|
|
Post by Antonio Fargas on Jul 28, 2015 8:51:51 GMT
I don't see how you can back the board for backing DC *and* back them for pursuing Sainsbury's *and* back them for appealing *and* back them for announcing the budget will be unaffected *and* state it's always been obvious that we must cut our budget.
Perm 3 of 5 maybe, at most.
|
|
|
|
Post by Staffordshire Gas on Jul 28, 2015 8:55:42 GMT
I don't see how you can back the board for backing DC *and* back them for pursuing Sainsbury's *and* back them for appealing *and* back them for announcing the budget will be unaffected *and* state it's always been obvious that we must cut our budget. Perm 3 of 5 maybe, at most. Sounds like the BT Call Centre who make it up as they go along!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! |
|
|
|
Post by Topper Gas on Jul 28, 2015 9:38:30 GMT
So would yopu have been happy if NH had announced we were just going to let Sainsbury's walk away from the contract 6 months ago as the club couldn't afford to meet any further legal costs? Regardless I guess the Wonga interest is just being added to the clubs overall debts than being paid out of the playing budget. Did anybody truly believe we were going to win the case? With hindsight how do you feel about our pursuit? NH and the team were sold up the river. Sainsbury wouldn't have gone to court if there was a chance they'd lose. They deal with these battles all the time, just think how many shops there are! A long time ago NH could have chosen to cut losses and try something else. 15m to houses 3 years ago? We'd have more than half a stadium by now. With half a stadium maybe the bank might increase that overdraft by a few mil. But I also doubt the loan is coming from the playing budget, it certainly shouldn't be. I think most of use thought it was 50/50, even after we''d heard all the evidence during the trial, regardless it seems we hav one shot at getting the £30m/a new stadium so even if the odds were 25/75% against I can't blame the BoD for trying. Having half a staduim now is fairly pointless if there's no way to raise the finance for the other half, but surely it was only around 12 months ago it was obvious Sainsbury's didn't want to proceed not 3 years ago. Whilst I'm not usually pro NH I can't see he's done alot wrong staduim wise, apart from getting stiched up by Sainsbury's once Lidl/Aldi appeared on the scene. Personally I'd forget the appeal but I don't have the legal advice. |
|
|
|
Post by newmarketgas on Jul 28, 2015 9:48:25 GMT
A bit like the woman and her will in the news today, she left everything to charity, daughter contested it, failed, appealed won a little, took it to the high courts and won a third and took it ! Sometimes it pays to appeal, who would have thought a will could be changed ?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 28, 2015 9:51:51 GMT
Did anybody truly believe we were going to win the case? With hindsight how do you feel about our pursuit? NH and the team were sold up the river. Sainsbury wouldn't have gone to court if there was a chance they'd lose. They deal with these battles all the time, just think how many shops there are! A long time ago NH could have chosen to cut losses and try something else. 15m to houses 3 years ago? We'd have more than half a stadium by now. With half a stadium maybe the bank might increase that overdraft by a few mil. But I also doubt the loan is coming from the playing budget, it certainly shouldn't be. I think most of use thought it was 50/50, even after we''d heard all the evidence during the trial, regardless it seems we hav one shot at getting the £30m/a new stadium so even if the odds were 25/75% against I can't blame the BoD for trying. Having half a staduim now is fairly pointless if there's no way to raise the finance for the other half, but surely it was only around 12 months ago it was obvious Sainsbury's didn't want to proceed not 3 years ago. Whilst I'm not usually pro NH I can't see he's done alot wrong staduim wise, apart from getting stiched up by Sainsbury's once Lidl/Aldi appeared on the scene. Personally I'd forget the appeal but I don't have the legal advice. The wheels started falling off this stadium wagon a long time ago. |
|
|
|
Post by LJG on Jul 28, 2015 12:13:17 GMT
A bit like the woman and her will in the news today, she left everything to charity, daughter contested it, failed, appealed won a little, took it to the high courts and won a third and took it ! Sometimes it pays to appeal, who would have thought a will could be changed ? Been that way for decades. There are plenty of ways a Will can be challenged - some more valid than others: For example if A promises B to make provision for him in her Will if he looks after her for the rest of her life it's only right B gets to go to court to get what he was promised surely? Once an estate becomes contentious all bets are off as far as the Will is concerned - you might as well tear it up. The thing people don't see though (which is also relevant to Rovers' case) is that they spend so long fighting over it they don't see that 90% of the inheritance has gone in the lawyer's pocket. In Rovers case Burgess Salmon did our portion of the original drafting which ended up not being watertight so it doesn't look great for them so there's a good chance they'll be giving us a favourable price on the appeal. |
|
|
|
Post by Topper Gas on Jul 28, 2015 12:48:08 GMT
Surely the main advice will be coming form the Barrister, who for all we know maybe prepared to take the Appeal on a no win, no fee basis, not Burgess Salmon. Also doesn't Mrs Ware work for Burgess Salmon, I can't imgine she'd want her husband throwing his own money away.
|
|
|
|
Post by LJG on Jul 28, 2015 13:55:42 GMT
Surely the main advice will be coming form the Barrister, who for all we know maybe prepared to take the Appeal on a no win, no fee basis, not Burgess Salmon. Also doesn't Mrs Ware work for Burgess Salmon, I can't imgine she'd want her husband throwing his own money away. A barrister will have instructing Solicitors in all litigation who do the non-advocacy work. A barrister will often be part of the mediation or settlement process if there is one but there will still be an instructing solicitor since few Barristers do direct access work (i.e. may be instructed by a member of the public who is not a solicitor, legal executive, notary or chartered tax advisor). Our solicitor who is instructing counsel on our behalf is Burgess Salmon. With that in mind I refer you to my original post re: costs. |
|
|
|
Post by Topper Gas on Jul 28, 2015 14:10:30 GMT
Surely the main advice will be coming form the Barrister, who for all we know maybe prepared to take the Appeal on a no win, no fee basis, not Burgess Salmon. Also doesn't Mrs Ware work for Burgess Salmon, I can't imgine she'd want her husband throwing his own money away. A barrister will have instructing Solicitors in all litigation who do the non-advocacy work. A barrister will often be part of the mediation or settlement process if there is one but there will still be an instructing solicitor since few Barristers do direct access work (i.e. may be instructed by a member of the public who is not a solicitor, legal executive, notary or chartered tax advisor). Our solicitor who is instructing counsel on our behalf is Burgess Salmon. With that in mind I refer you to my original post re: costs. Sorry I misread your previous post I thought you said "favourable advice" not favourable price! |
|
|
|
Post by LJG on Jul 28, 2015 14:42:41 GMT
A barrister will have instructing Solicitors in all litigation who do the non-advocacy work. A barrister will often be part of the mediation or settlement process if there is one but there will still be an instructing solicitor since few Barristers do direct access work (i.e. may be instructed by a member of the public who is not a solicitor, legal executive, notary or chartered tax advisor). Our solicitor who is instructing counsel on our behalf is Burgess Salmon. With that in mind I refer you to my original post re: costs. Sorry I misread your previous post I thought you said "favourable advice" not favourable price! Yeah ... with their drafting being what caused the mess in the first place they'll need to do us a bit of a favour. |
|
|
|
Post by roverstillidie on Jul 28, 2015 15:12:31 GMT
I've had it on good authority, that we are not being charged for legal fee's for the appeal.
Shamesburys cannot appeal against the outcome of the appeal verdict, so appealing was a no brainer.
All very appealing...
|
|
|
|
Post by Centenary Gas on Jul 28, 2015 15:13:10 GMT
How many extra players would £5,000 a week give us? About 3-4? Because thats what we are paying in interest on the wonga loan. So would yopu have been happy if NH had announced we were just going to let Sainsbury's walk away from the contract 6 months ago as the club couldn't afford to meet any further legal costs? Regardless I guess the Wonga interest is just being added to the clubs overall debts than being paid out of the playing budget. I would of been happy if they hadn't gone ahead with a contract with a schoolboy error escque escape clause, given the magnitude of the contract and the money involved. When they looked everyone in the eye last summer and assured us it was water tight, were they blinded or lying? Good will all you like, at some point you have to be accountable. And the current board, after years of decline despite massive overspend, have now lumbered us (because we will be paying) with £millions of debt at a rediculous interest rate. At what point do you blame the current board? Surely you can't say 'Thanks for trying, it's Sainsburys fault' about everything. As far as people saying we had to cut the playing budget as our days of overspending need to be over. Quite correct. But to breakeven levels without the above debt and interest, which seems to be quite a bit lower. |
|
|
|
Post by Antonio Fargas on Jul 28, 2015 16:05:26 GMT
(because we will be paying) This is the point. It's not someone else's money. It's the club's. It's effectively ours, because we will end up paying. You can put money into a club, if you're rich, but you don't have to. The board haven't put a penny (afaict - happy to be corrected) into the club. All they've done is lend the club money, which presumably, they will be expecting back when they sell. |
|
|
|
Post by socrates on Jul 28, 2015 17:10:47 GMT
Do we really need the BoD to state the obvious? Sainsbury's/the Wonga Loan are clearly hitting the club hard. financially. Regardless when did have a big playing budget bring us success? Exactly. We're supporters we shouldn't expect the club to announce to us what our budget is. No club ever does. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 28, 2015 17:53:54 GMT
Do we really need the BoD to state the obvious? Sainsbury's/the Wonga Loan are clearly hitting the club hard. financially. Regardless when did have a big playing budget bring us success? Exactly. We're supporters we shouldn't expect the club to announce to us what our budget is. No club ever does. Exactly. We're supporters we really shouldn't expect the club to announce to us the budget us unaffected. When it clearly is. |
|
|
|
Post by Topper Gas on Jul 28, 2015 19:00:10 GMT
If it was your money would you be confident of getting it back as things stand at the moment? GD is still owe £100K's from his time as a Director.
|
|
|
|
Post by Topper Gas on Jul 28, 2015 19:04:01 GMT
Even the Judge commented on the complexity of the contract, even so the get out clause only kicked in when Trash turned up.
A month ago virtually everybody accepted Sainsbury's had pulled a fast one now it's all NH's fault.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 28, 2015 19:11:31 GMT
Even the Judge commented on the complexity of the contract, even so the get out clause only kicked in when Trash turned up. A month ago virtually everybody accepted Sainsbury's had pulled a fast one now it's all NH's fault. Well if it had been successful, NH would be getting the plaudits. Even though the legal team etc have done all the work. It has gone wrong, warnings have been evident for years, he addressed us and said it was all fine....it wasn't. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 28, 2015 19:21:51 GMT
No one has the absolute facts to be fair and both DC and NH are telling the truth depending on how you look at it. I think now may be a good time for a follow up Q and A with our chairman etc. as some of what is written is pure conjecture and once explained may not be clearer but may explain things a little better. I truly wish we had better communication. That said sadly we are where we are, as it stands for whatever reason we don't have much money and a sugar daddy is not coming forward. So let's embrace the positives and also remember DC will give us a good chance anyway with his hard work no nonsense philosophy. He said top 7 was achievable with this group of players so let's get behind that. UTG Higgs would tell you that he tripped on a kerb stone if you found him led on top of your Mrs. I will hang on to Darrel's comments when looking for the truth. |
|
|
|
Post by Jon the Stripe on Jul 28, 2015 19:22:05 GMT
I wonder if i could interrupt here! Once you've finally decided whose fault it may or may not be -What do you actually intend to do about it? or will it make any difference?  The decisions been made to carry on chasing/appealing and until its over we won't have much cash that much we do know - We also won't know until then whether it was ever worth it after all! Now some are gonna agree and of course some are gonna disagree with all this but what the hell is constantly going on about going to resolve? Serious question  Edit: Come on '79 bring it on you miserable sod.  |
|
