Jump to content

Welcome to One Team in Bristol - Bristol City Forums

Welcome to One Team in Bristol - Bristol City Forums, like most online communities you must register to view or post in our community, but don't worry this is a simple free process that requires minimal information for you to signup. Be a part of One Team in Bristol - Bristol City Forums by signing in or creating an account.

  • Start new topics and reply to others
  • Full access to all forums (not all viewable as guest)
  • Subscribe to topics and forums to get email updates
  • Get your own profile page and make new friends
  • Send personal messages to other members.
  • Support OTIB with a premium membership

42nite

Bristol Rovers Dustbin Thread

Recommended Posts

It's the "professional sports environment" that gets me?

They really are a shower of low rent twunts.

If they don't start putting the telephone number for Childline on their juvenile tickets then I'll write to That's Life myself.

I would also guess that if you are a young player making their way in the professional world the access to qualified medical staff is on your 'questions to ask list' before signing.

Part time physio - does part time football follow?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They really are a shower of low rent twunts.

If they don't start putting the telephone number for Childline on their juvenile tickets then I'll write to That's Life myself.

I would also guess that if you are a young player making their way in the professional world the access to qualified medical staff is on your 'questions to ask list' before signing.

Part time physio - does part time football follow?

Part-time football. Full-time laughing stock.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are you aiming to go on field with a brick disguised as a sponge?

I think the advice from the crowd has always been to use a baseball bat...."on the ed"

Now I'm no doctor but I'm pretty sure that's not going to improve the players well being. Never the less I've included it in my application form as my preferred method of treatment for cramp and Bristol Rovers FC have informed me that I've already been short listed or the role. Wish me luck.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the advice from the crowd has always been to use a baseball bat...."on the ed"

Now I'm no doctor but I'm pretty sure that's not going to improve the players well being. Never the less I've included it in my application form as my preferred method of treatment for cramp and Bristol Rovers FC have informed me that I've already been short listed or the role. Wish me luck.

 

 

Sorry ..... but I am just back from the interview and they offered me the job ....

 

physio.png

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It was listed 'for further argument' so we shouldn't be surprised there is no news as yet. I am not sure what the further arguments will be about though.

Shamsberries get shafted the gas innit wes finds it unfair cue of our massive fanbase we demand you revervses your judgement cuts of bad faith contract law means nowt when the mighty gas is here

The gas the gas you'll never get rids of the gas

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It was listed 'for further argument' so we shouldn't be surprised there is no news as yet. I am not sure what the further arguments will be about though.

I have faith in you BCL, to give the final hammer blow to nick piggs, and the Uwe clown town redevelopment shambles.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tuned in to look at our new signings, and guess what?

Top of the list.....

More of our own fans being fanatical about the Gas :facepalm:

Tuned in to read about new signings but managed to click on a thread not about new signings. One clearly marked as such.

Says more about you really.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tuned in to look at our new signings, and guess what?

 

Top of the list.....

 

More of our own fans being fanatical about the Gas  :facepalm:

 

 

and what new signings would those be??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tuned in to look at our new signings, and guess what?

 

Top of the list.....

 

More of our own fans being fanatical about the Gas  :facepalm:

 

So may many others but they probably didn't comment thus ensuring it remains top of the list....

 

:facepalm:

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No new in 30 minutes that seems like a good sign to me my gut feeling is they will be granted leave

 

I had thought we may have heard something by now ... Just checked the Rovers forum and doesn't seem that they have anyone there providing updates. Can't see anything on twitter by way of updates, but then I have no idea how to use it!

Edited by 29AR

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 
 
 
Connecticut Gas Avatar
Joined: May 2015
Posts: 3 
Member is Online
 
5 minutes ago kingswoodpolak likes this. QuotePost Options Post by Connecticut Gas on 5 minutes ago
The judge granted permission today for Rovers to appeal. In fact she stated up front that her original judgment depended on her construction of a very technical clause of a very complicated agreement, and that the court of appeals might very well come to a different conclusion. There were arguments from Sainsbury's lawyer that the appeal courts might not be happy to be troubled with such a case when the appeal had no possibility of success. However the judge was not persuaded by this.

 

 

No surprise there then.

 

And to think some of their fans were worrying about the legitimacy of having the same judge hear an application for permission to appeal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In for a cut of the lawyers fees ?

 

There are some things I wouldn't do for money  :gasmask:  - in any case I couldn't, as my current role doesn't require it I don't have the appropriate licence.  

Edited by 29AR

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Connecticut Gas Avatar

Joined: May 2015

Posts: 3

Member is Online

5 minutes ago kingswoodpolak likes this. QuotePost Options Post by Connecticut Gas on 5 minutes ago

There were arguments from Sainsbury's lawyer that the appeal courts might not be happy to be troubled with such a case when the appeal had no possibility of success. However the judge was not persuaded by this.

I don't understand this bit, how can there be no possibility of success if the appeal has been granted?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't understand this bit, how can there be no possibility of success if the appeal has been granted?

 

That was just the opinion of the Sainsbury's lawyer - he would say that wouldn't he.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't understand this bit, how can there be no possibility of success if the appeal has been granted?

It's a slight nuance but today is just an introduction to the grounds Rovers will rely upon rather than a total assessment of their merits. That's slightly confusing the matter because leave should not be granted if there is little prospect of success, which is what Sainsbury's are saying.

 

Hard to explain but whilst today she's not endorsing Rovers' appeal or prospects, she's saying based upon what I've heard and the submission I think there's merit in proceeding to a full appeal hearing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dear 29AR

 

With the benefit of your legal training, please can you confirm whether we are still going for the money which was supposed to be paid for The Mem, or is it some sort of compensation?

 

I have read so many different takes on this - my head is spinning. :gaah:

 

Cheers!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dear 29AR

With the benefit of your legal training, please can you confirm whether we are still going for the money which was supposed to be paid for The Mem, or is it some sort of compensation?

I have read so many different takes on this - my head is spinning. :gaah:

Cheers!

To be honest In The Net I am just the same confused as to what you are claiming for. I think we're just going to have to wait for a statement from the club to answer that.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In fairness, I can see why. The offer was fairly derisory.

I can see an eventual settlement a few times more than that, but not anywhere near the original contract price.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the judge said they should have taken the 1.5M then they ain't gonna get a lot more than that even if they win the appeal.[/quote

Exactly. Higgs has backed the sags into s terrible dead end.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So do I.

Wasn't the suggestion made that AG was worth only half as much had it been developed as Red Trousers' housing scheme than had it been sold for a supermarket?

Perhaps someone with a better memory can remind me.

Not sure about actual figures, but I clearly remember SL stating that selling AG to anything other than a supermarket, was not financially viable. Edited by BS15_RED

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a slight nuance but today is just an introduction to the grounds Rovers will rely upon rather than a total assessment of their merits. That's slightly confusing the matter because leave should not be granted if there is little prospect of success, which is what Sainsbury's are saying.

 

Hard to explain but whilst today she's not endorsing Rovers' appeal or prospects, she's saying based upon what I've heard and the submission I think there's merit in proceeding to a full appeal hearing.

 

Haven't seen today's arguments but from the original judgement I wouldn't read too much into the Gas claiming they'd won the majority of the argument first time around. Yes, Sainsbury's hadn't formally issued papers to annul the contract, but as the judge enquired of their QC had they been unrestrained in being able to do so by Higgs intervention that indeed is what they would have done.

 

It appeared the main grounds for appeal lay with the interpretation of the extent to which, in good faith, Sainsbury's sought removal of the 'onerous consent'. It was clear both sides were of the opinion that the first appeal was likely to fail (due wholly to the politics involved in Horfield ahead of the election.) The judge, however, made clear whatever the interpretation of the cut-off Sainsbury's obligation extended beyond that date.  But: 

  • Had Sainsbury's not appealed until the election had passed then the cut off ,too, would have passed and they could have annulled, albeit with counterclaim they'd failed to act in good faith by not appealing;
  • Critically, in appealing, Sainsbury's shared detail of the application with The Gas who endorsed its submission in the terms explicit;
  • That being the case Sainsbury's were said to have discharged their obligation to appeal and with no clear prospect of a secondary appeal lifting the onerous condition, according to the planning advice sought, they might not be expected to further pursue;

Whilst the judge implied had Sainsbury's really, really wanted to see the deal through then seeing out the political gerrymandering would have seen the constraint lifted (which of course transpired when The Gas appealed the consent,) she pointed out it was immaterial as the cut off would have passed, hence the contract terms had not been complied with and they could break.

 

A second tack might be to argue that the constraining consent was never material to Sainsbury's operations, that it was always a backdoor ruse to allow them to 'wriggle out' should they cool on the deal. Sainsbury's made clear The Gas had no objections to the condition being made a material point in construction of the deal, neither did they complain when they supported the appeal against said constraint. Presumably and for consistency, The Gas wouldn't have been able to support the appeal given the 'constrained delivery times' were considered insignificant,  of little merit. Now if Sainsbury's say it is material and 'we best know how we run supermarkets' I struggle to see how The Gas or judge might argue otherwise. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Haven't seen today's arguments but from the original judgement I wouldn't read too much into the Gas claiming they'd won the majority of the argument first time around. Yes, Sainsbury's hadn't formally issued papers to annul the contract, but as the judge enquired of their QC had they been unrestrained in being able to do so by Higgs intervention that indeed is what they would have done.

It appeared the main grounds for appeal lay with the interpretation of the extent to which, in good faith, Sainsbury's sought removal of the 'onerous consent'. It was clear both sides were of the opinion that the first appeal was likely to fail (due wholly to the politics involved in Horfield ahead of the election.) The judge, however, made clear whatever the interpretation of the cut-off Sainsbury's obligation extended beyond that date. But:

  • Had Sainsbury's not appealed until the election had passed then the cut off ,too, would have passed and they could have annulled, albeit with counterclaim they'd failed to act in good faith by not appealing;
  • Critically, in appealing, Sainsbury's shared detail of the application with The Gas who endorsed its submission in the terms explicit;
  • That being the case Sainsbury's were said to have discharged their obligation to appeal and with no clear prospect of a secondary appeal lifting the onerous condition, according to the planning advice sought, they might not be expected to further pursue;
Whilst the judge implied had Sainsbury's really, really wanted to see the deal through then seeing out the political gerrymandering would have seen the constraint lifted (which of course transpired when The Gas appealed the consent,) she pointed out it was immaterial as the cut off would have passed, hence the contract terms had not been complied with and they could break.

A second tack might be to argue that the constraining consent was never material to Sainsbury's operations, that it was always a backdoor ruse to allow them to 'wriggle out' should they cool on the deal. Sainsbury's made clear The Gas had no objections to the condition being made a material point in construction of the deal, neither did they complain when they supported the appeal against said constraint. Presumably and for consistency, The Gas wouldn't have been able to support the appeal given the 'constrained delivery times' were considered insignificant, of little merit. Now if Sainsbury's say it is material and 'we best know how we run supermarkets' I struggle to see how The Gas or judge might argue otherwise.

Indeed.

"We won the majority of the argument" is about as useful as saying 99.9% of my boat doesn't have a hole in it.

  • Like 8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just gone past the mem.all the sags going to the ground.who are they playing.?

 

West Brom, testimonial for Phil Kite.

 

Apparently new signing Lambert is turning out for West Brom.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Correction. 0.2 not 0.3 to WBA

i like to laugh at the gas as much as the next person but losing a friendly is really taking it to far and something that's not important in arsenal of ammunition to throw at them!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...