Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 19, 2015 14:37:24 GMT
During a lull in the proceedings I'd like to clear up a misunderstanding amongst some Gasheads about this Court action. This action is being brought by Sainsbury against Bristol Rovers as they are seeking a Court ruling that they do not have to proceed with this contract and Bristol Rovers are counter suing them. If their is a misunderstanding, that is nothing to do with BRFC but clearly by those Gasheads who do not understand the reason for this Court action. Toni Watola has not yet started his evidence and to be honest at the moment the questioning of a director of WYG revolves around various noise assessment reports and I'm sure may be relevant to the case but in my opinion is very boring and cannot understand the relevance. I'll post todays report by about 8pm Roll on Toni to enliven this afternoons session. Severn, did you take a weeks leave to watch this entire trail?
|
|
|
Post by mehewmagic on May 19, 2015 14:55:32 GMT
get a Dam grip people.
I'm no Board lover, but they entered into a contract with Sainsbury's about 3 years ago, in all good faith and everyone was happy. It has only come to court because PP and JR delays led Sainsbury's to consciously decide they wanted to shaft a medium sized business and unilaterally renage on a contract. This is what the case will test. Who is issuing writs against whom is merely legal process. Nothing to do with intent. The intent is VERY clear in my mind; Sainsbury's have done nothing to help fulfill the contract for a very long time now.
If you read the writ that was applied for last year, to force Sainsbury's to appeal against the extended delivery hours being refused, it is blatantly clear that Rovers have jumped through hoops for several years now in order to try to to help Sainsbury's start buiding.
We were relegated partly because the Board were so busy doing all this BS, that BCC, TRASH & Sainsbury's have made us go through. The Board didn't want this and didn't ask for it. They have consistently had to hassle sainsbury's to get their ass in gear, and have even paid for things that Sainsbury's should be paying for.
Anyone who can turn this into a Bash the Board argument seriously needs to look at their shoulders and find out what sort of chips are there.
READ the evidence.
|
|
|
Post by ThisCharmingMan on May 19, 2015 14:57:28 GMT
During a lull in the proceedings I'd like to clear up a misunderstanding amongst some Gasheads about this Court action. This action is being brought by Sainsbury against Bristol Rovers as they are seeking a Court ruling that they do not have to proceed with this contract and Bristol Rovers are counter suing them. If their is a misunderstanding, that is nothing to do with BRFC but clearly by those Gasheads who do not understand the reason for this Court action. Toni Watola has not yet started his evidence and to be honest at the moment the questioning of a director of WYG revolves around various noise assessment reports and I'm sure may be relevant to the case but in my opinion is very boring and cannot understand the relevance. I'll post todays report by about 8pm Roll on Toni to enliven this afternoons session. Attachment Deleted
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 19, 2015 15:01:01 GMT
So we've thought all along we were suing Sainsbury's to teach them a lesson but in fact they are suing us! It could only happen at Rovers! Yes the deceit at boardroom level knows no boundaries at all, some supporters were shocked about the Cheltenham bare faced lies, just goes to show doesn't it just how much contempt there is for the fans, void of anger these days towards that lot, and feeling sick with every statement the chairman makes indicating he is going absolutely nowhere. Every statement, decision seems to be based on a whim, which is why I have said before just how big a deal Darrell and the team achieving what they had done up until March has been nothing short of a miracle really, this latest news certainly explains why he was so mute on the subject of the court case yesterday. Do you feel daft now? Get a grip for goodness sake.
|
|
|
Post by inee on May 19, 2015 15:02:13 GMT
get a fecking grip people. I'm no Board loverSniff the evidence. Yeah Yeah i saw you sniffing a sheet of plywood
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 19, 2015 15:02:29 GMT
get a fecking grip people. I'm no Board lover, but they entered into a contract with Sainsbury's about 3 years ago, in all good faith and everyone was happy. It has only come to court because PP and JR delays led Sainsbury's to consciously decide they wanted to shaft a medium sized business and unilaterally renage on a contract. This is what the case will test. Who is issuing writs against whom is merely legal process. Nothing to do with intent. The intent is VERY clear in my mind; Sainsbury's have done nothing to help fulfill the contract for a very long time now. If you read the writ that was applied for last year, to force Sainsbury's to appeal against the extended delivery hours being refused, it is blatantly clear that Rovers have jumped through hoops for several years now in order to try to to help Sainsbury's start buiding. We were relegated partly because the Board were so busy doing all this BS, that BCC, TRASH & Sainsbury's have made us go through. The Board didn't want this and didn't ask for it. They have consistently had to hassle sainsbury's to get their ass in gear, and have even paid for things that Sainsbury's should be paying for. Anyone who can turn this into a Bash the Board argument seriously needs to look at their shoulders and find out what sort of chips are there. READ the evidence. Needed saying.
|
|
|
Post by inee on May 19, 2015 15:05:22 GMT
So we've thought all along we were suing Sainsbury's to teach them a lesson but in fact they are suing us! It could only happen at Rovers! Yes the deceit at boardroom level knows no boundaries at all, some supporters were shocked about the Cheltenham bare faced lies, just goes to show doesn't it just how much contempt there is for the fans, void of anger these days towards that lot, and feeling sick with every statement the chairman makes indicating he is going absolutely nowhere. Every statement, decision seems to be based on a whim, which is why I have said before just how big a deal Darrell and the team achieving what they had done up until March has been nothing short of a miracle really, this latest news certainly explains why he was so mute on the subject of the court case yesterday. could even say that since the departure of a board member the clubs been on the up ,coincidence? ??
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 19, 2015 15:08:41 GMT
Yes the deceit at boardroom level knows no boundaries at all, some supporters were shocked about the Cheltenham bare faced lies, just goes to show doesn't it just how much contempt there is for the fans, void of anger these days towards that lot, and feeling sick with every statement the chairman makes indicating he is going absolutely nowhere. Every statement, decision seems to be based on a whim, which is why I have said before just how big a deal Darrell and the team achieving what they had done up until March has been nothing short of a miracle really, this latest news certainly explains why he was so mute on the subject of the court case yesterday. could even say that since the departure of a board member the clubs been on the up ,coincidence? ?? I think that's fair. Even if you side with GD or NH it has to be improved having just one person at the top rather than 2 that maybe don't always see eye to eye.
|
|
|
Post by inee on May 19, 2015 15:13:36 GMT
could even say that since the departure of a board member the clubs been on the up ,coincidence? ?? I think that's fair. Even if you side with GD or NH it has to be improved having just one person at the top rather than 2 that maybe don't always see eye to eye. Wont go there like i did before as i made a post next thing the fookin forum had gone lmao . I'm not the biggest fan of the board but Although DD had done so much for our club i've always felt that GD seemed to hold the club back and lets be honest which side would you be on in a boardroom tiz the new guy or the guy whose been there fer a long while. It's just such a major coincidence that when he left everything else seemed to go in the correct direction, sometimes people are too scared to speak openy with someone whose been around a while
|
|
|
Post by mehewmagic on May 19, 2015 15:33:12 GMT
could even say that since the departure of a board member the clubs been on the up ,coincidence? ?? I think that's fair. Even if you side with GD or NH it has to be improved having just one person at the top rather than 2 that maybe don't always see eye to eye. It's Camilla vs. Diana all over again. 3 in a marriage is too crowded. Good fun though.
|
|
|
Post by peterparker on May 19, 2015 15:35:05 GMT
Whether it makes much of a difference or not to the overall outcome, I think everyone was led to believe it was us taking action against Sainsbury’s and not Sainsbury’s going to court to confirm nullification of the contract
Ultimately I am interested given how much has come out and obvious it has been that Sainsbury’s were trying to get out of the contract, in how their legal team will try and prove that the contract was/is now void and I would imagine this is where the complexities of the contract will kick in and be brought to our attention.
|
|
|
Post by lulworthgas on May 19, 2015 16:29:46 GMT
Whether it makes much of a difference or not to the overall outcome, I think everyone was led to believe it was us taking action against Sainsbury’s and not Sainsbury’s going to court to confirm nullification of the contract Ultimately I am interested given how much has come out and obvious it has been that Sainsbury’s were trying to get out of the contract, in how their legal team will try and prove that the contract was/is now void and I would imagine this is where the complexities of the contract will kick in and be brought to our attention. We kind of are/have taken sainsburys to court. They told us to drop our claim on the contract still running or face them in the high court. Most cave in at this point. Our board however, took up the challenge of the court case, flipped it on its head, ensured we got an early hearing and told puffy to drop a clanger in the last away game so we could get funds to pay for said court action via a play off win. Where's the confusion!
|
|
|
Post by Topper Gas on May 19, 2015 17:17:08 GMT
It still turns everything on its head as nobody as ever suggested it was Sainsbury's suing Rovers, the worry now is that Sainsbury's are confident of winning rather than just defending an action bought by Rovers.
Let's hope we get some clarification today when the contract is supposed to have lapsed as that still seems a mystery.
|
|
|
Post by Severncider on May 19, 2015 17:36:16 GMT
Back at my sisters, report to follow in about an hour.
THE GLOVES ARE OFF
Toni Watola was given a very uncomfortable 10 minutes by Sainsbury's barrister, I hope he gets a good nights sleep.
Tomorrow is going to be a very interesting day, up there with Sunday's match.
|
|
|
Post by Rod1883 on May 19, 2015 17:41:07 GMT
Toni Watola doesn't fill me with any confidence, after his inept performance at the end of last season. I look forward to your report on how he did.
|
|
|
Post by Topper Gas on May 19, 2015 17:41:30 GMT
Your nicely building the suspense, I'm looking forward to today's update.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 19, 2015 17:52:55 GMT
Oh dear. Sounds like he's crumbled pretty quick.
|
|
|
Post by BishopstonBRFC on May 19, 2015 18:30:10 GMT
Your nicely building the suspense, I'm looking forward to today's update. I'm not!
|
|
|
Post by BishopstonBRFC on May 19, 2015 18:30:29 GMT
Oh dear. Sounds like he's crumbled pretty quick. Biscuit based pun.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 19, 2015 18:34:52 GMT
Oh dear. Sounds like he's crumbled pretty quick. Biscuit based pun. Let's hope he got stuck in and retrieved something of it before it sinks and he gets burnt.
|
|