Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 16, 2015 5:14:14 GMT
Severncider. The SteveK of the court room.
|
|
|
Post by newmarketgas on May 16, 2015 6:12:58 GMT
Thanks for the hard work Severncider, I hope we get scores out of ten for all at the court at the end of the week . UTG.
|
|
|
Post by RD on May 16, 2015 7:36:26 GMT
What a vile company Sainsburys are.
|
|
|
Post by Topper Gas on May 16, 2015 9:30:39 GMT
Good work Severncider, thanks for the update. Bet a new or at least better prepared Sainsburys exec shows on Monday!! Apparently those giving evidence are on a list, so poor Chris Templeman has to appear again on Monday.
His deputy. a Ben Litman, will be the follow up act on Monday. For this case to extend until next Friday, heaven knows who else is appearing apart from Toni Watola.
Wasn't it a 5 day, rather than 6 day trial? If so Templemen for the rest of Monday/day 2, Litman Tuesday/day 3, Walota Wednesday day 4 & summing up Thursday /day 5? If it works out that way then Wednesday could make or break Rovers.
|
|
|
Post by empirebaypete on May 16, 2015 9:36:37 GMT
Apparently those giving evidence are on a list, so poor Chris Templeman has to appear again on Monday.
His deputy. a Ben Litman, will be the follow up act on Monday. For this case to extend until next Friday, heaven knows who else is appearing apart from Toni Watola.
Wasn't it a 5 day, rather than 6 day trial? If so Templemen for the rest of Monday/day 2, Litman Tuesday/day 3, Walota Wednesday day 4 & summing up Thursday /day 5? If it works out that way then Wednesday could make or break Rovers. An extra day for extra time if needed.
|
|
|
Post by Severncider on May 16, 2015 10:06:01 GMT
Apparently those giving evidence are on a list, so poor Chris Templeman has to appear again on Monday.
His deputy. a Ben Litman, will be the follow up act on Monday. For this case to extend until next Friday, heaven knows who else is appearing apart from Toni Watola.
Wasn't it a 5 day, rather than 6 day trial? If so Templemen for the rest of Monday/day 2, Litman Tuesday/day 3, Walota Wednesday day 4 & summing up Thursday /day 5? If it works out that way then Wednesday could make or break Rovers. Mrs Justice Proudnan DBE indicated that the case MUST end by Friday afternoon and this was directed at the BRFC legal team.
I get the impression that Sainsbury are not going to say a lot, their barrister said at the close yesterday that so far he had no questions for Chris Templeman of Sainsbury.
I'm hoping it will finish Thursday or before as it will be inconvenient if it drags on to Friday.
|
|
|
Post by oldgas on May 16, 2015 10:07:48 GMT
Good work Severncider, thanks for the update. Bet a new or at least better prepared Sainsburys exec shows on Monday!! Apparently those giving evidence are on a list, so poor Chris Templeman has to appear again on Monday.
His deputy. a Ben Litman, will be the follow up act on Monday. For this case to extend until next Friday, heaven knows who else is appearing apart from Toni Watola.
Poor Chris Templeman my arse. He appears to be the complete and utter C*** who was doing all he could to get Shitsburys off the hook; and I for one hope our Barrister manoeuvres him into a corner and verbally and metaphorically rips his head off, reduces him to a gibbering wreck, then does the same to his deputy. Also, what have those sh!ts got to hide in the papers the club asked to be disclosed? I wouldn't mind betting a substantial payment to TRASH would be disclosed. Bast$rds.
|
|
|
Post by Finnish Gas on May 16, 2015 10:13:40 GMT
Good work Severncider, thanks for the update. Bet a new or at least better prepared Sainsburys exec shows on Monday!! Apparently those giving evidence are on a list, so poor Chris Templeman has to appear again on Monday.
His deputy. a Ben Litman, will be the follow up act on Monday. For this case to extend until next Friday, heaven knows who else is appearing apart from Toni Watola.
BL left Sainsbury's in October 2014. Not sure that I would want to return to my old employer to face a High Court hearing.
|
|
|
Post by oldgas on May 16, 2015 10:19:01 GMT
Apparently those giving evidence are on a list, so poor Chris Templeman has to appear again on Monday.
His deputy. a Ben Litman, will be the follow up act on Monday. For this case to extend until next Friday, heaven knows who else is appearing apart from Toni Watola.
BL left Sainsbury's in October 2014. Not sure that I would want to return to my old employer to face a High Court hearing. let's hope he lifts the lid on Shitsburys and shines a bright light onto all their double-dealing and heel dragging. I hope he tells the court Shitsburys agreed tactic was to drag the whole process through the courts, slow everything down and starve Rovers into submission.
|
|
|
Post by womble on May 16, 2015 10:23:46 GMT
Firstly, massive thanks to Severncider, fantastic job! Secondly, I copied the following from one of our friends on OTIB.
"Having looked over the papers I got yesterday at the High Court from the Sainsbury's v R*vers case, one very interesting fact has come to light. I should stress that the following information is only something which appears in Sainsbury's claim and I have seen no mention of it in R*vers' case so it may not be accurate.
It was a term of the contract between the two that the 'net proceeds of sale [of the Memorial Ground] ... [must be] greater than the ... building costs for the new stadium' (taken from Sainsbury's lawyers' skeleton argument, which appears to be quoting from the contract between the parties). Sainsbury's say that this was a condition precedent for the contract: i.e. that unless R*vers could show that they would get more from the sale of the Mem than it would cost to build the UWE, Sainsbury's wouldn't buy. The reason for this was that Sainsbury's did not want to become R*vers landlords (who can blame them?) or have to face the negative PR of evicting R*vers in the event that UWE was not completed.
Sainsbury's go on to say that on 12 December 2014 R*vers told them that the building costs for the new stadium 'will exceed the Capital Sum [the amount gained by selling the Mem] by £1,169,569.99'. This means it would cost R*vers about £1.2m more to build UWE than they were getting from the sale of the Mem. It also mean R*vers were, and apparently still are, in breach of an important term of the contract.
This appears to have two conclusions (to this non-expert!): the first is that I cannot see how Sainsbury's can now be compelled to complete the contract when such an important condition remains unfulfilled. The second is that either Nick Higgs will be looking for further external investment to complete the UWE contract or that project is not fully funded and so it looks even less likely that it will be completed.
All of this appears towards the very end of Sainsbury's argument, I have not yet heard any argument about these points and it is not mentioned in a way to suggest Sainsbury's are making a particularly large amount of it. So my conclusions may be a little wide of the mark and make of the facts what you want but the underlying fact that UWE will cost more than R*vers will get from selling the Mem is interesting anyway - they really are in a mess!"
Interestingly, we now know the construction cost is £31.17m. The shortfall is easily covered by the directors and/or Football League grants, leases on the gym, UWE teaching space etc. Clearly the delays mean that the original intention, that the scheme also wiped out our £6-7m debt is long gone.
So if we get a total win and can get £30m, then we can afford to build UWE, but we will need the income streams to deal with our debt.
|
|
|
Post by BishopstonBRFC on May 16, 2015 10:43:04 GMT
Why did a Shithead go to the court case?
|
|
|
Post by Severncider on May 16, 2015 10:49:30 GMT
If any other Gashead is going on Monday or even someone from 1982 Ltd, make yourself known to me, the name is Dave.
I'll try to sit in the same seat as yesterday. That was the front spectator seat next to the window.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 16, 2015 10:50:59 GMT
Why did a Shithead go to the court case? oh my god that is like a new level of pathetic. What a sad bastard Jesus Christ someone get him some fanny
|
|
|
Post by Severncider on May 16, 2015 10:51:57 GMT
Why did a Shithead go to the court case? No idea, I assume they work in London and had time on their hands.
During the first day a few individuals popped in for short periods during the proceedings and appeared to be Tweeting. As they were not there at the start of each session or there at the end, I could not ask if they were Gasheads and never imagined someone from 1982 Ltd would attend.
|
|
|
Post by baggins on May 16, 2015 10:52:12 GMT
Why did a Shithead go to the court case? oh my god that is like a new level of pathetic. What a sad bastard Jesus Christ someone get him some fanny I think he's brought his own.
|
|
|
Post by ThisCharmingMan on May 16, 2015 11:01:02 GMT
I bet it's an intriguing watch Severncider, or can it get a bit tedious at times? Always been interested in watching a live court case, seeing how it all works.
|
|
|
Post by baggins on May 16, 2015 11:07:01 GMT
I bet it's an intriguing watch Severncider, or can it get a bit tedious at times? Always been interested in watching a live court case, seeing how it all works. Judge Judy.
|
|
|
Post by kruger on May 16, 2015 11:08:09 GMT
oh my god that is like a new level of pathetic. What a sad bastard Jesus Christ someone get him some fanny I think he's brought his own. This is just absolutely very, very, very sad indeed. I am just lost for words. SAD
|
|
|
Post by kruger on May 16, 2015 11:08:58 GMT
I bet it's an intriguing watch Severncider, or can it get a bit tedious at times? Always been interested in watching a live court case, seeing how it all works. Judge Judy. I can smell a lie like a fa.rt in a lift !
|
|
|
Post by BishopstonBRFC on May 16, 2015 11:15:38 GMT
Why did a Shithead go to the court case? oh my god that is like a new level of pathetic. What a sad bastard Jesus Christ someone get him some fanny I assume that's not aimed at me?!
|
|