Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 26, 2014 11:17:24 GMT
Re NH Whats the definition of misleading? From Mancgas, on the IF. Rovers problem has always been the inner circle, outer circle and very outer circle all leak like a sieve
We knew on Saturday one person in the various circles (not inner circle) was severely watered off with Higgs interview not only masking the real situation for confidentiality reasons, but actually going further.
He 'exaggerated' the truth beyond sphere of the normal definition of the word exaggerate. Indeed by about 2pm on Saturday I'd estimate 200-300 knew that Mr Higgs assertions were way wide of the mark.
I was told '12th hand' the offended ones had given the accused a time limit to correct the 'exaggeration' back to something like the normal definition. We were told at FGR this hasnt and wouldnt happen
Then it appears in press today
btw those who say Higgs hasnt lied, I also struggle with the definition of lie then and must apologise to Mr Higgs for boo'ing him as he walked in front of FGR stand yesterday
There was me thinking the following met the definition of a lie
GT - Is the sale of the Mem still happening Higgs - (surprised) YES!
GT - Categorically will you move to UWE Higgs - As far as we are aware at this moment in time there is no reason why we shouldn't be moving to UWE
1. we had issued a writ to seek compensation for non performance of the contract 2. we had been told by the Regional manager they were pulling out of the purchase of the Mem
If they are not reasons why we may not be moving to the Mem what would be? |
|
|
|
Post by Captain Jayho on Aug 26, 2014 11:17:59 GMT
Absolutely devastated. I guess that NH released this story as the pressure from fans must have been pushing him to the edge. Did Nick Higgs release this story? |
|
|
|
Post by BishopstonBRFC on Aug 26, 2014 11:19:21 GMT
Absolutely devastated. I guess that NH released this story as the pressure from fans must have been pushing him to the edge. Did Nick Higgs release this story? No I doubt it. What I said original is probably wrong as in my eyes it could prejudice the writ. |
|
|
|
Post by Hugo Admin on Aug 26, 2014 11:19:53 GMT
Absolutely preposterous to use this as a reason to get Higgs out in my opinion and completely without foresight again.
|
|
|
|
Post by Henbury Gas on Aug 26, 2014 11:20:12 GMT
Trash probably knew that the new CEO at Sainsbury's would have a different view to large supermarkets funding sports stadiums and delayed it long enough for the rot to set in. Backs against the wall time, but we're good at that. Time to re-ignite the Twerton spirit and get the club back into the league. I wonder if Trash's mystery backer might have been Sainsburys themselves? What a waste of time that whole farce was then. What next, sell the men to a developer and build a smaller stadium at UWE with a massive car park?, buy and redevelop Twerton and ground share with Bath? Stay at a run down Mem? Lots of options I guess. One things for certain though, I won't be buying anything from Sainsburys again and the nectar card has just gone in the bin. Now to inform them on twitter. can you put the twitter addy on here so we all can have a go ! |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 26, 2014 11:54:35 GMT
Absolutely preposterous to use this as a reason to get Higgs out in my opinion and completely without foresight again. I would contend the opposite Ras. Its not just this issue, the handling of which Mancgas has summarised so well, but the whole history of his tenure as chairman. Are you denying that history? |
|
|
|
Post by RD on Aug 26, 2014 11:55:14 GMT
Whatever the case, the UWE is now dead in the water. The only hope we have is that the compensation cost is so high that it's only just short of what it would cost them to build the store and therefore they decide they might as well build it anyway (as at least then, provided it makes a profit [which it will] they'll re-coup any further costs). I cannot for one minute see the compensation costs being THAT high though - although I will concede I have absolutely no idea how much it will be. But my main thinking is this is Rovers, so it's not going to be millions of pounds; more likely a tenner. So the next question is where we go from here. Modernise the Mem one would assume? Cannot say I'm surprised as the writing has been on the wall for some time. That said, I'm still absolutely devastated. Talk about kicking you when you're down. Can you imagine if we had lost to FGR as well yesterday?  Wow. |
|
|
|
Post by lincsblue on Aug 26, 2014 11:55:47 GMT
Nobody said they were blaming Higgs on the IF, just that his lying was being spoken of But surely he was bound by confidentiality? All seems very convenient that Dunford wanted to leave but they asked him not too. Then he eventually does and then barely a week later this comes out. If anyone officially connected to either side had said it they could scupper the whole case. But the entire writ is in the public domain |
|
|
|
Post by Fetch on Aug 26, 2014 11:56:34 GMT
Bored of this. Just want a concrete outcome, one way or the other.
|
|
|
|
Post by Hugo Admin on Aug 26, 2014 12:08:49 GMT
Absolutely preposterous to use this as a reason to get Higgs out in my opinion and completely without foresight again. I would contend the opposite Ras. Its not just this issue, the handling of which Mancgas has summarised so well, but the whole history of his tenure as chairman. Are you denying that history? No I'm not denying that but if this were the place for it I would certainly would challenge it. However, I simply stated that this particular issue is being used to add more fuel to the Higgs dissenters fire and that I think that is bizarre. Naturally people look for blame and those that are inclined will use it to fit their agenda. It you actually analyse the whole UWE project what is it exactly you blame Higgs for? Break it down for me and I'm fairly confident I could defend him at each step. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 26, 2014 12:13:24 GMT
I would contend the opposite Ras. Its not just this issue, the handling of which Mancgas has summarised so well, but the whole history of his tenure as chairman. Are you denying that history? No I'm not denying that but if this were the place for it I would certainly would challenge it. However, I simply stated that this particular issue is being used to add more fuel to the Higgs dissenters fire and that I think that is bizarre. Naturally people look for blame and those that are inclined will use it to fit their agenda. It you actually analyse the whole UWE project what is it exactly you blame Higgs for? Break it down for me and I'm fairly confident I could defend him at each step. Following it at the expense of all other areas of the club. Higgs put all his eggs in the UWE basket and we are now left with sod all, not even our league status. |
|
|
|
Post by Finnish Gas on Aug 26, 2014 12:13:19 GMT
What is it all about?
Claimant(s) name(s) and address(es) Including postcode
BRISTOL ROVERS (1883) LIMITED
THE MEMORIAL STADIUM BRISTOL BS7 OBF
Defendant(s) name and address(es) Including postcode
SAINSBURY'S SUPERMARKETS LTD
33 HOLBORN LONDON EC1N 2HT
Brief details of claim
The Defendant has acted in breach of its contract with the Claimant of 28 March 2011. It has unreasonably refused to appeal against the refusal of its application pursuant to section 73 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, In spite of the Claimants offer to fully fund the appeal and the Claimants procurement of a Noise Impact Assessment and an Opinion from leading counsel that an appeal would enjoy good prospects of success. The Defendant has unreasonably refused to grant the Claimant consent to submit a fresh section 73 application, supported by the Noise Impact Assessment it has procured. In spite of the Claimant's offer to fully fund such an application. The Defendant has failed:
i) to use all reasonable endeavours to procure the grant of an Acceptable Store Planning Permission as soon as reasonably practicable, in breach of clause 2.8 of Schedule 1 to the contract, and
ii) to act in good faith in relation to its obligations under the contract and to assist the Claimant in achieving an Acceptable Planning Permission, in breath of clause 31.1 of the contract. As a result of the Defendants breach of contract, the Claimant has suffered and continues to suffer financial loss.
Value
To be assessed, but in excess of £100,000.
Court Fee: £1595.00
|
|
|
|
Post by Hugo Admin on Aug 26, 2014 12:15:37 GMT
No I'm not denying that but if this were the place for it I would certainly would challenge it. However, I simply stated that this particular issue is being used to add more fuel to the Higgs dissenters fire and that I think that is bizarre. Naturally people look for blame and those that are inclined will use it to fit their agenda. It you actually analyse the whole UWE project what is it exactly you blame Higgs for? Break it down for me and I'm fairly confident I could defend him at each step. Following it at the expense of all other areas of the club. Higgs put all his eggs in the UWE basket and we are now left with sod all, not even our league status. Yeah people say that but what exactly does that mean. He has brought in managers we have all been happy with (mostly) and backed each one financially. His role in the playing side of things should and did stop there. How did the UWE project get us relegated? I'm not buying that. |
|
|
|
Post by peterparker on Aug 26, 2014 12:27:09 GMT
Following it at the expense of all other areas of the club. Higgs put all his eggs in the UWE basket and we are now left with sod all, not even our league status. Yeah people say that but what exactly does that mean. He has brought in managers we have all been happy with (mostly) and backed each one financially. His role in the playing side of things should and did stop there. How did the UWE project get us relegated? I'm not buying that. As the ultimate signee of Cheques his role involves following (and no laughing at the back) budgeting controls when relating to the signing of players, not backing the manager will nilly as he basically admitted as the Q and A |
|
|
|
Post by davehuddscousin on Aug 26, 2014 12:29:33 GMT
I was beginning to feel a bit better after Saturday's win and yesterday's solid performance, but this is truly devastating news.
Sainsbury's can get out of buying the Mem, the ony issue now is how much compensation BRFC can get for the breach of contract. It'll probably take years while it goes through the courts, and we know the final amount will be nowhere near the agreed selling price. (Just as the compensation we got from the stadium compny for losing our lease on Eastville was nowhere near the value a new lease would have had).
As to the oprginal application to redevelop the Mem. This could be re-submitted, and the new local plan would not rule it out, BUT. Is the market still there for student housing? More has been built on the UWE campus, and on the old ice rink, since Rovers got their planning permission for the Mem, and yet more is being built on the Nelson Street site. Rather thans the student housing market being 'buoyant' as some suggest, it could be that its near saturation point - the number of students in Bristol is no longer increasing year on year.
The story so far:
Opal pull out of the deal to re-develop the Mem leading to the club pursuing UWE
Sainsbury's pull out of the deal to sell the Mem which would have funded UWE
The only constant in this story has been the Rovers Board most of whom have been in place throughout this and other failed stadium projects.
So BRFC has three option as I see it:
1) Get a bit of compensation from Sainbury's sell the Mem for another use (housing?) at a lower price, and build a more modest stadium at UWE (a bit like Kassam or Bescot)
2) Find a 'Lansdown' or 'Vincent Tan' type investor with £20 million to spend and build UWE anyway (or four investors with £5million each)
3) Stay at the Mem for ever and watch it gradually decay as we did Eastville
The Board are very fortunate in the way the fam base of the club has so actively stood by them and supported all their stadium plans. We mobilised for the Memorial re-development, again for the Sainsbury's permission, and yet again for the fight against TRASH and the Judical Review. Despite relegation to the Conference 7000 turned up at our first game, and we were half the gate at Forest Green yesterday (despite the game being ion the telly). You can't fault the committment or Rovers fans. We have been patient for over 30 years while a succession of new stadium plans have fallen by the wayside. The Board must realise their chances of doing a 'Grand old Duke of York' act and mobilising the support base again are slim to on-existent in the light of todays news.
I'm beginning to wish Ian Stevens (r.i.p.) had taken the bloody club over in 1980!
|
|
|
|
Post by Hugo Admin on Aug 26, 2014 12:30:42 GMT
Yeah people say that but what exactly does that mean. He has brought in managers we have all been happy with (mostly) and backed each one financially. His role in the playing side of things should and did stop there. How did the UWE project get us relegated? I'm not buying that. As the ultimate signee of Cheques his role involves following (and no laughing at the back) budgeting controls when relating to the signing of players, not backing the manager will nilly as he basically admitted as the Q and A yep agreed. But not related to the stadium which is what we were talking about. This is my point really, there are many shortfalls and lots I agree with. However, people are blaming this stadium thing on him which is in my opinion, downright silly. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 26, 2014 12:34:00 GMT
No I'm not denying that but if this were the place for it I would certainly would challenge it. However, I simply stated that this particular issue is being used to add more fuel to the Higgs dissenters fire and that I think that is bizarre. Naturally people look for blame and those that are inclined will use it to fit their agenda. It you actually analyse the whole UWE project what is it exactly you blame Higgs for? Break it down for me and I'm fairly confident I could defend him at each step. Following it at the expense of all other areas of the club. Higgs put all his eggs in the UWE basket and we are now left with sod all, not even our league status. Ras, What Hugo says, and then refer to the list in my opening post on this topic. I dont think anyone disagrees with who has led us down a merry path on the stadium, the honour for that going to Sainsburys. But NH has not been forthcoming, the post by Mancgas highlighting just recent statements on the topic. His resignation should not come purely on the fact that Sainsburys want to walk away, but his performance as Chair since he took over from Ron Craig in 2008/9. This is not about agendas, actually let me correct that statement. Its about an agenda for a sustainable club for the benefit and enjoyment of the local community. I will admit that. NH and his methods are providing the opposite through a combination of questionable competences and hubris. |
|
|
|
Post by Hugo Admin on Aug 26, 2014 12:43:35 GMT
A fair try oldie but I'm not satisfied. All reasons given so far highlight shortfalls in other areas. Valid though they may be they are not proving to me that Higgs is at fault for anything that scuppered the UWE.
On the interview. Those are not lies. Those are statements made in honesty. Higgs position is exactly what he says, he knows of no reason why tge UWE should not proceed. He has it seems even hired lawyers to argue exactly that! Anything else he omitted would be in the interests of the case to be taken to court. Why weaken your position?
I'm asking all. Show me one good reason why Higgs is to blame for THE STADIUM ISSUE.
|
|
|
|
Post by Topper Gas on Aug 26, 2014 14:19:13 GMT
A fair try oldie but I'm not satisfied. All reasons given so far highlight shortfalls in other areas. Valid though they may be they are not proving to me that Higgs is at fault for anything that scuppered the UWE. On the interview. Those are not lies. Those are statements made in honesty. Higgs position is exactly what he says, he knows of no reason why tge UWE should not proceed. He has it seems even hired lawyers to argue exactly that! Anything else he omitted would be in the interests of the case to be taken to court. Why weaken your position? I'm asking all. Show me one good reason why Higgs is to blame for THE STADIUM ISSUE. When asked a direct question by 20men on Saturday NH clearly indicated there were not any issues with the Mem sale etc going ahead, but at the same time he was in the process of issuing proceedings against Sainsbury's due to the fact they don't want to proceed. It beggars belief fans can stand by them him, when it's Whaddon Rd all over again. Why couldn't NH just explain to 20men the issues on Saturday, to continue to hide behind confidentiality clauses is, in my view, ludicrous when the writ is now in the public domain. Problem now is if NH steps down as Chairman is he effectively conceding defeat to Sainsbury's? As far as compensation is concerned if the extended delivery hours appeal fails it seems to me Sainsbury's can, legally, just walk away from the deal. So much for that being "water tight"! |
|
|
|
Post by Hugo Admin on Aug 26, 2014 14:24:02 GMT
A fair try oldie but I'm not satisfied. All reasons given so far highlight shortfalls in other areas. Valid though they may be they are not proving to me that Higgs is at fault for anything that scuppered the UWE. On the interview. Those are not lies. Those are statements made in honesty. Higgs position is exactly what he says, he knows of no reason why tge UWE should not proceed. He has it seems even hired lawyers to argue exactly that! Anything else he omitted would be in the interests of the case to be taken to court. Why weaken your position? I'm asking all. Show me one good reason why Higgs is to blame for THE STADIUM ISSUE. When asked a direct question by 20men on Saturday NH clearly indicated there were not any issues with the Mem sale etc going ahead, but at the same time he was in the process of issuing proceedings against Sainsbury's due to the fact they don't want to proceed. It beggars belief fans can stand by them him, when it's Whaddon Rd all over again. Why couldn't NH just explain to 20men the issues on Saturday, to continue to hide behind confidentiality clauses is, in my view, ludicrous when the writ is now in the public domain. Problem now is if NH steps down as Chairman is he effectively conceding defeat to Sainsbury's? As far as compensation is concerned if the extended delivery hours appeal fails it seems to me Sainsbury's can, legally, just walk away from the deal. So much for that being "water tight"! and do you not understand why he did that? Do you get the alternative and get why that could have compromised salvaging anything from this deal? your last paragraph i don't know about. |
|
Wow.
