|
Post by Topper Gas on Jun 1, 2015 19:17:33 GMT
It's not that simply though as there's the £2m Wonga loan to repay, potentially Sainsbury's legal costs from the RCJ trial plus the present club debts/Directors loans, plus didn't NH suggest to Sainsbury's he'd put the club in Admin at one point?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 1, 2015 19:55:35 GMT
I agree, but if we lose we'll be worthless no? Not worthless Hugo as there would still be value in the Mem as a club asset but worth less using the formula £30m less what the Mem is worth. Anyway it wouldn't matter to us as supporters what new owners paid for their shares would it as long as they take us onwards and upwards? I'm a simpleton but to me: Land without UWE + 10m Debt and Loans - 6-8m depending on the rumours Yearly running costs - 2m Equals Worthless.
|
|
|
Post by Feeling The Blues on Jun 1, 2015 20:39:01 GMT
Not worthless Hugo as there would still be value in the Mem as a club asset but worth less using the formula £30m less what the Mem is worth. Anyway it wouldn't matter to us as supporters what new owners paid for their shares would it as long as they take us onwards and upwards? I'm a simpleton but to me: Land without UWE + 10m Debt and Loans - 6-8m depending on the rumours Yearly running costs - 2m Equals Worthless. Maybe your Maths are right maybe they're wrong but if right Higgs should be giving his shares away then to people who can afford to take the club forwards right? My point is that if we have potential investors in the wings and there seems to be a growing consensus that there is, the court case will determine how much of their money they have to give to Higgs to buy the shares and how much is left over to build the stadium and a team fit to grace it.
|
|
|
Post by aghast on Jun 1, 2015 20:39:04 GMT
As I understand it, we wouldn't be liable for Sainsbury's legal costs, since they took us to the High Court, not the other way round as we'd always been led to believe.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 1, 2015 20:47:19 GMT
I'm a simpleton but to me: Land without UWE + 10m Debt and Loans - 6-8m depending on the rumours Yearly running costs - 2m Equals Worthless. Maybe your Maths are right maybe they're wrong but if right Higgs should be giving his shares away then to people who can afford to take the club forwards right? My point is that if we have potential investors in the wings and there seems to be a growing consensus that there is, the court case will determine how much of their money they have to give to Higgs to buy the shares and how much is left over to build the stadium and a team fit to grace it. Well. Since you're asking I don't believe Nick Higgs should be giving his shares away. What he should be doing is writing off the debt the club have accrued on his watch with bugger all to show for it. Likewise, if UWE happens and Nick turns a tidy profit, he is welcome to fill his boots. Sadly, I am worried that we will end up with no UWE and a big debt owes to the people who got us here.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 1, 2015 21:10:20 GMT
If the definitive answer is NO, we won't be moving on very much at all. Unless there are new owners waiting in the wings and all this court case decides is the price they pay for the club? No way.
|
|
|
Post by Topper Gas on Jun 1, 2015 21:31:13 GMT
As I understand it, we wouldn't be liable for Sainsbury's legal costs, since they took us to the High Court, not the other way round as we'd always been led to believe. Unless Sainsbury's agreed they would meet their own costs before issuing proceedings, then surely the fact we defended the writ would make us liable for the costs should we loose the case. That's normally how litigation works in this country, the losers pays all the costs.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 1, 2015 21:51:25 GMT
As I understand it, we wouldn't be liable for Sainsbury's legal costs, since they took us to the High Court, not the other way round as we'd always been led to believe. Unless Sainsbury's agreed they would meet their own costs before issuing proceedings, then surely the fact we defended the writ would make us liable for the costs should we loose the case. That's normally how litigation works in this country, the losers pays all the costs. Not neccesarily my understanding is that the judge can award costs to either party or can say that parties pay their own costs.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 5, 2015 9:46:29 GMT
Next week then?
|
|
|
Post by Cantankerous Gas on Jun 5, 2015 10:13:34 GMT
She's busy today.....
|
|
|
Post by yatetown85 on Jun 8, 2015 12:11:09 GMT
Any updates? Is wass 'er chops still doing other cases?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 8, 2015 18:13:29 GMT
So In summation the Sainsbury's legal team are relying on swinging the judges verdict their way because of the cumulative effect of several unfulfilled points amidst a contract that is "like a colander" - a contract that was drawn up by err.........Sainsbury's legal team.This begs the question,how or why did this useless contract ever get ratified? Consider these 3 possibilities. a) They duped not only our legal eagles but their own clients into signing a contract not worth the paper it's written on. b) The Sainsbury's legal team is a bit crap and doesn't have much experience in drawing up these type of contracts. c) The Sainsbury's legal team is vastly experienced in this field and deliberately inserted unattainable clauses like the unprecedented delivery hours they stipulated,in case they needed an out from the contract. Have Sainsbury's shot themselves in the foot here and exposed to everyone their underhand dealings to all and sunder? The way they have handled this deal stinks to high heaven and the details coming to light here really need to be shouted from the rooftops,not only to get a fair outcome for us but also to give warning to any future would be "partners" considering partaking in a deal with Sainsbury's.
|
|
|
Post by peterparker on Jun 8, 2015 18:47:25 GMT
So In summation the Sainsbury's legal team are relying on swinging the judges verdict their way because of the cumulative effect of several unfulfilled points amidst a contract that is "like a colander" - a contract that was drawn up by err.........Sainsbury's legal team.This begs the question,how or why did this useless contract ever get ratified? Consider these 3 possibilities. a) They duped not only our legal eagles but their own clients into signing a contract not worth the paper it's written on. b) The Sainsbury's legal team is a bit crap and doesn't have much experience in drawing up these type of contracts. c) The Sainsbury's legal team is vastly experienced in this field and deliberately inserted unattainable clauses like the unprecedented delivery hours they stipulated,in case they needed an out from the contract. Have Sainsbury's shot themselves in the foot here and exposed to everyone their underhand dealings to all and sunder? The way they have handled this deal stinks to high heaven and the details coming to light here really need to be shouted from the rooftops,not only to get a fair outcome for us but also to give warning to any future would be "partners" considering partaking in a deal with Sainsbury's. Perhaps we ought to question our legal eagles? Or maybe chasing the money we glossed over the potential pit falls hoping for a good thing. I doubt we would have wanted to use them, but i imagije Rovers would have wanted get out clauses of our own to avoid being homeless if something went wrong with UWE say
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 11, 2015 15:48:49 GMT
bumping this in the hope someone will have some news? Didn't one poster know where to look to see the judges schedule?
|
|
nob
Newbie
Posts: 21
|
Post by nob on Jun 11, 2015 16:37:01 GMT
bumping this in the hope someone will have some news? Didn't one poster know where to look to see the judges schedule? Its not listed for a hearing tomorrow on the chancery court listings
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 11, 2015 17:06:42 GMT
Some judges started judging it not knowing what it was, and they'll continue judging it forever just because... it was the case that never ends, it just goes on and on my friiiieeennndddsss
|
|
|
Post by Gas-Ed on Jun 11, 2015 17:16:21 GMT
The wait goes on...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 12, 2015 7:42:36 GMT
bumping this in the hope someone will have some news? Didn't one poster know where to look to see the judges schedule? Its not listed for a hearing tomorrow on the chancery court listings Thank you Paul Buckle
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 12, 2015 7:46:30 GMT
So, next week it is then!
|
|
|
Post by inee on Jun 12, 2015 8:28:57 GMT
|
|