richwwtk Posted July 23, 2015 Report Share Posted July 23, 2015 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. I'd suggest it would be more akin to signing myself on a 5-year 10K a week contract, and then keeping faith with that scout. I'm not sure too many people were bemoaning El-Abds qualities as a footballer until he actually played for us. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 23, 2015 Report Share Posted July 23, 2015 (edited) I'd suggest it would be more akin to signing myself on a 5-year 10K a week contract, and then keeping faith with that scout. I'm not sure too many people were bemoaning El-Abds qualities as a footballer until he actually played for us. Perhaps I wasn't clear - you'd be judging on the basis of a colleague's performance to which the other had no input, possibly expertise or oversight or even knowledge of. To take another analogy, it'd be like suggesting BT TV is not up to scratch because that may have been your experience with their phone service. Anyway, I think I'm going to leave it there for now else I may start to become the equivalent of Spudski and SOD (no offence intended Spudski ). I don't know anything more than what everyone else has in the public domain and have no idea what the basis for their appeal is or might be. For that reason obviously I make no prediction as that would be baseless, but if they obtain permission to appeal it wouldn't necessarily come as a surprise to me Edited July 23, 2015 by Guest Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Admin phantom Posted July 23, 2015 Admin Report Share Posted July 23, 2015 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. Assumedly this is a similar thing through all levels of court cases? So basically "someone" would have been there for Rovers? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 23, 2015 Report Share Posted July 23, 2015 (edited) Assumedly this is a similar thing through all levels of court cases? So basically "someone" would have been there for Rovers? That's right, although as said there are exceptions to the rule and I can't claim to know them all inside out conversationally, but the principle is correct: representation for all. Edited July 23, 2015 by Guest Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrightCiderLife Posted July 23, 2015 Report Share Posted July 23, 2015 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkeh Posted July 23, 2015 Report Share Posted July 23, 2015 What ever happens with the appeal I think it's safe to say uwe is dead and this is about getting money to cover losses imo 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 23, 2015 Report Share Posted July 23, 2015 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aizoon Posted July 23, 2015 Report Share Posted July 23, 2015 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. Cynical but probably correct. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whooooossshhhh Posted July 23, 2015 Report Share Posted July 23, 2015 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. Thanks for the discretion 29AR. If (less legally informed) members of our forum speculate on possible holes in the judgement, someone may just inadvertently stumble across a point of law that would be helpful to the 'losers'. Although the engaged legal eagles won't be trawling this forum, possible leads will undoubtedly get back to them. So, those of us who know chuff all about the law (except for the occasional appearance charged with forgery, arson and blagging stuff) must try not to be too specific in our uninformed guesses about grounds for appeal, in case we unknowingly hit one on the head. The likes of 29AR are wise to the ways of the legal world and know when to imply knowledge without revealing details. Let's follow their example and give 'em sod all to play with. I love you all Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drew Peacock Posted July 23, 2015 Report Share Posted July 23, 2015 Thanks for the discretion 29AR. If (less legally informed) members of our forum speculate on possible holes in the judgement, someone may just inadvertently stumble across a point of law that would be helpful to the 'losers'. Although the engaged legal eagles won't be trawling this forum, possible leads will undoubtedly get back to them. So, those of us who know chuff all about the law (except for the occasional appearance charged with forgery, arson and blagging stuff) must try not to be too specific in our uninformed guesses about grounds for appeal, in case we unknowingly hit one on the head. The likes of 29AR are wise to the ways of the legal world and know when to imply knowledge without revealing details. Let's follow their example and give 'em sod all to play with. I love you all Their grounds for appeal are that they wear the envied Blue & White quarters, are (with good reason, I may add) called the Pirates, sing a dirge about a suicidal prostitute called Eileen, have the best support in the country and they shouldn't have been relegated anyway because Wycombe cheated. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arkateee Posted July 23, 2015 Report Share Posted July 23, 2015 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 ?If there's money to be made, then Burges salmon would be more than happy to take it on, as i would imagine most law firms would. There only in it for the coin, and they clearly know for the rovers board,it's judgement day just around the corner, for the big top to finally collapse on it's clown wearing blue and white quarter fans Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kid in the Riot Posted July 23, 2015 Report Share Posted July 23, 2015 Rovers legal team for this case are David Matthias QC and George Mackenzie (junior) of Francis Taylor Building based in London, not Burges Salmon. Watola is hardly going to say in a public interview that BRFC have a "plan B" or how they are funding their legal costs. Part of their case is based on the fact they are skint and will be in trouble if they don't move to UWE. Therefore, in public they are going to play on this. As I've said previously, they have a "plan B" and maybe even a "plan C" for that matter. Talk of administration is way off the mark. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 23, 2015 Report Share Posted July 23, 2015 (edited) Rovers legal team for this case are David Matthias QC and George Mackenzie (junior) of Francis Taylor Building based in London, not Burges Salmon. Watola is hardly going to say in a public interview that BRFC have a "plan B" or how they are funding their legal costs. Part of their case is based on the fact they are skint and will be in trouble if they don't move to UWE. Therefore, in public they are going to play on this. As I've said previously, they have a "plan B" and maybe even a "plan C" for that matter. Talk of administration is way off the mark. Burges Salmon are the instructing solicitors - the Judgment also confirms this - so they are a part of the legal team; as you say also consisting of David Matthias QC and George Mackenzie. Edited July 23, 2015 by Guest Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bar BS3 Posted July 23, 2015 Report Share Posted July 23, 2015 Various clubs have used the "buy a brick" scheme to fund stadium builds/improvements over the years - to lay claim to it as your own idea is a bit like saying that you invented the wheel. Is that your biggest concern about all that is being discussed on this thread..?! 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Betty Swallocks Posted July 23, 2015 Report Share Posted July 23, 2015 Rovers legal team for this case are David Matthias QC and George Mackenzie (junior) of Francis Taylor Building based in London, not Burges Salmon. Watola is hardly going to say in a public interview that BRFC have a "plan B" or how they are funding their legal costs. Part of their case is based on the fact they are skint and will be in trouble if they don't move to UWE. Therefore, in public they are going to play on this. As I've said previously, they have a "plan B" and maybe even a "plan C" for that matter. Talk of administration is way off the mark. Would plan b more attractive to their fans going forwards? Ie potential investors who would bankroll the club? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kid in the Riot Posted July 23, 2015 Report Share Posted July 23, 2015 Burges Salmon are the instructing solicitors - the Judgment also confirms this - so they are a part of the legal team; as you say also consisting of David Matthias QC and George Mackenzie. Well obviously the club need a solicitor to instruct counsel but the real meaty advice comes from your barristers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 23, 2015 Report Share Posted July 23, 2015 Well obviously the club need a solicitor to instruct counsel but the real meaty advice comes from your barristers. The role of an instructing solicitor cannot be downplayed. It is a vital cog in the process, especially in complex cases. Barristers do not concern themselves with drafting statements of case, taking witness statements, preparing bundles of evidence for court, negotiations with other sides, getting the procedure in place and lined up - what a monumentally expensive way of doing that for starters. They (Barristers) don't even really have anything to do with the legal arguments until a solicitor writes up their opinion, their interpretation of the law, their interpretation of the precedents and instructs counsel to opine on those and perhaps advocate. Of course the Barrister will give their 'meaty' advice but the suggestion that it's their case and the instructing solicitor is merely a conduit between a barrister and the client is about as watertight as Rovers' contract seemingly is. I've no doubts BCL who is embarking on a career at the Bar will be very quick to defend the vital role instructing solicitors will play in practice. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kid in the Riot Posted July 23, 2015 Report Share Posted July 23, 2015 The role of an instructing solicitor cannot be downplayed. It is a vital cog in the process, especially in complex cases. Barristers do not concern themselves with drafting statements of case, taking witness statements, preparing bundles of evidence for court, negotiations with other sides, getting the procedure in place and lined up - what a monumentally expensive way of doing that for starters. They (Barristers) don't even really have anything to do with the legal arguments until a solicitor writes up their opinion, their interpretation of the law, their interpretation of the precedents and instructs counsel to opine on those and perhaps advocate. Of course the Barrister will give their 'meaty' advice but the suggestion that it's their case and the instructing solicitor is merely a conduit between a barrister and the client is about as watertight as Rovers' contract seemingly is. I've no doubts BCL who is embarking on a career at the Bar will be very quick to defend the vital role instructing solicitors will play in practice. Sorry I could've saved you some time...I am well aware of the above. What I was getting at was people casting aspersions on Burges Salmon giving out the legal advice whereas ultimately it would have been the barrister they would've had a con with who'd have ultimately dished out the "meaty" legal advice ie as to whether an appeal was worth pursuing and if it was what kind of chance they have of winning. Would plan b more attractive to their fans going forwards? Ie potential investors who would bankroll the club? Despite how much we lament them and however bleak the outlook may look from the outside, they'd clearly be a decent proposition to onlooking investors. I don't think Higgs is telling fibs when he says he's had plenty of calls from potential interested parties. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 23, 2015 Report Share Posted July 23, 2015 (edited) What I was getting at was people casting aspersions on Burges Salmon giving out the legal advice whereas ultimately it would have been the barrister they would've had a con with who'd have ultimately dished out the "meaty" legal advice ie as to whether an appeal was worth pursuing and if it was what kind of chance they have of winning. Ahh you're quite right - my apologies Edited July 23, 2015 by Guest Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buckeyed Posted July 23, 2015 Report Share Posted July 23, 2015 Tut tut Reading.. confusing us with Rovers: http://www.readingfc.co.uk/news/article/steve-clarke-transfer-activity-230715-2566651.aspx? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eddie Hitler Posted July 23, 2015 Report Share Posted July 23, 2015 Despite how much we lament them and however bleak the outlook may look from the outside, they'd clearly be a decent proposition to onlooking investors. I don't think Higgs is telling fibs when he says he's had plenty of calls from potential interested parties. They're losing money with no prospect of making a profit. They may share this with the majority of clubs outside of the upper reaches of the premiership but it doesn't make them a "decent proposition to onlooking investors". Possibly somebody might want to buy the ground from the directors for development but the football side is a lemon. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sydneybcfc Posted July 23, 2015 Report Share Posted July 23, 2015 They're losing money with no prospect of making a profit. They may share this with the majority of clubs outside of the upper reaches of the premiership but it doesn't make them a "decent proposition to onlooking investors". Possibly somebody might want to buy the ground from the directors for development but the football side is a lemon. Basically this.. They don't have anything special and there are a lot of teams nearly 10mill in debt in much better positions both in the league and facilities wise. The only way i can see money being interested is if they go into admin and renegotiate their debt meaning they can be bought at a knock down price or they manage an appeal and actually push on with a stadium. In the current limbo they are a terrible proposition. With Sainsburys probably burning all their paperwork and doing as much as possible to distance themselves now the case has been won, even on winning an appeal i think Sainsburys would push for compo rather than completion of the contract. Too many burnt bridges for them to work together and become Rovers landlords id say after all this. Plus wouldn't sainsburys try and appeal if it was overturned? This could easily go on for years and i'm almost surprised UWE haven't killed it outright yet. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TETBURY MASSIVE Posted July 23, 2015 Report Share Posted July 23, 2015 (edited) Dopey is on the promotion charge...... http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/33637221 Edited July 23, 2015 by TETBURY MASSIVE Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kid in the Riot Posted July 23, 2015 Report Share Posted July 23, 2015 They're losing money with no prospect of making a profit. They may share this with the majority of clubs outside of the upper reaches of the premiership but it doesn't make them a "decent proposition to onlooking investors". Possibly somebody might want to buy the ground from the directors for development but the football side is a lemon. If you say so... There isn't a shortage of investors lining up to purchase English football clubs last time I checked. Clearly I'm not saying they're some outstanding investment opportunity but sellable, absolutely. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redfred Posted July 23, 2015 Report Share Posted July 23, 2015 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. I'm pretty sure they were a London based firm who dealt with the Wycombe fiasco, so probably dumped, but also possibly a sports law specialist Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eddie Hitler Posted July 23, 2015 Report Share Posted July 23, 2015 If you say so... There isn't a shortage of investors lining up to purchase English football clubs last time I checked. Clearly I'm not saying they're some outstanding investment opportunity but sellable, absolutely. Rivalry aside if they were floated on the stock market would you regard buying shares in Bristol Rovers or any loss-making fourth division club as a good investment? I wouldn't. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kid in the Riot Posted July 23, 2015 Report Share Posted July 23, 2015 Rivalry aside if they were floated on the stock market would you regard buying shares in Bristol Rovers or any loss-making fourth division club as a good investment? I wouldn't. A bought shares in Bristol City a few years back, what a waste of time and money that was... 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drew Peacock Posted July 23, 2015 Report Share Posted July 23, 2015 If you say so... There isn't a shortage of investors lining up to purchase English football clubs last time I checked. Clearly I'm not saying they're some outstanding investment opportunity but sellable, absolutely. But surely there is a shortage of clubs worth buying? I do not understand what the business model would be if UWE is dead. On the footballing side they are a long way behind us and have little chance of approaching anything like our support base - particularly in a city where apathy rules; I am not sure how they start to break even, let alone turn a profit. They are limited in off field activities, although I would have thought revisiting their old student accommodation plans may be a possibility. They may find someone who will invest on an emotional basis, but on a commercial basis? I am not so sure. (Although I might have said the same about Bournemouth...........) They shouldn't go into administration yet as there are a variety of things they can do, but none of them do anything but buy some time. Their best bet, if nothing comes of the appeal (and even if they subsequently got some investment) may be to turn themselves into some kind of part time community super-club. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eddie Hitler Posted July 23, 2015 Report Share Posted July 23, 2015 A bought shares in Bristol City a few years back, what a waste of time and money that was... Oh yes, done that. I've never had a season ticket so viewed it as putting money into the club by other means. Not an investment although last time people were quoting share prices they had actually gone up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eddie Hitler Posted July 23, 2015 Report Share Posted July 23, 2015 But surely there is a shortage of clubs worth buying? I do not understand what the business model would be if UWE is dead. On the footballing side they are a long way behind us and have little chance of approaching anything like our support base - particularly in a city where apathy rules; I am not sure how they start to break even, let alone turn a profit. They are limited in off field activities, although I would have thought revisiting their old student accommodation plans may be a possibility. They may find someone who will invest on an emotional basis, but on a commercial basis? I am not so sure. (Although I might have said the same about Bournemouth...........) They shouldn't go into administration yet as there are a variety of things they can do, but none of them do anything but buy some time. Their best bet, if nothing comes of the appeal (and even if they subsequently got some investment) may be to turn themselves into some kind of part time community super-club. You should stand up and say that at their AGM! 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.