|
Post by Curly Wurly on Mar 17, 2016 12:06:02 GMT
Continue our boycott of Sainsburys stores forever now Too right, how dare they insist that contract terms are adhered to. It's not the letter, it's the spirit that I object to. Our board were naive, but Sainsbury's deliberately took us for a ride. That's why I'll boycott them.
|
|
|
Post by richmace on Mar 17, 2016 12:06:52 GMT
I'm just grateful that today's decision is no longer conditional on our survival as a football club.
At least we now have full control over what happens to the Mem site. I would imagine housing is the only practical solution, with an appropriate dignified memorial area. One with flowers and a seating area springs to mind.
|
|
Rex
Predictions League
Joined: June 2014
Posts: 3,287
|
Post by Rex on Mar 17, 2016 12:08:35 GMT
I don't think any one of us can see the bigger picture, I have it on very good authority that we had to contest the original verdict because we now have a watertight case against our solicitors for cocking up the contract and that they are now liable to pay out millions in compensation. That's alright then
|
|
|
Post by laughinggas on Mar 17, 2016 12:11:40 GMT
|
|
|
Post by richmace on Mar 17, 2016 12:15:42 GMT
I also do not blame anybody for this situation. We lost on a pretty technical issue, and I doubt if any contract is 100% watertight. The only problem was the continual assertion that the contract was watertight. That was annoying.
Sainsbury's are a national company, cold and all about sales. It is not their "fault" either. Their financial outlook changed during the course of the project and they could not justify building a store there at that time.
We now have a board that can go out and secure finance without being held over a barrel. We can all move on.
|
|
|
Post by Colyton Gas. on Mar 17, 2016 12:16:01 GMT
Please no more appeals against appeals against appeals.Time to move on .Our legal team have failed so end it now and look to the future.
|
|
|
Post by Curly Wurly on Mar 17, 2016 12:19:41 GMT
Please Wael, get any remaining relevant information from this man and get him out of our club.
|
|
|
Post by Curly Wurly on Mar 17, 2016 12:22:41 GMT
I also do not blame anybody for this situation. We lost on a pretty technical issue, and I doubt if any contract is 100% watertight. The only problem was the continual assertion that the contract was watertight. That was annoying. Sainsbury's are a national company, cold and all about sales. It is not their "fault" either. Their financial outlook changed during the course of the project and they could not justify building a store there at that time. We now have a board that can go out and secure finance without being held over a barrel. We can all move on. I'm glad you feel this way Rich. I can't find it in me to be of generous to either Sainsbury's our our bumbling former regime. It would be nice to know if our legal team will be receiving a fee for this. Their advice on our chances was either erroneous or the performance of our barrister so poor. Our exposure to Sainsbury's legal costs is capped at £199k is it not?
|
|
|
Post by a more piratey game on Mar 17, 2016 12:38:15 GMT
We lost on a pretty technical issue, and I doubt if any contract is 100% watertight. The only problem was the continual assertion that the contract was watertight. That was annoying. I agree - its an example of the challenge that PR seemed to represent, and which the new regime seems as this early stage to be particularly good at
if something like 'we feel that we agreed a contract with Sainsbury's in good faith and believe that they now have a moral and legal duty to fulfil that contract, and we have unfortunately now to press our position in court' it might have played much better I think
|
|
|
Post by Blue Mist on Mar 17, 2016 12:46:36 GMT
Continue our boycott of Sainsburys stores forever now Yes of course, based on an average attendance of 6000 of which 75% would be of an age that bought groceries, an average monthly spend of £200 pp and Sainsbury share of the market at 16.8% then we would need approximately 19 years to recover the £30million.
|
|
Peter Parker
Global Moderator
Richard Walker
You have been sentenced to DELETION!
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 4,920
|
Post by Peter Parker on Mar 17, 2016 12:47:25 GMT
I also do not blame anybody for this situation. We lost on a pretty technical issue, and I doubt if any contract is 100% watertight. The only problem was the continual assertion that the contract was watertight. That was annoying. Sainsbury's are a national company, cold and all about sales. It is not their "fault" either. Their financial outlook changed during the course of the project and they could not justify building a store there at that time. We now have a board that can go out and secure finance without being held over a barrel. We can all move on. I'm glad you feel this way Rich. I can't find it in me to be of generous to either Sainsbury's our our bumbling former regime. It would be nice to know if our legal team will be receiving a fee for this. Their advice on our chances was either erroneous or the performance of our barrister so poor. Our exposure to Sainsbury's legal costs is capped at £199k is it not? I'm assuming the £199k is additional to what was already paid over to the courts in holding from the original case
|
|
vaughan
Joined: June 2014
Posts: 1,237
|
Post by vaughan on Mar 17, 2016 12:55:17 GMT
Poor old Nick. He was a Gashead after all.
Do me a favour.
He led the club to the point of oblivion.
2 facts - UWE approached us and we were bought because of the fan-base, not because of some wonderful legacy left by previous regimes.
We are so incredibly lucky today that this announcement does not signify the death-knell of this FC.
Let's rejoice but I will never overlook the destitute nature of NH's legacy.
The irony is that he probably got his money back.
|
|
|
Post by Henbury Gas on Mar 17, 2016 13:08:19 GMT
Poor old Nick. He was a Gashead after all. Do me a favour. He led the club to the point of oblivion. 2 facts - UWE approached us and we were bought because of the fan-base, not because of some wonderful legacy left by previous regimes. We are so incredibly lucky today that this announcement does not signify the death-knell of this FC. Let's rejoice but I will never overlook the destitute nature of NH's legacy. The irony is that he probably got his money back. Never mind, it could have been a lot worse, GD could have still been in charge....
|
|
|
Post by gashead1979 on Mar 17, 2016 13:08:48 GMT
Right, who else can we sell the Mem to?
|
|
|
Post by PessimistGas on Mar 17, 2016 13:19:18 GMT
I also do not blame anybody for this situation. We lost on a pretty technical issue, and I doubt if any contract is 100% watertight. The only problem was the continual assertion that the contract was watertight. That was annoying. Sainsbury's are a national company, cold and all about sales. It is not their "fault" either. Their financial outlook changed during the course of the project and they could not justify building a store there at that time. We now have a board that can go out and secure finance without being held over a barrel. We can all move on. The cut off date had lapsed and we (or more specifically Toni) allowed it to buy not scrutinising or objecting to Sainsbury's half arsed appeal of the delivery hours. I don't call that a minor technical issue.
|
|
|
We Lost
Mar 17, 2016 13:19:46 GMT
via mobile
Post by PessimistGas on Mar 17, 2016 13:19:46 GMT
I also do not blame anybody for this situation. We lost on a pretty technical issue, and I doubt if any contract is 100% watertight. The only problem was the continual assertion that the contract was watertight. That was annoying. Sainsbury's are a national company, cold and all about sales. It is not their "fault" either. Their financial outlook changed during the course of the project and they could not justify building a store there at that time. We now have a board that can go out and secure finance without being held over a barrel. We can all move on. The cut off date had lapsed and we (or more specifically Toni) allowed it to by not scrutinising or objecting to Sainsbury's half arsed appeal of the delivery hours. I don't call that a minor technical issue.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 17, 2016 13:21:50 GMT
The wrong call was made in November 2013 when Sainsbury's said they wanted out. Higgs went for 2.5 years of delay, piles of cash, and a crippling loan, to flog a dead horse. Millions down the pan. Rather than accepting a setback and finding other ways to finance the new stadium, he bet the club on pigheadedness. Plus, while they were busy trying to outsmart Sainsbury's and a contract in black and white, we didn't have enough focus to stay in the football league.
As for Watola saying we had to do the legal farce to keep UWE involved, total boll0x. What UWE would have wanted is some sign things would progress at some stage. All this nonsense was never that. It nearly broke the club.
I'm delighted to move on, but let's not rewrite history, or blame Sainsbury's or anyone else to deflect from the decisions Higgs made. We now have professionals on the job and the Chief Operating Officer can be left filing paper clips until they've cracked where everything is and can organise a leaving do for him. Good.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 17, 2016 13:25:15 GMT
Poor old Nick. He was a Gashead after all. Do me a favour. He led the club to the point of oblivion. 2 facts - UWE approached us and we were bought because of the fan-base, not because of some wonderful legacy left by previous regimes. We are so incredibly lucky today that this announcement does not signify the death-knell of this FC. Let's rejoice but I will never overlook the destitute nature of NH's legacy. The irony is that he probably got his money back. And my understanding was that the first approach was before Higgs was involved. I wouldn't be so sure that he recovered all of his losses, the appeal outcome looked inevitable, why would Wael have bailed Higgs out?
|
|
misspiggy
Predictions League
Joined: August 2014
Posts: 551
|
We Lost
Mar 17, 2016 13:25:56 GMT
via mobile
Post by misspiggy on Mar 17, 2016 13:25:56 GMT
Ooooo we have a plan " B"
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 17, 2016 13:27:48 GMT
Continue our boycott of Sainsburys stores forever now Yes of course, based on an average attendance of 6000 of which 75% would be of an age that bought groceries, an average monthly spend of £200 pp and Sainsbury share of the market at 16.8% then we would need approximately 19 years to recover the £30million. Don't count me in to your calculations, I'll shop wherever I get the best produce at the best price.
|
|