|
|
Post by gasincider on Jan 25, 2016 11:28:34 GMT
In which case why invest £50M +? They can't run off with the stadium and we will have a 125 year lease on the place. Not to mention that UWE will still own the land it's on. We therefore have all the safeguards we need.
Plus of course contracts that ARE watertight. Mind you, I suppose they could sell all our team off cheap, and then disappear. Wonder how much we'd get for them?
|
|
|
|
Post by turnpike on Jan 25, 2016 11:45:33 GMT
I think the issue here is that whilst I understand that what the consortium is proposing is far better than we could ever have sorted for ourselves, it will involve NH selling his shares in the club. That could be the problem. Remember I said could be. Apparently, NH has implied that he can also build the new stadium win or lose in court. I can't see how he can possibly do that, because he said that either scenario would not involve paying rent to anyone. In other words he knows someone or some business that can take us over and do what the consortium are willing to do. What he hadn't said ( assuming this to be true) is if there would be funding available to massively develop a team worthy of the new stadium. The consortium, as I understand it, would do so. It almost sounds like win, win. Trouble is, NH has form. The new stadium is great however we get it, but investment in the team will also be required. Watch this space.UTG Keep the faith Where is an explanation of what consortium are proposing? In terms of building a stadium and clearing debt, £50m wouldn't leave much for investment in team |
|
|
|
Post by gasincider on Jan 25, 2016 11:58:48 GMT
I thought I wrote £50m +
|
|
|
|
Post by baggins on Jan 25, 2016 12:12:48 GMT
In which case why invest £50M +? They can't run off with the stadium and we will have a 125 year lease on the place. Not to mention that UWE will still own the land it's on. We therefore have all the safeguards we need. Plus of course contracts that ARE watertight. Mind you, I suppose they could sell all our team off cheap, and then disappear. Wonder how much we'd get for them? Depends on what they're investing in and their expected return. Still, big day tomorrow. |
|
stuart1974
Proper Gas
Posts: 12,522 
Member is Online
|
Post by stuart1974 on Jan 25, 2016 13:03:58 GMT
I can't find it but I remember reading last year a report from a football academic who said £5m would get a team into the Championship (from memory it was many times more to go from the Championship to the Premier League). In trying to find it I stumbled across this piece which some may find interesting. It is 2 years old now but still relevant. www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-26365955If they are willing to pay £50m to build the ground and clear debts, etc then is a further 10% towards players likely if it allows us to be competitive in League 1 and then the Championship over 2-4 years? I would have thought it a prudent investment otherwise the gulf between divisions becomes even greater and why bother at all? |
|
|
|
Post by Topper Gas on Jan 25, 2016 13:20:30 GMT
I think the issue here is that whilst I understand that what the consortium is proposing is far better than we could ever have sorted for ourselves, it will involve NH selling his shares in the club. That could be the problem. Remember I said could be. Apparently, NH has implied that he can also build the new stadium win or lose in court. I can't see how he can possibly do that, because he said that either scenario would not involve paying rent to anyone. In other words he knows someone or some business that can take us over and do what the consortium are willing to do. What he hadn't said ( assuming this to be true) is if there would be funding available to massively develop a team worthy of the new stadium. The consortium, as I understand it, would do so. It almost sounds like win, win. Trouble is, NH has form. The new stadium is great however we get it, but investment in the team will also be required. Watch this space.UTG Keep the faith I assume in private as I can't recall NH ever saying that in public, just that we need the UWE to survive? it seems likely it will have to be external finance and if that's the case then it's how they expected to be repaid in terms of interest payments etc which is the issue. The wonga loan shows money can always be borrowed it's paying the interest which is the difficult part. |
|
|
|
Post by pucklegas on Jan 25, 2016 15:58:25 GMT
Not ITK however this will be all sorted tomorrow, JS Sainsburys cannot afford to lose a case which would open the flood gates to other companies that they have stuffed up, it would become a stated case, and that would result in more than 30!million in losses, feeling quietly confident.
|
|
|
|
Post by Topper Gas on Jan 25, 2016 16:09:12 GMT
Sadly Court of Appeal hearings don't get settled on the steps of the court, as too much money will have already been spent on briefs etc. Sainsbury's are obviously confident of winning, or NH has turned down any offers they've made.
|
|
|
|
Post by pucklegas on Jan 25, 2016 16:44:45 GMT
Sadly Court of Appeal hearings don't get settled on the steps of the court, as too much money will have already been spent on briefs etc. Sainsbury's are obviously confident of winning, or NH has turned down any offers they've made. Disagree, if it was a one off however I would think you are correct, but in his case too many interested parties awaiting the result who maybe have not got the monies/ courage to take them on, if this sets a precedent and we win it would encourage the other interested parties to have a go, so that would be more damaging for Sainsburys than to do a confidential settlement prior to commencement. |
|
|
|
Post by francegas on Jan 25, 2016 17:07:51 GMT
Forgive me if this has already been covered somewhere in the last 266 pages but as you know we are back in court tomorrow and apparently we have a motion to present further evidence. Anyone know what this further evidence is and how likely it is to help our cause. I didn't think that on appeal we were able to present further evidence as we are appealing against the original ruling.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 25, 2016 17:10:34 GMT
Forgive me if this has already been covered somewhere in the last 266 pages but as you know we are back in court tomorrow and apparently we have a motion to present further evidence. Anyone know what this further evidence is and how likely it is to help our cause. I didn't think than on appeal we were able to present further evidence as we are appealing against the original ruling. I'm sure there will plenty itk posters who will... |
|
|
|
Post by lulworthgas on Jan 25, 2016 17:46:10 GMT
Forgive me if this has already been covered somewhere in the last 266 pages but as you know we are back in court tomorrow and apparently we have a motion to present further evidence. Anyone know what this further evidence is and how likely it is to help our cause. I didn't think that on appeal we were able to present further evidence as we are appealing against the original ruling. Apparently they found a set of car keys in plain sight that they didn't find in the first 3 searches. They implicate the accused in the murder and doesn't look one bit like planted evidence. Life imprisonment awaits as the big guy always wins and the cost of them losing is far to much for the state to even contemplate. |
|
|
|
Post by Parrot on Jan 25, 2016 17:49:36 GMT
Forgive me if this has already been covered somewhere in the last 266 pages but as you know we are back in court tomorrow and apparently we have a motion to present further evidence. Anyone know what this further evidence is and how likely it is to help our cause. I didn't think that on appeal we were able to present further evidence as we are appealing against the original ruling. Apparently they found a set of car keys in plain sight that they didn't find in the first 3 searches. They implicate the accused in the murder and doesn't look one bit like planted evidence. Life imprisonment awaits as the big guy always wins and the cost of them losing is far to much for the state to even contemplate. Maybe it was Professor Plum ? |
|
|
|
Post by Hugo the Elder on Jan 25, 2016 18:05:00 GMT
Forgive me if this has already been covered somewhere in the last 266 pages but as you know we are back in court tomorrow and apparently we have a motion to present further evidence. Anyone know what this further evidence is and how likely it is to help our cause. I didn't think that on appeal we were able to present further evidence as we are appealing against the original ruling. Apparently they found a set of car keys in plain sight that they didn't find in the first 3 searches. They implicate the accused in the murder and doesn't look one bit like planted evidence. Life imprisonment awaits as the big guy always wins and the cost of them losing is far to much for the state to even contemplate. Steven Avery is part of the consortium? |
|
|
|
Post by lulworthgas on Jan 25, 2016 18:15:26 GMT
Apparently they found a set of car keys in plain sight that they didn't find in the first 3 searches. They implicate the accused in the murder and doesn't look one bit like planted evidence. Life imprisonment awaits as the big guy always wins and the cost of them losing is far to much for the state to even contemplate. Steven Avery is part of the consortium? Could have been. He talks funny and nearly had 36 million dollars!! |
|
|
|
Post by Topper Gas on Jan 25, 2016 18:57:21 GMT
Forgive me if this has already been covered somewhere in the last 266 pages but as you know we are back in court tomorrow and apparently we have a motion to present further evidence. Anyone know what this further evidence is and how likely it is to help our cause. I didn't think that on appeal we were able to present further evidence as we are appealing against the original ruling. That's an interesting development, what's your source for that snippet? Could it be those emails Sainsbury's refused to divulge before the original trial? I just the motion is to get the Judges permission to include the evidence but there's no guarantee they'll allow it. |
|
|
|
Post by Topper Gas on Jan 25, 2016 18:59:49 GMT
Sadly Court of Appeal hearings don't get settled on the steps of the court, as too much money will have already been spent on briefs etc. Sainsbury's are obviously confident of winning, or NH has turned down any offers they've made. Disagree, if it was a one off however I would think you are correct, but in his case too many interested parties awaiting the result who maybe have not got the monies/ courage to take them on, if this sets a precedent and we win it would encourage the other interested parties to have a go, so that would be more damaging for Sainsburys than to do a confidential settlement prior to commencement. If Sainsbury's wanted to settle before the hearing why wait until tomorrow? I think you've been watching two many US court TV shows but would love to be proved wrong. Looking at it the other way would Sainsbury's giving in now then encourage other developers to issue, in the hope Sainsbury's would also pay them off? |
|
|
|
Post by chippenhamgas on Jan 25, 2016 19:08:04 GMT
Forgive me if this has already been covered somewhere in the last 266 pages but as you know we are back in court tomorrow and apparently we have a motion to present further evidence. Anyone know what this further evidence is and how likely it is to help our cause. I didn't think that on appeal we were able to present further evidence as we are appealing against the original ruling. That's an interesting development, what's your source for that snippet? Could it be those emails Sainsbury's refused to divulge before the original trial? I just the motion is to get the Judges permission to include the evidence but there's no guarantee they'll allow it. Maybe that's why we appear to be so confident against all the odds, although you have to ask why this wasn't presented during the original case. |
|
|
|
Post by Topper Gas on Jan 25, 2016 19:19:38 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 25, 2016 19:23:08 GMT
That's an interesting development, what's your source for that snippet? Could it be those emails Sainsbury's refused to divulge before the original trial? I just the motion is to get the Judges permission to include the evidence but there's no guarantee they'll allow it. Maybe that's why we appear to be so confident against all the odds, although you have to ask why this wasn't presented during the original case. What if Rovers have discovered that it was Sainsbury's that actually bankrolled the Judical Review (TRASH).....just saying. Ah, Topper beat me to it. Darn those pesky kids! |
|
