Aizoon Posted July 7, 2015 Report Share Posted July 7, 2015 Isn't Dave's mum's brother's uncle her uncle too, Mole? Great-uncle - I think... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BobbyC Posted July 7, 2015 Report Share Posted July 7, 2015 Mrs Justice Proudman is in court tomorrow at 10.30 am. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vincent Vega Posted July 7, 2015 Report Share Posted July 7, 2015 Mrs Justice Proudman is in court tomorrow at 10.30 am. Not for the Gas though..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
'Orns Posted July 7, 2015 Report Share Posted July 7, 2015 Jesus H Christ, Chopra at R*vers If there's anything more repulsive, football wise, I'd like to see it. By like, I mean absolutely ******* despise Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gazred Posted July 7, 2015 Report Share Posted July 7, 2015 Jesus H Christ, Chopra at R*vers If there's anything more repulsive, football wise, I'd like to see it. By like, I mean absolutely ******* despise I just picture GJ tripping him up, always brings a smile. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
'Orns Posted July 7, 2015 Report Share Posted July 7, 2015 I just picture GJ tripping him up, always brings a smile. That's another nose snort moment right there! I'd love to ask GJ sometime what made him do it - because it was ******* brilliant! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fordy62 Posted July 7, 2015 Report Share Posted July 7, 2015 He's going to have to rein in his bookies expenditure if he's going to be paid r*vers wages. Unless he likes crippling debt. (Which we know he does) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gazred Posted July 7, 2015 Report Share Posted July 7, 2015 That's another nose snort moment right there! I'd love to ask GJ sometime what made him do it - because it was ******* brilliant! That's 2 - 0 to me Woodsy! Perhaps the mods can add a "Snort" button to go with the "Like" one. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 8, 2015 Report Share Posted July 8, 2015 Not listed for tomorrow. Assuming the Guardian were right about Sainsbury's expecting a decision this week looks like it could be a great way to kick off Friday's festivities: either with a laugh or to celebrate the prospect of them leaving Bristol... again. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
havanatopia Posted July 8, 2015 Report Share Posted July 8, 2015 Perhaps there is more to the Chopra story than meets the immediate eye.. if you get my drift. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 8, 2015 Report Share Posted July 8, 2015 On their forum some are suggesting perhaps the delay is taking so long because the judge is trying to broker a deal. What planet are they on? That should've been attempted before going to Court. Her job is not to appease both parties or to reach a 'compromise' agreement, it is to rule on a point of law and mediating or pleasing either party does not come in to that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkeh Posted July 8, 2015 Report Share Posted July 8, 2015 On their forum some are suggesting perhaps the delay is taking so long because the judge is trying to broker a deal. What planet are they on? That should've been attempted before going to Court. Her job is not to appease both parties or to reach a 'compromise' agreement, it is to rule on a point of law and mediating or pleasing either party does not come in to that. Why does he judge need to broker a deal, they have a water tight contract Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pongo88 Posted July 8, 2015 Report Share Posted July 8, 2015 On their forum some are suggesting perhaps the delay is taking so long because the judge is trying to broker a deal. What planet are they on? That should've been attempted before going to Court. Her job is not to appease both parties or to reach a 'compromise' agreement, it is to rule on a point of law and mediating or pleasing either party does not come in to that.They are clutching at straws as they ran out of sensible reasons to be optimistic a long time ago. Perhaps they need a new thread on their forum: "When all else fails...................." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pongo88 Posted July 8, 2015 Report Share Posted July 8, 2015 Another classic from their forum: "I think the longer this takes the more chance we have of a good outcome... What that outcome will be is anybody's guess" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 8, 2015 Report Share Posted July 8, 2015 Another classic from their forum: "I think the longer this takes the more chance we have of a good outcome... What that outcome will be is anybody's guess" That's brilliant. You could make a case for the exact opposite analysis. For example if D-day was the end of June as seems to have been suggested the fact that judgment was not delivered before then could've put Rovers in a position whereby performing the sainsburys contract was no longer viable - arguably preventing natural justice. Personally I wouldn't make any prediction about what the timeframe means or make any inferences from, but if you were going to surely the logic would be the longer this takes the less likely a positive outcome...? Especially as I'm sure someone reported Watola said damages would be inadequate, they want the stadium whilst giving evidence. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Up The City! Posted July 8, 2015 Report Share Posted July 8, 2015 The longer it takes the less likely it is that their contract is water tight. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 8, 2015 Report Share Posted July 8, 2015 The longer it takes the less likely it is that their contract is water tight. Water tight - the sort of phrase that can only come back to bite you. I've seen another fan on their forum criticising the 'madness of the contract law system'. I'm not sure what he wants from a contract law regime but the one we have where it's very light touch, barely any legislation and the principle is largely 'you are free to contract on the terms which you agree upon' seems anything but mad. Not sure if his gripe is really with the system which allows parties to agree upon things like cut off dates, or with the contracting parties who seemingly didn't appreciate what they were agreeing to be bound to, or not, in certain circumstances. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkeh Posted July 8, 2015 Report Share Posted July 8, 2015 Water tight - the sort of phrase that can only come back to bite you. I've seen another fan on their forum criticising the 'madness of the contract law system'. I'm not sure what he wants from a contract law regime but the one we have where it's very light touch, barely any legislation and the principle is largely 'you are free to contract on the terms which you agree upon' seems anything but mad. Not sure if his gripe is really with the system which allows parties to agree upon things like cut off dates, or with the contracting parties who seemingly didn't appreciate what they were agreeing to be bound to, or not, in certain circumstances. When they lose it will be everyone else's fault but rovers, they are worse the Liverpool for playing he victim card They are getting what they deserve after failing to support us in our bid for a new ground 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rich Posted July 8, 2015 Report Share Posted July 8, 2015 When they lose it will be everyone else's fault but rovers, they are worse the Liverpool for playing he victim card They are getting what they deserve after failing to support us in our bid for a new ground Careful old chap, it could also go the other way. They were always quite lucky in certain ways, that's how they got the rugby ground in the first place. Personally I still think the judge will give them a bit of compo for Sainsbury's dragging their feet, Sainsbury won't argue even though they'll have done nothing wrong in legal terms. Where that leaves them is still a case for laughter, sorry, discussion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkeh Posted July 8, 2015 Report Share Posted July 8, 2015 Careful old chap, it could also go the other way. They were always quite lucky in certain ways, that's how they got the rugby ground in the first place. Personally I still think the judge will give them a bit of compo for Sainsbury's dragging their feet, Sainsbury won't argue even though they'll have done nothing wrong in legal terms. Where that leaves them is still a case for laughter, sorry, discussion. They are ****** even if they win it, they don't have the funding to complete the project and have admitted it, That's why pigs is whoring himself to try and sell because he know if they win they can't do anything Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rich Posted July 8, 2015 Report Share Posted July 8, 2015 They are ****** even if they win it, they don't have the funding to complete the project and have admitted it, That's why pigs is whoring himself to try and sell because he know if they win they can't do anything I know but, let's remain dignified and not shouting until the fat old lady sings, we don't want to get bit on the bum. I half expect a fairy god mother to wipe out their debts and strike oil under the pitch. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkeh Posted July 8, 2015 Report Share Posted July 8, 2015 I know but, let's remain dignified and not shouting until the fat old lady sings, we don't want to get bit on the bum. I half expect a fairy god mother to wipe out their debts and strike oil under the pitch. Why would it bite us in the bum, Their club will remain a joke and the laughing stock of the football league, They brought it on the self trying to sue other clubs when the get relegated Or proclaiming they are massive with a huge fan base the envoy of the football league 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bristol Rob Posted July 8, 2015 Report Share Posted July 8, 2015 Careful old chap, it could also go the other way. They were always quite lucky in certain ways, that's how they got the rugby ground in the first place. Personally I still think the judge will give them a bit of compo for Sainsbury's dragging their feet, Sainsbury won't argue even though they'll have done nothing wrong in legal terms. Where that leaves them is still a case for laughter, sorry, discussion. Surely if Sainsbury's have done nothing wrong in legal terms no compensation would be payable? You can't say you're right, the contract can be broken legally, but the losing side get a consolation prize Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 8, 2015 Report Share Posted July 8, 2015 Careful old chap, it could also go the other way. They were always quite lucky in certain ways, that's how they got the rugby ground in the first place. Personally I still think the judge will give them a bit of compo for Sainsbury's dragging their feet, Sainsbury won't argue even though they'll have done nothing wrong in legal terms. Where that leaves them is still a case for laughter, sorry, discussion. If Sainsburys have done nothing wrong in legal terms therein it ends. There'll be no compo to appease nor will there be a slap on Sainsburys over conduct - although they may get reprimanded if they haven't acted bona fide. There are more examples of totally innocent parties ending up out of pocket or even mistreated with no right to compo than there are posts on this forum about SOD. Sympathy or empathy won't get them anywhere. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rich Posted July 8, 2015 Report Share Posted July 8, 2015 If Sainsburys have done nothing wrong in legal terms therein it ends. There'll be no compo to appease nor will there be a slap on Sainsburys over conduct - although they may get reprimanded if they haven't acted bona fide. There are more examples of totally innocent parties ending up out of pocket or even mistreated with no right to compo than there are posts on this forum about SOD. Sympathy or empathy won't get them anywhere. I can't recall the term used but, it referred to a party deliberately dragging their feet to make sure the contract could not be completed satisfactorily by the other party. I believe this is what Rovers claimed. If that were the case, perhaps the judge might be persuaded to award some compensation to the wronged party. But I await your wisdom on the matter, as sometimes the law isn't so cut and dried, as we found out with AV and tvg applications. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BTRFTG Posted July 8, 2015 Report Share Posted July 8, 2015 Whilst Sainsbury's appear to have been 'prevarication personified' in discharging aspects of their obligation I wonder how much emphasis will be placed by the judge on what appears to be the first attempt to unilaterally vary the 'terms of the deal', namely Higgs seeking to amend in Rovers' favour liability in respect of the CIL? I've been involved in deals whereby first 'loss of trust' has been key if it establishes the party seeking variation weren't as honourable or committed as their outward intentions appeared. If Higgs was to be taken at his word and the deal fallen through should Sainsbury's not uprate their CIL contribution then reasonably one might ask whether, at that point, the intent to conclude the contract (a key component in contract law) had dissipated? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkeh Posted July 8, 2015 Report Share Posted July 8, 2015 I can't recall the term used but, it referred to a party deliberately dragging their feet to make sure the contract could not be completed satisfactorily by the other party. I believe this is what Rovers claimed. If that were the case, perhaps the judge might be persuaded to award some compensation to the wronged party. But I await your wisdom on the matter, as sometimes the law isn't so cut and dried, as we found out with AV and tvg applications. But it wasn't completely sainsburys fault Not getting the conditions they wanted then losing the appeal, Rovers won the appeal but I think that may be dodgy on the councils part (something sainsburys brought up in court) The verious jr involved again not sainsburys fault Rovers trying to shaft them on some money issues (which the gas admitted in court) again not sainsburys fault Listening to the reaction from the case it came across as rovers trying to play the victim of the evil sainsburys which the judge saw through, The the main telling thing about it was the fact it was sainsburys that took rovers to court not the other way round as pigs and co would of had us believe I think that is one of the reasons dunceford left because he knew it's going tits up and wanted out Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 8, 2015 Report Share Posted July 8, 2015 I can't recall the term used but, it referred to a party deliberately dragging their feet to make sure the contract could not be completed satisfactorily by the other party. I believe this is what Rovers claimed. If that were the case, perhaps the judge might be persuaded to award some compensation to the wronged party. But I await your wisdom on the matter, as sometimes the law isn't so cut and dried, as we found out with AV and tvg applications. Ah, no you are absolutely bang on. I was picking up on the 'done nothing wrong legally' comment in relation to dragging their heels. I suppose the point there is again it turns on the contract and really what it required of Sainsburys. Their delays could in the circumstances be reasonable, so no compo even if they were heel-dragging. That's why predictions aren't really worth making, I'd say even of those who went along to watch. Simply because you really need to have the contract, read it cover to cover and get the themes and the essence of 'ok what did the parties actually agree to here' because the Courts will rarely infer or imply terms. Largely, it is what it is. Explains why it's such a laborious task making judgment. If complex it's not a case of listening to what's presented in Court and getting a feeling. She may be painstakingly going through the contract, evidence of negotiations leading there, correspondence after etc. To a Rovers fan it might feel like it's taken ages but there's an unthinkable amount of work to do... And then write the damn thing, all the meanwhile juggling other cases. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rich Posted July 8, 2015 Report Share Posted July 8, 2015 Why would it bite us in the bum, Their club will remain a joke and the laughing stock of the football league, They brought it on the self trying to sue other clubs when the get relegated Or proclaiming they are massive with a huge fan base the envoy of the football league Because they are lucky bar stewards, who most likely will come up smelling of roses and overtake us,to become champions of England, then Europe in a stadium to make Real Madrid jealious. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sglosbcfc Posted July 8, 2015 Report Share Posted July 8, 2015 Chopra was playing for part time Alloa Athletic last season and he looked slow and overweight. Not sure he'd be the man to try and narrow the 'gap'. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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.