the club categorically denied that the judge said the offer should have been accepted. As for your other point, maybe Higgs would have been praised for getting us out of an onerous contract. More likely though, it would simply be accepted and he would be lambasted for taking us into it in the first place. But isn't it more about the relative impact? Sainsburys the retail giant, would simply buy another site. We are a small local business with limited resources and we are being left well and truly in the s***. The trouble is that we have a ruling from a judge that we willingly walked into the s**t of our own accord. Major multi-national (I think) company screws over small business is hardly anything new under the sun. I don't see how relative impact will have bearing on anything here - it is simply about what the contract says. One judge looked at it for months and decided that Sainsbury's are in the clear - I would suggest the chances of another judge reaching the opposing decision is pretty slim as no one at all is suggesting that a glaring error has been made and there's no new information. It seems to me that we are hoping that whoever hears this is in a contrary mood because I don't think judges normally overrule other judges unless they have a pretty rock solid reason for doing so and even then Sainsbury's will presumably appeal. As for the hope of compensation - it seems to me that it's like playing a game of Poker in which you are trying to bluff but your opponent already knows your cards.
|
|
|
Post by CountyGroundHotel on Nov 17, 2015 14:07:37 GMT
No, I don't think it was? I do know the club categorically denied that the judge said the offer should have been accepted. As for your other point, maybe Higgs would have been praised for getting us out of an onerous contract. More likely though, it would simply be accepted and he would be lambasted for taking us into it in the first place. But isn't it more about the relative impact? Sainsburys the retail giant, would simply buy another site. We are a small local business with limited resources and we are being left well and truly in the s***. The trouble is that we have a ruling from a judge that we willingly walked into the s*** of our own accord. Major multi-national (I think) company screws over small business is hardly anything new under the sun. I don't see how relative impact will have bearing on anything here - it is simply about what the contract says. One judge looked at it for months and decided that Sainsbury's are in the clear - I would suggest the chances of another judge reaching the opposing decision is pretty slim as no one at all is suggesting that a glaring error has been made and there's no new information. It seems to me that we are hoping that whoever hears this is in a contrary mood because I don't think judges normally overrule other judges unless they have a pretty rock solid reason for doing so and even then Sainsbury's will presumably appeal. As for the hope of compensation - it seems to me that it's like playing a game of Poker in which you are trying to bluff but your opponent already knows your cards. On that logic no-one would ever win an appeal, I'd suggest that the evidence proves otherwise. As to the judgement I didn't take anything away that suggested her verdict was clear cut, to paraphrase she said along the lines that the contract needed a good draughtsman (ie in legalise it was a pigs ear of a contract), didn't seem to refer to any previous precedents (ie she could indeed be setting the precedent) and even said 'and if I'm right,which I believe I am.... ' again hardly a ringing endorsement of her own decision. Still its the big corporation against the little dog so let's give up. Of course that dies overlook the fact that both parties have top quality legal teams
|
|
|
Post by droitwichgas on Nov 17, 2015 14:07:50 GMT
There'll be 3 Appeal Judges considering the case not just the one and apparently the usual success rate is 30% so clearly they do overturn Judgements made by other Judges. Whether we have a good chance or not is anyones guess.
As far as the Sainsbuty's offer given the amount offered, £1.5m, it seems they felt they had a 1 in 10, or even less chance of losing, which doesn't sound good for our chances of winning the Appeal. the offer must have also been an "open" rather than without prejudice offer or it wouldn't have been mentioned in court, whther they made increased w/p offers we'll never know.
|
|
Peter Parker
Global Moderator
Richard Walker
You have been sentenced to DELETION!
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 4,920
|
Post by Peter Parker on Nov 17, 2015 15:02:46 GMT
The trouble is that we have a ruling from a judge that we willingly walked into the s*** of our own accord. Major multi-national (I think) company screws over small business is hardly anything new under the sun. I don't see how relative impact will have bearing on anything here - it is simply about what the contract says. One judge looked at it for months and decided that Sainsbury's are in the clear - I would suggest the chances of another judge reaching the opposing decision is pretty slim as no one at all is suggesting that a glaring error has been made and there's no new information. It seems to me that we are hoping that whoever hears this is in a contrary mood because I don't think judges normally overrule other judges unless they have a pretty rock solid reason for doing so and even then Sainsbury's will presumably appeal. As for the hope of compensation - it seems to me that it's like playing a game of Poker in which you are trying to bluff but your opponent already knows your cards. On that logic no-one would ever win an appeal, I'd suggest that the evidence proves otherwise. As to the judgement I didn't take anything away that suggested her verdict was clear cut, to paraphrase she said along the lines that the contract needed a good draughtsman (ie in legalise it was a pigs ear of a contract), didn't seem to refer to any previous precedents (ie she could indeed be setting the precedent) and even said 'and if I'm right,which I believe I am.... ' again hardly a ringing endorsement of her own decision. Still its the big corporation against the little dog so let's give up. Of course that dies overlook the fact that both parties have top quality legal teams I would suggest the contract had a good draughtsman (at least for Sainsbury’s that is). Sainsbury’s must have had hundreds of similar contracts written over the years and seem to be pulling out all sort of sites relatively easily We could all agree on the judge’s summation has hardly being a ringing endorsement, but her interpretation was that the contract had a clause that could not be met. For all the clubs tubthumping how they won this point, that point, kind of irrelevant if all 4 judges decide the most important point can’t be made. You can win 11 rounds in a boxing match by jabbing your oponent, but matters little if you get knocked out in the 12th. Perhaps we can get some clarification of what can be argued at appeal and whether we are just trying to overturn this one insurmountable point. It says the case will last 3 days. I wonder how long we have to wait for 3 judges to come to a decision. Will we be looking at March/April? I hope it goes our way, but am dreading it not. Anyone got any news on the clubs re-financing? Have Wonga extended our repayment date
|
|
kingswood Polak
Without music life would be a mistake
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 10,278
|
Post by kingswood Polak on Nov 17, 2015 20:17:35 GMT
On that logic no-one would ever win an appeal, I'd suggest that the evidence proves otherwise. As to the judgement I didn't take anything away that suggested her verdict was clear cut, to paraphrase she said along the lines that the contract needed a good draughtsman (ie in legalise it was a pigs ear of a contract), didn't seem to refer to any previous precedents (ie she could indeed be setting the precedent) and even said 'and if I'm right,which I believe I am.... ' again hardly a ringing endorsement of her own decision. Still its the big corporation against the little dog so let's give up. Of course that dies overlook the fact that both parties have top quality legal teams I would suggest the contract had a good draughtsman (at least for Sainsbury’s that is). Sainsbury’s must have had hundreds of similar contracts written over the years and seem to be pulling out all sort of sites relatively easily We could all agree on the judge’s summation has hardly being a ringing endorsement, but her interpretation was that the contract had a clause that could not be met. For all the clubs tubthumping how they won this point, that point, kind of irrelevant if all 4 judges decide the most important point can’t be made. You can win 11 rounds in a boxing match by jabbing your oponent, but matters little if you get knocked out in the 12th. Perhaps we can get some clarification of what can be argued at appeal and whether we are just trying to overturn this one insurmountable point. It says the case will last 3 days. I wonder how long we have to wait for 3 judges to come to a decision. Will we be looking at March/April? I hope it goes our way, but am dreading it not. Anyone got any news on the clubs re-financing? Have Wonga extended our repayment date I have no evidence but it has been said, by several ITK posters, that the loan has already been renegotiated
|
|