Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 6, 2014 16:28:59 GMT
He isn't allowed to say anything due to the confidentiality agreements, GT pushing him forced him to bend the truth, yes, but what more were you expecting him to do? Quite honestly so bored of hearing people accuse Higgs of being some kind of corrupt assh*le. If the stadium goes tits up it isn't because he's corrupt. Fans constantly beg for the truth, which is fine with footballing matters, but with the stadium it's time to accept that we just have to let them get on with it and hope for the best. We can push for change on the footballing side but we cannot help with this - aside from possibly petitions and such. Nick Higgs said there wasn't a problem. All was going to plan and then a few days later we heard about the writ.
NH simply had to carry on his, I can't say anything, confidentiality line. We may not have liked to have heard it, but would be better then the fib that was told
I think Fanboy's point is, we are bound by confidentiality, we break the rules - the contract is void. The story surfaced from another source. But if Nick had said the same thing in public it would have been US that broke the agreement and could have added to our problems. |
|
|
|
Post by BishopstonBRFC on Oct 6, 2014 16:47:43 GMT
Exactly, he lied and GT knew the truth when he cornered him. He isn't allowed to say anything due to the confidentiality agreements, GT pushing him forced him to bend the truth, yes, but what more were you expecting him to do? Quite honestly so bored of hearing people accuse Higgs of being some kind of corrupt assh*le. If the stadium goes tits up it isn't because he's corrupt. Fans constantly beg for the truth, which is fine with footballing matters, but with the stadium it's time to accept that we just have to let them get on with it and hope for the best. We can push for change on the footballing side but we cannot help with this - aside from possibly petitions and such. Exactly this. If NH had said anything this would already all be over. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 6, 2014 18:21:35 GMT
He isn't allowed to say anything due to the confidentiality agreements, GT pushing him forced him to bend the truth, yes, but what more were you expecting him to do? Quite honestly so bored of hearing people accuse Higgs of being some kind of corrupt assh*le. If the stadium goes tits up it isn't because he's corrupt. Fans constantly beg for the truth, which is fine with footballing matters, but with the stadium it's time to accept that we just have to let them get on with it and hope for the best. We can push for change on the footballing side but we cannot help with this - aside from possibly petitions and such. Nick Higgs said there wasn't a problem. All was going to plan and then a few days later we heard about the writ.
NH simply had to carry on his, I can't say anything, confidentiality line. We may not have liked to have heard it, but would be better then the fib that was told
Exactly. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 6, 2014 19:05:21 GMT
So NH did not want to reveal sensitive imformation on a live radio show can't say I blame him.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 6, 2014 19:20:14 GMT
So NH did not want to reveal sensitive imformation on a live radio show can't say I blame him. What was sensitive about something already in the public domain and about to be front page news in the following days press? He lied instead of refusing to comment. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 6, 2014 19:30:13 GMT
So NH did not want to reveal sensitive imformation on a live radio show can't say I blame him. What was sensitive about something already in the public domain and about to be front page news in the following days press? He lied instead of refusing to comment. Why are people so keen to keep digging and digging at NH and the Board in general? I recognise we are in a bad position and the ground is in the balance but it just seems that some still want to heap more sh**e on him regardless. I want whoever is in charge of Rovers to succeed. Calling him a liar and flinging crap at him all the time is just hurting the club more. Surely there are better ways to offer constructive opposition to the way we are run? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 6, 2014 19:48:06 GMT
So NH did not want to reveal sensitive imformation on a live radio show can't say I blame him. What was sensitive about something already in the public domain and about to be front page news in the following days press? He lied instead of refusing to comment. So tell me what you think he said that was a deliberate lie. Can you prove that what he said is not what he believed?. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 7, 2014 1:43:48 GMT
Come on Mr Baggins, with respect - attack the post not the poster. Can't we just have some decent debate without getting personal. It's starting to let this forum down some of the pettiness in threads. IMO of course. So its O.K for an anonymous poster to personally attack somebody by name on a public forum. but it is not O.k. for another forum member to attack the poster who is protected by an alias. Surely if you dish it you should be able to take it. My name is Julian Stefan Pirog. Most know me. I have NEVER hidden behind my username. My house is just down from Southey playing field. Pop in sometime. Always happy to discuss Mano a mano |
|
|
|
Post by meader on Oct 7, 2014 6:29:27 GMT
I havent read all the posts on this tread, but the longer this business with Sainsburys goes on, then the more worried i am that it will not happen. Its been a year now since planning permission for the supermarket at the mem was approved. All the talk was about building of the UWE stadium starting in the summer. We are now almost into winter and still nothing. This has been allowed to drag on for so long. There is a nice piece of land opposite Rolls Royce at Patchway that is large enough for a new stadium. If UWE falls through, which most of us think will happen, then here is a serious option that has to be considered as there not much free land anywhere else in the Bristol area, unless someone comes up with a plan to build on the runway of Filton Airport!
Someone must have the guts to force Sainsburys to give a final answer to the development of the Mem. Are you going to build the supermarket? YES OR NO!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 7, 2014 6:57:46 GMT
I understand your frustration Meader.
However, if it were a yes, they'd be building already.
But..... It can't be a No because we have a pretty good case.
The reason I think we have a good case is that its clear Sainsburies don't want to build, but they haven't managed to get out of it yet.
They may be forced to pay compo on our costs (the best outcome for them) or forced to buy the ground anyway (the best outcome for us).
I'm completely guessing, but I recon the compo will amount to cash somewhere between our losses and the agreed sale price allowing both sides a reasonable out.
|
|
|
|
Post by Topper Gas on Oct 7, 2014 8:01:25 GMT
What was sensitive about something already in the public domain and about to be front page news in the following days press? He lied instead of refusing to comment. So tell me what you think he said that was a deliberate lie. Can you prove that what he said is not what he believed?. From memory NH was saying the contracts were watetight and he was certain that the staduim would be built, clearly the onerous clause we still have to overcome and the fact Sainsbury's don't want to proceed must bring both those comments into serious doubts. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 7, 2014 8:50:20 GMT
So tell me what you think he said that was a deliberate lie. Can you prove that what he said is not what he believed?. From memory NH was saying the contracts were watetight and he was certain that the staduim would be built, clearly the onerous clause we still have to overcome and the fact Sainsbury's don't want to proceed must bring both those comments into serious doubts. Unless the contract IS water tight. It has held up so far, or Sainsburies would be out by now. If NH believes its water tight, where is the lie? |
|
|
|
Post by BishopstonBRFC on Oct 7, 2014 9:38:44 GMT
From memory NH was saying the contracts were watetight and he was certain that the staduim would be built, clearly the onerous clause we still have to overcome and the fact Sainsbury's don't want to proceed must bring both those comments into serious doubts. Unless the contract IS water tight. It has held up so far, or Sainsburies would be out by now. If NH believes its water tight, where is the lie? And if he believes it's water tight and it isn't then someone else has been feeding him bullshit. |
|
|
|
Post by ganymede on Oct 7, 2014 9:44:07 GMT
Unless the contract IS water tight. It has held up so far, or Sainsburies would be out by now. If NH believes its water tight, where is the lie? And if he believes it's water tight and it isn't then someone else has been feeding him bullshit. Agreed. I think NH has probably taken some stick for say "watertight" but I think it makes his hand stronger with his own legal team if they have messed up, as well as saying to Sainsbury he will not be pushed about. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 7, 2014 9:45:35 GMT
Unless the contract IS water tight. It has held up so far, or Sainsburies would be out by now. If NH believes its water tight, where is the lie? And if he believes it's water tight and it isn't then someone else has been feeding him bullshit. Yes. He may yet be proved to be foolish/misled. He may have lied. He may have been right. None of the points are yet proven. It's damaging to Rovers to state any of the above as facts, when they clearly are not known yet imo, and I would wonder why anyone would want to do that? |
|
|
|
Post by BishopstonBRFC on Oct 7, 2014 9:48:33 GMT
And if he believes it's water tight and it isn't then someone else has been feeding him bullshit. Yes. He may yet be proved to be foolish/misled. He may have lied. He may have been right. None of the points are yet proven. It's damaging to Rovers to state any of the above as facts, when they clearly are not known yet imo, and I would wonder why anyone would want to do that? HA. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 7, 2014 9:57:10 GMT
Yes. He may yet be proved to be foolish/misled. He may have lied. He may have been right. None of the points are yet proven. It's damaging to Rovers to state any of the above as facts, when they clearly are not known yet imo, and I would wonder why anyone would want to do that? HA. Ha? |
|
|
|
Post by Cantankerous Gas on Oct 7, 2014 10:03:58 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Mark Ash on Oct 7, 2014 10:10:25 GMT
So its O.K for an anonymous poster to personally attack somebody by name on a public forum. but it is not O.k. for another forum member to attack the poster who is protected by an alias. Surely if you dish it you should be able to take it. My name is Julian Stefan Pirog. Most know me. I have NEVER hidden behind my username. My house is just down from Southey playing field. Pop in sometime. Always happy to discuss Mano a mano You must be Julian Cat Man Pirog of Facebook fame. Hello! |
|
|
|
Post by Topper Gas on Oct 7, 2014 10:58:36 GMT
From memory NH was saying the contracts were watetight and he was certain that the staduim would be built, clearly the onerous clause we still have to overcome and the fact Sainsbury's don't want to proceed must bring both those comments into serious doubts. Unless the contract IS water tight. It has held up so far, or Sainsburies would be out by now. If NH believes its water tight, where is the lie? What evidence do you need, the writ clearly shows it is not watertight until BCC agree the extended delivery hours, if it was then surely Sainsbury's would have either handed over the £30m+ or the club would have commenced legal proceedings for breach of contract. If we don't get the extended delivery hours agreed then the contract is as watertight as tissue paper. Unless this is all a cleaver ploy by BRFC & Sainsbury's to try and force though the extended delivery hours!! |
|
