|
Post by timothyq on Jul 13, 2015 12:27:47 GMT
"Accordingly I find that Sainsbury’s must succeed because of the construction of Schedule 1 to the Agreement [2.11] which seems to me to be an insuperable barrier to the Club. If this is wrong (and I do not think it is), I find that the Club succeeds." So it is down as to whether the judge thought that Sainsburys did not need to submit a revised application for increased delivery hours, despite the fact that (A) Sainsburys admitted that the original application was weak and that (2)they were advised by councillors to wait until the political climate had changed, (the political climate being set by the Judicial Review) If I was Higgs I would appeal Appeal courts are very complicated, the facts would be as stated (which doesn't look like a problem) and a panel of judges / law lords would listen to legal arguments from both sides and it would be a majority verdict based on if the judges reason was correct. If we were to appeal I would expect the entire judgement to be reviewed, so that the case may not end us replying on 2.11, as the judges could disagree with the trial judges ruling on 2.11 but also disagree with her ruling on Sainsbury's other complaints. The process will be slow and very expensive as the legal arguments may become even more technical and require more preparation and time spend in court. To make matters worse, if we're operating within a grey area of common law, which it appears we are, then whatever the verdict from the CoA we might end up in the Supreme Court. Put simply, if we go down the appeal route we could still be in the process in three years time with a mountain of debt and no end in sight. I always thought ending up in the appeal system would be a disaster, the decisions Higgs needs to make is whether it is a bigger disaster than simply walking away and finding a way to get the club on a sound financial footing without gambling on the outcome of a court case.
|
|
|
Post by timothyq on Jul 13, 2015 12:00:03 GMT
I don't think Higgs and Watola drafted the contract - they negotiated the agreement which the contract was based on. Sorry, poorly worded. Whilst obviously the language used in the contract was 'drafted' by professionals, the negotiations were obviously poorly carried out. Otherwise, we would have been left with a contact which could be practically understood by legal professionals without the need to go to court. Had we handed negotiations over to a professional third party who acted within perameters set by Toni / Higgs then we would not now be suffering for their sloppiness several years on.
|
|
|
Post by timothyq on Jul 13, 2015 11:44:48 GMT
It's been 10 years since I've had to read something like that, and I would have saved myself the trouble if it didn't posses my with the same morbid fascination as watching a cheap horror movie on late night TV.
Two questions though, and I know it's easy to be wise after the event, but there are two troubling sentences from early on in this judgement:
'The terms of this deal had been agreed in principle by negotiation between Mr Jamie Baker, a development surveyor employed by Sainsbury’s, and Mr Nick Higgs and Mr Toni Watola on behalf of the Club...'
and later:
'There is little doubt that the Agreement is tortuously, laboriously and in some respects badly, drafted. It makes any draftsman itch to have a try at it. However I have to decide what it means.'
Firstly, f******g watertight they said! If a high court judge, not to mention those of us who have worked with complicated contracts before, can't work out what it says, then in what universe can this contact be described as 'watertight'?
And secondly, where were our barristers and solicitors when this contact for sale was being drafted? Am I to believe that we could have been spared all this uncertainty, all this expense and all this trouble if we treated the multi-million pound sale of our one major asset with the care it deserved and delegated the job of drafting the contact to professionals?
I've deleted a more detailed rant because it rambled on and on and on, when it's actually sufficient to say that it's evident the BoD have been feeding us complete bulls***, they weren't competent to negotiate and draft the contact, as evidenced by the incomprehensible bundle of bollocks they produced, and I don't trust them spending more of the clubs money on pursuing the matter through the appellate court system. For those who aren't aware, the high court works at a frenzied pace compared to the appeal courts and the club cannot afford for this uncertainty to continue. It's past time they made plans for Rovers without the UWE because right now they're gambling with the clubs future.
|
|
|
Post by timothyq on May 19, 2015 14:45:04 GMT
Another reason the playoff win was so important Droitwich, the absolute worst case scenario now is that we go into admin early next season and start with a points deduction.
|
|
|
Post by timothyq on May 19, 2015 14:24:45 GMT
The thing to keep in mind with an appeal is that it will only go ahead if there may be an error in law, in which case it will go to the CoA with the facts being as stated in court, so it would essentially be a case of our barristers and their barristers debating the finer points of the law in front of a law lord or very senior judge. As Sharky pointed out this is incredibly time consuming (not to mention costly) and in normal circumstances these appeals can drag on for 5 years or more if the CoA appeal is appealed again to the supreme court, I'm not sure what the procedure is for fast tracking a case through the court of appeal.
Metealotblue is actually sort of right that this is the last time there will be a conventional hearing where any decision will be made on the facts of the case, after this it will be very clever, very dull people debating the law in excruciating detail.
|
|
|
Post by timothyq on May 18, 2015 14:32:15 GMT
I was impressed by Arnold, it would be difficult for me to get excited about any of their defenders considering they were a complete shower as a unit!
|
|
|
Post by timothyq on May 18, 2015 8:38:33 GMT
Firstly, GET IN! Like many on here I didn't foresee us bouncing straight back into the FL and the last 6 months have been well beyond my expectations!
Conference football has been quite an interesting one for me, I think I've been surprised by the standard. In some ways it was slightly lower than I expected and I can't understand how a few of the players on display are actually getting paid to play football, but there are a few players who have stood out (such as Arnold yesterday) and would probably be strong players in L2. I've only been to a few of the live games this year (as well as the televised matches), have any of the more hardcore fans spotted players who we should be taking with us into the FL? Also, what memories will everyone take away from conference football?
|
|
|
Post by timothyq on May 17, 2015 14:07:29 GMT
That was attritional! First 20 were a complete shower, neither team is defending, both keepers could have been sent off, Puddy keeps getting himself in trouble charging out of his area like he's Maneul Neuer and sooner or later someone is going to see red. I can't call it right now, it's no one is control the game, rather it's going end to end, favouring whoever has the momentum. If we can hold possession and slow the game down a bit we should be okay, but anything can happen when it's this chaotic.
|
|
|
Post by timothyq on May 16, 2015 16:14:07 GMT
This guy on OTIB wouldn't be the first person to profess knowledge he does not possess an online forum but if he's correct (did he say where you can access the skeleton arguments btw?) then it's difficult to see how Rovers will not have breached the contract if the build costs of the UWE stadium will have exceeded the proceeds of sale from the mem and this would be the case regardless of whether the club had an adequate plan to make up the shortfall.
On the subject of his 'non-expert' status, you don't need an expensive legal education to understand that law is often a very specialist business, and commercial property transactions of this kind will be rather niche, therefore, even someone who has completed a legal degree and the BVC (or whatever it's called now) and secured pupillage will not necessarily be an expert on any given subject. However, he apparantly still knows how to access and analyse a barristers skelton argument, and he will have greater understanding of how thins happen in court and what factors will shape the judges decision. So, when he says he is 'non-expert' we should take it to mean 'I don't much about the subject, but I know more than you.'
|
|
|
Post by timothyq on May 16, 2015 9:17:37 GMT
I always thought the presumption in law was that both parties were of equal standing when entering into a contract so can't then say "sorry Guv didnt realise it was that complicated those nasty big supermarkets have done us up like a kipper" as an excuse. But no expert so happy to be put right on that one. In general if the wording of a contract is ambiguous the preferred meaning should be the one that works against the interests of the party who provided the wording. Assuming Sainsbury's provided the wording any ambiguity is therefore likely to go against them. However this may well be a situation where both contributed towards the wording as it appears to be a one off. Unfortunately there is no way this contract hadn't been drawn up through a collaborative process, and as someone else has mentioned, 'complexity' does not mean there would be any ambiguity of wording. What's worrying me is that the 'complexity' of the case could indicate that there are some contentious areas of law to be considered which would be very bad news for us. High court decisions can only be appealed if there is an error of law, not if you simply disagree with the judges interpretation of the facts. So if the judgement happens to rest on any legal grey areas, which can be the case in our common law system, then there is always a chance that we could get a result at the high court and still be subject to the uncertainty of an appeal. As we had been assured our contract was 'watertight' I hadn't previously considered this as a possibility!
|
|
|
Post by timothyq on May 15, 2015 11:02:53 GMT
Yup, 2-0. The game plan was clearly to remain tight at the back and capitalise on their errors as Dave Mathias QC kept the pressure on for the whole 90 minutes and exploited weaknesses in the opposition defence.
|
|
|
Post by timothyq on May 13, 2015 16:59:45 GMT
I've tried to give a detailed outline of my point of view, but now I'll just sum it up in one sentence. I'd trade places with Cambridge United right now and they play in s**t hole.
|
|
|
Post by timothyq on May 13, 2015 16:56:26 GMT
WTF, where is Higgsie when you need him; if this is true, surely Box 1 would want to explain to the Supporters, especially in light of Sundays play-off final, what is going on, and why ? It is as simple as a case over running I believe as stated yesterday on the other forum. Out of the boards hands I'm not sure that will pacify the mob lulworth!
|
|
|
Post by timothyq on May 13, 2015 13:58:41 GMT
I'm still very cautious about how much additional revenue the UWE would bring in. Firstly I don't know what sort of rent a stadium venue normally commands for a concert, and I don't know how many concert organisers would actually be looking for a stadium venue in Bristol. We'd also be entering a competitive market place with all that money being spent at trashton, which will either force the price down or limit the amount of business we're able to win. Unfortunately the additional revenue streams is just one of many areas where the board have not explained the benefits of the UWE.
|
|
|
Post by timothyq on May 13, 2015 9:26:31 GMT
Maybe both parties have asked for a delay as they are negotiating a settlement? Could be something or it could be nothing. That's my invaluable contribution for the day.
|
|
|
Post by timothyq on May 12, 2015 18:27:54 GMT
There are no comparisons today Wally, but if we were stuck in the conference with a stadium that is too big, costing too much to maintain, with too many behind the scenes staff, too many professional players and not enough income then we can never be sure what the future in the conference may hold. Even if we go into the FL and get forced into administration in September, the worse that will happen is we get a deduction and bounce back to the conference. If we go pop outside of the FL we could be looking back on this season quite fondly in a few years time! The mem is perfectly adequate L2 and the security FL membership would give us should make promotion the priority in the short, and the long term.
|
|
|
Post by timothyq on May 7, 2015 14:03:32 GMT
and don't forget, the interest they are accruing from 30m sitting in their account probably pays for all of their legal stuff, so in effect, they're playing a freebie ! I doubt their shareholders would view it that way
|
|
|
Post by timothyq on May 7, 2015 13:47:52 GMT
The fact Sainsbury's have announced a loss, which was really just from writing off a load of assets while they're still making a profit day to day as I understand it, won't have any impact on the judge whatsoever. The law is the law and the impact of a judgment on either party won't matter a jot. The same applies to the position an unfavourable result could leave us in, which is one of the major reasons these sorts of cases are usually settled out of court.
|
|
|
Post by timothyq on May 6, 2015 13:18:59 GMT
Any news on how long the hearing is likely to take and when we will get a judgement? I think I read that the hearing was scheduled for 7 days a while back but I've been slightly out of the loop so I don't know if there's been more info.
|
|
|
Post by timothyq on May 6, 2015 13:04:10 GMT
youve more chance of shagging the pope Timothy sounds like a young boys name so I wouldn't completely discount that happening in the Catholic church He preferred to call it making love.
|
|