Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 5, 2016 15:36:31 GMT
Wow You really believe that the new owners would not have performed due diligence?? It is completely illegal to hide or disguise material fact or contingent liabilities. Rubbish, they knew what they were doing, even if they found some of the commercial negotiations naive. Of course they would have done due diligence but my point was, were all the ground details set out in a contract? Were the things agreed set out on paper in a contract? Many aspects of the ground appear to have been verbal agreements as opposed to contractually written agreements. It seems as if over the course of the ground negotiations since Feb they've become aware of more and more they disagree with and question as they've spent more time trying to move the project forward. Very little from the previous regime seem to be set out and I just wondered if all the details on the ground were agreed. I am sure they know and knew exactly what they were doing which is what has made me feel very comfortable having them as owners. UTG! The new owners would have only been interested in signed contracts. Any "verbal agreement" is worth sod all.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 5, 2016 19:59:33 GMT
Wow You really believe that the new owners would not have performed due diligence?? It is completely illegal to hide or disguise material fact or contingent liabilities. Rubbish, they knew what they were doing, even if they found some of the commercial negotiations naive. Of course they would have done due diligence but my point was, were all the ground details set out in a contract? Were the things agreed set out on paper in a contract? Many aspects of the ground appear to have been verbal agreements as opposed to contractually written agreements. It seems as if over the course of the ground negotiations since Feb they've become aware of more and more they disagree with and question as they've spent more time trying to move the project forward. Very little from the previous regime seem to be set out and I just wondered if all the details on the ground were agreed. I am sure they know and knew exactly what they were doing which is what has made me feel very comfortable having them as owners. UTG! With respect If there were no details set in a contract there were no obligations that were legally binding So if you are suggesting that the previous owners projections (sic) were pie in the sky and without foundation, well some of us were saying that for the longest while. Only to be attacked on forums such as this. You cannot have it both ways, if you supported the previous regime and contend, now, that they handed over a pup, then you yourself did. By the way, they did not. Its just that many, most, on this forum fell for the propaganda. And as a result wasted a decade. Now we just have to hope that a group of people with zero ties to Bristol, or the club previously, have a vision that fits the clubs supporters, fans equally. Personally, I very much doubt that.
|
|
|
Post by warehamgas on Sept 5, 2016 20:52:32 GMT
With respect. I have rarely posted on the new ground proposals because I am not in the know, and have never been so your knowledge will probably exceed mine by a considerable amount. So consequently, I have never attacked or supported the previous regime or people who have criticised them because I don't know. My point was that perhaps lots of details were not set out in a contract but were perhaps verbal and as has been said, worth sod all. Perhaps the new owners have been finding this out over the months and are trying to salvage something.
|
|