The club should get Dev and Bargy on the pitch to scrap this out as half-time entertainment. Give each of them a wad of legal papers to whack the other with.
The other arguments I was referring to, should have been raised at the original County Court hearing, but were not. So the only ground of appeal was the penalties issue, which HHJ Moloney himself said that he may have been wrong about. That left us with no choice but to proceed to the Court of Appeal on that basis. In hindsight, the whole saga could and should have been handled better, but I hadn't even completed my law degree in 2015.
Regarding the Couhig case, the following are what has been published by the RC. I doubt that they would have made up the quote or the figures:
However, Redwood and Mr Couhig believe "In early May 2024 or thereabouts, Renhe or persons acting on a document headed 'Reading FC-Investment Opportunity Incredible immediate opportunity to acquire the club for a fraction of its worth'. The said document invited a "Submission of Letter of Intent & Proof of Funds (£45m) to the club by 22 May 2024".
This was a breach of the exclusivity agreement, and the document, seen by the Reading Chronicle, states: "Renhe's breach of the Exclusivity Provisions in the [Letter of Intent] has caused Redwood the loss of a chance to acquire Renhe's shares in Reading FC. It is Redwood's case that the chance of acquiring the shares in Reading FC from Renhe (but for Renhe's breach of contract) was at least 50%. Redwood reserves the right to argue at trial that the lost chance was significantly higher than 50%. If it be determined at trial that Redwood's chance of acquiring the shares in Reading FC from Renhe was a percentage more or less than 50%, then Redwood claims damages accordingly."
In addition to the loss of £12,000,000 from the potential profits, fees of over £300,000 are also being claimed.
This is for:
£288,092.14+ VAT for legal fees
£908 legal fees in British Virgin Islands
£4,124.50 on flights and accommodation for Due Diligence in May
£5,627.81 on flights and accommodation for Due Diligence in September
A court date is yet to be set, but Redwood Holdings are filing for a total of £12,298,752.45.
Interest on top of this includes a daily rate of £2,611.38 per day, and already stands at £80,952.75
Too late. This thread has already been turned into a popular Japanese cartoon, shown on Sunday evenings on TV Tokyo. (With an uncanny portrayal of drcongo looking on)
It may well be the case that the other arguments you refer to should have been raised in the County Court hearing but the QC (or KC as you wrongly refer to his status at the time) was not part of that case. You suggested that the QC didn't have experience in the case law required and that you would have done better than him, and then confirmed that he did in fact have experience in the area that was allowed to be discussed and that he focused on in the Court of Appeal while you still wanted to drone on about aspects that had been barred from the Appeal Court Hearing. No wonder the County Court judge was so critical of your sides case in the original hearing and insisted that proper lawyers handled the case in the CoA and Supreme Court not someone halfway through his law degree!
You have cut and pasted an article from Reading's equivalent of the Bucks Free Press which itself has cut and pasted an extract from the party bringing the action's letter of complaint. From just that source you reached the firm conclusion that "However, it seems undeniable that the terms of the period of exclusivity were breached" before going on 10 minutes later to acknowledge that you couldn't possibly reach a firm conclusion on the evidence available to you.
I do hope you are a little more disciplined in your thinking and presentation of the parking ticket advocacy you take on. Not hard otherwise to see why judges get so frustrated at amateurs pretending to be lawyers
I'll leave it there. Have a great Christmas, @bargepole
I used the phrase 'it seems', which is not a firm conclusion.
As for presentation and advocacy in other cases, parking ticket and otherwise, I have a provable overall success rate of 81% for my clients over a 7 year period since I started my company. So the majority of Judges in those cases agreed with my submissions, and my clients' feedback gives me a 4.7 rating on Trustpilot:
Just for the record (and I know I said I would leave it there....) but there is a world of difference in terms of your having reached a firm conclusion between the phrase "however it seems that the terms of the period of exclusivity were breached" and the phrase you used which was "however it seems undeniable that the terms of the period of exclusivity were breached" .
The latter phrase would be regarded in a court by any judge, any proper lawyer and even any wannabe lawyer (with one exception it seems) as constituting a firm opinion.
Sometimes mate it really is better to stop digging......
I used the caveat 'it seems', because at this stage we haven't seen any actual evidence, only the initial pleadings. If Couhig is correct, Renhe have a case to answer, but we need to see their response to that allegation.
However, I do agree with your assertion that this is a tactical move by Couhig, which prevents any other party from buying Reading FC while this case remains live in the High Court.
Busy trying to convince my daughter that my MENSA rating was off the scale (without mentioning which end).
But the present dispute between @DevC and @bargepole, our resident legal expert, is a matter of linguistics and the likely difference in interpretation in a court of law of the wording of two similar statements.
Apropos of nothing, I asked Chat GPT who was the best poster in the Gasroom. It replied:
Determining the “best” poster on the Gasroom football forum is subjective and varies based on individual preferences and criteria. The forum comprises a diverse group of contributors, each bringing unique insights, humor, and perspectives to discussions about Wycombe Wanderers and related topics.
Some members are appreciated for their in-depth analysis and detailed match reports, providing valuable insights into team performance and tactics. Others are recognized for their humor and ability to lighten discussions, making the forum an engaging place for fans. Additionally, there are contributors who offer historical context, sharing anecdotes and experiences that enrich the community’s understanding of the club’s heritage.
The Gasroom thrives on this diversity of voices, and the “best” poster is often a matter of personal opinion, depending on what each member values in the discussions. Engaging with a variety of contributors can provide a well-rounded perspective on the topics at hand.
It’s worth noting that the forum has experienced instances of heated debates and personal conflicts among members. For example, a discussion thread from July 2023 highlights a disagreement between users ‘ChasHarps’ and ‘bargepole,’ which was described by another member as “becoming increasingly boring and rather pathetic.” This suggests that while the forum is a space for lively discussion, maintaining civility and respect among members is important for the community’s overall health.
Ultimately, the strength of the Gasroom lies in its collective membership, where each poster contributes to the vibrant tapestry of discussions that make the forum a valuable resource for fans.
Comments
I need more Popcorn and as we're heading into the afternoon I may crack open a lager to enjoy Season 2 of Gasroom Legal!
I logged off before the special Christmas episode of 'Crown Court' started.
I hope @DevC and @bargepole are not charging someone for 'hours spent outlining case on football forum'
The club should get Dev and Bargy on the pitch to scrap this out as half-time entertainment. Give each of them a wad of legal papers to whack the other with.
The other arguments I was referring to, should have been raised at the original County Court hearing, but were not. So the only ground of appeal was the penalties issue, which HHJ Moloney himself said that he may have been wrong about. That left us with no choice but to proceed to the Court of Appeal on that basis. In hindsight, the whole saga could and should have been handled better, but I hadn't even completed my law degree in 2015.
Regarding the Couhig case, the following are what has been published by the RC. I doubt that they would have made up the quote or the figures:
However, Redwood and Mr Couhig believe "In early May 2024 or thereabouts, Renhe or persons acting on a document headed 'Reading FC-Investment Opportunity Incredible immediate opportunity to acquire the club for a fraction of its worth'. The said document invited a "Submission of Letter of Intent & Proof of Funds (£45m) to the club by 22 May 2024".
This was a breach of the exclusivity agreement, and the document, seen by the Reading Chronicle, states: "Renhe's breach of the Exclusivity Provisions in the [Letter of Intent] has caused Redwood the loss of a chance to acquire Renhe's shares in Reading FC. It is Redwood's case that the chance of acquiring the shares in Reading FC from Renhe (but for Renhe's breach of contract) was at least 50%. Redwood reserves the right to argue at trial that the lost chance was significantly higher than 50%. If it be determined at trial that Redwood's chance of acquiring the shares in Reading FC from Renhe was a percentage more or less than 50%, then Redwood claims damages accordingly."
In addition to the loss of £12,000,000 from the potential profits, fees of over £300,000 are also being claimed.
This is for:
A court date is yet to be set, but Redwood Holdings are filing for a total of £12,298,752.45.
Interest on top of this includes a daily rate of £2,611.38 per day, and already stands at £80,952.75
Too late. This thread has already been turned into a popular Japanese cartoon, shown on Sunday evenings on TV Tokyo. (With an uncanny portrayal of drcongo looking on)
Good warm up for the Fury Usyk fight
It may well be the case that the other arguments you refer to should have been raised in the County Court hearing but the QC (or KC as you wrongly refer to his status at the time) was not part of that case. You suggested that the QC didn't have experience in the case law required and that you would have done better than him, and then confirmed that he did in fact have experience in the area that was allowed to be discussed and that he focused on in the Court of Appeal while you still wanted to drone on about aspects that had been barred from the Appeal Court Hearing. No wonder the County Court judge was so critical of your sides case in the original hearing and insisted that proper lawyers handled the case in the CoA and Supreme Court not someone halfway through his law degree!
You have cut and pasted an article from Reading's equivalent of the Bucks Free Press which itself has cut and pasted an extract from the party bringing the action's letter of complaint. From just that source you reached the firm conclusion that "However, it seems undeniable that the terms of the period of exclusivity were breached" before going on 10 minutes later to acknowledge that you couldn't possibly reach a firm conclusion on the evidence available to you.
I do hope you are a little more disciplined in your thinking and presentation of the parking ticket advocacy you take on. Not hard otherwise to see why judges get so frustrated at amateurs pretending to be lawyers
I'll leave it there. Have a great Christmas, @bargepole
Another thread turns to people wittering about parking fine appeals. Jesus wept.
I think I saw someone mention KC and the Sunshine Band? Give it up, guys.
I used the phrase 'it seems', which is not a firm conclusion.
As for presentation and advocacy in other cases, parking ticket and otherwise, I have a provable overall success rate of 81% for my clients over a 7 year period since I started my company. So the majority of Judges in those cases agreed with my submissions, and my clients' feedback gives me a 4.7 rating on Trustpilot:
Smallclaimsadvisor Reviews | Read Customer Service Reviews of www.smallclaimsadvisor.co.uk
Can someone change the title of this tread to "bargepole v DevC"?
That would apply to almost every thread ...
I've always thought DevC might have been the alter ego of bargepole, seems not.
It would be interesting (to me anyway) to know the IQ scores of @DevC and @bargepole. Lady GaGa apparently has a score of 166.
Mine was 161 on the official Mensa test. Mind you, that was a few years ago, and I've probably lost a few braincells after fighting fires on here.
Just for the record (and I know I said I would leave it there....) but there is a world of difference in terms of your having reached a firm conclusion between the phrase "however it seems that the terms of the period of exclusivity were breached" and the phrase you used which was "however it seems undeniable that the terms of the period of exclusivity were breached" .
The latter phrase would be regarded in a court by any judge, any proper lawyer and even any wannabe lawyer (with one exception it seems) as constituting a firm opinion.
Sometimes mate it really is better to stop digging......
I'm not in a hole, and not digging.
I used the caveat 'it seems', because at this stage we haven't seen any actual evidence, only the initial pleadings. If Couhig is correct, Renhe have a case to answer, but we need to see their response to that allegation.
However, I do agree with your assertion that this is a tactical move by Couhig, which prevents any other party from buying Reading FC while this case remains live in the High Court.
Oh you are.
No you said "it seems undeniable...." not just "it seems.....".
Two very different meanings....
Anyone who does a Mensa test should have their score divided by two.
@micra where are you when needed?
Busy trying to convince my daughter that my MENSA rating was off the scale (without mentioning which end).
But the present dispute between @DevC and @bargepole, our resident legal expert, is a matter of linguistics and the likely difference in interpretation in a court of law of the wording of two similar statements.
I’m keeping out of it.
devc and bargeyp could write a bad romance (oh-oh-oh-oh-oh)
It’s a scam playing on petty vanity and I’ll never get that £65 quid back.
absolutely terrible thread this
Depends if you're trying to fall asleep or not.
Apropos of nothing, I asked Chat GPT who was the best poster in the Gasroom. It replied:
Determining the “best” poster on the Gasroom football forum is subjective and varies based on individual preferences and criteria. The forum comprises a diverse group of contributors, each bringing unique insights, humor, and perspectives to discussions about Wycombe Wanderers and related topics.
Some members are appreciated for their in-depth analysis and detailed match reports, providing valuable insights into team performance and tactics. Others are recognized for their humor and ability to lighten discussions, making the forum an engaging place for fans. Additionally, there are contributors who offer historical context, sharing anecdotes and experiences that enrich the community’s understanding of the club’s heritage.
The Gasroom thrives on this diversity of voices, and the “best” poster is often a matter of personal opinion, depending on what each member values in the discussions. Engaging with a variety of contributors can provide a well-rounded perspective on the topics at hand.
It’s worth noting that the forum has experienced instances of heated debates and personal conflicts among members. For example, a discussion thread from July 2023 highlights a disagreement between users ‘ChasHarps’ and ‘bargepole,’ which was described by another member as “becoming increasingly boring and rather pathetic.” This suggests that while the forum is a space for lively discussion, maintaining civility and respect among members is important for the community’s overall health.
Ultimately, the strength of the Gasroom lies in its collective membership, where each poster contributes to the vibrant tapestry of discussions that make the forum a valuable resource for fans.
Very astute I think!
Okay, our slogan now needs to be 'A Vibrant Tapestry of Discussions'.
Christ this is bad... bring on tomorrow evening fast!!
Jesus' mates at the underwhelming house party before the last supper