|
Post by thecyclist on Jul 14, 2015 21:18:49 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? Always Gas is with you too, well done.
|
|
|
Post by Nurse Ratched on Jul 14, 2015 21:21:39 GMT
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". oh dear. Anyway, it now seems that you would be prepared to go for an appeal if the advice was a good chance of success. So why the "Overwhelming raft of evidence? What line is being peddled? 'your heroes'? 'trousers around their ankles'?" nonsense?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 14, 2015 21:26:13 GMT
it seems totally sensible for rovers and there legal team to consider an appeal,,,it makes sense to me to sound bullish about appealing even if you dont in the cold light of day proceed with it
|
|
|
Post by Nurse Ratched on Jul 14, 2015 21:26:55 GMT
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? Always Gas is with you too, well done. I surprised that you haven't thought I was Always Gas. So that makes it 3? but no-one else.
|
|
|
Post by Nurse Ratched on Jul 14, 2015 21:28:12 GMT
it seems totally sensible for rovers and there legal team to consider an appeal,,,it makes sense to me to sound bullish about appealing even if you dont in the cold light of day proceed with it 4!!!
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 14, 2015 21:33:07 GMT
it seems totally sensible for rovers and there legal team to consider an appeal,,,it makes sense to me to sound bullish about appealing even if you dont in the cold light of day proceed with it 4!!! Wow, next you will suggest crowd funding for the 30 million, sorry it's dead. Forget wasting money and get on with telling us what plan B is, well Nick did say there was a plan B, oh hang on Plan B is to appeal!
|
|
|
Post by Nurse Ratched on Jul 14, 2015 21:39:23 GMT
Wow, next you will suggest crowd funding for the 30 million, sorry it's dead. Forget wasting money and get on with telling us what plan B is, well Nick did say there was a plan B, oh hang on Plan B is to appeal! OK. Same question. If the legal advice strongly advises you to go for an appeal because it has a good chance of success - what would you do?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 14, 2015 21:43:53 GMT
Wow, next you will suggest crowd funding for the 30 million, sorry it's dead. Forget wasting money and get on with telling us what plan B is, well Nick did say there was a plan B, oh hang on Plan B is to appeal! OK. Same question. If the legal advice strongly advises you to go for an appeal because it has a good chance of success - what would you do? Sack them and get another opinion.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 14, 2015 21:45:34 GMT
Wow, next you will suggest crowd funding for the 30 million, sorry it's dead. Forget wasting money and get on with telling us what plan B is, well Nick did say there was a plan B, oh hang on Plan B is to appeal! OK. Same question. If the legal advice strongly advises you to go for an appeal because it has a good chance of success - what would you do? Honestly, if it meant taking the club deeper into debt (another wonga type loan) then my answer would be NO. No matter what the legal team say it is not 100% guaranteed and forgive me but we are taking on a company that makes god knows how many millions also one that has deep links. We tried time to admit it did not work.
|
|
|
Post by Nurse Ratched on Jul 14, 2015 21:47:55 GMT
OK. Same question. If the legal advice strongly advises you to go for an appeal because it has a good chance of success - what would you do? Sack them and get another opinion. OK. We have hypothetically sacked them if it makes you feel better. The new opinion gained is of the same opinion. Again, same question in the game of 'You are the Chairman' ........If the legal advice strongly advises you to go for an appeal because it has a good chance of success - what would you do?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 14, 2015 21:56:57 GMT
Sack them and get another opinion. OK. We have hypothetically sacked them if it makes you feel better. The new opinion gained is of the same opinion. Again, same question in the game of 'You are the Chairman' ........If the legal advice strongly advises you to go for an appeal because it has a good chance of success - what would you do? Appeal. But it'd have to come from someone other than Burges Salmon, who have brought us this far.
|
|
|
Post by Nurse Ratched on Jul 14, 2015 22:00:48 GMT
OK. We have hypothetically sacked them if it makes you feel better. The new opinion gained is of the same opinion. Again, same question in the game of 'You are the Chairman' ........If the legal advice strongly advises you to go for an appeal because it has a good chance of success - what would you do? Appeal. But it'd have to come from someone other than Burges Salmon, who have brought us this far. 5!
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 14, 2015 22:10:49 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. [Post then goes on to mention parts of the contract at which the poster disagrees with the interpretation of a High Court Judge, which needn't delay us] I think you're misinterpreting the 'think' and 'seems to be' tone to conclude that she said 'who knows, I might be wrong, whatever', which is selling the lady short. Also, maybe you shouldn't have non-bolded insuperable. I think what's she's saying is: 'My view is that 2.11 kills it. Of course, like all us humble bench folk, there's always a possibility that I'm wrong; in this instance, were it the case, as this is the crux of it, that would reverse the decision. However, and still in this instance, for the life if me I really can't see how there's any room for doubt.' She's actually bullish, not 'woolly'.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 14, 2015 22:20:05 GMT
Of course Nick Higgs should seek advice on whether there is a more than a 99 % chance of winning or not.
If there isn't then he needs to pack his pencil case and go.
|
|
|
Post by Nurse Ratched on Jul 14, 2015 22:41:48 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. [Post then goes on to mention parts of the contract at which the poster disagrees with the interpretation of a High Court Judge, which needn't delay us] I think you're misinterpreting the 'think' and 'seems to be' tone to conclude that she said 'who knows, I might be wrong, whatever', which is selling the lady short. Also, maybe you shouldn't have non-bolded insuperable. I think what's she's saying is: 'My view is that 2.11 kills it. Of course, like all us humble bench folk, there's always a possibility that I'm wrong; in this instance, were it the case, as this is the crux of it, that would reverse the decision. However, and still in this instance, for the life if me I really can't see how there's any room for doubt.' She's actually bullish, not 'woolly'.Nah, don't buy that at all. In judgments, the judge would usually go out of their way to use absolute language, which would give an opinion without ANY doubt. Just for example Justice Hinkinbottom left absolutely no room for any doubt in his JR judgement against Trash. Here we have terms like " If this is wrong (and I do not think it is), I find that the Club succeeds." in the ruling conclusion! This is openly inviting doubt just in that one sentence and I think she has done it for a reason, otherwise she would have said "I have absolutely no doubt in my judgement that it is correct".
|
|
|
Post by manchestergas on Jul 14, 2015 23:12:51 GMT
So Nurse am I correct in your analysis that you really think the judge really thought she should find for us, but decided the other way and left a coded message in her conclusion?
|
|
|
Post by Nurse Ratched on Jul 14, 2015 23:15:50 GMT
Of course Nick Higgs should seek advice on whether there is a more than a 99 % chance of winning or not. If there isn't then he needs to pack his pencil case and go. So, if the advice is 60%, 70%, 80%, etc chance of winning, you would say go. No UWE Stadium then. Chairman must go. Then what? Replaced by who? From Where? White knights riding in need lots of money to go the the hot air, otherwise hot air on its own is useless. Pray there is one for your sake, in your world. Meanwhile, the Memorial Stadium is rapidly deteriorating and would cost nearly as much as the UWE to rebuild, with none of the facilities to gain that all important outside revenue stream to help the Club keep moving forward.. 18,000 stadium rebuilt - where is the money coming from for that? Haven't got anything to sell. It's not like we can survive on selling our best players, like we did in the old days. Maybe you don't care. Maybe your happy with being little Bristol Rovers forever, wearing it like an old comfy slipper. Got any answers Mary? Got £20 million quid to spare?
|
|
Bridgeman
Alfie Biggs
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 3,549
|
Post by Bridgeman on Jul 14, 2015 23:17:29 GMT
So Nurse am I correct in your analysis that you really think the judge really thought she should find for us, but decided the other way and left a coded message in her conclusion? Can those Gashead's in court on the day say if they noticed her wink at them when she delivered her judgement
|
|
|
Post by Nurse Ratched on Jul 14, 2015 23:20:24 GMT
So Nurse am I correct in your analysis that you really think the judge really thought she should find for us, but decided the other way and left a coded message in her conclusion? I don't think she has used code. The doubt is for all to see. "If this is wrong (and I do not think it is), I find that the Club succeeds."
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 14, 2015 23:20:37 GMT
So Nurse am I correct in your analysis that you really think the judge really thought she should find for us, but decided the other way and left a coded message in her conclusion? Geoff Dunford reportedly tweeted 'not even close'. I agree with Geoff Dunford. Nurse Ratched disagrees with him. Add that to the coded messages Mrs Justice Proudfoot sent to TwoMileHill, and I think we've entered a parallel universe.
|
|