blueginger
David Williams
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 166
|
Post by blueginger on Jul 10, 2015 19:24:41 GMT
Finally we will get to know either way! Appeals pending, at least we can finally put this whole farce to bed once and for all.
For what it's worth this is my prediction on the verdict:
Justice Proudman will concur with Sainsbury's view that the contract had lapsed and so they are not compelled to complete the contract in full. However, she will find that they allowed Rovers to incur additional costs in pursuit of the sale when they had no intention to complete. Therefore, she will rule that Sainsbury's should compensate Rovers for the costs incurred, however Sainsbury's will not be liable for the full contract cost of £30m. A result that will write off the stadium losses incurred to date by Rovers but not the 'golden ticket' to get the UWE built. Rovers stay at the Mem (and retain ownership), but get enough cash to pay off the Wonga loan (which Rovers will argue was an additional cost of pursuing the stadium sale) and all other stadium sunk costs.
That would be as good a settlement as I think we can expect, draw a line under Sainsbury, recover costs and move on to plan B.
|
|
Bridgeman
Alfie Biggs
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 3,549
|
Post by Bridgeman on Jul 10, 2015 19:29:22 GMT
Keith Chimp @realkeithchimp 5h5 hours ago Can't believe #BristolRovers and Sainsburys have agreed to settle out of court to cover all loses to the club - READ IT HERE FIRST! #UTG twitter.com/RealKeithChimpDoes this have any credibility? Let me think.......ummmm......no !
|
|
|
Post by Finnish Gas on Jul 10, 2015 19:30:18 GMT
Keith Chimp @realkeithchimp 5h5 hours ago Can't believe #BristolRovers and Sainsburys have agreed to settle out of court to cover all loses to the club - READ IT HERE FIRST! #UTG twitter.com/RealKeithChimpDoes this have any credibility? Let me think.......ummmm......no ! Thanks!
|
|
|
Post by Curly Wurly on Jul 10, 2015 19:31:25 GMT
Keith Chimp @realkeithchimp 5h5 hours ago Can't believe #BristolRovers and Sainsburys have agreed to settle out of court to cover all loses to the club - READ IT HERE FIRST! #UTG twitter.com/RealKeithChimpDoes this have any credibility? Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha........... No
|
|
Bridgeman
Alfie Biggs
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 3,549
|
Post by Bridgeman on Jul 10, 2015 19:36:36 GMT
Let me think.......ummmm......no ! Thanks! Two reasons.....how would he know, if he did he would be incontempt of court and face a jail sentence. If there had been an out of court settlement there would be no reason for Mrs Proudman to be in court on Monday to deliver her verdict.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 10, 2015 20:04:06 GMT
Chimps a cnut take no notice.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 10, 2015 20:12:43 GMT
Finally we will get to know either way! Appeals pending, at least we can finally put this whole farce to bed once and for all.
For what it's worth this is my prediction on the verdict:
Justice Proudman will concur with Sainsbury's view that the contract had lapsed and so they are not compelled to complete the contract in full. However, she will find that they allowed Rovers to incur additional costs in pursuit of the sale when they had no intention to complete. Therefore, she will rule that Sainsbury's should compensate Rovers for the costs incurred, however Sainsbury's will not be liable for the full contract cost of £30m. A result that will write off the stadium losses incurred to date by Rovers but not the 'golden ticket' to get the UWE built. Rovers stay at the Mem (and retain ownership), but get enough cash to pay off the Wonga loan (which Rovers will argue was an additional cost of pursuing the stadium sale) and all other stadium sunk costs.
That would be as good a settlement as I think we can expect, draw a line under Sainsbury, recover costs and move on to plan B.
What is plan B?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 10, 2015 22:36:33 GMT
That would be as good a settlement as I think we can expect, draw a line under Sainsbury, recover costs and move on to plan B.
What is plan B? It's the one before plan C
|
|
|
Post by o2o2bo2ba on Jul 11, 2015 7:02:19 GMT
It's the one before plan C We have a plan c? Impressive!
|
|
RG2 Gas
Andy Spring
Joined: June 2014
Posts: 229
|
Post by RG2 Gas on Jul 11, 2015 7:21:24 GMT
It's the one before plan C We have a plan c? Impressive! I think Plan C is Administration ;-)
|
|
c4h10
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 476
|
Post by c4h10 on Jul 11, 2015 8:47:04 GMT
Finally we will get to know either way! Appeals pending, at least we can finally put this whole farce to bed once and for all.
For what it's worth this is my prediction on the verdict:
Justice Proudman will concur with Sainsbury's view that the contract had lapsed and so they are not compelled to complete the contract in full. However, she will find that they allowed Rovers to incur additional costs in pursuit of the sale when they had no intention to complete. Therefore, she will rule that Sainsbury's should compensate Rovers for the costs incurred, however Sainsbury's will not be liable for the full contract cost of £30m. A result that will write off the stadium losses incurred to date by Rovers but not the 'golden ticket' to get the UWE built. Rovers stay at the Mem (and retain ownership), but get enough cash to pay off the Wonga loan (which Rovers will argue was an additional cost of pursuing the stadium sale) and all other stadium sunk costs.
Totally agree with this - except, the club web-site has the news of the court decision under a picture of the proposed new stadium. Hmm.......could it be? Nah, 'course not.
|
|
|
Post by chippenhamgas on Jul 11, 2015 9:09:25 GMT
Finally we will get to know either way! Appeals pending, at least we can finally put this whole farce to bed once and for all.
For what it's worth this is my prediction on the verdict:
Justice Proudman will concur with Sainsbury's view that the contract had lapsed and so they are not compelled to complete the contract in full. However, she will find that they allowed Rovers to incur additional costs in pursuit of the sale when they had no intention to complete. Therefore, she will rule that Sainsbury's should compensate Rovers for the costs incurred, however Sainsbury's will not be liable for the full contract cost of £30m. A result that will write off the stadium losses incurred to date by Rovers but not the 'golden ticket' to get the UWE built. Rovers stay at the Mem (and retain ownership), but get enough cash to pay off the Wonga loan (which Rovers will argue was an additional cost of pursuing the stadium sale) and all other stadium sunk costs.
Totally agree with this - except, the club web-site has the news of the court decision under a picture of the proposed new stadium. Hmm.......could it be? Nah, 'course not. And the club will already know the result so why big it up if it's bad news. I hope we also get on monday a full and in depth statement from the board rather than the usual stoney silence. They have had ample time to prepare for all eventualities and we deserver to know where the club is going long term. The confidentiality excuse ends on monday morning.
|
|
|
Post by Topper Gas on Jul 11, 2015 9:20:03 GMT
Yes we will NH will say he doesn't accept the verdict, has entered an appeal, and until that is heard he can't comment any further due to confidentiality issues. Then in 6 months times we hear the appeal has been dropped!!!
|
|
Peter Parker
Global Moderator
Richard Walker
You have been sentenced to DELETION!
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 4,920
|
Post by Peter Parker on Jul 11, 2015 9:28:40 GMT
Yes we will NH will say he doesn't accept the verdict, has entered an appeal, and until that is heard he can't comment any further due to confidentiality issues. Then in 6 months times we hear the appeal has been dropped!!! We dong have any money to appeal with
|
|
Peter Parker
Global Moderator
Richard Walker
You have been sentenced to DELETION!
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 4,920
|
Post by Peter Parker on Jul 11, 2015 9:29:51 GMT
Totally agree with this - except, the club web-site has the news of the court decision under a picture of the proposed new stadium. Hmm.......could it be? Nah, 'course not. And the club will already know the result so why big it up if it's bad news. I hope we also get on monday a full and in depth statement from the board rather than the usual stoney silence. They have had ample time to prepare for all eventualities and we deserver to know where the club is going long term. The confidentiality excuse ends on monday morning. Who is the club though and who actually knows?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 11, 2015 10:10:16 GMT
Didn't someone say that the verdict could only be appealed on a point of law?
After 6 weeks to get it right, I would be surprised if there were any loopholes there for appeal.
Even if the contract is now 'live' Sainsbury's won't be rushing off the cashpoint to draw out £30m any time soon.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 11, 2015 10:14:10 GMT
Will rovers have to take Sainsbury's to court to enforce the contract? If the judge rules in our favour Monday I mean.
|
|
|
Post by manchestergas on Jul 11, 2015 10:19:03 GMT
Bamber, Yes appeals can only be made on points of law or very major errors of fact. In essence though an appeal would only usually succeed if there had been an error in the application of the law. I don't practice in this area of law and not a litigator in practice but it's not unusual for appeals to succeed on such a point. Judges do make errors. However appeals are not re hearings of the original case. However very occasionally retrials happen if the judge has totally made a total balls up and facts are needed to be reheard. Also I assume these provisions apply to this case (a reserved judgement to be handed down in writing on Monday): www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/rules/part40/pd_part40eThe parties would I suspect have seen a draft of the judgement already. However they have a duty to the court not to disclose until the decision is formalised and handed down.
|
|
|
Post by Topper Gas on Jul 11, 2015 10:27:29 GMT
Problem is that Sainsbury's know by dragging this out another 6 or 12 months the UWE could well pull out. If they did then the whole case could well collapse and all we'd be entitled to is a loss of opportunity even if they lost the appeal?
Let's see how decent a company Sainsbury's are on Monday if the verdict does go our way. As Sainsbury's response to the verdict could well be far more important than the verdict itself.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 11, 2015 11:27:48 GMT
The primary responsibility of their board is to operate in the interest of their share holders, not to do what the supporters of a 4th tier football club would like them to do.
Nothing whatsoever to do with being 'decent'' or otherwise.
|
|