|
|
Post by curlywurly on Mar 5, 2015 17:57:01 GMT
I assume you mean refused and not re-used!? Was this point put as bluntly as you suggest? Yes, a typing error, it should have been refused.
Every Director and shareholder were of he opinion that any offer, other than the full £30m+ should be refused. That was part of the reason for the short term £2m+ loan and accepting less would mean we would not get that £2m back. We were told that all documents with regard to the writ have now been placed with the Court, including all the recent costs and we will look to Sainsbury for these costs WHEN we win our case.
Thanks for your response. |
|
|
|
Post by peterparker on Mar 5, 2015 18:31:20 GMT
I am not twisting anything, i am only interpreting your words when asked that made it sound as the usual bullish bravado that has come from the club
As for the watertight aspect, it may well be NOW, but certainly wasnt when we were chasing the delivery hours for Sainsburys no matter how many times they said it
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 5, 2015 18:53:53 GMT
At the AGM, the Directors said that they had received no offer from Sainsbury to settle this case and any offer would be reused. Sorry, one more question SC, could you confirm whether your average supporter (non-shareholder) was allowed into the Q & A after the AGM on Tuesday evening. I have received mixed answers to this and would like it clarified, as i'm sure i'm not the only one that has been a little disappointed there has been no follow up Q & A as promised at the last one (open to all) back in August. Again, i'm not board bashing, just respectfully asking. thanks in advance BSS tweeted that he is going to request an open Q & A, as the one following the AGM was shareholders only. |
|
|
|
Post by Topper Gas on Mar 5, 2015 22:02:50 GMT
But why should they be risking our club? I assume they will pay back the loan if we lose the court case? But what would they be realistically risking? As we presently stand we have a Non League standard Stadium, a training facility which DC says is a shambles with a muddy heap for a pitch and little else other than real potential. So if taking this to court gives us the chance to improve our infrastructure and help realise that potential I'm all for it. Promotions come and go and with us are followed fairly swiftly by relegation, as we stand we are a club which should be capable of sustaining League 2 football with occasional visits to League 1 or the Conference. The board we have know the construction game far better than the game we come together at the Mem to watch, so lets let them get on with the job of winning this case and giving us a chance to return to the club I first started following before the South Stand Fire, and that's a club capable of success. The UWE Bristol Stadium will be the catalyst we need to succeed, it'll attract a better calibre of player and manager. When players like Lund and Zola choose Rochdale and Burton over us it shows how we are seen by those not blinded by deluded views of what we are and how far we've fallen. So what if people want answers to questions that can't be given at this stage, bleating on wont solve the issues caused by boards prior to this one failing to move with the times and resting on our laurels. When others were building modern stadiums we erected a tent. Regards Rich Utg Whilst a properly run UWE could be the launch paid to greater things, what's the alternative now that the BoD have borrowed £2.5m to fight Sainsbury's, what happens if we lose, without selling the Mem how do we pay the loan back plus continue to fund the present £5m debts, particularly if we don't go up this season and then lose the final parachute payment? As far as NH etc being in the construction business, at Cowling he would probably have been in control of designing & building once a client had obtained pp not fighting the likes of Sainsbury's to pay up? Also an Ed Ware company as previously been declared bankrupt so not everything he touches turns to gold., whilst Jelf & BB probably have little knowledge of these types of disputes. I can't see Sainsbury's spending a £1m+ fighting this case if they don't feel they have a reasonable chance as, if they don't, what are they going to gain as it's clear Rovers can now survive until at least the court hearing has taken place? |
|
|
|
Post by Henbury Gas on Mar 6, 2015 6:53:44 GMT
So it was the usual bullish bravado 'Watertight' etc etc For all we know it is watertight. |
|
|
|
Post by peterparker on Mar 6, 2015 8:04:27 GMT
But what would they be realistically risking? As we presently stand we have a Non League standard Stadium, a training facility which DC says is a shambles with a muddy heap for a pitch and little else other than real potential. So if taking this to court gives us the chance to improve our infrastructure and help realise that potential I'm all for it. Promotions come and go and with us are followed fairly swiftly by relegation, as we stand we are a club which should be capable of sustaining League 2 football with occasional visits to League 1 or the Conference. The board we have know the construction game far better than the game we come together at the Mem to watch, so lets let them get on with the job of winning this case and giving us a chance to return to the club I first started following before the South Stand Fire, and that's a club capable of success. The UWE Bristol Stadium will be the catalyst we need to succeed, it'll attract a better calibre of player and manager. When players like Lund and Zola choose Rochdale and Burton over us it shows how we are seen by those not blinded by deluded views of what we are and how far we've fallen. So what if people want answers to questions that can't be given at this stage, bleating on wont solve the issues caused by boards prior to this one failing to move with the times and resting on our laurels. When others were building modern stadiums we erected a tent. Regards Rich Utg Whilst a properly run UWE could be the launch paid to greater things, what's the alternative now that the BoD have borrowed £2.5m to fight Sainsbury's, what happens if we lose, without selling the Mem how do we pay the loan back plus continue to fund the present £5m debts, particularly if we don't go up this season and then lose the final parachute payment? As far as NH etc being in the construction business, at Cowling he would probably have been in control of designing & building once a client had obtained pp not fighting the likes of Sainsbury's to pay up? Also an Ed Ware company as previously been declared bankrupt so not everything he touches turns to gold., whilst Jelf & BB probably have little knowledge of these types of disputes. I can't see Sainsbury's spending a £1m+ fighting this case if they don't feel they have a reasonable chance as, if they don't, what are they going to gain as it's clear Rovers can now survive until at least the court hearing has taken place? Indeed it's alright Rovers and the board saying they are confident (I wouldn't expect them to say otherwise) but I wouldn't take that for anything, as you say on the flip side Sainsbury's must have some confidence, knowing it could cost them more then what they were going to pay in the first place.
It's all up in the air and is anyones guess
|
|
|
|
Post by stevek192 on Mar 6, 2015 9:55:50 GMT
The loan will either be the breaking or making of the club. It seems without it we could not take Sainsburys to Court so would have had to give up so from that point of view it had to be done but obviously if we still lose the case then it could prove to be the final nail in the coffin. As I see it at the moment it is very much 50-50 and only time will tell.
|
|
|
|
Post by Severncider on Mar 6, 2015 10:02:40 GMT
The loan will either be the breaking or making of the club. It seems without it we could not take Sainsburys to Court so would have had to give up so from that point of view it had to be done but obviously if we still lose the case then it could prove to be the final nail in the coffin. As I see it at the moment it is very much 50-50 and only time will tell. Steve, you have summed it up well.
At the AGM, the Board did say that they are already taking active steps to replace that loan.
If we win our case, we can go back to Court and claim the additional costs caused by Sainsbury delaying tactics and the cost of that loan.
The Directors remain confident that we will win this case with Edward Ware, who's wife is on the legal team, being bullish about the outcome.
|
|
|
|
Post by Topper Gas on Mar 6, 2015 21:19:54 GMT
There seems a bit of a conflict of interest there as surely Ed Ware's wife is going to gain more from the case proceeding than being dropped?
|
|
