Mr Popodopolous Posted July 16 Share Posted July 16 (edited) Burnley as per their Accounts are theoretically owed some £120-125m by their ownership Group. Haven't even checked the Interest and or Dividends if any are applicable. As in they've taken through a mix of takeover costs and borrowing some £120-125m out of Burnley. Edited July 16 by Mr Popodopolous 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Popodopolous Posted July 16 Share Posted July 16 I've gone off on a bit of a tangent. However put simply if SL wants much more than £30-40m any time soon, I fear he is living in cloud cuckoo land. Infrastructure is impressive but the market is farcical in football and loss making entities and big money sales..hmm? 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Port Said Red Posted July 17 Share Posted July 17 On 15/07/2024 at 20:57, Wedontplayinblue said: Could withdraw and submit new plans? The poster is correct, the blokes insanely rich he doesn’t need to build houses to fund it, but then I guess that’s why he’s rich. 15 hours ago, Wedontplayinblue said: You have already mentioned it, he wants a legacy, well go build that legacy then. 200M to a billionaire is absolutely tiny. let’s not forget that in % terms, a city fan on minimum wage puts more in a year than lansdown does with his wealth. It's common practice for businessmen to mitigate their personal risk on a project, it's £200m now, but another big jump in inflation or unexpected delays in project and suddenly it's 250 or 300. We see it in Government projects all the time because they subject to oversight, but commercial projects have the same issue. Then there is this idea that Steve just pops down the bank and draws out £200m (obviously over several weeks because of cash machine limits ), I don't he has much actual cash lying around, but I doubt very much that amounts to 20% of his total worth. Does he really want to raise cash against his other interests, including the sports business spread the risk that way, I doubt it and I don't think many on here would be happy if he did. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Popodopolous Posted August 11 Share Posted August 11 May as well ask. Any news on this?? Approaching mid August now. How long does it take from Judicial Review to Publication of Verdict or announcement at least, anyone know of standard timeframes? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
42nite Posted August 12 Share Posted August 12 8 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said: May as well ask. Any news on this?? Approaching mid August now. How long does it take from Judicial Review to Publication of Verdict or announcement at least, anyone know of standard timeframes? Aproximately 3 lifetimes. 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Musicworks Posted August 12 Share Posted August 12 1 minute ago, 42nite said: Aproximately 3 lifetimes. Or the signing of a number 10 ! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Admin phantom Posted August 12 Admin Share Posted August 12 10 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said: May as well ask. Any news on this?? Approaching mid August now. How long does it take from Judicial Review to Publication of Verdict or announcement at least, anyone know of standard timeframes? I thought it was adjourned? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BobBobBobbin Posted August 12 Share Posted August 12 2 hours ago, Johnny Musicworks said: Or the signing of a number 10 ! or 2 "Rigorous processes" 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Popodopolous Posted August 12 Share Posted August 12 51 minutes ago, phantom said: I thought it was adjourned? Yeah just checked. July 11th was the last mentioned date then put back to late July.. just wondering on timeframes really. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
downendcity Posted August 12 Share Posted August 12 12 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said: May as well ask. Any news on this?? Approaching mid August now. How long does it take from Judicial Review to Publication of Verdict or announcement at least, anyone know of standard timeframes? Until the twelfth of never and that's a long, long time. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Popodopolous Posted August 12 Share Posted August 12 14 minutes ago, downendcity said: Until the twelfth of never and that's a long, long time. A month of Sundays.. The 31st of June.. perhaps at best the 29th of February one year so roll on early 2028! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hxj Posted August 12 Share Posted August 12 12 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said: How long does it take from Judicial Review to Publication of Verdict or announcement at least, anyone know of standard timeframes? No standard time frames, plus we are in the summer break. Depending upon what decision is needed you may only find out when one party publishes the answer. It looks as if the case is in the 'permission' stage, you need permission to proceed. Plus a lot of these cases enter into a period of negotiating to simplify or agree certain areas. In reality only the lawyers will know where matters are. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Popodopolous Posted August 12 Share Posted August 12 1 minute ago, Hxj said: No standard time frames, plus we are in the summer break. Depending upon what decision is needed you may only find out when one party publishes the answer. It looks as if the case is in the 'permission' stage, you need permission to proceed. Plus a lot of these cases enter into a period of negotiating to simplify or agree certain areas. In reality only the lawyers will know where matters are. Permission to Proceed? That sounds like a long wait potentially ahead of us unless some deal is thrashed out in th Interim. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hxj Posted August 12 Share Posted August 12 53 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said: Permission to Proceed? That sounds like a long wait potentially ahead of us unless some deal is thrashed out in th Interim. You need a judge to give you permission to take a JR. Not a high bar, but stops a lot of cases. Could well be a year to a hearing Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Popodopolous Posted August 12 Share Posted August 12 2 minutes ago, Hxj said: You need a judge to give you permission to take a JR. Not a high bar, but stops a lot of cases. Could well be a year to a hearing Thank you. I don't want to sound negative but it doesn't sound great atm based on that...erm are there any vibes of Ashton Vale Mk. 2 or am I just too negative. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Admin phantom Posted August 12 Admin Share Posted August 12 1 hour ago, Mr Popodopolous said: ..... or am I just too negative. That is your normal lately lol No news can be good news? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Popodopolous Posted August 12 Share Posted August 12 (edited) 7 minutes ago, phantom said: That is your normal lately No news can be good news? I hope so yeah in terms of no news etc, although I've improved a bit of late. I was reasonably happy with the performances v Willem II and Hull e.g. Just what @Hxj was saying didn't sound fantastic but maybe looking on the positive side they can come to a mutually agreeable Settlements and matters can progress. Edited August 12 by Mr Popodopolous 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
38MC Posted August 12 Share Posted August 12 (edited) 1 hour ago, Mr Popodopolous said: I hope so yeah in terms of no news etc, although I've improved a bit of late. I was reasonably happy with the performances v Willem II and Hull e.g. Just what @Hxj was saying didn't sound fantastic but maybe looking on the positive side they can come to a mutually agreeable Settlements and matters can progress. Nothing to be inferred from it, permission is something that's required to stop frivolous claims, doesn't mean negotiations aren't happening in the background in any case. If permission is granted then that doesn't prevent an out of court settlement anyway, nor is it an indicator of which way it's likely to go as it's a very summary 'this is my case' it's not a hearing on any substantive basis - it's paper based and 'this is why I think I may have a claim'. Just going through the usual motions. Edited August 12 by 38MC Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CyderInACan Posted September 11 Author Share Posted September 11 On 12/08/2024 at 14:22, phantom said: No news can be good news? Hopefully - it does seem to be dragging somewhat Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hxj Posted Monday at 19:23 Share Posted Monday at 19:23 ETM claim dismissed. ETM Contractors Ltd, R (On the Application Of) v Bristol City Council [2024] EWHC 2263 (Admin) (16 September 2024) (bailii.org) 8 6 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lanterne Rouge Posted Monday at 19:26 Share Posted Monday at 19:26 2 minutes ago, Hxj said: ETM claim dismissed. ETM Contractors Ltd, R (On the Application Of) v Bristol City Council [2024] EWHC 2263 (Admin) (16 September 2024) (bailii.org) Quite right too, bunch of chancers. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Popodopolous Posted Monday at 19:27 Share Posted Monday at 19:27 Did they stuff themselves on the timeframe alone?? Very funny if so. May or may not be common knowledge but a bit of breakdown of funding etc. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
42nite Posted Monday at 19:32 Share Posted Monday at 19:32 (edited) Please help me @BigTone. Edited Monday at 19:41 by 42nite 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fgrsimon Posted Monday at 19:41 Share Posted Monday at 19:41 So is there any reason that work can't now start on this more or less straight away? It's been dragging on so long I can't remember if PP was ok and any major objections other than this one? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hxj Posted Monday at 19:44 Share Posted Monday at 19:44 1 minute ago, fgrsimon said: So is there any reason that work can't now start on this more or less straight away? None. ETM might appeal, but given that the decision was based upon ETM's inability to deal with routine filing of papers to the Court and the other parties any appeal is fanciful. 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedRaw Posted Monday at 19:45 Share Posted Monday at 19:45 8 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said: Did they stuff themselves on the timeframe alone?? Very funny if so. May or may not be common knowledge but a bit of breakdown of funding etc. 9 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said: Did they stuff themselves on the timeframe alone?? Very funny if so. It appears so……28 pages of legal jargon to basically say…..…’case dismissed as you didn’t file the application in time’ ETM’s lawyers are as embarrassing as the claim itself I assume there is no right to appeal? 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Popodopolous Posted Monday at 19:47 Share Posted Monday at 19:47 (edited) 3 minutes ago, Hxj said: None. ETM might appeal, but given that the decision was based upon ETM's inability to deal with routine filing of papers to the Court and the other parties any appeal is fanciful. 2 minutes ago, RedRaw said: It appears so……28 pages of legal jargon to basically say…..…’case dismissed as you didn’t file the application in time’ ETM’s lawyers are as embarrassing as the claim itself I assume there is no right to appeal? That is priceless. Missing the timing details on their own Application! Edited Monday at 19:48 by Mr Popodopolous 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
View from the Dolman Posted Monday at 19:49 Share Posted Monday at 19:49 A touch unfortunate for ETM that their legal team seems to have been on day release from the circus. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taz Posted Monday at 19:58 Share Posted Monday at 19:58 8 minutes ago, View from the Dolman said: A touch unfortunate for ETM that their legal team seems to have been on day release from the circus. Saga lawyers been allowed some crayons again then we assume? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kid in the Riot Posted Monday at 20:14 Share Posted Monday at 20:14 48 minutes ago, Hxj said: ETM claim dismissed. ETM Contractors Ltd, R (On the Application Of) v Bristol City Council [2024] EWHC 2263 (Admin) (16 September 2024) (bailii.org) Well, well, well. I have had dealings with Amanda Sutherland who was acting on behalf of ETM and seems to have ####ed up. I am not surprised, is all I will say. A "planning lawyer" with a dismal reputation. I've also worked with Peter Wadsley who was acting on behalf of BCC, a top man - well done Peter! To those asking - assuming they don't appeal, then should be good to go on the build, subject to conditions being discharged. 6 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Silvio Dante Posted Monday at 20:17 Share Posted Monday at 20:17 26 minutes ago, View from the Dolman said: A touch unfortunate for ETM that their legal team seems to have been on day release from the circus. Indeed…..I remember writing about the firms competence when this came up a year ago. I expected their case to be flimsy as you can see from the below but not even filing the paperwork properly is an absolute new low! On 19/09/2023 at 08:23, Silvio Dante said: I was worried for a few minutes then I read who was representing ETM - Sutherlands. I had dealings with Sutherlands a few years back over the potential redevelopment of a pub in Yate. Their work was shoddy, based on conjecture that could easily be disproven and riddled with errors. On the application they authored there were over 20 proveable errors even before you got to matters of opinion. Unsurprisingly the development didn’t go ahead. This, similarly, appears to be based on conjecture only and any decent property professional - even if not a lawyer - should be able to rip it apart easily if the work is at the standard I’ve seen before. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hxj Posted Monday at 20:24 Share Posted Monday at 20:24 8 minutes ago, Kid in the Riot said: I am not surprised Every so often a judge gets close to venting their spleen on a case. My favourite quote is: "Nor is there any evidence from the claimant that Ms Sutherland considered any of the rules, practice directions or guidance concerning the filing of claim forms before she attempted to file the claim form in the present case." 7 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kid in the Riot Posted Monday at 20:28 Share Posted Monday at 20:28 1 minute ago, Hxj said: Every so often a judge gets close to venting their spleen on a case. My favourite quote is: "Nor is there any evidence from the claimant that Ms Sutherland considered any of the rules, practice directions or guidance concerning the filing of claim forms before she attempted to file the claim form in the present case." This is a beauty too. Hope she's got good insurance! @ExiledAjax is going to love this! 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledAjax Posted Monday at 20:40 Share Posted Monday at 20:40 12 minutes ago, Hxj said: Every so often a judge gets close to venting their spleen on a case. My favourite quote is: "Nor is there any evidence from the claimant that Ms Sutherland considered any of the rules, practice directions or guidance concerning the filing of claim forms before she attempted to file the claim form in the present case." Magnificent. 9 minutes ago, Kid in the Riot said: This is a beauty too. Hope she's got good insurance! @ExiledAjax is going to love this! Exceptional. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JAWS Posted Monday at 20:46 Share Posted Monday at 20:46 30 minutes ago, Kid in the Riot said: Well, well, well. I have had dealings with Amanda Sutherland who was acting on behalf of ETM and seems to have ####ed up. I am not surprised, is all I will say. A "planning lawyer" with a dismal reputation. I've also worked with Peter Wadsley who was acting on behalf of BCC, a top man - well done Peter! To those asking - assuming they don't appeal, then should be good to go on the build, subject to conditions being discharged. OR hopefully this might be the final piece which attracts a new owner and Lansdown sells with planning. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sleepy1968 Posted Monday at 20:46 Share Posted Monday at 20:46 13 minutes ago, Kid in the Riot said: This is a beauty too. Hope she's got good insurance! @ExiledAjax is going to love this! Does the defendant get any of their costs awarded? She may need to amend her bio a bit: - "Her knowledge of planning law is extensive, and together with the experience from both sides of the planning process, enables her to deliver the results clients need." 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kid in the Riot Posted Monday at 20:49 Share Posted Monday at 20:49 2 minutes ago, JAWS said: OR hopefully this might be the final piece which attracts a new owner and Lansdown sells with planning. Problem is, it's just even more value/asset for Steve to sell now. Be very interesting to see whether he does fund this project in the near future now. That will give an idea of how committed he still is... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oh Brasso Posted Monday at 20:53 Share Posted Monday at 20:53 1 minute ago, Kid in the Riot said: Problem is, it's just even more value/asset for Steve to sell now. Be very interesting to see whether he does fund this project in the near future now. That will give an idea of how committed he still is... Was he going to fund it or was he just looking to sell to a developer once planning permission (without any obstacles) was obtained? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hxj Posted Monday at 20:55 Share Posted Monday at 20:55 Just now, Oh Brasso said: Was he going to fund it or was he just looking to sell to a developer once planning permission (without any obstacles) was obtained? No developer would touch it with a bargepole as is. All the net cash receipts are mandated to the Sporting Quarter development. 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oh Brasso Posted Monday at 21:12 Share Posted Monday at 21:12 16 minutes ago, Hxj said: No developer would touch it with a bargepole as is. All the net cash receipts are mandated to the Sporting Quarter development. So do we have to wait until the houses are built and sold before work on the sporting quarter can commence? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hxj Posted Monday at 21:16 Share Posted Monday at 21:16 1 minute ago, Oh Brasso said: So do we have to wait until the houses are built and sold before work on the sporting quarter can commence? No, it can be funded independently. However all the funds from Longmoor have to be transferred to the council to be paid onwards. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Popodopolous Posted Monday at 21:19 Share Posted Monday at 21:19 1 minute ago, Hxj said: No, it can be funded independently. However all the funds from Longmoor have to be transferred to the council to be paid onwards. That sounds complex(ish)? Funding done independently. Council Bank Funds on sale, earmarked for redevelopment. Council Transfer funds to SL. What am I missing? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hxj Posted Monday at 21:24 Share Posted Monday at 21:24 3 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said: What am I missing? Nothing, but the question was do we have to wait for Lomgmoor to do the Sporting Quarter. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Popodopolous Posted Monday at 21:25 Share Posted Monday at 21:25 Just now, Hxj said: Nothing, but the question was do we have to wait for Lomgmoor to do the Sporting Quarter. Thanks. We could start tomorrow or as near possible in theory then? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hxj Posted Monday at 21:25 Share Posted Monday at 21:25 Just now, Mr Popodopolous said: We could start tomorrow or as near possible in theory then? yep 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oh Brasso Posted Monday at 21:27 Share Posted Monday at 21:27 5 minutes ago, Hxj said: No, it can be funded independently. However all the funds from Longmoor have to be transferred to the council to be paid onwards. Understand. So the sporting quarter can now go ahead, but all profits from the Longmoor development have to go to designated bank account (in effect) that the council oversee and they then release these funds to the company set up to develop the sporting quarter (SL's own company). 2 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hxj Posted Monday at 21:30 Share Posted Monday at 21:30 3 minutes ago, Oh Brasso said: all profits from the Longmoor development have to go to designated bank account (in effect) that the council oversee and they then release these funds to the company set up to develop the sporting quarter Couldn't have put it better. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oh Brasso Posted Monday at 21:39 Share Posted Monday at 21:39 6 minutes ago, Hxj said: Couldn't have put it better. Thanks @Hxj. Hope you do forum mates rates if the need is ever there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hxj Posted Monday at 21:43 Share Posted Monday at 21:43 2 minutes ago, Oh Brasso said: Hope you do forum mates rates :laugh: - If you ever need my help you are in so deep that 'mates rates' are irrelevant 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
W-S-M Seagull Posted Monday at 22:49 Share Posted Monday at 22:49 3 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said: Did they stuff themselves on the timeframe alone?? Very funny if so. May or may not be common knowledge but a bit of breakdown of funding etc. I found this bit hilarious, they directed the judge to a report that didn't exist. In relation to the fifth of these submissions, I enquired as to the evidence of the potential prejudice to the claimant. I was told that that evidence was to be found in paragraphs 58 and 60 of the statement of facts and grounds, where it is asserted that it is the view of the claimant's expert witness that the permitted development would make the claimant's continued compliance with condition 15 of its planning permission "unachievable (at least without new significant, expensive mitigation at the [claimant's] site)." I was not directed to any part of any expert's report in this respect. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
W-S-M Seagull Posted Monday at 22:51 Share Posted Monday at 22:51 This conduct on the part of the claimant's solicitor fell far short of the "utmost diligence and care" 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davefevs Posted Monday at 23:17 Share Posted Monday at 23:17 You guys have some great insight / knowledge…fair play to you all. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jerseybean Posted Tuesday at 08:07 Share Posted Tuesday at 08:07 https://www.bristolpost.co.uk/news/bristol-news/work-200m-ashton-gate-sporting-9559009?utm_source=bristol_live_newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=main_daily_newsletter&utm_content=&utm_term=&ruid=eda3a0ce-34ec-4a85-96cd-ae68727a6b80 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TV Tom Posted Tuesday at 08:19 Share Posted Tuesday at 08:19 9 hours ago, Davefevs said: You guys have some great insight / knowledge…fair play to you all. Indeed, there are some really bright sparks on here 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sh1t_ref_again Posted Tuesday at 20:41 Share Posted Tuesday at 20:41 23 hours ago, Hxj said: No developer would touch it with a bargepole as is. All the net cash receipts are mandated to the Sporting Quarter development. Or is this the sale of the land proceeds only? Not looked at the wording Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JAWS Posted Tuesday at 21:10 Share Posted Tuesday at 21:10 25 minutes ago, sh1t_ref_again said: Or is this the sale of the land proceeds only? Not looked at the wording I understand the S106 was suitably flexible to allow the finance mechanism to be agreed with the Council at a later date & prior to commencement of development. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JAWS Posted Tuesday at 21:24 Share Posted Tuesday at 21:24 13 hours ago, Jerseybean said: https://www.bristolpost.co.uk/news/bristol-news/work-200m-ashton-gate-sporting-9559009?utm_source=bristol_live_newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=main_daily_newsletter&utm_content=&utm_term=&ruid=eda3a0ce-34ec-4a85-96cd-ae68727a6b80 I understand that ETM still have a Right of Appeal so unsurprisingly the BP article is not factually correct. Believe they have 21 days from the date of ruling to lodge an appeal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cheese Posted Tuesday at 21:48 Share Posted Tuesday at 21:48 24 minutes ago, JAWS said: I understand that ETM still have a Right of Appeal so unsurprisingly the BP article is not factually correct. Believe they have 21 days from the date of ruling to lodge an appeal. Expect it to be lodged at the end of October then! 1 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JAWS Posted Tuesday at 21:54 Share Posted Tuesday at 21:54 40 minutes ago, JAWS said: I understand the S106 was suitably flexible to allow the finance mechanism to be agreed with the Council at a later date & prior to commencement of development. 1 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
REDOXO Posted Tuesday at 23:24 Share Posted Tuesday at 23:24 1 hour ago, cheese said: Expect it to be lodged at the end of October then! 1 hour ago, JAWS said: I understand that ETM still have a Right of Appeal so unsurprisingly the BP article is not factually correct. Believe they have 21 days from the date of ruling to lodge an appeal. Appeals normally need grounds. Sometimes decisions can be appealed without grounds, but late submission taking a hearing beyond the scope of the hearing body/judge is going to be a fun time for someone. 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sh1t_ref_again Posted yesterday at 09:09 Share Posted yesterday at 09:09 11 hours ago, JAWS said: So only relates to the proceeds from the sell of the land to be ring fenced for the sporting quarters and no impact on a purchasing developer, so should be straight forward if price is agreeable Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RollsRoyce Posted yesterday at 09:23 Share Posted yesterday at 09:23 On 16/09/2024 at 22:16, Hxj said: No, it can be funded independently. However all the funds from Longmoor have to be transferred to the council to be paid onwards. Funds from the sale of land with planning (Longmoor), not the proceeds of the finished development. So essentially, the estimated £24m is the net price Esteban expects to receive for the land sale. That sum is then held by the council and released as the Sporting Quarter is developed. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Admin phantom Posted yesterday at 09:52 Admin Share Posted yesterday at 09:52 10 hours ago, REDOXO said: Appeals normally need grounds. Sometimes decisions can be appealed without grounds, but late submission taking a hearing beyond the scope of the hearing body/judge is going to be a fun time for someone. Am I right in saying their appeal never actually got heard because of the mistakes with the dates etc? Does that not mean that if an appeal takes place now, they could show their original information that was assumedly disregarded before? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedRaw Posted yesterday at 10:03 Share Posted yesterday at 10:03 9 minutes ago, phantom said: Am I right in saying their appeal never actually got heard because of the mistakes with the dates etc? Does that not mean that if an appeal takes place now, they could show their original information that was assumedly disregarded before? I think any appeal would be for the decision not to offer an extension of time to file the documentation, not the content of the documentation itself I may be widely wrong 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
REDOXO Posted yesterday at 13:21 Share Posted yesterday at 13:21 3 hours ago, phantom said: Am I right in saying their appeal never actually got heard because of the mistakes with the dates etc? Does that not mean that if an appeal takes place now, they could show their original information that was assumedly disregarded before? 3 hours ago, RedRaw said: I think any appeal would be for the decision not to offer an extension of time to file the documentation, not the content of the documentation itself I may be widely wrong I guess we will all see. As it’s not clear what they would appeal and to whom for what. I know a little more about US law than UK, For formerly disregarded evidence to be brought in they would likely need the issues to be reviewed ‘de novo’ (again in its entirity) by an appeal body and I have no clue if that is even possible I guess an appeal could be filed on the grounds of not allowing an extension, but ‘new’ evidence would need to be provided as to why it should have been. They would need to show similar cases were allowed an extension to stand a chance with that. if any of that makes sense. on the face of it, there is a serious issue with the filing attorney. The client must be going nuts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
38MC Posted yesterday at 15:03 Share Posted yesterday at 15:03 (edited) 5 hours ago, RedRaw said: I think any appeal would be for the decision not to offer an extension of time to file the documentation, not the content of the documentation itself I may be widely wrong Pretty much. The decision was made that it was not in the public interest to delay these developments any longer which would be the result of allowing the claim to proceed. That's going to be pretty hard to challenge. Edited yesterday at 15:11 by 38MC Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fly in the air Posted yesterday at 15:45 Share Posted yesterday at 15:45 if you believe that steve is willing to sell then surely it will be even harder to get anyone interested especially with the latest development news. not sure if he can do it but loose the bristol sport umbrella then have the football and rugby as separate companies Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JAWS Posted yesterday at 16:55 Share Posted yesterday at 16:55 1 hour ago, 38MC said: Pretty much. The decision was made that it was not in the public interest to delay these developments any longer which would be the result of allowing the claim to proceed. That's going to be pretty hard to challenge. I understand an appeal can be in respect of the original claim and not the reason for dismissal however the claimant admitted the application would not cause their operations to cease & were unable to provide sufficient evidence to contest the additional imposition on them and as you say the development is in the public interest. BUT they are already liable for costs which no doubt they will pursue their lawyers for so they may choose to have one more go! Most business owners are proud people & don't go down easily. Lets hope not 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Popodopolous Posted yesterday at 17:01 Share Posted yesterday at 17:01 1 hour ago, fly in the air said: if you believe that steve is willing to sell then surely it will be even harder to get anyone interested especially with the latest development news. not sure if he can do it but loose the bristol sport umbrella then have the football and rugby as separate companies Well Birmingham has sold to owners who are pursuing...a Sporting Quarter which will be supposedly a £2bn Project so I'd be interested to hear a comparison? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JAWS Posted yesterday at 17:11 Share Posted yesterday at 17:11 6 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said: Well Birmingham has sold to owners who are pursuing...a Sporting Quarter which will be supposedly a £2bn Project so I'd be interested to hear a comparison? I definitely think the SQ will enhance our chances of a bidder. The complex looks pretty smart and could be a money spinner. Definitely geared towards the Americans. I also think they should consider duel use between basketball and ice hockey as the Americans do. Its another income stream & bristol pitbulls regularly sell out their 1500 capacity so have no doubt they could fill the SQ 8 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.