Peter Parker
Global Moderator
Richard Walker
You have been sentenced to DELETION!
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 4,920
|
Post by Peter Parker on Jul 15, 2015 8:41:24 GMT
Can those Gashead's in court on the day say if they noticed her wink at them when she delivered her judgement Nope. She looked bored. In Court no more than 60 seconds and left us to read the Judgement. An Appeal? What a load of b*ll*cks. Let's not spend a minute longer or a penny more pursuing shamesbury's through the Courts. Higgs - just for once - stand up - say you (and your legal team ) got it wrong - and that we are moving on. Give us the mythical Plan B - Maybe we can have the root and branch review at the same time. You might just get some credibility back. I was talking to one of the two senior lawyers (who directly assisted our QC) on Day 3 of the case and they openly admitted we had little chance of winning. (I was advised not to report this at the time). He said the only chance we had was that the Judge 'might' find enough 'bad faith' to let that over-rule the letter of the law. Also that this Judge was actually more likely to find for Rovers in this circumstance than most Judges on the circuit. WE LOST. WE WILL NOT WIN AN APPEAL. So who is saying we have good grounds of appeal?
Another set of legals?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 15, 2015 8:53:43 GMT
I'm assuming - and I'm sure someone can correct me if I'm wrong- that those advising that we have a reasonable chance of winning, would be the same people who were claiming that the original contract was 'watertight'. IF that is the case, then I really wouldn't be holding a lot of store in what they say now. If the legal advisers are so sure of our chance of winning then let them put up the money to fund the appeal, that'll soon tell us how confident they are..... Wonder what our legal people would say if they had no involvment with the case whatsoever and Sainsbury's went to see them this morning and asked them to assist and defend a possible appeal by Rovers?
|
|
eppinggas
Administrator
Ian Alexander
Don't care
Joined: June 2014
Posts: 8,500
|
Post by eppinggas on Jul 15, 2015 8:53:54 GMT
Mr Higgs! Not sure where his latest advice is coming from that we have 'good grounds to appeal'. I think this is all bluster and 'trying to but a brave face on it' after a humiliating defeat. And after his now infamous "watertight contract" soundbite - just trying to salvage something from the latest PR disaster.
|
|
|
Post by billyocean on Jul 15, 2015 9:19:56 GMT
I am re-reading the whole thing again and currently up to paragraph 146. My opinion hasn't changed sadly. Not worth appealing because technically Sainsbury's did nothing wrong. The "invitation" by the judge to appeal as stated above is predicated on Schedule 1 2.11 being wrong which is this (I think!) Sainsbury's fulfilled this obligation so I'm not sure how you'll win an argument saying that they didn't That's 2.1 2.11 is on page 35 Ah yes, my bad. It's the section on being obliged to pursue an appeal (which again, they did (albeit knowing it would fail))
|
|
Angas
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 2,068
|
Post by Angas on Jul 15, 2015 9:34:56 GMT
Yep. Different number, same outcome. Have you managed to find any inconsistencies on your second reading?
|
|
|
Post by billyocean on Jul 15, 2015 9:58:11 GMT
Yep. Different number, same outcome. Have you managed to find any inconsistencies on your second reading? There's a lot of ambiguity because of the way the contract was worded but I'm trying to find hope and something that is worth appealing and I can't. If you can't go after Sainsbury's for the way they appealed, I can't see how you can win. We tried in court for hours to demonstrate what they did was wrong and we failed. With no new evidence I can only see one outcome from an appeal and it's the same outcome. I understand why Higgs wants to appeal as even a tiny chance is better than no chance but it's a huge gamble and will cost more money and time and leave a longer period of uncertainty
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 15, 2015 10:03:55 GMT
Yep. Different number, same outcome. Have you managed to find any inconsistencies on your second reading? There's a lot of ambiguity because of the way the contract was worded but I'm trying to find hope and something that is worth appealing and I can't. If you can't go after Sainsbury's for the way they appealed, I can't see how you can win. We tried in court for hours to demonstrate what they did was wrong and we failed. With no new evidence I can only see one outcome from an appeal and it's the same outcome. I understand why Higgs wants to appeal as even a tiny chance is better than no chance but it's a huge gamble and will cost more money and time and leave a longer period of uncertainty And if antagonised Sainsbury's could come after us for costs, not only for the appeal but also the case that's just ended. It realy is time to draw a line under Sainsbury's and move on.
|
|
Angas
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 2,068
|
Post by Angas on Jul 15, 2015 10:05:42 GMT
Yep. Different number, same outcome. Have you managed to find any inconsistencies on your second reading? There's a lot of ambiguity because of the way the contract was worded but I'm trying to find hope and something that is worth appealing and I can't. If you can't go after Sainsbury's for the way they appealed, I can't see how you can win. We tried in court for hours to demonstrate what they did was wrong and we failed. With no new evidence I can only see one outcome from an appeal and it's the same outcome. I understand why Higgs wants to appeal as even a tiny chance is better than no chance but it's a huge gamble and will cost more money and time and leave a longer period of uncertainty The only positive thought I had when we got the verdict was - "At least now we know and we can move on to whatever comes next rather than waiting months longer if we'd won but still faced an appeal by Sainsbury's." Oh well ...
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 15, 2015 11:26:55 GMT
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". At the risk of restarting this, you are wrong. The JR finding did leave room for doubt. TRASH was split about wether to appeal: Cllr Radice resigned from it because she was adamant enough was enough; the rest conceded a few days later. They gave the impression they were conceding rather than didn't consider they could have flogged on. The sentence you're concerned about is not written in absolute terms because it's an opinion. You can't 'know' an opinion, you can only 'think' or have it 'seem to, you. In this case she goes so far as to say she thinks what she thinks isn't wrong.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 15, 2015 11:33:12 GMT
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". At the risk of restarting this, you are wrong. The JR finding did leave room for doubt. TRASH was split about wether to appeal: Cllr Radice resigned from it because she was adamant enough was enough; the rest conceded a few days later. They gave the impression they were conceding rather than didn't consider they could have flogged on. The sentence you're concerned about is not written in absolute terms because it's an opinion. You can't 'know' an opinion, you can only 'think' or have it 'seem to, you. In this case she goes so far as to say she thinks what she thinks isn't wrong. Exactly that. She could have written the highlighted sentence without the bit in brackets, the fact that she has added that suggests to me that she is comfortable with her opinion.
|
|
|
Post by mehewmagic on Jul 15, 2015 12:59:23 GMT
|
|
irishrover
Global Moderator
Joined: June 2014
Posts: 3,372
|
Post by irishrover on Jul 15, 2015 15:10:39 GMT
After every setback people pop up claiming it isn't as bad as the whingers are saying and that we should trust those in charge and fall foresquare behind their decisions.
The trouble is this rings increasingly false when time after time again words are not matched with actions and results. As much as those who continue to believe 100% in the decisions and behaviour of the current board while damning anyone who shows any doubts at all might dislike it the facts and events have not offered any justification for that faith. So far the square root of diddly squat has been achieved and the further down the line we seem to go, the closer to oblivion we seem to get and the larger the odds of success on this become the more shrill and defensive those who claim inner circle status become. It does rather speak of a bunker mentality.
People see themselves as great advocates or progress against those who would keep the club shackled. They have vision and their doubters do not etc. The problem is the vision looks more and more like a mirage. I have nothing particularly against Nick Higgs, I feel pretty sorry for him. I'm sure he must be feeling absolutely terrible right now. But the more he gambles with the club, the more he retreats into the bunker mentality, the more he makes repeated confident statements to fans that are then refuted by the events that occur the less trust and faith I have in him.
Do I trust a man who constantly re-iterated that he had a watertight contract to make a decision on the validity of the appeal? No. And it is ultimately his decision and his responsibility - that is what leadership is about, judgement. You can't hide behind the lawyers or the accountants or the contractors. You are responsible for your decisions.
Do I trust a man who has consistently stated that the stadium was in the bag to deliver this project? No.
Do I believe that a man who has presided over the collapse of 1 stadium deal and the seemingly imminent collapse of another to ultimately deliver Rovers a new stadium? No.
The weird thing is that the further down the rabbit hole we've gone, the worse our position has looked the less overt criticism Nick Higgs actually gets. I think there was more uniformed hope going into this court case than I can remember in a while. Who wouldn't want this to be successful? But yet the response of our board has been to retreat even more into a bunker mentality which appears to see half the fanbase as a threat.
It isn't that I don't want Rovers to progress, I just see no evidence that the current leadership of club are actually capable of delivering that progress and quite a lot of evidence that their promises and reassurances seem a couple of country miles away from the reality. People see themselves as Churchill - with a bullish attitude about to slay a mighty enemy in the face of doubters. The evidence to me right now suggests that it is more like Churchill as represented by Walter Mitty. Therefore I'd rather we cut our losses but I think the Board are so invested in this (both financially and spiritually) that they simply don't have any choice but to appeal and I hope to hell we win it.
|
|
vaughan
Joined: June 2014
Posts: 1,237
|
Post by vaughan on Jul 15, 2015 15:46:14 GMT
Arguments well made Irish.
The only litmus test you can apply to this BOD is credibility. They have none, but they claim no culpability.
Even Geoff Dunford had had enough by the end.
|
|
|
Post by fanatical on Jul 15, 2015 15:58:02 GMT
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". At the risk of restarting this, you are wrong. The JR finding did leave room for doubt. TRASH was split about wether to appeal: Cllr Radice resigned from it because she was adamant enough was enough; the rest conceded a few days later. They gave the impression they were conceding rather than didn't consider they could have flogged on.The sentence you're concerned about is not written in absolute terms because it's an opinion. You can't 'know' an opinion, you can only 'think' or have it 'seem to, you. In this case she goes so far as to say she thinks what she thinks isn't wrong. HERE is something for you to think about - did they all resign because Sainsburys withdrew financial support to Trashorfield?? WE may never know because Trashorfield is being closed without ever having produced accounts showing where they received money for their JR. In fact all the gruby little secrets about Trashorfield is being buried without any outside examination.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 15, 2015 16:02:18 GMT
At the risk of restarting this, you are wrong. The JR finding did leave room for doubt. TRASH was split about wether to appeal: Cllr Radice resigned from it because she was adamant enough was enough; the rest conceded a few days later. They gave the impression they were conceding rather than didn't consider they could have flogged on.The sentence you're concerned about is not written in absolute terms because it's an opinion. You can't 'know' an opinion, you can only 'think' or have it 'seem to, you. In this case she goes so far as to say she thinks what she thinks isn't wrong. HERE is something for you to think about - did they all resign because Sainsburys withdrew financial support to Trashorfield?? WE may never know because Trashorfield is being closed without ever having produced accounts showing where they received money for their JR. In fact all the gruby little secrets about Trashorfield is being buried without any outside examination. Don't we all love a conspiracy theory.
|
|
|
Post by fanatical on Jul 15, 2015 16:08:28 GMT
HERE is something for you to think about - did they all resign because Sainsburys withdrew financial support to Trashorfield?? WE may never know because Trashorfield is being closed without ever having produced accounts showing where they received money for their JR. In fact all the gruby little secrets about Trashorfield is being buried without any outside examination. Don't we all love a conspiracy theory. Tell me yours
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 15, 2015 16:20:07 GMT
Don't we all love a conspiracy theory. Tell me yours I think that they raised what they needed from local residents and traders. It wouldn't surprise me if they also had professional help from residents. Even if they had carried on as a trading limited company they wouldn't have had to divulge where their income had come from so best to let it go. edit: Don't fall into the Higgs trap of always trying to find somebody else to blame.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 15, 2015 18:21:45 GMT
At the risk of restarting this, you are wrong. The JR finding did leave room for doubt. TRASH was split about wether to appeal: Cllr Radice resigned from it because she was adamant enough was enough; the rest conceded a few days later. They gave the impression they were conceding rather than didn't consider they could have flogged on.The sentence you're concerned about is not written in absolute terms because it's an opinion. You can't 'know' an opinion, you can only 'think' or have it 'seem to, you. In this case she goes so far as to say she thinks what she thinks isn't wrong. HERE is something for you to think about - did they all resign because Sainsburys withdrew financial support to Trashorfield?? WE may never know because Trashorfield is being closed without ever having produced accounts showing where they received money for their JR. In fact all the gruby little secrets about Trashorfield is being buried without any outside examination. It's irrelevant. The point was made that their judgement gave absolutely no scope for appeal, as a benchmark for believing that ours does. They did have scope for appeal, maybe even more so than we do. So that benchmark is invalid. Why they didn't take it doesn't matter in that comparison. However, I can't help thinking Daniella Radice showed much more sense, grasp of reality and, frankly, dignity, in that situation than Nick Higgs is showing now.
|
|
|
Post by droitwichgas on Jul 15, 2015 19:34:49 GMT
I think that they raised what they needed from local residents and traders. It wouldn't surprise me if they also had professional help from residents. Even if they had carried on as a trading limited company they wouldn't have had to divulge where their income had come from so best to let it go. edit: Don't fall into the Higgs trap of always trying to find somebody else to blame. But who got more out of the JR, Glos Rd traders or Sainsbury's? It always seemed a bit odd how they managed to raise the funds without any real problems. Just as odd as where the dog walkers got their ideas/support from at AV. Although, I doubt Trash are daft enough to record where the funds came from. Back on topic I wonder what the likes of Jelf & Ware think about an appeal/plan B as we haven't heard from those two for months.
|
|
|
Post by fanatical on Jul 15, 2015 20:59:03 GMT
I think that they raised what they needed from local residents and traders. It wouldn't surprise me if they also had professional help from residents. Even if they had carried on as a trading limited company they wouldn't have had to divulge where their income had come from so best to let it go. edit: Don't fall into the Higgs trap of always trying to find somebody else to blame. I think HMRC might disagree
|
|