brizzle
Lindsay Parsons
No Buy . . . No Sell!
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 4,293
|
Post by brizzle on Jul 16, 2015 15:04:18 GMT
Do you mean to say you can't? Sadly not I'm afraid, I think it's age related but I'm not certain.
|
|
dagnogo
Joined: June 2014
Posts: 872
|
Post by dagnogo on Jul 16, 2015 15:34:02 GMT
Rochdale, Dagenham, Wycombe, Bury, Wimbledon, Exeter and Yeovil. Not one of them get more in the door than us, they're not bankrolled by a rich benefactor, they've had their troubles but they've made it through. Wycombe are the closest match to us. Had a rich clueless man in charge, and got rid of him through a fans' trust buyout. The main difference is that Steve Hayes agreed to have his personal debts owed by the club repaid over time (can't see Box 1 doimg that) and he didn't put the club £5-7m in debt. Now, they spend what they have, break even, and survive. As opposed to the Higgs model - loan the club money with interest, waste it, then demand gratitude. If the hight of your attenment for Bristol Rovers is the same as those clubs god help us And where has our dear leader taken us? The Conference. We can all say we want to be in the Championship in 5 years but in the last 10, the debts have gone up and the league position has gone down. I'd rather have a football club to support in 5 years time thanks very much. Oh, and if we got aa high as Yeovil did 2 years ago, the Championship, yeah, I'd be chuffed.
|
|
Rex
Predictions League
Joined: June 2014
Posts: 3,287
|
Post by Rex on Jul 16, 2015 17:29:30 GMT
I think we should appeal. If you read the whole document it all hinges on one point AND the last judge made 2 different references to it, both contradictory I'll ask again for anyone who wants to hazard a guess
How are we going to pay off Wonga by the end of the year, at the same time as raising funds for an appeal?
NH was already asked by 20man can we afford it and NH said "We will have to find the money"
We better have one bloody good case before taking it on, to convince a judge that the previous judge was fundamentally wrong
Maybe not appealing is not an option
|
|
|
Post by mentors on Jul 16, 2015 17:29:33 GMT
I don't think that it's ''people'' that will appeal, but the club. And whether we like it or not Nick Higgs is the chairman of the BoD, and as such is familiar (through his legal advice) with the timescale. It's his call, purely and simply. He's also a fan and my experience is the most logical, fair minded, two eyed intellectuals turn into drooling lunatics whenever someone or something 'wrongs' their club...he'll appeal even if he has to remortgage his family home to afford it
|
|
|
Post by PeterHooper57 on Jul 16, 2015 17:47:46 GMT
What is the point in an appeal ? The court said "No Breach" end of. Higgs and Boyceie are gasheads, but do not have a scooby. For **** sake, move on. These two, IMO are stinking the place out. They have had a go and lost. Where is the Plan B ?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 16, 2015 17:54:41 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. No it was lost due to stalling tactics which enabled a cut off date to materialise. No way on this earth should they have got out of jail on that one.
|
|
Peter Parker
Global Moderator
Richard Walker
You have been sentenced to DELETION!
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 4,920
|
Post by Peter Parker on Jul 16, 2015 18:07:29 GMT
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. No it was lost due to stalling tactics which enabled a cut off date to materialise. No way on this earth should they have got out of jail on that one.
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
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 16, 2015 18:25:47 GMT
No it was lost due to stalling tactics which enabled a cut off date to materialise. No way on this earth should they have got out of jail on that one.
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`.
|
|
|
Post by mentors on Jul 16, 2015 19:55:36 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`. but that is what contracts are all about, couching agreements in a legally enforceable framework, if we were unhappy with the conditions we shouldn't have signed the bloody thing.
|
|
|
Post by thecyclist on Jul 16, 2015 19:59:29 GMT
Of course everything was done by the letter of the `law`. but that is what contracts are all about, couching agreements in a legally enforceable framework, if we were unhappy with the conditions we shouldn't have signed the bloody thing. As others have pointed out it would appear that the contract wasn't understood.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 16, 2015 20:10:36 GMT
Of course everything was done by the letter of the `law`. but that is what contracts are all about, couching agreements in a legally enforceable framework, if we were unhappy with the conditions we shouldn't have signed the bloody thing. And bending the couching to suit, we know that. I think. They were obviously happy with the contract that's why it was signed but the problem lay with the advice given to Higgs. IMO. He is no legle eagle is he? So rightly sought advice from someone who is. Expensive mistake.
|
|
|
Post by mentors on Jul 16, 2015 21:00:26 GMT
but that is what contracts are all about, couching agreements in a legally enforceable framework, if we were unhappy with the conditions we shouldn't have signed the bloody thing. And bending the couching to suit, we know that. I think. They were obviously happy with the contract that's why it was signed but the problem lay with the advice given to Higgs. IMO. He is no legle eagle is he? So rightly sought advice from someone who is. Expensive mistake.
If we were badly advised I'm sure our highly litigious chairman will be issuing a writ soon...although I won't hold my breath.
|
|
|
Post by chippenhamgas on Jul 16, 2015 21:08:30 GMT
How do people not understand that irrespective of money we don't have TIME to appeal. A Court of Appeal appeal isn't dealt with over night. Here's an example - a colleague represented someone at the Court of Appeal two and a half years ago - that's 30 months. During that hearing the judge made an order as to costs; his fee basically. He appealed that decision and the Senior Courts Costs Office hearing was ... YESTERDAY! And that was just the wait for the hearing listing let alone now waiting for judgement. A Court of Appeal listing will take 2 years and lets call it another 6 months for judgement. UWE will be far far far in the sunset by then. Appeal talk was just heat of the moment bluster by higgs, probably because he didn't know what else to say, pretty sure we'll announce next week we aren't appealing after coming to our senses. I then predict six months of the usual contemptuous board silence regarding what we will do next.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 17, 2015 1:14:28 GMT
And bending the couching to suit, we know that. I think. They were obviously happy with the contract that's why it was signed but the problem lay with the advice given to Higgs. IMO. He is no legle eagle is he? So rightly sought advice from someone who is. Expensive mistake.
our highly litigious chairman . That was easy for you to say.
|
|
eppinggas
Administrator
Ian Alexander
Don't care
Joined: June 2014
Posts: 8,197
|
Post by eppinggas on Jul 17, 2015 9:04:51 GMT
What we would look like going to appeal. Attachments:
|
|
brizzle
Lindsay Parsons
No Buy . . . No Sell!
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 4,293
|
Post by brizzle on Jul 17, 2015 12:20:12 GMT
How do people not understand that irrespective of money we don't have TIME to appeal. A Court of Appeal appeal isn't dealt with over night. Here's an example - a colleague represented someone at the Court of Appeal two and a half years ago - that's 30 months. During that hearing the judge made an order as to costs; his fee basically. He appealed that decision and the Senior Courts Costs Office hearing was ... YESTERDAY! And that was just the wait for the hearing listing let alone now waiting for judgement. A Court of Appeal listing will take 2 years and lets call it another 6 months for judgement. UWE will be far far far in the sunset by then. Appeal talk was just heat of the moment bluster by higgs, probably because he didn't know what else to say, pretty sure we'll announce next week we aren't appealing after coming to our senses. I then predict six months of the usual contemptuous board silence regarding what we will do next. You may well be right, until something appears in the media then no-one will know. But if his decision to appeal to the Football League and the Football Association regarding Wycombe Wanderers (twice by the way) is anything to go by, then that may give us all a clue. The main difference here of course is the projected cost of any further legal action.
|
|
|
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.
|
|
LPGas
Stuart Taylor
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 1,240
|
Post by LPGas on Jul 17, 2015 12:49:11 GMT
We’ve already spent a fortune on the court case and there is talk of an appeal. I really can’t see us having any chance of winning an appeal based on what I saw in court and what I've read about the case and the process. It’s surely just throwing good money after bad. Does anyone actually think it’s worth appealing today's decision? When you say "we" who do you mean? Because at the moment the income from supporters isn't enough even to pay all the salaries
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 17, 2015 13:10:00 GMT
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. 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...
|
|
|
Post by droitwichgas on Jul 17, 2015 13:11:39 GMT
The wage budget was around £1m last season, "we" paid around £2.5m in gate receipts so your arguement doesn't stand up?
Although why is wasting another £500K on legal costs going to help?
|
|