rennesgas
Alfie Biggs
First Rovers match 1964
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 82
|
Post by rennesgas on Jul 14, 2015 16:53:42 GMT
Enough is enough Mr Higgs, please dont throw any more money by way of an appeal to yesterdays decision. Man up, admit Sainsburys have beaten us and move on. If the club appeals the only winners will be as usual solicitors and barristers. By appealing it proves to me that the club has no plan B and has gambled everything on the uwe stadium.
We are where we are, we still have a ground to go to and a team to support. Yes we would all like to have someone who has millions to spend on a new ground and money to sign players etc but we hav'nt. We have a group of people in charge who are small time local business men who are also fans but do not have the business acumen to run a professional footbal club. That said they have invested their own money and until a major investor comes forward with real vision we are a 4th tier club in a out of date ground.
|
|
brizzle
Lindsay Parsons
No Buy . . . No Sell!
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 4,293
|
Post by brizzle on Jul 14, 2015 17:12:29 GMT
Enough is enough Mr Higgs, please dont throw any more money by way of an appeal to yesterdays decision. Man up, admit Sainsburys have beaten us and move on. If the club appeals the only winners will be as usual solicitors and barristers. By appealing it proves to me that the club has no plan B and has gambled everything on the uwe stadium. We are where we are, we still have a ground to go to and a team to support. Yes we would all like to have someone who has millions to spend on a new ground and money to sign players etc but we hav'nt. We have a group of people in charge who are small time local business men who are also fans but do not have the business acumen to run a professional footbal club. That said they have invested their own money and until a major investor comes forward with real vision we are a 4th tier club in a out of date ground.The bit about the Mem is undeniably true, but is the ground so bad that we appear to be spending money that we haven't got in an attempt to move to a brand spanking new stadium? I feel that if we were to relax for a while and reconsider our options, then staying put may not appear to be such a bad idea. It's quite possible that the money that is to be spent on the proposed appeal, together with the money already spent on the legal process so far, put together with all of the ancillary costs associated with all of our failed attempts to date, might have been better invested in the team. I don't wish to be viewed as someone who is wise by hindsight, but I think it's time to take our foot off of the accelerator for a while and reconsider our available options at our leisure. Hopefully against a back-drop of a more successful team, which of course as we all know, will bring its own rewards.
|
|
|
Post by Topper Gas on Jul 14, 2015 18:39:51 GMT
I think NH needs to clarify if the UWE is in anyway still viable w/o the Sainsbury's money if not let's man up admit it's dead and accept the BoD gave it their best shot. In my view there's no point extending the agony by talking about appeals & other forms of investors if there aren't any.
If the UWE is somehow still viable let's move on to Plan B and forget all about Sainsbury's. At least we still have the club we love & support, Sainsbury's can't take that away from us. Although you'd think they'd do the decent thing now and offer us some compensation.
|
|
|
Post by Nurse Ratched on Jul 14, 2015 19:15:34 GMT
This is only one judges opinion who in her conclusion almost invites an appeal in her wording, because she seems not sure of her own judgement. Conclusion 156. 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.Read it in context of the rest of the judgement, it seems even more woolly. 2.11 The Buyer may in its absolute discretion pursue an Appeal against a Planning Refusal but shall be obliged to do so if: (a) Planning Counsel confirms that such an Appeal has a 60% chance or greater of
achieving an Acceptable Store Planning Permission on or before the Long Stop
Date; and
(b) an Acceptable Stadium Planning Permission has been granted; in which case the Buyer will give notice of Appeal within the time limits imposed or specified in the Planning Act and in such case: (c) the Buyer will prosecute the Appeal with due diligence and will conduct its part in
the Appeal proceedings in a good and efficient manner (d) in prosecuting any Appeal the Buyer will keep the Seller fully informed of all
relevant information in respect of the Appeal
(e) if the Buyer considers it appropriate the Buyer will submit a duplicate or alternative Store Planning Application not the subject of Appeal proceedings and the provisions of the schedule should apply to that duplicate or alternate Store Planning Application. linkI don't believe for one minute that the club would chase this thing through unless it was not worth the money being spent. They will no doubt take legal advice on their chances of success before taking it further. If this decision was given to us yesterday using the same words in bold in the judges conclusion, then we would fully expect Sainsbury's to appeal. They would be fools not too. So why do you want us to roll over and die? Appeal courts overturn decisions and this judgement is far from being clear. Can we afford it? On the judgement given, which seems to have a good chance of being overturned, can we afford not too?
|
|
|
Post by thecyclist on Jul 14, 2015 19:32:05 GMT
This is only one judges opinion who in her conclusion almost invites an appeal in her wording, because she seems not sure of her own judgement. Conclusion 156. 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.Read it in context of the rest of the judgement, it seems even more wholly. 2.11 The Buyer may in its absolute discretion pursue an Appeal against a Planning Refusal but shall be obliged to do so if: (a) Planning Counsel confirms that such an Appeal has a 60% chance or greater of
achieving an Acceptable Store Planning Permission on or before the Long Stop
Date; and
(b) an Acceptable Stadium Planning Permission has been granted; in which case the Buyer will give notice of Appeal within the time limits imposed or specified in the Planning Act and in such case: (c) the Buyer will prosecute the Appeal with due diligence and will conduct its part in
the Appeal proceedings in a good and efficient manner (d) in prosecuting any Appeal the Buyer will keep the Seller fully informed of all
relevant information in respect of the Appeal
(e) if the Buyer considers it appropriate the Buyer will submit a duplicate or alternative Store Planning Application not the subject of Appeal proceedings and the provisions of the schedule should apply to that duplicate or alternate Store Planning Application. linkI don't believe for one minute that the club would chase this thing through unless it was not worth the money being spent. They will no doubt take legal advice on their chances of success before taking it further. If this decision was given to us yesterday using the same words in bold in the judges conclusion, then we would fully expect Sainsbury's to appeal. They would be fools not too. So why do you want us to roll over and die? Appeal courts overturn decisions and this judgement is far from being clear. Can we afford it? On the judgement given, which seems to have a good chance of being overturned, can we afford not too? An appearance from the chief stooge, how touching.
|
|
|
Post by Nurse Ratched on Jul 14, 2015 19:34:00 GMT
This is only one judges opinion who in her conclusion almost invites an appeal in her wording, because she seems not sure of her own judgement. Conclusion 156. 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.Read it in context of the rest of the judgement, it seems even more wholly. 2.11 The Buyer may in its absolute discretion pursue an Appeal against a Planning Refusal but shall be obliged to do so if: (a) Planning Counsel confirms that such an Appeal has a 60% chance or greater of
achieving an Acceptable Store Planning Permission on or before the Long Stop
Date; and
(b) an Acceptable Stadium Planning Permission has been granted; in which case the Buyer will give notice of Appeal within the time limits imposed or specified in the Planning Act and in such case: (c) the Buyer will prosecute the Appeal with due diligence and will conduct its part in
the Appeal proceedings in a good and efficient manner (d) in prosecuting any Appeal the Buyer will keep the Seller fully informed of all
relevant information in respect of the Appeal
(e) if the Buyer considers it appropriate the Buyer will submit a duplicate or alternative Store Planning Application not the subject of Appeal proceedings and the provisions of the schedule should apply to that duplicate or alternate Store Planning Application. linkI don't believe for one minute that the club would chase this thing through unless it was not worth the money being spent. They will no doubt take legal advice on their chances of success before taking it further. If this decision was given to us yesterday using the same words in bold in the judges conclusion, then we would fully expect Sainsbury's to appeal. They would be fools not too. So why do you want us to roll over and die? Appeal courts overturn decisions and this judgement is far from being clear. Can we afford it? On the judgement given, which seems to have a good chance of being overturned, can we afford not too? An appearance from the chief stooge, how touching. A chief stooge of what? Progress?
|
|
|
Post by thecyclist on Jul 14, 2015 19:50:13 GMT
An appearance from the chief stooge, how touching. A chief stooge of what? Progress? You put me in mind of Comical Ali towards the end of the Gulf War who was being interviewed in Baghdad as the American tanks rolled past him and he tried to argue that the enemy was being driven out.......No-one is going to swallow the nonsense you have written. It's a bit like the condemned man sitting in his cell and his lawyer saying, "never mind old chap it was only the opinion of one judge sentencing you to death, we'll find someone who'll let you off despite the evidence and the letter of the law".......
|
|
|
Post by Nurse Ratched on Jul 14, 2015 19:52:32 GMT
A chief stooge of what? Progress? You put me in mind of Comical Ali towards the end of the Gulf War who was being interviewed in Baghdad as the American tanks rolled past him and he tried to argue that the enemy was being driven out.......No-one is going to swallow the nonsense you have written. It's a bit like the condemned man sitting in his cell and his lawyer saying, "never mind old chap it was only the opinion of one judge sentencing you to death, we'll find someone who'll let you off despite the evidence and the letter of the law"....... What on earth are you talking about?
|
|
|
Post by thecyclist on Jul 14, 2015 19:57:48 GMT
You put me in mind of Comical Ali towards the end of the Gulf War who was being interviewed in Baghdad as the American tanks rolled past him and he tried to argue that the enemy was being driven out.......No-one is going to swallow the nonsense you have written. It's a bit like the condemned man sitting in his cell and his lawyer saying, "never mind old chap it was only the opinion of one judge sentencing you to death, we'll find someone who'll let you off despite the evidence and the letter of the law"....... What on earth are you talking about? Well if you don't understand the point I suggest you go and visit a lawyer and get it explained.
|
|
|
Post by Nurse Ratched on Jul 14, 2015 19:59:24 GMT
What on earth are you talking about? Well if you don't understand the point I suggest you go and visit a lawyer and get it explained. Really?
|
|
vaughan
Joined: June 2014
Posts: 1,237
|
Post by vaughan on Jul 14, 2015 20:01:01 GMT
Some good points by Mr Seaton and you are more than entitled to join a fair debate.
Does anyone think that the judge did not consult other legal counsel in 6 weeks before giving her verdict?
Sainsbury's did pursue an appeal, but it failed and this was partly related to the political climate and feedback from BCC at the time. Watola did not stand in the way of the first appeal and IMO he is "culpable" for his naivety. The second appeal (requested by us) was turned down by Sainsbury's and they were not forced to pursue it, as there was no planning counsel from Sainsbury's that agreed it having more than 60% chance of success. We were forced to pursue this ourselves and we were ultimately successful, but not in time before cut-off date. The prevarication between 27th March 2014 and June 23rd 2014 was what cost us achieving the overturn of onerous store condition (delivery times between 5 and 12)in time before the cut-off date (26th November 2014).
The judge concedes that Sainsbury's did not want this to go ahead, but in terms of appeals and the protocols agreed, they did everything by the letter (if not spirit) of the contract.
The onus is on us to ensure that a contract protects us from a partner who gets cold feet before its termination and this contract failed - especially in the area of appeals and the issue of delivery times being an onerous store condition. It is known that it is common practice these can be tailored after a store opens. The contract could have made provision for this not being a show-stopper.
I am therefore not confident that an appeal would see this verdict differently.
Before I am accused of the beauty of hindsight, the first that we have found out what was really going on was from the 39-page verdict.
I remember watching you, Mr Seaton, rejoicing on Points West at the verdict of 27th March. You and the MP smiling broadly alongside you were unaware (unlike the BOD) that Sainsbury's had already signified that they wanted out of the deal. A minor matter that would have tempered our joy on the evening.
|
|
|
Post by Nurse Ratched on Jul 14, 2015 20:18:39 GMT
Some good points by Mr Seaton and you are more than entitled to join a fair debate. Does anyone think that the judge did not consult other legal counsel in 6 weeks before giving her verdict? Sainsbury's did pursue an appeal, but it failed and this was partly related to the political climate and feedback from BCC at the time. Watola did not stand in the way of the first appeal and IMO he is "culpable" for his naivety. The second appeal (requested by us) was turned down by Sainsbury's and they were not forced to pursue it, as there was no planning counsel from Sainsbury's that agreed it having more than 60% chance of success. We were forced to pursue this ourselves and we were ultimately successful, but not in time before cut-off date. The prevarication between 27th March 2014 and June 23rd 2014 was what cost us achieving the overturn of onerous store condition (delivery times between 5 and 12)in time before the cut-off date (26th November 2014). The judge concedes that Sainsbury's did not want this to go ahead, but in terms of appeals and the protocols agreed, they did everything by the letter (if not spirit) of the contract. The onus is on us to ensure that a contract protects us from a partner who gets cold feet before its termination and this contract failed - especially in the area of appeals and the issue of delivery times being an onerous store condition. It is known that it is common practice these can be tailored after a store opens. The contract could have made provision for this not being a show-stopper. I am therefore not confident that an appeal would see this verdict differently.Before I am accused of the beauty of hindsight, the first that we have found out what was really going on was from the 39-page verdict. I remember watching you, Mr Seaton, rejoicing on Points West at the verdict of 27th March. You and the MP smiling broadly alongside you were unaware (unlike the BOD) that Sainsbury's had already signified that they wanted out of the deal. A minor matter that would have tempered our joy on the evening. See, it is all a matter of opinion. As your 'confidence' is one of lay preacher standing in the realms of the legal world, it doesn't matter a jot. :-) However, the legal advice and guidance the club will get - does matter. So let's put the poison pen away until it is concluded, as it is all very premature (and just a little bit undignified ;-)).
|
|
vaughan
Joined: June 2014
Posts: 1,237
|
Post by vaughan on Jul 14, 2015 20:23:54 GMT
Yes, Mr Seaton, it is a matter of opinion, which is the standard currency of a Football Forum.
Thanks for gracing us with yours.
|
|
|
Post by thecyclist on Jul 14, 2015 20:32:52 GMT
Some good points by Mr Seaton and you are more than entitled to join a fair debate. Does anyone think that the judge did not consult other legal counsel in 6 weeks before giving her verdict? Sainsbury's did pursue an appeal, but it failed and this was partly related to the political climate and feedback from BCC at the time. Watola did not stand in the way of the first appeal and IMO he is "culpable" for his naivety. The second appeal (requested by us) was turned down by Sainsbury's and they were not forced to pursue it, as there was no planning counsel from Sainsbury's that agreed it having more than 60% chance of success. We were forced to pursue this ourselves and we were ultimately successful, but not in time before cut-off date. The prevarication between 27th March 2014 and June 23rd 2014 was what cost us achieving the overturn of onerous store condition (delivery times between 5 and 12)in time before the cut-off date (26th November 2014). The judge concedes that Sainsbury's did not want this to go ahead, but in terms of appeals and the protocols agreed, they did everything by the letter (if not spirit) of the contract. The onus is on us to ensure that a contract protects us from a partner who gets cold feet before its termination and this contract failed - especially in the area of appeals and the issue of delivery times being an onerous store condition. It is known that it is common practice these can be tailored after a store opens. The contract could have made provision for this not being a show-stopper. I am therefore not confident that an appeal would see this verdict differently.Before I am accused of the beauty of hindsight, the first that we have found out what was really going on was from the 39-page verdict. I remember watching you, Mr Seaton, rejoicing on Points West at the verdict of 27th March. You and the MP smiling broadly alongside you were unaware (unlike the BOD) that Sainsbury's had already signified that they wanted out of the deal. A minor matter that would have tempered our joy on the evening. See, it is all a matter of opinion. As your 'confidence' is one of lay preacher standing in the realms of the legal world, it doesn't matter a jot. :-) However, the legal advice and guidance the club will get - does matter. So let's put the poison pen away until it is concluded, as it is all very premature (and just a little bit undignified ;-)). So despite the overwhelming raft of evidence that now suggests that we should take everything with a large pinch of salt coming from the Rovers board, you suggest that we still believe the line being peddled now? The only opinion that mattered was that of the judge, you may not like it that your heroes have been caught with their trousers around their ankles but the chances of them getting them back up towards their calves are minimal.
|
|
|
Post by Nurse Ratched on Jul 14, 2015 20:43:44 GMT
See, it is all a matter of opinion. As your 'confidence' is one of lay preacher standing in the realms of the legal world, it doesn't matter a jot. :-) However, the legal advice and guidance the club will get - does matter. So let's put the poison pen away until it is concluded, as it is all very premature (and just a little bit undignified ;-)). So despite the overwhelming raft of evidence that now suggests that we should take everything with a large pinch of salt coming from the Rovers board, you suggest that we still believe the line being peddled now? The only opinion that mattered was that of the judge, you may not like it that your heroes have been caught with their trousers around their ankles but the chances of them getting them back up towards their calves are minimal. Overwhelming raft of evidence? What line is being peddled? 'your heroes'? 'trousers around their ankles'? Honestly? Is this really what you think?
|
|
|
Post by thecyclist on Jul 14, 2015 20:57:30 GMT
So despite the overwhelming raft of evidence that now suggests that we should take everything with a large pinch of salt coming from the Rovers board, you suggest that we still believe the line being peddled now? The only opinion that mattered was that of the judge, you may not like it that your heroes have been caught with their trousers around their ankles but the chances of them getting them back up towards their calves are minimal. Overwhelming raft of evidence? What line is being peddled? 'your heroes'? 'trousers around their ankles'? Honestly? Is this really what you think? Well at the moment it looks like Mr Higgs and yourself still think this can succeed.....errrr and no-one else. Get the picture now?
|
|
|
Post by Nurse Ratched on Jul 14, 2015 21:05:32 GMT
Overwhelming raft of evidence? What line is being peddled? 'your heroes'? 'trousers around their ankles'? Honestly? Is this really what you think? Well at the moment it looks like Mr Higgs and yourself still think this can succeed.....errrr and no-one else. Get the picture now? No-one else? Are you sure? If the legal advice strongly advises you to go for an appeal because it has a good chance of success - what would you do?
|
|
|
Post by One F in Dunford on Jul 14, 2015 21:11:46 GMT
Well at the moment it looks like Mr Higgs and yourself still think this can succeed.....errrr and no-one else. Get the picture now? No-one else? Are you sure? If the legal advice strongly advises you to go for an appeal because it has a good chance of success - what would you do? Only go for it if it was a "no win no fee".
|
|
alwaysgas
Harry Bamford
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 153
|
Post by alwaysgas on Jul 14, 2015 21:12:17 GMT
Overwhelming raft of evidence? What line is being peddled? 'your heroes'? 'trousers around their ankles'? Honestly? Is this really what you think? Well at the moment it looks like Mr Higgs and yourself still think this can succeed.....errrr and no-one else. Get the picture now? Listened to the legal opinion have you?
You like most on this forum including me haven't a clue what chance we have.
I think this forum must save the Samaritans a lot of time and effort.
|
|
|
Post by thecyclist on Jul 14, 2015 21:17:26 GMT
Well at the moment it looks like Mr Higgs and yourself still think this can succeed.....errrr and no-one else. Get the picture now? Listened to the legal opinion have you?
You like most on this forum including me haven't a clue what chance we have.
I think this forum must save the Samaritans a lot of time and effort.
Apologies, that's three who believe this folly can succeed.
|
|