Jump to content

More Positive News


suntouched
 Share

Recommended Posts

The clubs attitude is quite baffling. Why are we determined to fall out with everybody ?

 

And the non-attendance is for me not only an admission of guilt, but also indicates that SFC were determined just to be bloody difficult for as long as possible. Not that NC has somehow a problem with the quality of the job, or the club would have defended.

 

Troubling.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Seems like a fairly standard contractual dispute to me.

 

"An adjudication in August ruled that the club should hand over the money “immediately” along with interest built up in the month at £12.81 per day.

But despite further demands, no money was handed to the commercial outfitter, which is based in Lee-on-the-Solent, and no explanation was offered, the court heard."

 

"The club did not send a representative or a legal team to the case, emailing court officials a day before to signal their intention not to attend. In their absence, the club was ordered to pay £55,000 plus VAT as well as interest totalling £1,370.63 and legal costs of £3,309.

Mr Justice Robert Akenhead said he could “not understand” why the club had left it until the day before the hearing to tell the court they were not appearing for a defence against the claim.

“There does not appear to be a good reason why they did not do it three weeks ago to avoid paying these (legal) costs,” he said."

 

A contractual despute we didn't dispute or bother sending any legal representation to or even bother to argue? How odd.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Seems like a fairly standard contractual dispute to me.

 

So did you not read the article before posting your out of touch comment

 

I dont think is Standard not to pay bills and upset the Judge

 

An adjudication in August ruled that the club should hand over the money “immediately” along with interest built up in the month at £12.81 per day.

 

But despite further demands, no money was handed to the commercial outfitter, which is based in Lee-on-the-Solent, and no explanation was offered, the court heard.

 

 

The club did not send a representative or a legal team to the case, emailing court officials a day before to signal their intention not to attend. In their absence, the club was ordered to pay £55,000 plus VAT as well as interest totalling £1,370.63 and legal costs of £3,309.

 

 

 

 

 

Mr Justice Robert Akenhead said he could “not understand” why the club had left it until the day before the hearing to tell the court they were not appearing for a defence against the claim.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's not great! But then this could be one side of the story. The line point that is very quickly glossed over makes me want to know more about why they ended up here

 

"work on the refurbishment had overrun as a result of the club making variations to the project as it was going along."

 

I'm not speculating one way or the other, but there tend to be two sides to most stories

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's not great! But then this could be one side of the story. The line point that is very quickly glossed over makes me want to know more about why they ended up here

 

"work on the refurbishment had overrun as a result of the club making variations to the project as it was going along."

 

I'm not speculating one way or the other, but there tend to be two sides to most stories

 

Saints had the chance to give their side of the story in court, they didn't bother turning up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Probably. But surely there would be a reason why it got to this point? Even if they were wrong, they must have thought differently at an earlier date. Does that no interest?

 

Well the judge could not understand why we did that and i suggest he knows much more about it than we ever will.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well the judge could not understand why we did that and i suggest he knows much more about it than we ever will.

 

True! Obviously something went wrong somewhere. I would expect there was a dispute over the money and some of the work that was done. What that is I guess we will not know!

 

But why they ignored the original demand to pay is the moest interesting point. They obviously agree they should have paid due to not attending court.

 

There are two issues I guess. Why it wasn't paid on completion of the work and why the court order was seemingly ignored!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wait to hear from all those that were outraged at the suggestion that work at the training ground had been stopped due to non payment.........

 

One thing is for sure, it looks like those demanding evidence about the "rumours" of our business practices now finally have some.

 

Your second quote perhaps explains the first? Or perhaps I've missed previous actual "evidence"? (as opposed to anecdotal 'evidence')

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Club pays hardball, putting its interests above everything else (nothing wrong with that) and gets burned (well its not like they had to pay damages or anything).

Not great news: bviously you don't want a reputation for being hard to deal with -though in this climate who is going to sniff at potential work- but you don't want a reputation for being pushovers either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

but do you want a reputation, with the Liebherr family, of a person who costs them additional legal fees? This is the first fully reported case, but how many more have there been? Looking forward to seeing how the training ground pans out too.......

 

I really,really doubt that the Liebherr family (or Markus's branch of it anyway) has anything more to do with the club whatsoever. NC runs Markus's mainstream industry as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Club pays hardball, putting its interests above everything else (nothing wrong with that) and gets burned (well its not like they had to pay damages or anything).

Not great news: bviously you don't want a reputation for being hard to deal with -though in this climate who is going to sniff at potential work- but you don't want a reputation for being pushovers either.

 

Round of applause for the first defence of the club against a court action against the club and how Cortese ruthless streak and not being pushed around is in fact a postive thing in this instance.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=heAw4z71lvo

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Round of applause for the first defence of the club against a court action against the club and how Cortese ruthless streak and not being pushed around is in fact a postive thing in this instance.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=heAw4z71lvo

 

I thought it was a more positive news thread.

 

Looking forward to your one-eyed m**g efforts to join all the dots up and conclude that everything is rotten at the club....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I really,really doubt that the Liebherr family (or Markus's branch of it anyway) has anything more to do with the club whatsoever. NC runs Markus's mainstream industry as well.

 

assume you're right here - and that worries me intensely. It's always appeared to me that he's just playing at being 'boss' given he's using someone else's money - hence the ability to drag out a court case and not worry about additional fees incurred.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I thought it was a more positive news thread.

 

Looking forward to your one-eyed m**g efforts to join all the dots up and conclude that everything is rotten at the club....

 

Not really. It's amusing that all those demanding evidence and ridiculing, abusing and accusing people of having agendas for sharing their accounts about the clubs, shall we call them, questionable, business ethics now have their evidence and its pretty daming,no?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not really. It's amusing that all those demanding evidence and ridiculing, abusing and accusing people of having agendas for sharing their accounts about the clubs, shall we call them, questionable, business ethics now have their evidence and its pretty daming,no?

 

Fighting the battle on two fronts Dicky! Fair play to you! TSW on the laptop, TUI on the iPad?

 

True dedication.

 

There should be more like you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fighting the battle on two fronts Dicky! Fair play to you! TSW on the laptop, TUI on the iPad?

 

True dedication.

 

There should be more like you.

 

Come on Bradley, stop stalking me from your Slough bedsit and defend your hero!! Tell us again what a great businessman he is!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Come on Bradley, stop stalking me from your Slough bedsit and defend your hero!! Tell us again what a great businessman he is!

 

Keep fighting the good fight Rich!

 

That's 3 and out for me! Fill your boots!

 

You've truly got great mong board dedication tho. Actually paying subs from your hard earned wages just to post as much as you need to on here.

 

God bless you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Keep fighting the good fight Rich!

 

That's 3 and out for me! Fill your boots!

 

You've truly got great mong board dedication tho. Actually paying subs from your hard earned wages just to post as much as you need to on here.

 

God bless you.

 

That's what happens where you're not struggling to pay your rent on a Slough bedsit Bradley, it's the trappings of success!! Enjoy your afternoon stalking people you've come across on mongboards Bradders!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One thing is for sure, it looks like those demanding evidence about the "rumours" of our business practices now finally have some. Unless of course it's journalists lying and making up stories.

 

As I have suggested before, If the next set of accounts have line items for legal fees, out of court settlements and forced financial judgements, then people will have all the information they need.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As I have suggested before, If the next set of accounts have line items for legal fees, out of court settlements and forced financial judgements, then people will have all the information they need.

 

The "worry" with the accounts is that they're usually 12-18 months out of date by the time they're published; so really they only serve to clarify what was considered to be fact well before that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not really. It's amusing that all those demanding evidence and ridiculing, abusing and accusing people of having agendas for sharing their accounts about the clubs, shall we call them, questionable, business ethics now have their evidence and its pretty daming,no?

 

The judge held that the club should pay up for the remaining work done, presumably on the basis that the overruns were due to the club varying the specs.

Nothing more, nothing less but questionable business ethics?!?! -you make it sound like Cortese is an arms dealer who dabbles in human trafficking and money laundering on the side.

At worst, he's trumped up little to$$er but as long as he holds himself to the same exacting standards as he appears to hold everyone else, I can live with that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The judge held that the club should pay up for the remaining work done, presumably on the basis that the overruns were due to the club varying the specs.

Nothing more, nothing less but questionable business ethics?!?! -you make it sound like Cortese is an arms dealer who dabbles in human trafficking and money laundering on the side.

At worst, he's trumped up little to$$er but as long as he holds himself to the same exacting standards as he appears to hold everyone else, I can live with that.

 

How do you know if he does?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The judge held that the club should pay up for the remaining work done, presumably on the basis that the overruns were due to the club varying the specs.

Nothing more, nothing less but questionable business ethics?!?! -you make it sound like Cortese is an arms dealer who dabbles in human trafficking and money laundering on the side.

At worst, he's trumped up little to$$er but as long as he holds himself to the same exacting standards as he appears to hold everyone else, I can live with that.

 

Hang on a minute, only a few weeks back people when people were saying this sort of stuff, amoungst others, was going on, those that said this was the case were demanded to provide PROOF, it was asked why none of this was making the media. In fact only a few days back certain posters were lining up to take pot shots at me for 'having and agenda' and 'not liking cortese'. Well now this evidence is out there, its in the media, we've have a f*cking court order made against us! so does this mean that we are still dismissing everything else as utter bullsh*t, or like people do with positve news, acclaim it as FACT and actually wonder what else is going on?

 

I do admire the blind defence of Cortese though, you've got to hand it to people who will desperately cling to anything and try to spin everything as positive yet in the next breath have a go at Pompey for not paying bills and shafting local businesses. You really couldn't make it up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do admire the blind defence of Cortese though, you've got to hand it to people who will desperately cling to anything and try to spin everything as positive yet in the next breath have a go at Pompey for not paying bills and shafting local businesses. You really couldn't make it up.

 

I find it really funny!

 

*says something detrimental about the club*

"Proof, where's the proof? This is only your opinion, its all you ever talk about".

 

*proof comes out in the local press*

"Well this clearly shows that Cortese knows what he's doing and won't be pushed around. Its a good thing, and its only your agenda that makes you see it as bad".

 

Your Pompey analogy is totally spot on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Saints had the chance to give their side of the story in court, they didn't bother turning up.

 

This unfortunately

 

I cant see how you can defend the club on this, is there another side of the story ? Maybe, but it cant be a strong case as obviously they were not confident of a couple of days arguement in court.

 

It says that the works over ran, maybe the club thought it was a legitimate reason for withholding payment ? But then if they changed designs etc that would be expected. Playing devils advocate maybe the company should have taken the new designs with a signed conteact of work extension ? But we cant speculate as, like I said before, the club couldnt be bothered to argue either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...