Bristol R*vers dustbin thread

[Monkeh]

[Gazred]

So am I getting this right in thinking that their legal team (who I presume will be paid; win or lose) said "you should go for this" and they agreed?  

 

And if I was the person asking "isn't this just throwing good money after bad?" I'd no be very satisfied that they aren't.

 

Genuinely more shocked than even amused at the limp answers there; anyone else think the appeal is the current regime spoiling for time in the hope they find a buyer?  Because it sounds that way to me.

 

Someone should of asked "what will the financial state of the club be if the appeal is lost?".

 

Last roll of the dice i reckon, they are going for broke.

[Aizoon]

Even by gas standards you'd have to be ******* stupid to believe all those answers...

As I said before, they're doubling the stake and hoping that Red comes up this time

[Guest]

So am I getting this right in thinking that their legal team (who I presume will be paid; win or lose) said "you should go for this" and they agreed?

And if I was the person asking "isn't this just throwing good money after bad?" I'd no be very satisfied that they aren't.

Genuinely more shocked than even amused at the limp answers there; anyone else think the appeal is the current regime spoiling for time in the hope they find a buyer? Because it sounds that way to me.

To be fair they do have a good legal team behind them. Burges Salmon have a really strong reputation, big flagship clients and a number of leading rated partners. They also have a QC advocating.

When you have those sorts of reputations it's highly doubtful they'd risk it leading down a merry path to appeal, the fees of which would be a drop in the ocean.

Strong judgments have been completely overturned on appeal before. Like I've said before I think we should wait and see what their grounds for appeal are before writing them off - think Man Utd v Bayern CL Final.

Edited July 22, 2015 by Guest

[MichaelRobartes]

I think I see their problem.....

 

That's an absolute cracker. Hope it wasn't just a transcription error.

[cityloyal473]

Someone should of asked "what will the financial state of the club be if the appeal is lost?".

 

Last roll of the dice i reckon, they are going for broke.

It's not in any doubt now: this is sh!t or bust for the Sags.

[BCFC Jordan]

I don't know how they can seriously think they have any chance of winning the appeal.

[Peter O Hanraha-hanrahan]

I don't know how they can seriously think they have any chance of winning the appeal.

 

See below:

 

To be fair they do have a good legal team behind them. Burges Salmon have a really strong reputation, big flagship clients and a number of leading rated partners. They also have a QC advocating.

When you have those sorts of reputations it's highly doubtful they'd risk it leading down a merry path to appeal, the fees of which would be a drop in the ocean.

Strong judgments have been completely overturned on appeal before. Like I've said before I think we should wait and see what their grounds for appeal are before writing them off - think Man Utd v Bayern CL Final.

[Eddie Hitler]

QCs will give odds, they won't say that they're going to win.

They may be saying you have a 60:40 chance of winning an appeal and that's good enough for Higgs.

I have used QCs before and lost once when the QC estimated 80:20. They are very fallible. And expensive.

The regional law firms are having a very thin time of it these days as the legal aid reforms have kicked in work has dried up and several have gone bust. I would have thought Burges Salmon would be equally affected and desperate to make up their income by taking on some big complex cases exactly like this one.

Just sayin'...

Edited July 22, 2015 by Eddie Hitler

[Guest]

QCs will give odds, they won't say that they're going to win.

They may be saying you have a 60:40 chance of winning an appeal and that's good enough for Higgs.

I have used QC's before and lost once when the QC estimated 80:20. They are very fallible. And expensive.

The regional law firms are having a very thin time of it these days as the legal aid reforms have kicked in work has dried up and several have gone bust. I would have thought Burges Salmon would be equally affected and desperate to make up their income by taking on some big complex cases exactly like this one.

Just sayin'...

In a complex case very ordinarily it will be QC advocating against QC. One has to lose. I wouldn't call that fallibility necessarily. A 50% ratio is v good on that basis.

Performance is not solely down to the QC's skills. It comes down to the whole legal team and how they work with the solicitors and the quality of the work carried out by the solicitors in collecting evidence, taking witness statements, collecting facts etc. the QC is just a cog in the wheel.

As for your defeat on the 80:20 I'd say it sounds like the risk wasn't properly explained. 80:20 is still a defeat in 1

in 5 instances. That's still a very real, genuine and not insignificant risk. And your right with the 60:40... seems that's very typical.

Re Burges Salmon and fees without checking I'd wager legal aid would have been a relatively small although not insignificant part of their revenue. The biggest downward driver on fees would just be belt tightening in the marketplace and potentially ABS structures. But a quick look at some of the names on the testimonials, the brief mention of billion pound deals they've advised on... They certainly won't be feeling privileged to have been selected, their reputation already far more than justifies it.

Whilst the judgment seemed bullish let's not forget one line from proceedings - 'the agreement was Byzantine in complexities'. We have only seen some extracts of it. Who knows what will be going in the grounds of appeal?

Edited July 22, 2015 by Guest

[kevinmabbuttshair]

Even by gas standards you'd have to be ******* stupid to believe all those answers...

To put it in poker parlance they're pot committed and about to go all in on a pair of tens when there is quite clearly a flush on the table

[Aizoon]

To put it in poker parlance they're pot committed and about to go all in on a pair of tens when there is quite clearly a flush on the table

Or, in brag terms, they've bet their house and car on a prial of queens, and they've a growing suspicion that their opponent is sitting on a prial of threes.

[Guest]

Or, in brag terms, they've bet their house and car on a prial of queens, and they've a growing suspicion that their opponent is sitting on a prial of threes.

Or, in football terms, it's the last minute of injury time and they're on the counter (being the application to appeal). Score and they face extra time, maybe all down with cramp, but they could still nick it or win in the Supreme Court on pens.

Or for Sainsbury's the champagne is on ice, but needs to chill a little longer until the appeals have been exhausted.

[Eddie Hitler]

As for your defeat on the 80:20 I'd say it sounds like the risk wasn't properly explained. 80:20 is still a defeat in 1

in 5 instances. That's still a very real, genuine and not insignificant risk. And your right with the 60:40... seems that's very typical.

 

You must be a lawyer!  As a non-lawyer I see 80:20 as a very strong case rather than probabilities upon a dice roll.

[Guest]

You must be a lawyer! As a non-lawyer I see 80:20 as a very strong case rather than probabilities upon a dice roll.

Well it's not quite that, although admittedly you'd assume some correlation and perhaps semantics. But an opinion almost always will be delivered explicitly as a 'chance of success' because that's what it is - probabilities and not necessarily an assessment of the merits of the case as it will be put versus the opposition as it will be put necessarily.

The way an opinion is obtained is important too. A solicitor will prepare instructions and ask the barrister to opine on a chance of success based upon the arguments they put forward. It's the solicitors that put the argument and the barrister will give an opinion on their merits and perhaps deliver it. That's why the skill of both is so important and by virtue of that it has to be a probability as so many vital ingredients are missing - knowing what the counter arguments are in sufficient detail for one.

The sort of opinion your after could only reasonably be given after a hearing and the case has been put by both sides. To give what you suggest a barrister would need to pre-empt how the arguments were supported and developed, how witnesses performed, how evidence was cross examined, what evidence had to be defended, how everything stood up, what precedents might come out on the eve of the hearing etc. That's enough clairvoyance to mean you could never expect to be that accurate.

Edited July 22, 2015 by Guest

[Monkeh]

In a complex case very ordinarily it will be QC advocating against QC. One has to lose. I wouldn't call that fallibility necessarily. A 50% ratio is v good on that basis.

Performance is not solely down to the QC's skills. It comes down to the whole legal team and how they work with the solicitors and the quality of the work carried out by the solicitors in collecting evidence, taking witness statements, collecting facts etc. the QC is just a cog in the wheel.

As for your defeat on the 80:20 I'd say it sounds like the risk wasn't properly explained. 80:20 is still a defeat in 1

in 5 instances. That's still a very real, genuine and not insignificant risk. And your right with the 60:40... seems that's very typical.

Re Burges Salmon and fees without checking I'd wager legal aid would have been a relatively small although not insignificant part of their revenue. The biggest downward driver on fees would just be belt tightening in the marketplace and potentially ABS structures. But a quick look at some of the names on the testimonials, the brief mention of billion pound deals they've advised on... They certainly won't be feeling privileged to have been selected, their reputation already far more than justifies it.

Whilst the judgment seemed bullish let's not forget one line from proceedings - 'the agreement was Byzantine in complexities'. We have only seen some extracts of it. Who knows what will be going in the grounds of appeal?

What mistakes did the judge make while making her judgement? As that's the only way they can appeal, they can't appeal because they didn't like the outcome

[Guest]

What mistakes did the judge make while making her judgement? As that's the only way they can appeal, they can't appeal because they didn't like the outcome

There could have been something procedural or if they think she didn't properly apply precedents they relied upon correctly they can appeal the judgment simply on the basis of an error in applying law.

I truthfully have absolutely no idea on what their appeal will be based but I presume none of us have been close enough to proceedings and the issue and contract as a whole to suggest an appeal will be without merit, at least without knowing the basis of it.

If it is baseless it will be thrown out but until then I personally think it's a hell of a lot to doggedly rule out their legal team being a step ahead of us and our thinking. A few years ago there were some on here adamantly saying in the AV JR proceedings substitution of the claimant was without merit....

Edited July 23, 2015 by Guest

[Monkeh]

There could have been something procedural or if they think she didn't properly apply precedents they relied upon correctly they can appeal the judgment simply on the basis of an error in applying law.

I truthfully have absolutely no idea on what their appeal will be based but I presume none of us have been close enough to proceedings and the issue and contract as a whole to suggest an appeal will be without merit, at least without knowing the basis of it.

If it is baseless it will be thrown out but until then I personally think it's a hell of a lot to doggedly rule out their legal team being a step ahead of us and our thinking. A few years ago there were some on here adamantly saying in the AV JR proceedings substitution of the claimant was without merit....

Their whole arguement however was based on bad faith but contract law trumps this which is why sainsburys won which is clear in the summary released

And our jr review thing no president had been set previously and out case set that

[Guest]

Their whole arguement however was based on bad faith but contract law trumps this which is why sainsburys won which is clear in the summary released

And our jr review thing no president had been set previously and out case set that

Whilst we do have the judgment we should remember it was a 7 day hearing, a Byzantine in complexities agreement and a quick run through of arguments and witness evidence in a few paragraphs for which may have taken hours to present in court.

Clearly there's a very obvious reason why I or anyone else may stop short of posting suggestions of possible grounds. Honestly I don't know and have no opinion as to whether they do or don't have any. But I can think one aspect which if I was Rovers I might want to explore to see if it had legs as a possible ground.

Edited July 23, 2015 by Guest

[Monkeh]

Whilst we do have the judgment we should remember it was a 7 day hearing, a Byzantine in complexities agreement and a quick run through of arguments and witness evidence in a few paragraphs for which may have taken hours to present in court.

Clearly there's a very obvious reason why I or anyone else may stop short of posting suggestions of possible grounds. Honestly I don't know and have no opinion as to whether they do or don't have any. But I can think one aspect which if I was Rovers I might want to explore to see if it had legs as a possible ground.

I think they are appealing because they have no choice but to, if it doesn't go to appeal and they don't win then its administration and to me Toni the tills q and a confirms this

All that talk of plan b their itk kept on about doesn't exist which that q and a confirms,

Just been reading their forum and most of their rose tinters are critical which isn't a good sign,

They lose a couple of their opening games and the men will be emptier then the Williams stand will be this season

It is not looking good, also the comment about them wanting it heard before Xmas says to me that they have no way of paying back the msp loan

[Cider red]

I saw an interview with Higgs on the bbc a couple of weeks ago, gave exactly the same sidestep answers, almost like they've been briefed what to say. They really are up poo creek, wading because they lost their boat, forget the paddle!

[Tinmans Love Child]

[Monkeh]

[phantom]

People saying that it is a positive sign that Burges Salmon are taking this case forward, but there someone will ALWAYS take a case on (as an example even Lee Rigby's killers were represented in defence). Surely this is just on a larger scale ?

[Esmond Million's Bung]

Lawyers at this level tend to be incredibly egotistic and the thought of pulling a rabbit out of the hat at the 11th hour against such overwhelming odds is probably too much of a rush for them to miss, after all WTF have they got to lose, they should still get paid.

Edited July 23, 2015 by Esmond Million's Bung

[Monkeh]

People saying that it is a positive sign that Burges Salmon are taking this case forward, but there someone will ALWAYS take a case on (as an example even Lee Rigby's killers were represented in defence). Surely this is just on a larger scale ?

Some one will always defend a case

We have to remember rovers haven't got leave to appeal yet, they are submitting leave for appeal on 31st then waiting for the court to review and say yay or nay, then the case will be scheduled, if the court turns round sand says next week you have no reason to appeal i think they will have to go to the high court then the European court x

[Rudolf Hucker]

But I can think one aspect which if I was Rovers I might want to explore to see if it had legs as a possible ground.

I too think that it was unwise of her, when giving her verdict, to switch from her regular judge's wig to a red & white one.

[Guest]

People saying that it is a positive sign that Burges Salmon are taking this case forward, but there someone will ALWAYS take a case on (as an example even Lee Rigby's killers were represented in defence). Surely this is just on a larger scale ?

 

That'll be the cab rank rule. We are all entitled to a fair trial as a right and a part of that is a right to legal representation. A barrister's code of conduct, very exceptionally, means that where instructed they must act irrespective of who the client is, personal views on the merits of the case, conduct, guilt... etc.

 

In the case you highlighted it's very possible they didn't feel they had a choice to turn down the work.  

[richwwtk]

Are these the same lawyers giving the gas advice that told them they had a good case to get their relegation annulled because of the Wycombe situation? If so, then I'm amazed Higgs didn't dump them after that fiasco and find someone else.

[Guest]

Are these the same lawyers giving the gas advice that told them they had a good case to get their relegation annulled because of the Wycombe situation? If so, then I'm amazed Higgs didn't dump them after that fiasco and find someone else.

Possibly... I'm not sure we necessarily know. However I'm not sure there's much relevance there because that is unlikely to have involved the same teams and individuals. By the same logic you could suggest judging Freeman's abilities in light of El-Abd's on the basis of the same employer is reasonable.

Edited July 23, 2015 by Guest