Bristol R*vers dustbin thread

[Coombsy]

Been to UWE today and building work due to start in about four weeks time

But not on a stadium but student flats by car park 20

I asked about the stadium the person I meet on site just smile and walked away

Don't look to good for them

[Coombsy]

13 hours ago bulbous said:

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-bristol-30899847

I think you will find that ultimately Sainsburys took Rovers to court to seek judgement that they were free to walk away from the contract.

Bamber Gasgroin

....

Joined: June 2014

Posts: 1,181

High Court Proceedings 5 hours ago

Quote

Post by Bamber Gasgroin on 5 hours ago

11 hours ago Mary's Beret said:

13 hours ago bulbous said:

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-bristol-30899847

I think you will find that ultimately Sainsburys took Rovers to court to seek judgement that they were free to walk away from the contract.

Doesn't that pull the carpet out from under the argument that Sainsbury's have been trying to delay at every opportunity in an attempt to suffocate the financial life out of Rovers and cause UWE to move on and make other use of the land?

Read more: http://gasheads.org/thread/3191/high-court-proceedings#ixzz3c6PT9rQ6

[Miah Dennehy]

Been to UWE today and building work due to start in about four weeks time

But not on a stadium but student flats by car park 20

I asked about the stadium the person I meet on site just smile and walked away

Don't look to good for them

 

I don't think you will find many Rovers fans who actually think the stadium is still going to be built. It really is just about trying to get some compensation to hopefully get us out of the financial mire, and I'm not even confident of that.

[Guest]

They do usually only take one case at a time.

 

But at several hundred squid an hour I'm sure she, like all our learned friends, will take the maximum humanly possible time to do anything.

 

You are right.... but whilst usually one case at a time at the hearing stage, she could quite feasibly have 3 or 4 judgments which she is in the process of writing up.

 

In disputes like this it's not abnormal for at the end of closing the Court to state immediately there and then the way the decision is going to go, but defer/reserve giving the reasons for this until a later date - ie to allow her to write up the decision. It's interesting that this didn't happen because of the judge's ascertion of complexities: open and shut this is not.

 

Slightly disappointing judgment was reserved. Remarkably when the judge tells you which way its gone but doesn't tell you why the clock starts ticking on the unsuccessful party to appeal - and they don't even know what they are appealing against at that stage. Could have been an indicator of how committed the defeated party is...

 

Oh and as for the pull the carpet post, I don't think it's particularly relevant for the reasons responded within that thread; mainly Sainsbury's had delayed long enough to achieve their means perhaps.

[NOTR]

I'm sure the judge is presiding over more than one case at a time and will need time to read everything etc etc

That could take some time,the sags file wasn't typed,it was written in crayon with loads of pictures.

[richwwtk]

Could Warwick Gas be the naivest person out there?

 

warwickgas

Ray Mabbutt

Joined: May 2014
Posts: 40

26 minutes ago

Quote

 

Post by warwickgas on 26 minutes ago

4 hours ago mrpond said:

If Rovers win and hit Sainsburys with costs i would imagine this would also include increased material costs and loss of earnings from the the completed stadium?? Could be a large amount of money and maybe this is also a factor why Sainsburys want this sorted ASAP as well.

If Sainsburys win we may have to pay their costs. Hope this doesn't mean a threat of Administration.

Read more: http://gasheads.org/thread/3191/high-court-proceedings#ixzz3c6br9Zbd

[Aizoon]

 

Could Warwick Gas be the naivest person out there?

 

warwickgas

Ray Mabbutt

Joined: May 2014

Posts: 40

26 minutes ago

Quote

 

Post by warwickgas on 26 minutes ago

4 hours ago mrpond said:

If Rovers win and hit Sainsburys with costs i would imagine this would also include increased material costs and loss of earnings from the the completed stadium?? Could be a large amount of money and maybe this is also a factor why Sainsburys want this sorted ASAP as well.

If Sainsburys win we may have to pay their costs. Hope this doesn't mean a threat of Administration.

Read more: http://gasheads.org/thread/3191/high-court-proceedings#ixzz3c6br9Zbd

 

 

No. Some think it's a forgone conclusion that Sainsbury's will turn up with big bags of money.

[Rudolf Hucker]

I don't think you will find many Rovers fans who actually think the stadium is still going to be built. It really is just about trying to get some compensation to hopefully get us out of the financial mire, and I'm not even confident of that.

If you do get compo, Miah is there any likelihood that it will be wisely spent for the benefit of the football club? Or will it be spent merely paying off the payday loan and the monies owed to the present board members? Can you see any tangible changes being made?

Regardless of the outcome, I can imagine that there will be major changes to the board. A significant milestone will have been reached and new brooms will be needed either to take things forward or to clear up the mess.

[RumRed]

Could Warwick Gas be the naivest person out there?

warwickgas

Ray Mabbutt

Joined: May 2014

Posts: 40

26 minutes ago

Quote

Post by warwickgas on 26 minutes ago

4 hours ago mrpond said: If Rovers win and hit Sainsburys with costs i would imagine this would also include increased material costs and loss of earnings from the the completed stadium?? Could be a large amount of money and maybe this is also a factor why Sainsburys want this sorted ASAP as well. If Sainsburys win we may have to pay their costs. Hope this doesn't mean a threat of Administration.

Read more: http://gasheads.org/thread/3191/high-court-proceedings#ixzz3c6br9Zbd

Ha ha, ha ha. (Repeat ad nauseum)

[richwwtk]

No. Some think it's a forgone conclusion that Sainsbury's will turn up with big bags of money.

 

It was more the fact that he only sees having to pay Sainsburys costs as the thing that would mean a threat of administration. It would seem to me that  a complete victory with extra compensation on top is about the only thing that will stave it off!

[Miah Dennehy]

If you do get compo, Miah is there any likelihood that it will be wisely spent for the benefit of the football club? Or will it be spent merely paying off the payday loan and the monies owed to the present board members? Can you see any tangible changes being made?

Regardless of the outcome, I can imagine that there will be major changes to the board. A significant milestone will have been reached and new brooms will be needed either to take things forward or to clear up the mess.

 

Oh you little joker you!

[Guest]

If you do get compo, Miah is there any likelihood that it will be wisely spent for the benefit of the football club? Or will it be spent merely paying off the payday loan and the monies owed to the present board members? Can you see any tangible changes being made?

Regardless of the outcome, I can imagine that there will be major changes to the board. A significant milestone will have been reached and new brooms will be needed either to take things forward or to clear up the mess.

 

In for more waiting. Unless I've missed it it's not on the list for Monday.

[Avalonred]

Oooo! breaking news! Administration is now 12pts instead of 10! (not that I'm leaning this in any particular direction of course by adding it to this thread!  )

[Vincent Vega]

Oooo! breaking news! Administration is now 12pts instead of 10! (not that I'm leaning this in any particular direction of course by adding it to this thread!  )

Always thought it should be 20 pts at least 

[Coombsy]

yesterday at 6:24pm Somerset Blue said:

Have been saying it for months..... If Higgs ' bungle,bumble and bluster ends up in us Losing the watertight case he boasted of so abruptly to Twentyman all those months ago ....It will be the death of our club.

Administration .... Ten point reduction .... Battle for our very league survival let alone anything else.

Why in the name of everything holy he went for a Willy Wonka loan I will never ever know or understand.

At least Watola could see a relegation scrap so much sooner and for once add some value maybe to the cash register.

These are awful times .... Not sure how some of you can joke about it ...you're tougher than me that's for sure.

Or you don't get the potential disaster of us losing this case....

It's simple yet no one believed me. Barclays called the loan in and now to hear GD has not been paid makes it more worrying.

Higgs has blistered and waffled until no more could happen. Whatever happens, he should never have put the club in this s*** or bust position.

Read more: http://gasheads.org/thread/3191/high-court-proceedings#ixzz3cDWjFqZl

[Aizoon]

That looks remarkably like reality.

[Rudolf Hucker]

Barclays called the loan in and now to hear GD has not been paid makes it more worrying.

Read more: http://gasheads.org/thread/3191/high-court-proceedings#ixzz3cDWjFqZl

Is this new news? It's the first that I've heard about it - I understood that Barclays were unwilling to extend their facility to RagAss but didn't know that an existing loan had been called in. Neither have I heard of them not paying the milkman.

[Rich]

Is this new news? It's the first that I've heard about it - I understood that Barclays were unwilling to extend their facility to RagAss but didn't know that an existing loan had been called in. Neither have I heard of them not paying the milkman.

Dunford's money was left in a milk bottle by the Grotto door.

[bert tann]

yesterday at 6:24pm Somerset Blue said:

Have been saying it for months..... If Higgs ' bungle,bumble and bluster ends up in us Losing the watertight case he boasted of so abruptly to Twentyman all those months ago ....It will be the death of our club.

Administration .... Ten point reduction .... Battle for our very league survival let alone anything else.

Why in the name of everything holy he went for a Willy Wonka loan I will never ever know or understand.

At least Watola could see a relegation scrap so much sooner and for once add some value maybe to the cash register.

These are awful times .... Not sure how some of you can joke about it ...you're tougher than me that's for sure.

Or you don't get the potential disaster of us losing this case....

It's simple yet no one believed me. Barclays called the loan in and now to hear GD has not been paid makes it more worrying.

Higgs has blistered and waffled until no more could happen. Whatever happens, he should never have put the club in this s*** or bust position.

Read more: http://gasheads.org/thread/3191/high-court-proceedings#ixzz3cDWjFqZl

 

 

I have been told that the wording of evidence given by Sainsburys in court is highly relevant. Under oath it was apparently stated that Nicholas had said to them if they did not pay up he may have to consider putting the company into liquidation. He did not, apparently, use the word Administration. The significance, I am told, is that in a liquidation the directors of the company are in control and simply turn the business assets into cash. Whereas in an Administration the Administrator is in control and has other statutory duties including trying to keep the business in existence and looking after the interests of the employees. So in this situation the shareholders of the business may not fare so well. 

[slartibartfast]

I have been told that the wording of evidence given by Sainsburys in court is highly relevant. Under oath it was apparently stated that Nicholas had said to them if they did not pay up he may have to consider putting the company into liquidation. He did not, apparently, use the word Administration. The significance, I am told, is that in a liquidation the directors of the company are in control and simply turn the business assets into cash. Whereas in an Administration the Administrator is in control and has other statutory duties including trying to keep the business in existence and looking after the interests of the employees. So in this situation the shareholders of the business may not fare so well. 

[Roger Red Hat]

Dunford's money was left in a milk bottle by the Grotto door.

I believe it was 'milk tokens' and not 'money'.

[Guest]

I have been told that the wording of evidence given by Sainsburys in court is highly relevant. Under oath it was apparently stated that Nicholas had said to them if they did not pay up he may have to consider putting the company into liquidation. He did not, apparently, use the word Administration. The significance, I am told, is that in a liquidation the directors of the company are in control and simply turn the business assets into cash. Whereas in an Administration the Administrator is in control and has other statutory duties including trying to keep the business in existence and looking after the interests of the employees. So in this situation the shareholders of the business may not fare so well.

The wording is significant but it would not achieve what you suggest. In a liquidation there is still an order of preferences and shareholders rank below creditors both fixed (mortgagors for example) and floating (unsecured credit).

If the club was solvent then there would be a distribution to the shareholders. But still after paying liabilities.

In a liquidation you appoint a liquidator who has a legal obligation to ensure that there is no misconduct. The creditors have rights to ensure the liquidator appointed is bona fide.

Liquidators get paid first in after realisation of assets (including cash) and liquidators are eye-wateringly expensive. It is a massive job after all: all reasonable endeavours to uncover all legal claims as a creditor and pay them up out of the assets - right down to the guy who sold programmes 5 years ago perhaps. That's why when a big PLC goes, or Portsmouth for example, you typically see creditors get pennies in the pound. Because the cost of finding them all is phenomenal.

Not least the liquidators' obligation is to the company and the creditors. If the company has a claim in law against any of its directors for breach of their fiduciary duties that they owe to the company (misconduct etc) then if it's in the creditors' interest (not shareholders; think Wonga) they'd be duty bound to pursue the claim. If the directors have skeletons in the closet liquidation and administration is the very last place they wanna be, or they may spend all their fortune on lawyers' fees

Edited June 5, 2015 by Guest

[cheese]

The wording is significant but it would not achieve what you suggest. In a liquidation there is still an order of preferences and shareholders rank below creditors both fixed (mortgagors for example) and floating (unsecured credit).

If the club was solvent then there would be a distribution to the shareholders. But still after paying liabilities.

In a liquidation you appoint a liquidator who has a legal obligation to ensure that there is no misconduct. The creditors have rights to ensure the liquidator appointed is bona fide.

Liquidators get paid first in after realisation of assets (including cash) and liquidators are eye-wateringly expensive. It is a massive job after all: all reasonable endeavours to uncover all legal claims as a creditor and pay them up out of the assets - right down to the guy who sold programmes 5 years ago perhaps. That's why when a big PLC goes, or Portsmouth for example, you typically see creditors get pennies in the pound. Because the cost of finding them all is phenomenal.

Not least the liquidators' obligation is to the company and the creditors. If the company has a claim in law against any of its directors for breach of their fiduciary duties that they owe to the company (misconduct etc) then if it's in the creditors' interest (not shareholders; think Wonga) they'd be duty bound to pursue the claim. If the directors have skeletons in the closet liquidation and administration is the very last place they wanna be, or they may spend all their fortune on lawyers' fees

 

Unfortunately they are not duty bound to pursue the claim.  The liquidator's sole aim to to realise the assets as quickly as possible.  If pursuing the directors through the courts is likely to be expensive then he will not.  Believe me, I'm involved in a club that went into liquidation and the liquidator deemed it too expensive to pursue the former directors and so didn't.  Liquidation is not about justice or doing what it right - it's about getting as much money in as quickly as possible.

[bert tann]

The wording is significant but it would not achieve what you suggest. In a liquidation there is still an order of preferences and shareholders rank below creditors both fixed (mortgagors for example) and floating (unsecured credit).

If the club was solvent then there would be a distribution to the shareholders. But still after paying liabilities.

In a liquidation you appoint a liquidator who has a legal obligation to ensure that there is no misconduct. The creditors have rights to ensure the liquidator appointed is bona fide.

Liquidators get paid first in after realisation of assets (including cash) and liquidators are eye-wateringly expensive. It is a massive job after all: all reasonable endeavours to uncover all legal claims as a creditor and pay them up out of the assets - right down to the guy who sold programmes 5 years ago perhaps. That's why when a big PLC goes, or Portsmouth for example, you typically see creditors get pennies in the pound. Because the cost of finding them all is phenomenal.

Not least the liquidators' obligation is to the company and the creditors. If the company has a claim in law against any of its directors for breach of their fiduciary duties that they owe to the company (misconduct etc) then if it's in the creditors' interest (not shareholders; think Wonga) they'd be duty bound to pursue the claim. If the directors have skeletons liquidation and administration is the last place they wanna be.

 

Yes, I believe the significance is that the Administrator would have the responsibilities of trying  to keep the business going and trying to keep the jobs in place which a Liquidator would not.  In a liquidation situation the value of the Mem as development site well exceeds the liabilities, which mainly consist of loans from MSP Capital and from the directors, so there would be some millions to spare for shareholders and to pay liquidation costs. Whereas in an administration situation the Administrator may decide that accepting an offer from a third party which pays off the secured creditors and keeps the business going, but leaves nothing for unsecured creditors or shareholders, is the best way in which he can fulfill his obligations. 

 

For obvious reasons it may take a lot of time and effort to unearth a skeleton where Nicholas is concerned. 

[Guest]

Edited June 5, 2015 by Guest

[Guest]

Just heard glos are playing their friendlies there. Good to see the mem getting used as intended. For rugby

Edited June 6, 2015 by Guest

[bert tann]

[Guest]

[bert tann]

[havanatopia]

If you do get compo, Miah is there any likelihood that it will be wisely spent for the benefit of the football club? Or will it be spent merely paying off the payday loan and the monies owed to the present board members?

.

Did you script that paragraph purposely as a paradox?