|
Post by timothyq on Jul 17, 2015 14:58:23 GMT
You may have missed this comment I have since posted so I've copied and pasted. You made the claim that the law had failed to provide rovers justice, and repeatedly said the 'law is an ass' (which again, makes absolutely no sense). Having established an argument that the law is less than it should be, you offered Freemasons and the Rotherham child abuse scandal as supporting evidence for your argument. Thereby drawing an indirect comparison between Rovers, who you believe were betrayed by the legal system, and the victims of the Rotherham sex abuse scandal, who certainly were betrayed by the legal system. Just accept that you drew the comparison, accept that it was in bad taste and we can get back to talking about the court decision. God alive!! Just like the two shoplifters who stole a bottle of vodka. One was fined £50 and the other £60. Both had no previous convictions! Why the different punishments? This is a reference to the laws an ass!! twist that then give me your verdict! I'd suggest the difference is perhaps one had greater means to pay the fine, or one or the other had a mitigating or aggravating factor. I suppose I'd have to know more about the case. I don't suggest that the law is perfect by any means, I think a major drawback of our common law system is that it often requires people to go to court where the law does not offer clear enough guidance, so which a common law system will have fewer instances of arbitrary law or miscarriages of justice than a codified system, it will unfortunately favour those with the resources and the iron will / stubbornness required to pursue a civil action through the courts. This is one of many areas where I take issue with the law. However, I still do not understand what it can mean to say the law is an ass.
|
|
|
Post by timothyq on Jul 17, 2015 14:52:07 GMT
'lol' you've just proved what a fool you are But you wrote it no point denying its you wrote it ,'Rotherham', you, not the man in the moon, not Basil Fawlty, not Bishop Desmond Tutu, not Shirley Basey, not Joe Root, not Larry Grayson but you. Now go do 100 lines, "mustn't write juvenile crap on forum" I said I wrote it knob jockey!! I'm not denying that you complete and utter fool!! What the f are you on?? what a complete bellend you are!! fs sake you had too much coke?? Weed?? I Will repeat for you again my bell ended friend...I did write the word Rotherham but not discussed it at all and in the vein said by Tim!! Do you get it now you thick ****? Okay, let me explain. Suppose I was to comment on the conduct on this forum and I said something like this The occasional displays of bad manners and stubborn arguments suggest a deep rooted tribalism and a human trait of being unpleasant to people who are different. REMEMBER THE HOLOCAUST? People would rightly tell me to stop talking such utter f**king nonsense, and they would say that attempting to use the holocaust as an instrument to further my argument in this way is not only illogical, but aggressive and actually quite unpleasant.
|
|
|
Post by timothyq on Jul 17, 2015 14:40:05 GMT
Your exact words: "The reason 'law' was in inverted commas is because it is an 'ass'. So fix that one if you must. it is corrupt and easily manipulated. Freemasons anyone? Rotherham? Etc,etc. Sainsburys..." Leaving aside the idea of law as an 'ass' (which is a really odd sentence), I agree that failures of the justice system to provide justice, or failures of the institutions to create an environment where justice can be available, should encourage us to question those who exercise the states authority. However, the claim that any miscarriage reduces law, even mundane matters relating to contracts and planning permission, to the lesser status of 'law' is a very poor logic and something else I'm actually in a mood to challenge. Your comment about Rotherham was an attempt to lash out after your argument can under scrutiny, it was totally irrelevant to the point you were, supposedly, trying to make and it added nothing to the debate at all. Just accept it was a daft comment and move on. Back to the discussion on the appeal though and this supposed miscarriage of justice. I'd like it if you could explain exactly why you think there has been a gross miscarriage of justice, and also, I'd be interested to know why you think we occupy some sort of moral high ground. So far as I can see we have tried to force an unwilling party to fulfil a contract which was no longer commercially viable and we forced the matter into the court system instead of negotiating a decent walkaway settlement. Effectively we tried to force Sainsbury's to build a store they didn't want to build, which the area didn't need and was opposed by many people in the local community. Do behave!! You know full well what was meant and like quite a few so called intellectuals on here decided to twist words and whip up a frenzy! Which is very easily done. No comparison was meant at all, you and that gobs***e mentors know that. But used it as a reason to round on me...As if I give a damn! Moving on... You may have missed this comment I have since posted so I've copied and pasted. You made the claim that the law had failed to provide rovers justice, and repeatedly said the 'law is an ass' (which again, makes absolutely no sense). Having established an argument that the law is less than it should be, you offered Freemasons and the Rotherham child abuse scandal as supporting evidence for your argument. Thereby drawing an indirect comparison between Rovers, who you believe were betrayed by the legal system, and the victims of the Rotherham sex abuse scandal, who certainly were betrayed by the legal system. Just accept that you drew the comparison, accept that it was in bad taste and we can get back to talking about the court decision.
|
|
|
Post by timothyq on Jul 17, 2015 14:36:12 GMT
You made the claim that the law had failed to provide rovers justice, and repeatedly said the 'law is an ass' (which again, makes absolutely no sense). Having established an argument that the law is less than it should be, you offered Freemasons and the Rotherham child abuse scandal as supporting evidence for your argument. Thereby drawing an indirect comparison between Rovers, who you believe were betrayed by the legal system, and the victims of the Rotherham sex abuse scandal, who certainly were betrayed by the legal system.
Just accept that you drew the comparison, accept that it was in bad taste and we can get back to talking about the court decision.
|
|
|
Post by timothyq on Jul 17, 2015 14:28:46 GMT
I stepped away for a few minutes and decided I had to quote it again. I just don't think it can be overstated that you've discussed the Rotherham child sex abuse scandal in the same breath as a contractual dispute between a supermarket and a football club. I have discussed nothing have I??? I mentioned the Rotherham cover up and many more instances as to why the law is a corrupt ass. Get it right, no COMPARISON by me at all to the Rovers case at all so cut that lark out!! i will mention the Freemasons again!! All sorts of professions are members of that and have literally got away with murder. Perhaps that the problem with living in the real world and not a modern day bubble? Your exact words: "The reason 'law' was in inverted commas is because it is an 'ass'. So fix that one if you must. it is corrupt and easily manipulated. Freemasons anyone? Rotherham? Etc,etc. Sainsburys..." Leaving aside the idea of law as an 'ass' (which is a really odd sentence), I agree that failures of the justice system to provide justice, or failures of the institutions to create an environment where justice can be available, should encourage us to question those who exercise the states authority. However, the claim that any miscarriage reduces law, even mundane matters relating to contracts and planning permission, to the lesser status of 'law' is a very poor logic and something else I'm actually in a mood to challenge. Your comment about Rotherham was an attempt to lash out after your argument can under scrutiny, it was totally irrelevant to the point you were, supposedly, trying to make and it added nothing to the debate at all. Just accept it was a daft comment and move on. Back to the discussion on the appeal though and this supposed miscarriage of justice. I'd like it if you could explain exactly why you think there has been a gross miscarriage of justice, and also, I'd be interested to know why you think we occupy some sort of moral high ground. So far as I can see we have tried to force an unwilling party to fulfil a contract which was no longer commercially viable and we forced the matter into the court system instead of negotiating a decent walkaway settlement. Effectively we tried to force Sainsbury's to build a store they didn't want to build, which the area didn't need and was opposed by many people in the local community.
|
|
|
Post by timothyq on Jul 17, 2015 13:53:32 GMT
Yes it was, I hope you don't mind but I fixed a typo in your comment, you had the word 'law' in inverted commas for some reason. I don't mind at all. The reason 'law' was in inverted commas is because it is an 'ass'. So fix that one if you must. it is corrupt and easily manipulated. Freemasons anyone? Rotherham? Etc,etc. Sainsburys... I stepped away for a few minutes and decided I had to quote it again. I just don't think it can be overstated that you've discussed the Rotherham child sex abuse scandal in the same breath as a contractual dispute between a supermarket and a football club.
|
|
|
Post by timothyq on Jul 17, 2015 13:46:12 GMT
Yes it was, I hope you don't mind but I fixed a typo in your comment, you had the word 'law' in inverted commas for some reason. I don't mind at all. The reason 'law' was in inverted commas is because it is an 'ass'. So fix that one if you must. it is corrupt and easily manipulated. Freemasons anyone? Rotherham? Etc,etc. Sainsburys... I'm looking forward to hearing in what manner you believe the law has been corrupted in this case. It strikes me that Peter Parker's analysis was correct. Rovers entered into a contract with Sainsbury's which had a cut off date, planning permission was not achieved by this cut off date, there was a claim that Sainsbury's had not presented a thorough case in the appeal which was rejected by a judge after a trial where both sides were represented by prominent, specialist barristers. I'm struggling to see how this can be seen as a gross miscarriage of justice, and I can't possibly fathom how you draw a comparison to Rotherham. If I'm totally honest, I don't think it's a righteous use of contract law to attempt to force the fulfilment of a contract against a party who wish to terminate it. I don't believe for a moment that Sainsbury's chose to go to court without first attempting to discuss a walkaway position and it seems the reaction from our lot was 'piss off, build the store or we'll see you in court'. I don't expect to win this argument, but I'm so tired of this victim mentality that I'm just not going to let this big bad Sainsbury's / corruption / new world order / slick city lawyers BS go unchallenged anymore.
|
|
|
Post by timothyq on Jul 17, 2015 13:01:19 GMT
Blatant self publicism, but I thought it would be a good idea to publish a blog to collate all the incidents of Sainsbury's screwing over the councils and local businesses. I may even publish some of those trolley photos as well. shamesburys.wordpress.com/If you know of any more I can publish, please could you add them to this thread. If anyone wants to help with this, please can you contact me. It would be nice to have a place that brings everything together and hopefully annoys Sainsburys PR department at the very least. www.leek-news.co.uk/Don-t-let-Marston-s-build-pub-Sainsbury-s-site/story-22713101-detail/story.htmlI was living in Leek when the Sainsbury's was built and there was a whole saga over changes to the road layout because of the new store. Basically, someone at the council decided the existing road layout wouldn't be able to deal with the hgv traffic, so Sainsbury's funded some changes including the removal of an old roundabout. Some of the locals went absolutely mental and proceeded to occupy the roundabout for a number of weeks. Strictly speaking none of this was Sainsbury's fault, they applied for planning permission, built a store and funded the councils road changes, but we did see some interesting bits of propoganda floating about like a bumper sticker that read 'You won't catch me roundabout Sainsburys' and a poem in the fish and chip shop, I only remember the first few lines and, sadly, I can't find it on the internet but it went like this: If the queen only knew, There would be such a to do, For there is no reason, And it would be treason, To take away our roundabout. As I said, I don't think Sainsbury's did anything wrong in Leek, but many people in the area disagreed so have a read up, it will at least provide a good example of how supermarket developments divide opinions and cause instability in rural / semi-rural areas.
|
|
|
Post by timothyq on Jul 17, 2015 12:25:06 GMT
So these stalling tactics. They appealed in Jan 14 well before thr cut off date. We had to give approval to their appeal, which we did. It failed. Sainsburys obligations completed Of course everything was done by the letter of the law. Yes it was, I hope you don't mind but I fixed a typo in your comment, you had the word 'law' in inverted commas for some reason.
|
|
|
Post by timothyq on Jul 15, 2015 11:11:18 GMT
Sainsbury's Lawyers are sharp, well drilled, and know every trick & loop hole in the book, they are seasoned veterans with YEARS of experience at this sort of thing and they have been doing it all over the country,they stick to the Law but do not have any morals or sense of fair play, we have NO chance if we appeal, just more money lost, I do wonder what the Bookies odd's would be on our success of an appeal, I am guessing 50-1!, and those odd's are not worth risking the future of our club on. They had a QC, we had a QC. The barrister professions is exceptionally small, and there are very few QCs appointed (I think fewer than 100 appointments per year?), I'd guess that the barristers representing Rovers and Sainsbury's will have been on opposite sides of the court on a number of occasions, with Sainsbury's QC representing the 'little guy' from time to time. There are plenty of things wrong with our legal system and many are 'priced out' of justice, but our dispute with Sainsbury's wasn't lost because they overwhelmed us with slick, high quality lawyers while our public access work experience solicitor frantically searched for a convincing wig on ebay, and the whole little guy beaten by the big, bad supermarket narrative is starting to get quite tiring.
|
|
|
Post by timothyq on Jul 15, 2015 10:59:07 GMT
To be fair, I can't think of many occasions when football clubs have been bought out and the big dreams of the new owners have been realised. We've seen some sleeping giants climb the leagues, arguably doing no more than returning to where they belong and the occasional Russian billionaire who needs a global public profile to deter assassins (allegedly), but more often than not sugar daddies bounce around the league system, maybe having a few seasons in the premier league before other teams catch up in terms of spending and they start to fall back to where the club should be.
Don't get me wrong, someone willing and able to take the club out of danger and invest some money in the future would be well received, but my wildest dream is someone to resolve the directors loans, remove NH and TW, and get the club on a decent financial footing.
The problem is, if we found such an investor and we established ourselves as a upper midtable / playoff challenger, then by 2017 there would be plenty of people on this forum complaining at the boards lack of ambition and calling for the chairman to get his chequebook out.
|
|
|
Post by timothyq on Jul 15, 2015 10:42:23 GMT
Any buy out figure will accumulate to no more then the value of the loan secured on the stadium. The current directors money is lost. If they expect a penny more then they will never find a buyer.And therein lies the problem IMO, no proof just a gut feeling taht this is what is being asked for, NH has shown he is more than prepared with many gambles and this would come as no surprise if it was the reason for the lack of activity. I'm no expert, but don't discount the possibility that the BoD may one day decide to walk away from the club for nothing so long as the directors loans are left on the books.
|
|
|
Post by timothyq on Jul 15, 2015 8:35:50 GMT
I know the preference on this forum is for lots of doom and gloom, but let's not forget how important that penalty shoot out wins for us, especially viewed in the context of Monday's decision.
At present we are facing a period of uncertainty, at worst we're slowly walking towards a cliff edge with who know's what on the other side. If we had lost at Wembely we'd be staring into the abyss, trying to keep the club alive in a league that would rip the club apart if we wen't into administration.
Whatever has happened behind the scenes, the lads did the business on the pitch last season and the club is stronger for it, if we get behind them this season and they do the same again then there will be opportunities for a new ground in the future.
|
|
|
Post by timothyq on Jul 14, 2015 19:51:49 GMT
SAINSBURYS drafted the contract Of course they did, and some fool signed it. I came late to the forum today I missed this bit of logic! It made me think of some god awful film I saw a few years ago featuring some slimy guy who had the following exchange with some girl he was cracking onto: Girl: I've got a boyfriend. Slime ball: I've got a goldfish Girl: What? Slime Ball: Oh, I thought we were listing things that didn't matter.
|
|
|
Post by timothyq on Jul 13, 2015 17:05:28 GMT
You people are weak j S Sainsbury have manipulated contract law to the full, and the judge has just gone with the big corporate v little guy. Screw moving on, why not a war on sainsburies. Get your backbone and get revenge. This isn't a minor disagreement. This has cost out club big time. They are to blame. Not Higgs. sainsburies are to blame. Reneged. Rovers drafted a crap contract and Sainsbury's took advantage of a legal route out of the contract, the worst thing that can be said of Sainsbury's is that they weren't as diligent at preparing an appeal against the planing refusal as they might have been, but that was not the finding of judge. Rovers legal team was led by a QC, a rank attained by an elite few, so I struggle to swallow this argument that we lost because it's some fight between David and Goliath. The fact we allowed this to go to court when we probably could have negotiated an amicable settlement a year ago is yet another failure that the BoD should be help accountable for. Fact is, Sainsbury's owe us nothing, they have a responsibility to their shareholders, they have a responsibility to obey the law, they do not have a responsibility to act contrary to their own interests in order to help Bristol Rovers Football Club. We are not entitled to any sort of revenge or restitution against Sainsbury's, to argue otherwise is childish, petulant and uppity. The BoD on the other hand do have a responsibility to the club, they have failed to act in our best interests and they are to blame. Not Sainsbury's.
|
|
|
Post by timothyq on Jul 13, 2015 14:15:20 GMT
I don't understand what difference it makes to people that we are said to have lost on a 'technicality'. The 'technicality' is a term of the contract.
|
|
|
Post by timothyq on Jul 13, 2015 13:11:25 GMT
I've always opposed appeals and boycotts and nothing has changed. There is only one thing we, as fans can do that will impact the future of the club, and that's packing the Mem for our return to the FL and perhaps investing in a few more pieces of merchandise from the shop. Higgs has been explaining that remaining at the mem will be unprofitable, but I doubt that would be the case if we were selling the ground out every week.
|
|
|
Post by timothyq on Jul 13, 2015 13:07:26 GMT
a decision's been made on one technical element of a clause which has been inconsistently recorded in the judgement. Oh Lordy, he's going to appeal. When he's totally bankrupted our club, will he actually be happy then! He'll be neither happy nor sad, just very keen to explain why none of it was his fault.
|
|
|
Post by timothyq on Jul 13, 2015 13:02:25 GMT
If we appeal on this "Inconsistently applied technicality" is any Judge really going to find the contract any less complex and in our favour Surely that is a massive financial risk Also, in all this indignant bluster about appeals, are they forgetting that the reason they gave the High Court that this case should be fast tracked was that UWE wouldn't stay on board if it wasn't resolved by round about now? I hadn't considered that. Best outcome of any appeal would therefore be damages, and I can't imagine how they'd go about calculating our 'loss'. An appeal looks even less attractive in that light.
|
|
|
Post by timothyq on Jul 13, 2015 12:40:09 GMT
According to Watola in clip provided above by Manchestergas, we should be playing Northampton at UWE (2015-16 season) Sometimes you just want to weep. The reality is that they knew that there were major problems with Sainsbury's attitude on proceeding with the contract and were happy to keep telling us news that we wanted to hear. I propose one litmus test for this BOD - credibility. Higgs and Watola will keep playing the "victim" card and some will be naive enough to tear up their Nectar cards in show of unity around "poor old Bristol Rovers". Agree, agree, agree. We may be unhappy that Sainsbury's sought a legal excuse to end the contract (regardless of whether we agree with the Judges ruling), but their actions shouldn't have come as a surprise and this situation was probably recoverable if we put together a decent 'plan B' years ago. Instead the BoD have deluded themselves that they had a 'watertight' contract and now all they've got to fall back on is the bitter contention that the judge got it wrong.
|
|