Admin Ian M Posted July 18, 2015 Admin Report Share Posted July 18, 2015 "Faithfew" - I feel privileged to be present at the dawn of a brand new word. Well done sir - very appropriate! This is definitely word of the day,(Faithfew) if I'm being honest:) Not gonna lie, I was proud of myself when I wrote that one 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Langford Red Posted July 18, 2015 Report Share Posted July 18, 2015 So the Gash are to appeal Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RumRed Posted July 18, 2015 Report Share Posted July 18, 2015 So the Gash are to appeal Ha ha ha, more fun to come then! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rudolf Hucker Posted July 18, 2015 Report Share Posted July 18, 2015 So the Gash are to appeal Presumably they first have to ask leave to appeal? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Danny P Posted July 18, 2015 Report Share Posted July 18, 2015 How did the 15ers manage to do that; they couldn't organise a piss up in a brewery ?!Im sure the gas were the only club in the South West not to publicly support Ashton Vale and the World Cup bid. Jealous little tossers are getting what they deserve, karma can be a right bitch Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Danny P Posted July 18, 2015 Report Share Posted July 18, 2015 How did the 15ers manage to do that; they couldn't organise a piss up in a brewery ?!Im sure the gas were the only club in the South West not to publicly support Ashton Vale and the World Cup bid. Jealous little tossers are getting what they deserve, karma can be a right bitch Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 18, 2015 Report Share Posted July 18, 2015 (edited) Presumably they first have to ask leave to appeal? They certainly do. Ordinarily first to the High Court, and commonly it's a written paper as opposed to a hearing. If they want permission to appeal one thing the Court will bear in mind is prospects of success on appeal. If the High Court refused permission the next step would be to petition to the relevant Appeal Court (Court of Appeal in this instance) to hear the case. They too will then decide whether to allow Rovers to appeal. One thing I've not seen mentioned is Sainsbury's position. Whilst they won the case ultimately they themselves may want to launch their own appeal if Rovers were to. They might want to submit that the judgment should have gone their way on grounds in addition to the one that succeeded. It's possible Sainsbury's could win on appeal for entirely different reasons than given by the High Court. I'm not particularly surprised Rovers have sought permission to appeal. I'd have been more surprised if they never to be honest. There's just too much money at stake once you've gone this far not to try. Whilst an appeal would need to be launched with good intentions otherwise you could be liable for the other side's cost in defending the appeal, if permission is granted it puts Rovers straight back in to a bargaining position for an out of court settlement... - I'm not suggesting it's the intention at all, but if leave to appeal is granted Sainsbury's may well decide a settlement in the order of the wonga loan is a price worth paying to draw a line in the sand even if they fancy their chances. Edited July 18, 2015 by Guest Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I am the mole Posted July 18, 2015 Report Share Posted July 18, 2015 http://www.skysports.com/football/news/11095/9915096/hold-hold-hold-hold They'd be behind a lot of teams in this list if they were actually in the league last year!!!! How can that be with all their amazing support? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aizoon Posted July 18, 2015 Report Share Posted July 18, 2015 They certainly do. Ordinarily first to the High Court, and commonly it's a written paper as opposed to a hearing. If they want permission to appeal one thing the Court will bear in mind is prospects of success on appeal. If the High Court refused permission the next step would be to petition to the relevant Appeal Court (Court of Appeal in this instance) to hear the case. They too will then decide whether to allow Rovers to appeal. One thing I've not seen mentioned is Sainsbury's position. Whilst they won the case ultimately they themselves may want to launch their own appeal if Rovers were to. They might want to submit that the judgment should have gone their way on grounds in addition to the one that succeeded. It's possible Sainsbury's could win on appeal for entirely different reasons than given by the High Court. I'm not particularly surprised Rovers have sought permission to appeal. I'd have been more surprised if they never to be honest. There's just too much money at stake once you've gone this far not to try. Whilst an appeal would need to be launched with good intentions otherwise you could be liable for the other side's cost in defending the appeal, if permission is granted it puts Rovers straight back in to a bargaining position for an out of court settlement... - I'm not suggesting it's the intention at all, but if leave to appeal is granted Sainsbury's may well decide a settlement in the order of the wonga loan is a price worth paying to draw a line in the sand even if they fancy their chances. Classic gambler's logic. Keep doubling the stake until it comes up red Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BobbyC Posted July 18, 2015 Report Share Posted July 18, 2015 Do the courts shut for the summer ? If so it will be a long wait for a result. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkeh Posted July 18, 2015 Report Share Posted July 18, 2015 http://www.skysports.com/football/news/11095/9915096/hold-hold-hold-hold They'd be behind a lot of teams in this list if they were actually in the league last year!!!! How can that be with all their amazing support? they would be 52nd their avg was 6k and the men holds 12k so they are filling about 50% Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkeh Posted July 18, 2015 Report Share Posted July 18, 2015 Classic gambler's logic. Keep doubling the stake until it comes up red WhoA bad Betty bam a lam Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I am the mole Posted July 18, 2015 Report Share Posted July 18, 2015 they would be 52nd their avg was 6k and the men holds 12k so they are filling about 50%behind a lot of teams they are supposed to be bigger than! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big C Posted July 18, 2015 Report Share Posted July 18, 2015 they would be 52nd their avg was 6k and the men holds 12k so they are filling about 50% but that's because the other 50k never showed up because they thought it would be a sell out Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 18, 2015 Report Share Posted July 18, 2015 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Come on Eileen Posted July 18, 2015 Report Share Posted July 18, 2015 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 18, 2015 Report Share Posted July 18, 2015 (edited) The case you make holds water provided 1. the company is already up shit creek and 2, and this is really really important, you dont incur any more cost than it is reasonable to assume you'll recover and 3. you don't do 2 in a way that might increase indebtedness in the event of administration. Given the state Rovers finances are in the only way an appeal can be funded is by mitigated PG from directors or direct funding by directors. True enough, but there are upsides such as opening up the prospect of a settlement again. An appeal will be expensive, but a drop in the ocean if they win. As you say rightly the decision comes down to what is reasonable. The only point I make re reasonable is just because one course is reasonable doesn't make the other unreasonable. From afar, seems to me this could possibly be an instance of either course of action being reasonable in the circumstances. Edited July 18, 2015 by Guest Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alexukhc Posted July 18, 2015 Report Share Posted July 18, 2015 See they won the World Cup earlier by losing 1-0 to Arsenals u21s Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Up The City! Posted July 18, 2015 Report Share Posted July 18, 2015 They do know you can't appeal simply because they think the decision is wrong don't they? When they aak for permission to appeal they will have to show the judge got it wrong based on hard facts. Can't see them getting permission to appeal tbh because the judgement looks pretty clear. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Come on Eileen Posted July 18, 2015 Report Share Posted July 18, 2015 They do know you can't appeal simply because they think the decision is wrong don't they? When they aak for permission to appeal they will have to show the judge got it wrong based on hard facts. Can't see them getting permission to appeal tbh because the judgement looks pretty clear. Exactly, they have to show the judge may have misinterpreted the law incorrectly or the trial was administered incorrectly although due to the public interest angle, 100 million outraged Gasheads, it may get through on the observational humour test. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Come on Eileen Posted July 18, 2015 Report Share Posted July 18, 2015 See they won the World Cup earlier by losing 1-0 to Arsenals u21s There could be thousands celebrating with bonfires on the streets of Athens tonight Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slartibartfast Posted July 18, 2015 Report Share Posted July 18, 2015 http://www.skysports.com/football/news/11095/9915096/hold-hold-hold-hold They'd be behind a lot of teams in this list if they were actually in the league last year!!!! How can that be with all their amazing support? I knw it;s the same for all teams ,BUT we'd have been much higher if it wasn't for some very poor away followings at AG ! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 18, 2015 Report Share Posted July 18, 2015 They do know you can't appeal simply because they think the decision is wrong don't they? When they aak for permission to appeal they will have to show the judge got it wrong based on hard facts. Can't see them getting permission to appeal tbh because the judgement looks pretty clear. Yeah. I make no comment on their prospects. Application to appeal can be a relatively cheap pursuit.... The appeal however. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smaller than a flea Posted July 18, 2015 Report Share Posted July 18, 2015 For all you lot who think we're all deluded and are heading to the Prem as soon we build the UWE in 2045, there are some who can have a laugh about it all http://gaschat.co.uk/thread/4054/plan-brick 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alexukhc Posted July 18, 2015 Report Share Posted July 18, 2015 There could be thousands celebrating with bonfires on the streets of Athens tonight Billions don't you mean? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Up The City! Posted July 18, 2015 Report Share Posted July 18, 2015 Yeah. I make no comment on their prospects. Application to appeal can be a relatively cheap pursuit.... The appeal however.It all centres around that cut off date and to me that seems pretty water tight. Anything that happened after that really has no relevance as Sainsburys were perfectly entitled to withdraw. I can see Rovers challenging the expert who said Sainsburys only had a 55% chance of winning the appeal over delivery hours. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 18, 2015 Report Share Posted July 18, 2015 It all centres around that cut off date and to me that seems pretty water tight. Anything that happened after that really has no relevance as Sainsburys were perfectly entitled to withdraw. I can see Rovers challenging the expert who said Sainsburys only had a 55% chance of winning the appeal over delivery hours. Ordinarily there would be almost nil chance against the expert. Their opinion was seemingly sought by and provided to Sainsbury's. They'd owe no duty of care to Rovers, and even if they did his engagement and opinion would no doubt have excluded third party reliance and liability. Normally if there was improper advice it would be Sainsbury's claim to pursue if they wished, or if required to. Until we know the grounds for appeal it's hard to comment on its merits. If it is baseless it will get thrown out but right now we don't know what card it is that they're going to play. For all we know there could have been something procedural they've held up their sleeve. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Admin Ian M Posted July 19, 2015 Admin Report Share Posted July 19, 2015 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bert tann Posted July 19, 2015 Report Share Posted July 19, 2015 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pongo88 Posted July 19, 2015 Report Share Posted July 19, 2015 For all you lot who think we're all deluded and are heading to the Prem as soon we build the UWE in 2045, there are some who can have a laugh about it allhttp://gaschat.co.uk/thread/4054/plan-brickI liked the suggestion that fans bring a brick to each game. They have obviously copied City's plan for fans to buy a brick for the previous scheme to replace the Wedlock with a new stand. First of all they steal the ground from Bristol Rugby and now they are stealing our ideas to help them build a new stand. 1 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.