Jump to content
IGNORED

Bristol R*vers dustbin thread

42nite

By 42nite
in Football Chat

 Share

Recommended Posts

BTRFTG

BTRFTG

Posted
Posted

The funny thing is ciderup that MSP Capital do actually have a charge over the football club as well as the Mem. So they obviously did not want Nicholas "spinning off" the Rovers without settling their debt. Which might mean there is substance to the speculation that Dorset based MSP may be friends with Dorset based Harry Redknapp and that there is a link between the MSP deal with 1883 Ltd and Harry's expressed desire to "form a consawtyum and get back into footbaw". So the arrangement between Nicholas and MSP Capital could be more than simply a "bridging" loan and perhaps that is what our own "young gentleman in a civil disturbance" is alluding to when he tells us of those "other options" ? Or it might all be a load of bowls

On the basis (as evidenced in court) that 'Arry can neither read nor write looks like a match made in heaven : "I didn't know what I was signing....,"(works in either Cockney or Brizzleton accent.) 'Arry n 'Iggs - has a certain ring to it, don't you think?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
bert tann

bert tann

Posted
Posted

It would be a sad day for semi professional football if the Basement Rovers thread dropped off the front page of OTIB.

 

I was looking forward to purchasing a replica kit for my great great grandson "Young Bert" at the Rovers family fun day but sadly, due to a technical difficulty, they will not be available. Something about not having pub advertisements on kids clothing apparently ?  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bristol Rob

Bristol Rob

Posted
Posted

It would be a sad day for semi professional football if the Basement Rovers thread dropped off the front page of OTIB.

I was looking forward to purchasing a replica kit for my great great grandson "Young Bert" at the Rovers family fun day but sadly, due to a technical difficulty, they will not be available. Something about not having pub advertisements on kids clothing apparently ?

Surely it's easier to produce shirts without branding?

Make shirt, don't put a pub logo on it, sell.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest

Guest

Posted
Posted (edited)

So if I just try to get my head around this: DC got offered the manager's job on the basis that he would be managing them in League Two as the club never budgeted for relegation. It was a rolling contract so no danger of expiration upcoming. Presumably no wage drop on relegation on the basis that would be budgeting for relegation... Following relegation and promotion (by the lottery of the Pray Offs) DC now gets a new contract and presumably a pay rise for guiding the club in to umm League Two where he is still untested at best.... Oh and this what 10 days or so since he moaned about the wages players expect from Bristol Rovers/budgets and weeks since the EP claimed Rovers' FD said losing UWE could be catastrophic for the club's financial wellbeing................

 

:aok2:

Edited by Guest
Link to comment
Share on other sites
BS2 Red

BS2 Red

Posted
Posted

So if I just try to get my head around this: DC got offered the manager's job on the basis that he would be managing them in League Two as the club never budgeted for relegation. It was a rolling contract so no danger of expiration upcoming. Presumably no wage drop on relegation on the basis that would be budgeting for relegation... Following relegation and promotion (by the lottery of the Pray Offs) DC now gets a new contract and presumably a pay rise for guiding the club in to umm League Two where he is still untested at best.... Oh and this what 10 days or so since he moaned about the wages players expect from Bristol Rovers/budgets and weeks since the EP claimed Rovers' FD said losing UWE could be catastrophic for the club's financial wellbeing................

 

:aok2:

 

Yeah but ignoring all that he deserves a new contract as he has done a great job at singing, swearing and chanting in pubs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest

Guest

Posted
Posted

Yeah but ignoring all that he deserves a new contract as he has done a great job at singing, swearing and chanting in pubs.

 

:clap:

 

Ah ok makes sense

 

I was confused as I just thought normally you get a bonus in recognition of good past performances and a pay rise when you've demonstrated that you consistently excel :doh:

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Frenchay Red

Frenchay Red

Posted
Posted

:clap:

Ah ok makes sense

I was confused as I just thought normally you get a bonus in recognition of good past performances and a pay rise when you've demonstrated that you consistently excel :doh:

Unless you are a banker, or Dopey. But then Dopey is a bit of a banker. At least I think that's what some of our lot have been chanting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
samo II

samo II

Posted
Posted

Even by gas standards you'd have to be ******* stupid to believe all those answers...

So am I getting this right in thinking that their legal team (who I presume will be paid; win or lose) said "you should go for this" and they agreed?  

 

And if I was the person asking "isn't this just throwing good money after bad?" I'd no be very satisfied that they aren't.

 

Genuinely more shocked than even amused at the limp answers there; anyone else think the appeal is the current regime spoiling for time in the hope they find a buyer?  Because it sounds that way to me.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Gazred

Gazred

Posted
Posted

So am I getting this right in thinking that their legal team (who I presume will be paid; win or lose) said "you should go for this" and they agreed?  

 

And if I was the person asking "isn't this just throwing good money after bad?" I'd no be very satisfied that they aren't.

 

Genuinely more shocked than even amused at the limp answers there; anyone else think the appeal is the current regime spoiling for time in the hope they find a buyer?  Because it sounds that way to me.

 

Someone should of asked "what will the financial state of the club be if the appeal is lost?".

 

Last roll of the dice i reckon, they are going for broke.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest

Guest

Posted
Posted (edited)

So am I getting this right in thinking that their legal team (who I presume will be paid; win or lose) said "you should go for this" and they agreed?

And if I was the person asking "isn't this just throwing good money after bad?" I'd no be very satisfied that they aren't.

Genuinely more shocked than even amused at the limp answers there; anyone else think the appeal is the current regime spoiling for time in the hope they find a buyer? Because it sounds that way to me.

To be fair they do have a good legal team behind them. Burges Salmon have a really strong reputation, big flagship clients and a number of leading rated partners. They also have a QC advocating.

When you have those sorts of reputations it's highly doubtful they'd risk it leading down a merry path to appeal, the fees of which would be a drop in the ocean.

Strong judgments have been completely overturned on appeal before. Like I've said before I think we should wait and see what their grounds for appeal are before writing them off - think Man Utd v Bayern CL Final.

Edited by Guest
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Peter O Hanraha-hanrahan

Peter O Hanraha-hanrahan

Posted
Posted

I don't know how they can seriously think they have any chance of winning the appeal.

 

See below:

 

To be fair they do have a good legal team behind them. Burges Salmon have a really strong reputation, big flagship clients and a number of leading rated partners. They also have a QC advocating.

When you have those sorts of reputations it's highly doubtful they'd risk it leading down a merry path to appeal, the fees of which would be a drop in the ocean.

Strong judgments have been completely overturned on appeal before. Like I've said before I think we should wait and see what their grounds for appeal are before writing them off - think Man Utd v Bayern CL Final.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Eddie Hitler

Eddie Hitler

Posted
Posted (edited)

QCs will give odds, they won't say that they're going to win.

They may be saying you have a 60:40 chance of winning an appeal and that's good enough for Higgs.

I have used QCs before and lost once when the QC estimated 80:20. They are very fallible. And expensive.

The regional law firms are having a very thin time of it these days as the legal aid reforms have kicked in work has dried up and several have gone bust. I would have thought Burges Salmon would be equally affected and desperate to make up their income by taking on some big complex cases exactly like this one.

Just sayin'...

Edited by Eddie Hitler
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest

Guest

Posted
Posted (edited)

QCs will give odds, they won't say that they're going to win.

They may be saying you have a 60:40 chance of winning an appeal and that's good enough for Higgs.

I have used QC's before and lost once when the QC estimated 80:20. They are very fallible. And expensive.

The regional law firms are having a very thin time of it these days as the legal aid reforms have kicked in work has dried up and several have gone bust. I would have thought Burges Salmon would be equally affected and desperate to make up their income by taking on some big complex cases exactly like this one.

Just sayin'...

In a complex case very ordinarily it will be QC advocating against QC. One has to lose. I wouldn't call that fallibility necessarily. A 50% ratio is v good on that basis.

Performance is not solely down to the QC's skills. It comes down to the whole legal team and how they work with the solicitors and the quality of the work carried out by the solicitors in collecting evidence, taking witness statements, collecting facts etc. the QC is just a cog in the wheel.

As for your defeat on the 80:20 I'd say it sounds like the risk wasn't properly explained. 80:20 is still a defeat in 1

in 5 instances. That's still a very real, genuine and not insignificant risk. And your right with the 60:40... seems that's very typical.

Re Burges Salmon and fees without checking I'd wager legal aid would have been a relatively small although not insignificant part of their revenue. The biggest downward driver on fees would just be belt tightening in the marketplace and potentially ABS structures. But a quick look at some of the names on the testimonials, the brief mention of billion pound deals they've advised on... They certainly won't be feeling privileged to have been selected, their reputation already far more than justifies it.

Whilst the judgment seemed bullish let's not forget one line from proceedings - 'the agreement was Byzantine in complexities'. We have only seen some extracts of it. Who knows what will be going in the grounds of appeal?

Edited by Guest
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Aizoon

Aizoon

Posted
Posted

To put it in poker parlance they're pot committed and about to go all in on a pair of tens when there is quite clearly a flush on the table

Or, in brag terms, they've bet their house and car on a prial of queens, and they've a growing suspicion that their opponent is sitting on a prial of threes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest

Guest

Posted
Posted

Or, in brag terms, they've bet their house and car on a prial of queens, and they've a growing suspicion that their opponent is sitting on a prial of threes.

Or, in football terms, it's the last minute of injury time and they're on the counter (being the application to appeal). Score and they face extra time, maybe all down with cramp, but they could still nick it or win in the Supreme Court on pens.

Or for Sainsbury's the champagne is on ice, but needs to chill a little longer until the appeals have been exhausted.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Eddie Hitler

Eddie Hitler

Posted
Posted

As for your defeat on the 80:20 I'd say it sounds like the risk wasn't properly explained. 80:20 is still a defeat in 1

in 5 instances. That's still a very real, genuine and not insignificant risk. And your right with the 60:40... seems that's very typical.

 

You must be a lawyer!  As a non-lawyer I see 80:20 as a very strong case rather than probabilities upon a dice roll.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest

Guest

Posted
Posted (edited)

You must be a lawyer! As a non-lawyer I see 80:20 as a very strong case rather than probabilities upon a dice roll.

Well it's not quite that, although admittedly you'd assume some correlation and perhaps semantics. But an opinion almost always will be delivered explicitly as a 'chance of success' because that's what it is - probabilities and not necessarily an assessment of the merits of the case as it will be put versus the opposition as it will be put necessarily.

The way an opinion is obtained is important too. A solicitor will prepare instructions and ask the barrister to opine on a chance of success based upon the arguments they put forward. It's the solicitors that put the argument and the barrister will give an opinion on their merits and perhaps deliver it. That's why the skill of both is so important and by virtue of that it has to be a probability as so many vital ingredients are missing - knowing what the counter arguments are in sufficient detail for one.

The sort of opinion your after could only reasonably be given after a hearing and the case has been put by both sides. To give what you suggest a barrister would need to pre-empt how the arguments were supported and developed, how witnesses performed, how evidence was cross examined, what evidence had to be defended, how everything stood up, what precedents might come out on the eve of the hearing etc. That's enough clairvoyance to mean you could never expect to be that accurate.

Edited by Guest
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Monkeh

Monkeh

Posted
Posted

In a complex case very ordinarily it will be QC advocating against QC. One has to lose. I wouldn't call that fallibility necessarily. A 50% ratio is v good on that basis.

Performance is not solely down to the QC's skills. It comes down to the whole legal team and how they work with the solicitors and the quality of the work carried out by the solicitors in collecting evidence, taking witness statements, collecting facts etc. the QC is just a cog in the wheel.

As for your defeat on the 80:20 I'd say it sounds like the risk wasn't properly explained. 80:20 is still a defeat in 1

in 5 instances. That's still a very real, genuine and not insignificant risk. And your right with the 60:40... seems that's very typical.

Re Burges Salmon and fees without checking I'd wager legal aid would have been a relatively small although not insignificant part of their revenue. The biggest downward driver on fees would just be belt tightening in the marketplace and potentially ABS structures. But a quick look at some of the names on the testimonials, the brief mention of billion pound deals they've advised on... They certainly won't be feeling privileged to have been selected, their reputation already far more than justifies it.

Whilst the judgment seemed bullish let's not forget one line from proceedings - 'the agreement was Byzantine in complexities'. We have only seen some extracts of it. Who knows what will be going in the grounds of appeal?

What mistakes did the judge make while making her judgement? As that's the only way they can appeal, they can't appeal because they didn't like the outcome
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest

Guest

Posted
Posted (edited)

What mistakes did the judge make while making her judgement? As that's the only way they can appeal, they can't appeal because they didn't like the outcome

There could have been something procedural or if they think she didn't properly apply precedents they relied upon correctly they can appeal the judgment simply on the basis of an error in applying law.

I truthfully have absolutely no idea on what their appeal will be based but I presume none of us have been close enough to proceedings and the issue and contract as a whole to suggest an appeal will be without merit, at least without knowing the basis of it.

If it is baseless it will be thrown out but until then I personally think it's a hell of a lot to doggedly rule out their legal team being a step ahead of us and our thinking. A few years ago there were some on here adamantly saying in the AV JR proceedings substitution of the claimant was without merit....

Edited by Guest
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Monkeh

Monkeh

Posted
Posted

There could have been something procedural or if they think she didn't properly apply precedents they relied upon correctly they can appeal the judgment simply on the basis of an error in applying law.

I truthfully have absolutely no idea on what their appeal will be based but I presume none of us have been close enough to proceedings and the issue and contract as a whole to suggest an appeal will be without merit, at least without knowing the basis of it.

If it is baseless it will be thrown out but until then I personally think it's a hell of a lot to doggedly rule out their legal team being a step ahead of us and our thinking. A few years ago there were some on here adamantly saying in the AV JR proceedings substitution of the claimant was without merit....

Their whole arguement however was based on bad faith but contract law trumps this which is why sainsburys won which is clear in the summary released

And our jr review thing no president had been set previously and out case set that

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest

Guest

Posted
Posted (edited)

Their whole arguement however was based on bad faith but contract law trumps this which is why sainsburys won which is clear in the summary released

And our jr review thing no president had been set previously and out case set that

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.

Edited by Guest
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Monkeh

Monkeh

Posted
Posted

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.

I think they are appealing because they have no choice but to, if it doesn't go to appeal and they don't win then its administration and to me Toni the tills q and a confirms this

All that talk of plan b their itk kept on about doesn't exist which that q and a confirms,

Just been reading their forum and most of their rose tinters are critical which isn't a good sign,

They lose a couple of their opening games and the men will be emptier then the Williams stand will be this season

It is not looking good, also the comment about them wanting it heard before Xmas says to me that they have no way of paying back the msp loan

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Admin
phantom

phantom

Posted
  • Admin
Posted

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 ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Monkeh

Monkeh

Posted
Posted

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 ?

Some one will always defend a case

We have to remember rovers haven't got leave to appeal yet, they are submitting leave for appeal on 31st then waiting for the court to review and say yay or nay, then the case will be scheduled, if the court turns round sand says next week you have no reason to appeal i think they will have to go to the high court then the European court x

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest

Guest

Posted
Posted

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 ?

 

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.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest

Guest

Posted
Posted (edited)

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.

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.

Edited by Guest
Link to comment
Share on other sites
richwwtk

richwwtk

Posted
Posted

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest

Guest

Posted
Posted (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  :drunk2:). 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 by Guest
Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Admin
phantom

phantom

Posted
  • Admin
Posted

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?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest

Guest

Posted
Posted (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 by Guest
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.

×
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...