|
Post by billyocean on Jun 4, 2015 9:38:36 GMT
Frustrating as it is, I also think the same
|
|
|
Post by billyocean on Jun 4, 2015 8:48:23 GMT
Civil cases are always claimant v defendant. The case is "Sainsbury’s Supermarkets Ltd v Bristol Rovers (1883) Ltd" therefore Sainsbury's are the claimant and Rovers the defendant
|
|
|
Post by billyocean on Jun 3, 2015 16:37:46 GMT
I see Mrs Justice Proudman is back in court though. Friday decision?
|
|
|
Post by billyocean on Jun 2, 2015 12:45:00 GMT
High Court agenda for tomorrow is up. No Rovers vs Sainsbury's so won't be until Thursday at the earliest
|
|
|
Post by billyocean on Jun 1, 2015 16:35:30 GMT
They can propose their company is struck off themselves provided they haven't traded in the last three months. A process to be struck off also takes place if you don't file an annual return. If a company is in the process of being struck off can they avoid the late filing penalty payments that normally apply? Not more than 1 month - £150 More than 1 month but not more than 3 months - £375 More than 3 months but not more than 6 months - £750 More than 6 months - £1,500 I think if you apply to be struck off, you have to provide final accounts as part of the application. Depends whether they applied or whether the striking off is part of a process that HMRC automatically started when they didn't file an AR. Doubt you'd get a late filing payment in either case but not sure
|
|
|
Post by billyocean on Jun 1, 2015 15:52:42 GMT
Why is there a "Proposal to Strike off" with no accounts submitted? They can propose their company is struck off themselves provided they haven't traded in the last three months. A process to be struck off also takes place if you don't file an annual return.
|
|
|
Post by billyocean on Jun 1, 2015 12:38:46 GMT
|
|
|
Post by billyocean on May 29, 2015 13:00:51 GMT
I think we can safely say there won't be a verdict on Monday as Monday's agenda is now available www.justice.gov.uk/courts/court-lists/list-chancery-judgesI'll bring you the next installment in this thoroughly underwhelming sequence of updates same time on Monday. But to add to the drama, please note "The following list is subject to change until 4.30pm"
|
|
|
Post by billyocean on May 27, 2015 15:40:59 GMT
I liked this tweet from FIFA's media room
|
|
|
Post by billyocean on May 26, 2015 21:16:11 GMT
As an aside, if we really did take more than than Preston and more than Swindon, and assuming there were no neutrals, you can deduce that we must have taken at least 24,119
|
|
|
Post by billyocean on May 26, 2015 21:09:52 GMT
I don't think he was taking the piss. I think he was sincerely saying thank you for answering without taking the piss. P.S. I'm not taking the piss
|
|
|
Post by billyocean on May 26, 2015 19:48:45 GMT
Point taken but there are still running costs and the opportunity cost of hiring it to someone else instead on the day. And aren't we a member of the FA, as are all pro clubs? I still think they should sell cheaper tickets for these games rather than have the stadium only half or one third full I agree entirely. Sadly when it comes to Wembley, the stadium England never needed, the Football League and Conference cease to be members of their "football family" they like to drone on about and become mere customers like when bands play there. ^^ this
|
|
|
Post by billyocean on May 26, 2015 17:33:47 GMT
Agree on cheaper tickets. They justified the vanarama prices by saying that they needed to cover the cost of the stadium hire. I assume the FA are heavily subsidising the Women's FA Cup final at Wembley then as tickets are £5-£15 fa cupThe FA own Wembley so no hire costs are involved for FA Cup games/Charity Shield. Point taken but there are still running costs and the opportunity cost of hiring it to someone else instead on the day. And aren't we a member of the FA, as are all pro clubs? I still think they should sell cheaper tickets for these games rather than have the stadium only half or one third full
|
|
|
Post by billyocean on May 26, 2015 8:24:05 GMT
According to Alistair Durden tweet which quoted Mr Higgs, looking at 2-4 weeks before an outcome! I believe that the verdict/decision will be read out in court. Does anyone know if i) the club and ii) fans will be told when, in advance of it happening?
if no one knows, does anyone have a contact at the club who they can ask to tell us please?
In the absence of any forewarning from the club itself, you'll know at about 2pm the day before (or 2pm on Friday if it's a Monday) because the decision will be scheduled to be heard in court. 2pm because that's when the daily court list tends to get updated. I'll check it daily from Friday with next Monday looking like the earliest day
|
|
|
Post by billyocean on May 25, 2015 7:36:52 GMT
We took more to Wembley than Preston and Swindon but they both took more than Grimsby. Still, only 1000 more there than at ours. Apparently the cheaper tickets up top were kept off sale until the more expensive ones had sold out. Result? The cheap ones never got sold because a lot of people couldn't afford the higher prices even though they would have bought £30 tickets. Added to rail travel problems for both sets of fans and a stupid kick off time, the upshot was that both sides took around 10,000 fewer supporters than they may have expected to. All joking aside, it really is embarrassing that these occasions are attracting far fewer fans than they might do under other circumstances and the various authorities would do well to examine their attitude towards pricing before they drive even more people away from our game Agree on cheaper tickets. They justified the vanarama prices by saying that they needed to cover the cost of the stadium hire. I assume the FA are heavily subsidising the Women's FA Cup final at Wembley then as tickets are £5-£15 fa cup
|
|
|
Post by billyocean on May 23, 2015 8:33:53 GMT
The purchase of a house is a poor analogy really
|
|
|
Post by billyocean on May 23, 2015 8:26:42 GMT
Not if you have exchanged contracts........ so if contracts exchanged why was no deposit paid as the law suggests to ensure the deal was concluded....if it is that straight forward then ....as NH says its a water tight contract we can expect £30m in the near future ...thank goodness we have a good legal team. Sainsburys must take the hit then
There was no exchange of contracts. Rovers didn't have the finance setup for the £500k retention payment that was needed as part of the exchange, which was one of JS's arguments (that they should have set this up in advance)
|
|
|
Post by billyocean on May 23, 2015 8:10:37 GMT
It is very confusing. Not just what legal argument each side has, but the sequence and detail of the events. I sat in court and listened to parts of it on four separate days and whilst I learnt a few more details, and learnt new words like acoustician, it was no clearer to me which side actually has the better chance of winning.
It comes down to the judge's interpretation of the law regarding the contract. The implementation of the contract is as important as the contract itself and we have to hope that the judge sees that JS looked for a way out rather than acted in good faith to conduct their part of the contract, indeed that they acted to simply do what they signed and agreed to do at the outset.
Using the refused planning permission as an excuse is all very well after the event, like a naughty school child who needs to justify why he whacked someone. But dig deeper and see that they deliberately asked for conditions that they didn't need (other applications like JS at Ashton Gate had fewer delivery hours) and that they knew they wouldn't get because the same conditions had been refused elsewhere. Think of it like going to a job interview for a job you didn't want and deliberately messing it up.
JS wanted 12% ROCE, it dropped to a projected 8%, therefore they wanted out and they used every trick in the book to get out. If the projected ROCE had stayed at 12% or become 14%, we wouldn't be where we are now. Was it legal for them to act as they did? There's the question that needs answering by the judge.
Well done to Nick Higgs and Toni Watola for giving it their best shot. Let's hope it's enough.
|
|
|
Post by billyocean on May 22, 2015 16:40:28 GMT
When Ward was our manager, he spoke to Darrell Clarke over the phone in pre-season about a player at Salisbury. Somehow in that same phone call, John Ward offered Darrell the assistant managers job. What if Ward didnt offer him the job at that time or what if Ward didnt even make that call in the first place! Where would we be right now? Not worth thinking about. Now I dislike Paul Buckle very much but credit where its due, he got in Michael Smith and Muzzy who did very well for us. So along those lines, credit where its due, thank you John Ward for giving us Darrell Clarke. lol
|
|
|
Post by billyocean on May 22, 2015 16:31:59 GMT
Our man in court has submitted his final report. Done a very thorough job so many thanks to him
|
|