Jump to content
IGNORED

Bristol R*vers dustbin thread


42nite

Recommended Posts

22 minutes ago, NcnsBcfc said:

I kind of agree to a point. However the maximum sentence for a S47 ABH is the same as a S20 GBH (5 years max).

Any sentence over 2 years can't be suspended. Barton has already done two custodial sentences for violent offences. Within the sentencing you have categories A,B,C and then 1,2,3 within each subset. The fact that Barton hasn't pleaded to it, despite the evidence we have heard so far, means that he will get no credit.

His previous convictions will be an aggravating factor, as well as the premeditation in the assault (Swerving to hit a man from behind, plus the stuff going on in the match itself). He is also a public figure, and the Judge will come down heavily on him i reckon. Possibly just under the 2 years. 

This is where having a privately funded defence makes a huge difference (QC for an ABH trial, probably on no less than £5k per day in court, plus previous hearings; it would be interesting to know who is paying his bills). In the event of a guilty verdict, they will go the extra mile to keep him out of prison.

As for the domestic. It's a victimless crime. Unless his wife had supplied evidence in written or video form to the court, she won't be giving testimony; and and  court won't be expecting it.

They will play the 999 call, and the BWV. Which will probably include disclosures by her, the other people present; and Barton being allegedly drunk, and aggressive (hence the call to the Police in the first place).

A decent District Judge will see exactly what has happened, and hopefully come to the right conclusions.

These victimless crimes do not get to Court unless their is overwhelming evidence, as the CPS are notoriously risk averse of prosecuting such crimes. Before BWV, it was a very rare prosecution.

I'm still amazed hiw such a violent individual (as well as 2 x custody, there are various other convictions) be allowed to manage a club?

He would never pass a CRB check to work with children or young adults in any other form of life.

Astounding the message being given out to the world at large by the Gas, not to have him on at least gardening leave (like Giggs). Particulary after the domestic that was allegedly committed whilst on Crown Court Bail for the first offence.

God I love it when people talk about law and actually know what they’re talking about! Top work! ? 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Fordy62 said:

And Joey’s team aren’t allowed to say he’s lying… well, they are actually, but if he calls into question the character of a witness then the court become able to inform the jury of Barton’s previous bad character (they’re otherwise not allowed to know!) and his defence team really wouldn’t want to be calling the witness a liar for that exact reason. 

Nice, I didn't know that little technicality. Been a while since I studied criminal law and procedure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The biggest question here is whether there’s going to be anyone speaking out in Joey’s favour… all we’ve seen so far is evidence that really is showing his guilt. 

The judge has said he expects the jury to retire to consider their verdict on Thursday. That leaves us only tomorrow left. 

So tomorrow we’re presumably going to have cross examination of Joey, prosecution and defence closing speeches and judges summing up. There’s not really any time for anything else, which baffles me… because this appears so one sided it should’ve been a guilty plea… that’s unless there’s an update from today that I’m as of yet unaware of. 

Time will tell, but I think Joey’s getting convicted. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, ExiledAjax said:

Nice, I didn't know that little technicality. Been a while since I studied criminal law and procedure.

Yeh, there are several gateways to adduce bad character, 8 I think maybe. I don’t remember what they all are, but one is definitely calling a witness a liar. Another is having committed offences so similar that the jury must know and… rather than me trying to remember them, here’s a list I’ve found. These are the only ways a court can ever hear about previous convictions of a defendant…

 

FCCCE11F-23B8-4860-BB83-ACEABD6F5D14.png

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Malago said:

There’s a huge difference between a squad player and a manager, who is the main man at a club.  The sponsors of any club that tries to sign Joey, if he’s done for wife beating, will disappear quicker than snow off a dyke and make any potential appointment untenable.

Devils Dyke on the South Downs.

image.jpeg.0fd4b8e6bace75a210592f62500f93d7.jpeg

Seriously, I know what you mean, but that is an old expression - from Scotland or the North-East, I believe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, NcnsBcfc said:

As for the domestic. It's a victimless crime. Unless his wife had supplied evidence in written or video form to the court, she won't be giving testimony; and and  court won't be expecting it.

They will play the 999 call, and the BWV. Which will probably include disclosures by her, the other people present; and Barton being allegedly drunk, and aggressive (hence the call to the Police in the first place).

A decent District Judge will see exactly what has happened, and hopefully come to the right conclusions.

These victimless crimes do not get to Court unless their is overwhelming evidence, as the CPS are notoriously risk averse of prosecuting such crimes. Before BWV, it was a very rare prosecution.

I apologise for being pedantic, and will bow to your superior knowledge, but hasn't it already been established that this is, in fact, a victimless prosecution, i.e. a case (typically domestic) where the 'victim' is unwilling to testify, often due to coercion/threats (fear) of violence, but the Police consider they have sufficient evidence, with or without the 'victim's' input in Court, to secure a prosecution. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, PHILINFRANCE said:

Devils Dyke on the South Downs.

image.jpeg.0fd4b8e6bace75a210592f62500f93d7.jpeg

Seriously, I know what you mean, but that is an old expression - from Scotland or the North-East, I believe.

I learnt it from my time in Scotland.  Still very much in common use.  Trying to think what the Bristolian equivalent would be.  Disappear as quickly as a rat up a drain pipe, perhaps. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Malago said:

I learnt it from my time in Scotland.  Still very much in common use.  Trying to think what the Bristolian equivalent would be.  Disappear as quickly as a rat up a drain pipe, perhaps. 

I used to have a client from Newcastle, and I remember the first time he used the expression I didn't have a clue what he meant - I visualised a dyke in The Netherlands, but he explained that the dyke was, in fact, a stone wall.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Fordy62 said:

And Joey’s team aren’t allowed to say he’s lying… well, they are actually, but if he calls into question the character of a witness then the court become able to inform the jury of Barton’s previous bad character (they’re otherwise not allowed to know!) and his defence team really wouldn’t want to be calling the witness a liar for that exact reason. 

@Fordy62

Mate, as long as the OIC/CPS have done their MG16 (Bad Character application. Then the jury will be told in advance of their deliberations of Barton's previous convictions.

Unless of course, the defence have won a legal argument that it is prejudicial.

I can't believe the Judge wouldn't have allowed it though, it is relevant.

The QC can only accuse the witness of lying, if he changes his evidence during testimony. They will phrase it "I put it to you Mr Stendal that you tripped". Stendal "No, i was pushed". Nowhere for the QC to go there.

If Stendal went "i can't be sure", then the QC could pursue it further with "well want can you be sure about then?". "I put it to you, that you can't be sure of anything anymore etc".

As long as the witnesses stick to their guns, then they can't be accused of lying.

I think the QC in his closing speech,(they always go last of course); will say " you may think that the witnesses colluded with one another to frame my client, that is a matter for you with your deliberations".

Subtly put, but not directly saying they are lying.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Bristol Rob said:

I was just about to post on this Rob.

So if i've got this right.

The gas sell the memorial stadium to the developers for housing.

They are then afforded the right to build their new stadium on the fruit market site (max 20k capacity).

They will not own this new stadium, the developers will, and the Gas will have to rent it from them?

Sounds like Eastville all over again. So if this goes ahead, the Gas will not own their own stadium once again, and the money from the sale of land in Horfield will no doubt be on it's way to various coffers in the Middle East as it's probably not needed for the building of the aforementioned stadium.

In fact this sounds like Coventry City, and Hull as well.

The developers seem to be having the Gas royally over here. If i was the Gas i would develop the Horfield site, not the developers. Selling it would only realise about 30% of the potential profit.

It seems like the developers are saying though, if you don't sell the Memorial Stadium to us, you can't come; and rent your new stadium on our site at the Fruit Market.

What an absolute rubbish deal for the Gasheads....

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, NcnsBcfc said:

I was just about to post on this Rob.

So if i've got this right.

The gas sell the memorial stadium to the developers for housing.

They are then afforded the right to build their new stadium on the fruit market site (max 20k capacity).

They will not own this new stadium, the developers will, and the Gas will have to rent it from them?

Sounds like Eastville all over again. So if this goes ahead, the Gas will not own their own stadium once again, and the money from the sale of land in Horfield will no doubt be on it's way to various coffers in the Middle East as it's probably not needed for the building of the aforementioned stadium.

In fact this sounds like Coventry City, and Hull as well.

The developers seem to be having the Gas royally over here. If i was the Gas i would develop the Horfield site, not the developers. Selling it would only realise about 30% of the potential profit.

It seems like the developers are saying though, if you don't sell the Memorial Stadium to us, you can't come; and rent your new stadium on our site at the Fruit Market.

What an absolute rubbish deal for the Gasheads....

That's how I read it.

Sell an asset to 'clear the debts' and to provide enough money to rent a new stadium.

Effectively, Wally gets a free football club and a nice drink out of it and they are held to whatever terms the developers impose.

Sounds like Wally is playing a blinder, but the Fewers must be worried.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, NcnsBcfc said:

@Fordy62

Mate, as long as the OIC/CPS have done their MG16 (Bad Character application. Then the jury will be told in advance of their deliberations of Barton's previous convictions.

Unless of course, the defence have won a legal argument that it is prejudicial.

I can't believe the Judge wouldn't have allowed it though, it is relevant.

The QC can only accuse the witness of lying, if he changes his evidence during testimony. They will phrase it "I put it to you Mr Stendal that you tripped". Stendal "No, i was pushed". Nowhere for the QC to go there.

If Stendal went "i can't be sure", then the QC could pursue it further with "well want can you be sure about then?". "I put it to you, that you can't be sure of anything anymore etc".

As long as the witnesses stick to their guns, then they can't be accused of lying.

I think the QC in his closing speech,(they always go last of course); will say " you may think that the witnesses colluded with one another to frame my client, that is a matter for you with your deliberations".

Subtly put, but not directly saying they are lying.

Yep, agree with all of that, but there needs to be an application to adduce bad character before it’s allowed and I’m not sure a 13 year old conviction will make it, it should, but they’re overly cautious about allowing it in my experience. 

That being said, irrespective of the questionnaire that the jurors filled out before hand on their knowledge of JB, there’s no way at least a quarter of them won’t have knowledge of him… this is football… and the good people of Sheffield love their football… and if you know football, you know Barton is a thug!

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, Bristol Rob said:

That's how I read it.

Sell an asset to 'clear the debts' and to provide enough money to rent a new stadium.

Effectively, Wally gets a free football club and a nice drink out of it and they are held to whatever terms the developers impose.

Sounds like Wally is playing a blinder, but the Fewers must be worried.

Can't be bothered to look on Gaschat, but surely when you look at the detail on this (it's not even fine detail). You've got a poor deal for the actual football club.

They will end up with no actual assets, and the money from Horfield (read Highfield Rd, Boothberry Park as good recent examples) will just disappear.

Rovers need to own/control their own stadium for this own future. Otherwise as you say, they are at the beck and call of their new landlord's demands.

Surely they could develop Memorial stadium for housing themselves, and then use the money to find a plot of land to build their own stadium?

Not a given of course, that a stadium at the Fruit Market would get planning permission anyway. I work on Feeder Road, and the Albert Road bridge is the only access off the Bath road to that area from the south. Then you have St Phillip's causeway end. The whole of the Bath road/Phillip's causeway would grind to a halt on matchdays. 

Look at why the Arena got turned down in the end as an example. You can't build brand new stadiums right in the middle of a city centre anymore.

EDIT : Couldn't resist looking at Gaschat after all.

The majority just don't get it. You have one asset (Memorial stadium + land), and you let someone else develop it. Because if you don't let them; then they won't let you play at a stadium that they will own?

All they're concerned about is getting out of the Mem, and having a good standard of beer.

Madness....?

Edited by NcnsBcfc
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm old enough to remember back in the dim mists of time (2018), when the area around Temple Meads was deemed so utterly unsuitable for an arena that one had to be built by Rees's dodgy Malaysian mates in South Gloucestershire.

I wonder if the owner has seen the way the wind is blowing with the trial and wants to get out some good news sharpish- before his crazy decision to appoint Barton is shown up for the awful error of judgement it clearly is.

Yet another pipe dream imo.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No need to worry….we are at the start of another SSC (sag stadium cycle)…..  

noises are made that a site has been found

the sags lap it up and start talking about what stand they will sit in and that they’ll overtake the shit

Waely dampens the enthusiasm by stating “these things take time”

Waely bumbles though the initial planning process, trying to cut costs/corners

the fans get impatient and start pushing the club for some news

the club put out an artist’s impression of the new stadium 

the sags wet themselves again and reiterate they’re coming for us even as they slide further down the 4th division

time keeps ticking and the experts start having concerns of a stadium in an area with poor infrastructure and ripe for residential/commercial development 

the green brigade get involved to further boil the p1ss of the sags

waely realises this ain’t going to happen and he ain’t getting his money back

waely pulls out and tells the sags the deal wasn’t good for the club

the sags believe Waely has the clubs best interests at heart and state they prefer to stay at the mem  and didn’t want a soulless bowl anyway

waely buys a new watch

this thread reaches 3,000 pages

 

 

  • Like 4
  • Haha 10
  • Flames 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, RedRaw said:

No need to worry….we are at the start of another SSC (sag stadium cycle)…..  

noises are made that a site has been found

the sags lap it up and start talking about what stand they will sit in and that they’ll overtake the shit

Waely dampens the enthusiasm by stating “these things take time”

Waely bumbles though the initial planning process, trying to cut costs/corners

the fans get impatient and start pushing the club for some news

the club put out an artist’s impression of the new stadium 

the sags wet themselves again and reiterate they’re coming for us even as they slide further down the 4th division

time keeps ticking and the experts start having concerns of a stadium in an area with poor infrastructure and ripe for residential/commercial development 

the green brigade get involved to further boil the p1ss of the sags

waely realises this ain’t going to happen and he ain’t getting his money back

waely pulls out and tells the sags the deal wasn’t good for the club

the sags believe Waely has the clubs best interests at heart and state they prefer to stay at the mem  and didn’t want a soulless bowl anyway

waely buys a new watch

this thread reaches 3,000 pages

 

 

Exactly, the UWE all over again. Wally pulled out because they wouldn't own any or part of the UWE stadium, only rent it, and UWE were taking a hefty % of associated income ( car parking,food,bars,etc)

 

This is exactly the same deal - the developer takes their ground. The developer is building a huge infrastructure of retail and hospitality on the fruit market site - do the sags seriously think the developer (their landlord) is going to hand them a slice of that revenue?

And they lap it up ...again 

Edited by CodeRed
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, CodeRed said:

Exactly, the UWE all over again. Wally pulled out because they wouldn't own any or part of the UWE stadium, only rent it, and UWE were taking a hefty % of associated income ( car parking,food,bars,etc)

 

This is exactly the same deal - the developer takes their ground. The developer is building a huge infrastructure of retail and hospitality on the fruit market site - do the sags seriously think the developer (their landlord) is going to hand them a slice of that revenue?

And they lap it up ...again 

The key difference for me, is that the developer is insisting that the Gas sell the Memorial site to them, as a prerequisite for allowing them to rent someone else's stadium.

It's like a landlord (developer) coming to you, and saying you have to sell your house to me, to be able to come and rent my much larger house. 

The landlord won't offer you anywhere near what your house is worth either, if you stayed, knocked your house down; and redeveloped it yourself.

I can only think the Gas have run out of ideas for a new location; and the Developer has seen an opportunity in their vulnerable position to get prime real estate in Horfield for a cheap price; and then get the Gas into the equivalent HMO at the fruit market.

It's all pie in the sky anyhow, as I can't see either sites getting planning permission for a number of years (if at all).

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, CodeRed said:

Exactly, the UWE all over again. Wally pulled out because they wouldn't own any or part of the UWE stadium, only rent it, and UWE were taking a hefty % of associated income ( car parking,food,bars,etc)

 

This is exactly the same deal - the developer takes their ground. The developer is building a huge infrastructure of retail and hospitality on the fruit market site - do the sags seriously think the developer (their landlord) is going to hand them a slice of that revenue?

And they lap it up ...again 

Since the UWE dead went tits, Wally has had time to reflect on just how much it costs to run a football club. Getting his money back from Mem is probably a great move from his point of view.

As for the Fewers getting all excites about being able to drink pre match in the stadium to put cash back in to the club... wait until Wally notices that the lack of nearby pubs mean he can charge 7 quid a pint.

Would also guess the Spoons by Temple Meads will become a weekly battle ground, with City fans using it for away games, Rovers fans using it for home games and visiting teams just using it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Bristol Rob said:

Since the UWE dead went tits, Wally has had time to reflect on just how much it costs to run a football club. Getting his money back from Mem is probably a great move from his point of view.

As for the Fewers getting all excites about being able to drink pre match in the stadium to put cash back in to the club... wait until Wally notices that the lack of nearby pubs mean he can charge 7 quid a pint.

Would also guess the Spoons by Temple Meads will become a weekly battle ground, with City fans using it for away games, Rovers fans using it for home games and visiting teams just using it.

He won't get his money back , as I see it the mem gets handover for nothing and the gas get a lease at peppercorn rent for x amount of years ..

The devil.will be in the detail , they pulled.outbif uwe deal as they wouldn't get any non Matchday revenue so you'd think maybe they have a deal on that with this deal but who knows ..

Whilst Coventry leased and it went tits up (although they are buying it back now I believe) many clubs lease now Inc West Ham, Man City , Bournemouth , Huddersfield and loads more ... Technically most clubs stadiums are owned by separate company's anyway so the mem belongs to Al Qadi .. city rent  the gate from Ashton gate holdings I think .. all owned by the owners a lot of clubs do this so if the club's go bust the ground is separate  (protects the investment of the owners) .

If this.stadium.iis built at all.it won't happen for 5-10 years yet  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Worst case scenario is that they sell the mem and it gets redeveloped, they rent at Twerton or wherever in the short-term and then the new stadium falls through and they are in limbo again. 

I still say that if you look at the site of the people developing the Feeder area, there is no room for a stadium, certainly not in the first 20 years of their plan, is that a timescale that suits them?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, Port Said Red said:

Best case scenario is that they sell the mem and it gets redeveloped, they rent at Twerton or wherever in the short-term and then the new stadium falls through and they are in limbo again. 

I still say that if you look at the site of the people developing the Feeder area, there is no room for a stadium, certainly not in the first 20 years of their plan, is that a timescale that suits them?

fixed

  • Like 2
Link to comment
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...