|
Post by orgasmic on Jul 17, 2015 21:13:04 GMT
I'll go with getting a £2 million high interest loan, presumably against the memorial stadium and any other club assets to persue a contract that proved to be as water tight as a colander. Done under legal advice to demonstrate that Sainsburys were intentionally trying to bleed Rovers dry by stopping the process, thus not acting with best intentions in regards to their contract?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 17, 2015 21:19:46 GMT
What sort of legal advice is that! Surely there's no facts to base that statement on?
|
|
|
Post by orgasmic on Jul 17, 2015 21:21:57 GMT
What sort of legal advice is that! Sound if they genuinely felt that the contracts were watertight (which they will have had to check for Rovers). Hindsight is a wonderful thing...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 17, 2015 21:46:22 GMT
|
|
|
Post by RD on Jul 17, 2015 21:52:05 GMT
Trolololololol
I apologise orgasmic, i've had a bottle of wine and the power has gone to my head.
|
|
|
Post by supergas on Jul 17, 2015 21:53:17 GMT
The project failed for a number of reasons, some of which were (or could have been) under NH's control - or under the control of the team he appointed to manage this - such as: 1) Agreeing a contract which specified 24 hrs a day delivery slots whilst knowing this was never going to be approved by Bristol City Council; 2) Approving Sainsbury's submission for a revised delivery slot plan whilst being aware that the proposal did not satisfy BCC's objections; 3) Allowing relationships with Sainsbury's to break down to the point where they did not even tell the club that they knew the application was likely to fail; 4) Trying to change the conditions of the contract mid-term by at first refusing to pay Rovers' share of the Community levy and then later reducing the sale price of the Mem to cover this. In addition he misled the fans by repeatedly telling them that all was well and stating expected start dates, despite not having enough confidence in his own opinion to back the project with his own cash, instead taking out a high interest loan to cover legal fees. How this will be repaid is as yet unclear. So to me it was a good idea but flawed in its execution. Done with the best of intentions initially, but doomed by events and oversights. Not the work of a visionary genious. 1 incorrect as it did get approved by bcc. 2 NH couldn't at that stage interfere with their application 3 Sainsburys did that intentionally once they knew they didn't want to fulfil their obligations 4 I am not aware of this at all Could this be under legal advice? The loan was clearly to demonstrate that Sainsburys were bleeding them dry! We'll see how it gets paid! whatever your thoughts on NH it's certainly better than a "good idea" and but for circumstances outside of his control would have been delivered! 1. Oh FFS read anything on the internet over the last 2 years....the agreement was basically voided because of the delivery restrictions... 2. Of course he/us could....we were a party to a contract that required the application to succeed, so for us to 'agree' to it is like admitting fault in a car crash...you just don't do it... 3. He's massively naive... 4. the CIL was not a part of the recent hearing, but it looks like it was screwed up by both sides in the original contract and 'fixed' at a later date. I have supported the club and NH throughout this fiasco, but after reading this judgement I feel the club has been screwed by massive incompetence from those at the top.
|
|
|
Post by peterparker on Jul 17, 2015 21:55:01 GMT
The project failed for a number of reasons, some of which were (or could have been) under NH's control - or under the control of the team he appointed to manage this - such as: 1) Agreeing a contract which specified 24 hrs a day delivery slots whilst knowing this was never going to be approved by Bristol City Council; 2) Approving Sainsbury's submission for a revised delivery slot plan whilst being aware that the proposal did not satisfy BCC's objections; 3) Allowing relationships with Sainsbury's to break down to the point where they did not even tell the club that they knew the application was likely to fail; 4) Trying to change the conditions of the contract mid-term by at first refusing too pay Rovers' share of the Community levy and then later reducing the sale price of the Mem to cover this. In addition he misled the fans by repeatedly telling them that all was well and stating expected start dates, despite not having enough confidence in his own opinion to back the project with his own cash, instead taking out a high interest loan to cover legal fees. How this will be repaid is as yet unclear. So to me it was a good idea but flawed in its execution. Done with the best of intentions initially, but doomed by events and oversights. Not the work of a visionary genious. 1 incorrect as it did get approved by bcc. 2 NH couldn't at that stage interfere with their application 3 Sainsburys did that intentionally once they knew they didn't want to fulfil their obligations 4 I am not aware of this at all Could this be under legal advice? The loan was clearly to demonstrate that Sainsburys were bleeding them dry! We'll see how it gets paid! whatever your thoughts on NH it's certainly better than a "good idea" and but for circumstances outside of his control would have been delivered! Going.by what i read Sainsburys did what they had to. Rovers had to approve their appeal on the delivery hours. Once that failed sainsburys were free. We helped sign our own death warrant as it were
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 17, 2015 22:10:58 GMT
1 incorrect as it did get approved by bcc. 2 NH couldn't at that stage interfere with their application 3 Sainsburys did that intentionally once they knew they didn't want to fulfil their obligations 4 I am not aware of this at all Could this be under legal advice? The loan was clearly to demonstrate that Sainsburys were bleeding them dry! We'll see how it gets paid! whatever your thoughts on NH it's certainly better than a "good idea" and but for circumstances outside of his control would have been delivered! Going.by what i read Sainsburys did what they had to. Rovers had to approve their appeal on the delivery hours. Once that failed sainsburys were free. We helped sign our own death warrant as it were Sack the board then . Easy inmit?
|
|
|
Post by orgasmic on Jul 17, 2015 22:12:52 GMT
1 incorrect as it did get approved by bcc. 2 NH couldn't at that stage interfere with their application 3 Sainsburys did that intentionally once they knew they didn't want to fulfil their obligations 4 I am not aware of this at all Could this be under legal advice? The loan was clearly to demonstrate that Sainsburys were bleeding them dry! We'll see how it gets paid! whatever your thoughts on NH it's certainly better than a "good idea" and but for circumstances outside of his control would have been delivered! 1. Oh FFS read anything on the internet over the last 2 years....the agreement was basically voided because of the delivery restrictions... 2. Of course he/us could....we were a party to a contract that required the application to succeed, so for us to 'agree' to it is like admitting fault in a car crash...you just don't do it... 3. He's massively naive... 4. the CIL was not a part of the recent hearing, but it looks like it was screwed up by both sides in the original contract and 'fixed' at a later date. I have supported the club and NH throughout this fiasco, but after reading this judgement I feel the club has been screwed by massive incompetence from those at the top. 1 it was still approved by BCC which is all I said 2 Even as an interested party he couldn't interfere with a different companies application. That's why there is such a thing as acting in good faith...he had to leave them to it. 3 maybe...but was still Sainsburys doing the dirty. 4 I still don't know anything about this! the judgement basically was we agree with Rovers but am ruling on this technicality. Should never have ended up in court though and Higgs can't be blamed for the fact that it did!
|
|
|
Post by oldtoteender on Jul 17, 2015 22:40:03 GMT
Hmm not so sure about point 4.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 17, 2015 22:44:50 GMT
Only fact i care about is higgs turned this once proud club into a laughing stock.
Relegations, embarrassing courtcases and legal actions, heinous managers and players, PR disasters... I could go on.
We'd be better off if he up'd and left now.
|
|
|
Post by orgasmic on Jul 18, 2015 8:52:33 GMT
Only fact i care about is higgs turned this once proud club into a laughing stock. Relegations, embarrassing courtcases and legal actions, heinous managers and players, PR disasters... I could go on. We'd be better off if he up'd and left now. You could also add promotion, good manager, good players to the list... none me of the court cases have been embarrassing and neither has any legal action; he has acted professionally in the interests of the club. Agree totally about relegation, managers, players and pr disasters though!
|
|
|
Post by nailseagashead on Jul 18, 2015 9:53:18 GMT
I know this sounds obvious or stupid, but surely sainsburys bid £40M for the Mem to secure it because of the competition, surely one of those competitors could still be interested? Ok so may not receive the same amount of money but surely some big company could find the majority of this. Or have I missed something?
|
|
|
Post by gregsy on Jul 18, 2015 10:01:54 GMT
I know this sounds obvious or stupid, but surely sainsburys bid £40M for the Mem to secure it because of the competition, surely one of those competitors could still be interested? Ok so may not receive the same amount of money but surely some big company could find the majority of this. Or have I missed something? that'll mean another planning application another fight with the nimbys, another fight with the greens and gloucester rd traders.... i can't see many companies being so keen, and the council would probably be more sceptical next time around.... that's not to say it's not possible....
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 18, 2015 10:09:14 GMT
Trollin trollin trollin. Keep them posters trollin Rawhide!
|
|
|
Post by orgasmic on Jul 18, 2015 10:21:01 GMT
I know this sounds obvious or stupid, but surely sainsburys bid £40M for the Mem to secure it because of the competition, surely one of those competitors could still be interested? Ok so may not receive the same amount of money but surely some big company could find the majority of this. Or have I missed something? Quite right! Some might be put off by Trash etc but thought maybe Asda could just use the exact same plans so it can't be turned down!!
|
|
|
Post by Topper Gas on Jul 18, 2015 10:31:54 GMT
I know this sounds obvious or stupid, but surely sainsburys bid £40M for the Mem to secure it because of the competition, surely one of those competitors could still be interested? Ok so may not receive the same amount of money but surely some big company could find the majority of this. Or have I missed something? I think Mayor Ferguson may have been correct when he said Sainsbury's never had any intention of building at the Mem or AV, if so, they could bid £1m's more than their competitors knowing full well they'd never actually going to pay up. Whilst we laughed at the time looking back now it does odd a few dog walkers/nearby residents had sufficient financial backing to stop Sainsbury's? You do wonder if NH is a bit gullible as it seems to have been stiched up by so many people since it took over, Opal, Sainsbury's, Buckle, McGhee, Penny even possibly dear old John Ward. Not to forget the likes of Beavan, Virgo & Kenneth. Thank god for the seemingly honest Darrell Clarke.
|
|
|
Post by tumshie on Jul 18, 2015 10:48:37 GMT
Only fact i care about is higgs turned this once proud club into a laughing stock. Relegations, embarrassing courtcases and legal actions, heinous managers and players, PR disasters... I could go on. We'd be better off if he up'd and left now. You could also add promotion, good manager, good players to the list... none me of the court cases have been embarrassing and neither has any legal action; he has acted professionally in the interests of the club. Agree totally about relegation, managers, players and pr disasters though! Lets keep it simple then: Where were we before Higgs tenure and where are we now? Nice bloke/supporter/well intentioned but ultimately a failure and his debts are increasing year on year
|
|
|
Post by orgasmic on Jul 18, 2015 18:19:18 GMT
You could also add promotion, good manager, good players to the list... none me of the court cases have been embarrassing and neither has any legal action; he has acted professionally in the interests of the club. Agree totally about relegation, managers, players and pr disasters though! Lets keep it simple then: Where were we before Higgs tenure and where are we now? Nice bloke/supporter/well intentioned but ultimately a failure and his debts are increasing year on year Don't get me wrong other parts of his tenure have been an absolute shambles! I just think when it comes to the stadium he has shown fantastic vision, which had it not been for factors outside of his control would have delivered.
|
|
|
Post by Henbury Gas on Jul 18, 2015 18:32:05 GMT
Only fact i care about is higgs turned this once proud club into a laughing stock. Relegations, embarrassing courtcases and legal actions, heinous managers and players, PR disasters... I could go on. We'd be better off if he up'd and left now. Who is laughing ? Do you have proof of this ? or are you just chewing the fat
|
|