|
Post by peterparker on May 16, 2015 9:24:11 GMT
Lets be honest there are positives from day one, but we dont know what Sainsburys arguments will be and how their QC will try and pick Toni Watola apart. He hardly inspires me with confidence with the years of bullshit he has spouted. Long way to go and even then we are in the hands of a judge who needs to review everything. Right now i could see a score draw with main sail ups on both sides and a cash award but not full contract amount It has to be the full amount tho, the court can't decide a different price for the sale of our ground, the court will decide they have to buy the ground for the agreed amount or they don't have to buy it at all Does it? What if the judge thinks both side have acted wrong in some respects? What is to stop the judge to say we keep the Mem and Sainsburys pay us a compo amount? She might decide the contract isnt enforceable but Sainsburys have been a bit naughty.but not completley
|
|
|
Post by Topper Gas on May 16, 2015 9:26:24 GMT
Lets be honest there are positives from day one, but we dont know what Sainsburys arguments will be and how their QC will try and pick Toni Watola apart. He hardly inspires me with confidence with the years of bullshit he has spouted. Long way to go and even then we are in the hands of a judge who needs to review everything. Right now i could see a score draw with main sail ups on both sides and a cash award but not full contract amount It has to be the full amount tho, the court can't decide a different price for the sale of our ground, the court will decide they have to buy the ground for the agreed amount or they don't have to buy it at all Not sure that's the case as the Judge could decide there's fault on both sides and suggest a compromise is agreed, which seems to have occurred in the Coventry City case. If the feedback from yesterday is correct it seems the Sainsbury's witness wasn't the best, perhaps it all now comes down to how good TW is in the box, given he's good at BS he might be very impressive!
|
|
|
Post by inee on May 16, 2015 12:55:48 GMT
read through all the threads etc, but to me it seems to hinge on sainsburies not trying to get the hours changed, forcing rovers to do it, which i see as a good move by the club, probably wrong mind
|
|
|
Post by supergas on May 16, 2015 13:46:32 GMT
read through all the threads etc, but to me it seems to hinge on sainsburies not trying to get the hours changed, forcing rovers to do it, which i see as a good move by the club, probably wrong mind Having read all the threads now and previously you're right, the club gaining the planning permission change is massive in showing Sains lack of willingness to complete the contract. The trouble is, the judge could decide the contract had already collapsed by that point. Without a legal degree and actually reading the contract there's no way for me to know, but it seems to me Sains are arguing that because they couldn't start on time (for whatever reason, planning permissions, JRs, leap years) that the contract has not been completed. We've taken a massive financial risk going this far, by comparison for Sains its nothing. The current board have chosen (quite literally) boom or bust off the field despite this season on it. Just hope they're right...
|
|
|
Post by scoobydoogas on May 16, 2015 14:52:39 GMT
I've a feeling we might get something out of this court case. Maybe not the whole £30M but hopefully enough to clear our debts and start again. So far, Higgs has got the planning permission, fought off Trash & co, beat the appeal process, put Carstairs back in his box, saw off National Heritage, and got the delivery hours approved. He's won every round so far, just the last hurdle to get over. Fingers crossed.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 16, 2015 15:46:49 GMT
I've a feeling we might get something out of this court case. Maybe not the whole £30M but hopefully enough to clear our debts and start again. So far, Higgs has got the planning permission, fought off Trash & co, beat the appeal process, put Carstairs back in his box, saw off National Heritage, and got the delivery hours approved. He's won every round so far, just the last hurdle to get over. Fingers crossed. He's got many faults but he hasn't gone proper dues for this lot I don't think.
|
|
|
Post by aghast on May 16, 2015 15:51:34 GMT
So far, Higgs has got the planning permission, fought off Trash & co, beat the appeal process, put Carstairs back in his box, saw off National Heritage, and got the delivery hours approved. He's won every round so far, just the last hurdle to get over. I know what you mean scoobydoo, but we've faced the "last" hurdle about 10 times in this mammoth process. They just keep popping up. Hurdles coming your way soon should we leap the final High Court hurdle: Sainsbury lose but appeal UWE withdraw; Rovers sue UWE Building costs escalate massively; Rovers seek final injection of cash to complete stadium from sponsor We can't carry on with this forever. There is credence in both sides' cases and I see a compromise settlement of about £7M plus costs. That would be the £30M owed, less the £15M we could get anyway by selling the land for housing, less 50% because we were negligent (or nor careful enough) in our drafting of the contract. That would mean at least we'd be debt-free. Back to square one, but debt-free. And back in the Football League, of course. Not such a terrible outcome, really.
|
|
|
Post by Topper Gas on May 16, 2015 16:15:14 GMT
Or you are just making a wide guess? Let's be honest we could still get anything form being ordered to pay both side costs to being award £30m plus costs.
Whilst we hoped the start of the trial would answer a few questions, if anything it's given us even more questions to think about.
|
|
|
Post by inee on May 16, 2015 16:47:50 GMT
read through all the threads etc, but to me it seems to hinge on sainsburies not trying to get the hours changed, forcing rovers to do it, which i see as a good move by the club, probably wrong mind Having read all the threads now and previously you're right, the club gaining the planning permission change is massive in showing Sains lack of willingness to complete the contract. The trouble is, the judge could decide the contract had already collapsed by that point. Without a legal degree and actually reading the contract there's no way for me to know, but it seems to me Sains are arguing that because they couldn't start on time (for whatever reason, planning permissions, JRs, leap years) that the contract has not been completed. We've taken a massive financial risk going this far, by comparison for Sains its nothing. The current board have chosen (quite literally) boom or bust off the field despite this season on it. Just hope they're right... Again im probably wrong but i seem to remember either the board or sainsburies ( ) mentioning it all hinged on the outcome of the jr, then the goalposts got moved, ie the extended hours thing, i do still think that the club getting the extended hours was a good move as it shows that sainsburies were trying to get out of the contract, probably something NH learnt in his previous job. (just had another thought dint sainsburies also delay the 106 signing) A very good point you make on sainsburies finances, i think they were relying on the fact that it would be expensive for the club and they had assumed we would have given up, bear in mind the only legal experience i have is standing in the dock occasionally . Im also very mindful of the old school tie network , bloody hope not though One thing i cannot let go off no matter how the case goes, is a cretin party saying if they got elected the would make buisnesses in bristol publish quarterly accounts for public viewing, so very strange as when one total munter horse faced flyby night posh cow not even from bristol, still hasnt revealed if the jr ,her divy company started was fully funded, and she is so upright (yup she need to remove the maze stalks from her arse to bring her head down for tea). she resigned from the company to hide her involvment .sorry calm now
|
|