Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 18, 2016 1:28:43 GMT
In 1982 Barry Bradshaw had an offer to buy Ashton Gate accepted by the then board of Bristol City but the liquidators rejected it following their appointment.
Knowledge courtesy of the horses mouth.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 18, 2016 1:31:10 GMT
He has a source in the courts. ITK bull Sh't is heard everywhere I think the point was made because if Higgs does win his battle with Sainsbury's and they are forced to complete the purchase of The Mem, Sainsbury's can ask Rovers to leave The Mem immediately the deal is completed and not after THE UWE has been built. |
|
Peter Parker
Global Moderator
Richard Walker
You have been sentenced to DELETION!
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 4,920 
|
Post by Peter Parker on Jan 18, 2016 8:13:32 GMT
ITK bull Sh't is heard everywhere I think the point was made because if Higgs does win his battle with Sainsbury's and they are forced to complete the purchase of The Mem, Sainsbury's can ask Rovers to leave The Mem immediately the deal is completed and not after THE UWE has been built. They can ask I suppose.
Is their a time/cut-off for when Sainsbury's required access to the land in the contract?
Not that it will matter much anyway as I don't think we are going to win
|
|
The Gas
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 484
|
Post by The Gas on Jan 18, 2016 8:48:56 GMT
ITK bull Sh't is heard everywhere I think the point was made because if Higgs does win his battle with Sainsbury's and they are forced to complete the purchase of The Mem, Sainsbury's can ask Rovers to leave The Mem immediately the deal is completed and not after THE UWE has been built. That is one of the reasons.
TW did confirm, a long time ago, that Sainsbury could ask us to leave the ground if they won the case and that alternative arrangements had been discussed.
|
|
|
|
Post by bluegashead on Jan 18, 2016 8:57:07 GMT
My god, some people just love living in the past, can we worry about today please?
|
|
faggotygas
Byron Anthony
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 1,862
|
Post by faggotygas on Jan 18, 2016 10:11:54 GMT
My god, some people just love living in the past, can we worry about today please? Bet you loved history at school |
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 18, 2016 10:52:15 GMT
My god, some people just love living in the past, can we worry about today please? This is the now though unless the Sainsbury's appeal has been settled? |
|
|
|
Post by bluegashead on Jan 18, 2016 11:06:11 GMT
My god, some people just love living in the past, can we worry about today please? Bet you loved history at school hated it lol |
|
Thatslife
"Decisions are made by those who turn up"
Joined: June 2014
Posts: 669
|
Post by Thatslife on Jan 18, 2016 11:25:53 GMT
The appeal wont get to court, a deal will be done that compensates BRFC for expenses + a figure which will have agreed by both parties.
I say the for 3 main reasons.
1 Sainsbury's wont want to run the risk of losing and thus setting a president for the other 40 (approximate) cases that are pending.
2 They don't want the ground, simple as that.
3 The court wont grant the loser the right to appeal the verdict. so it becomes an even bigger gamble for Sainsbury's should they lose, they wont be able to tie the case up in any more legal proceedings.
That's how I see it and I do believe that BRFC do have a plan B.
|
|
faggotygas
Byron Anthony
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 1,862
|
Post by faggotygas on Jan 18, 2016 12:09:57 GMT
The appeal wont get to court, a deal will be done that compensates BRFC for expenses + a figure which will have agreed by both parties. I say the for 3 main reasons. 1 Sainsbury's wont want to run the risk of losing and thus setting a president for the other 40 (approximate) cases that are pending. 2 They don't want the ground, simple as that. 3 The court wont grant the loser the right to appeal the verdict. so it becomes an even bigger gamble for Sainsbury's should they lose, they wont be able to tie the case up in any more legal proceedings. That's how I see it and I do believe that BRFC do have a plan B. Excuse me if I take your opinion on a complex legal situation with a pinch of salt, when you can't even spell precedent  |
|
The Gas
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 484
|
Post by The Gas on Jan 18, 2016 12:49:16 GMT
The appeal wont get to court, a deal will be done that compensates BRFC for expenses + a figure which will have agreed by both parties. I say the for 3 main reasons. 1 Sainsbury's wont want to run the risk of losing and thus setting a president for the other 40 (approximate) cases that are pending. 2 They don't want the ground, simple as that. 3 The court wont grant the loser the right to appeal the verdict. so it becomes an even bigger gamble for Sainsbury's should they lose, they wont be able to tie the case up in any more legal proceedings. That's how I see it and I do believe that BRFC do have a plan B. Perhaps this may help you
The Mem For Sale?
|
|
Peter Parker
Global Moderator
Richard Walker
You have been sentenced to DELETION!
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 4,920
|
Post by Peter Parker on Jan 18, 2016 13:33:50 GMT
The appeal wont get to court, a deal will be done that compensates BRFC for expenses + a figure which will have agreed by both parties. I say the for 3 main reasons. 1 Sainsbury's wont want to run the risk of losing and thus setting a president for the other 40 (approximate) cases that are pending. 2 They don't want the ground, simple as that. 3 The court wont grant the loser the right to appeal the verdict. so it becomes an even bigger gamble for Sainsbury's should they lose, they wont be able to tie the case up in any more legal proceedings. That's how I see it and I do believe that BRFC do have a plan B. There probably is a plan B, but sad to say if it was needed my initial thought will be what cock-up or economic disaster will f*ck that up |
|
Thatslife
"Decisions are made by those who turn up"
Joined: June 2014
Posts: 669
|
Post by Thatslife on Jan 18, 2016 16:39:22 GMT
The appeal wont get to court, a deal will be done that compensates BRFC for expenses + a figure which will have agreed by both parties. I say the for 3 main reasons. 1 Sainsbury's wont want to run the risk of losing and thus setting a president for the other 40 (approximate) cases that are pending. 2 They don't want the ground, simple as that. 3 The court wont grant the loser the right to appeal the verdict. so it becomes an even bigger gamble for Sainsbury's should they lose, they wont be able to tie the case up in any more legal proceedings. That's how I see it and I do believe that BRFC do have a plan B. Excuse me if I take your opinion on a complex legal situation with a pinch of salt, when you can't even spell precedent A victim of predictive text, guess even you have experienced that, or maybe you are to much a perfectionist for that. Must be wonderful to live in your world.  |
|
kingswood Polak
Without music life would be a mistake
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 10,278
|
Post by kingswood Polak on Jan 21, 2016 20:50:29 GMT
The appeal wont get to court, a deal will be done that compensates BRFC for expenses + a figure which will have agreed by both parties. I say the for 3 main reasons. 1 Sainsbury's wont want to run the risk of losing and thus setting a president for the other 40 (approximate) cases that are pending. 2 They don't want the ground, simple as that. 3 The court wont grant the loser the right to appeal the verdict. so it becomes an even bigger gamble for Sainsbury's should they lose, they wont be able to tie the case up in any more legal proceedings. That's how I see it and I do believe that BRFC do have a plan B. Excuse me if I take your opinion on a complex legal situation with a pinch of salt, when you can't even spell precedent That's a bit snobby eh ? There are many instances of people who rose to greatness and yet had no great education and were Infact either expelled or never bothered with school. I am not say that's life is not intelligent BTW. |
|
faggotygas
Byron Anthony
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 1,862
|
Post by faggotygas on Jan 22, 2016 8:22:10 GMT
Excuse me if I take your opinion on a complex legal situation with a pinch of salt, when you can't even spell precedent That's a bit snobby eh ? There are many instances of people who rose to greatness and yet had no great education and were Infact either expelled or never bothered with school. I am not say that's life is not intelligent BTW. Yes, but rarely in the legal profession.
I was only messing about anyway
|
|
