New Stadium The Triangle - Planning (S106 Agreed)

[SteMerritt]

25/09: WHAT HAPPENS NEXT Q&A POST FROM BILLYOX (CLICK TO SEE)

 

[m]

She's saying Leigh Day egged them on?

And Leigh Day say the opposite.

Which is what you'd expect from both given the circumstances.

 

[m]

Mrs L has got so consumed with everything stadium/FoSB that she has taken to AI and produced the following. She is quite chuffed with her efforts!

View attachment 38095

I'm trying to work out the arm situation here.

 

[Whingit]

So Suzy got pumped and dumped by an Oxford supporting ex colleague and has carried on the grudge ever since. That's the lore I'm choosing to believe.

 

[Burglar Bill]

This is the part that worries me somewhat, looks like FoSB were ready to walk.
Leigh Day persuaded them otherwise, they must have something to take to the table.

I'd take that with a pinch of salt. Leigh Day would tell you there's a chance of them finding the loch ness monster if they thought you'd be gullible enough to pay them or determined enough to find said monster.

 

[Royston]

How I imagine the conversation went:

FoSB: So we lost in the High Court, could we win on appeal?
LD: Well, you _could_...
FoSB: what will it cost us?
LD: £660 to the court and £3k to us.
FoSB: Any risk we'd have to pay more?
LD: Drop the traffic ground and then there's little chance CDC can get the Aarhus cap removed.Then you'll owe us about £40k and CDC,OCC and OUFC no more than 10K combined.
FoSB: OK - go for it.

 

[Leysboy]

It’s just Rinse and repeat.

There goose is cooked, and they know it.

 

[SL78]

This is the part that worries me somewhat, looks like FoSB were ready to walk.
Leigh Day persuaded them otherwise, they must have something to take to the table.

I think this sums up the spiteful campaign being run by FOSB. Their only weapon is words so they want people to believe everything they say, regardless of the actual facts.

The woodland is Ancient Woodland = no it isn’t
Shutting the road will cause pandemonium = no it won’t. Plenty of grounds and other places operate like this
We’ve got a great chance of winning the first judicial review request = no you dont
We’ve got new evidence that really makes our oral request strong = no you don’t, judge says it’s unarguable
Leigh Day say we have a good chance with the appeal = do they? Or is this just more FOSB spin to get people believing their b/s.

Hopefully the appeal will get chucked out and certified as Totally Without Merit, which will really show once and for all how spiteful and without basis any of these delaying tactics have been.

 

[Shaun Rice]

Right I think ive finally figured out the timeline for this appeal

Fosb apply to the Court of appeal

That is then checked to see if it has any merit to proceed
If no thats it end off
That takes 2 weeks

If yes it moves to a full hearing its not read on papers again
That will take a while

Best we have a new count down timer then

 

[WokinghamYellow]

They may well be having fun laughing at us speculating and stressing here. They surely know it will be short lived as the stadium will be built. I pity them that they are buying the cheap laugh now knowing we will have the loudest and biggest one at their expense soon. It’s so sad. Poor old mcivor doesnt realise the life she is going to have to live going forward. This will end for us and we will
Watch footy in the stadium, but she is going to live a life of misery as many fans will never forget her and it will never stop. Every campaign she now does whether it has good intentions or not will have far more people scrutinising everything she does. She has this battle now for the rest of her life. I don’t think she realises this, she has fucked her life up big time

 

[ArrowsNumber9]

Woah, I never knew that! My grandad lived in Jericho and worked as a compositor at OUP from the 20s to the 50s. Although an Oxford City fan, he would be turning in his (North Oxford Cemetary) grave now if he knew what was going on, especially after Brasenose College made City homeless.

I was also a compositor. In fact, the very last of them. Only had 6 months of it before the big change over to computers.

 

[carefreeoufc]

Seems fairly clear to me. Neither their legal representatives nor FoSB want to take responsibility for this latest endeavour which would suggest that neither party are particularly confident of winning.

Leigh Day: “Our client is considering its options but feels there’s grounds for an appeal”

FoSB: “Our lawyers have said we have good grounds for an appeal”.

The lawyers don’t want to be linked to this charade and just want their money. FoSB are doing damage limitation.

 

[ArrowsNumber9]

So Suzy got pumped and dumped by an Oxford supporting ex colleague and has carried on the grudge ever since. That's the lore I'm choosing to believe.

I do have to own up and say I was interested in her at the time!!

 

[Billyox]

I do have to own up and say I was interested in her at the time!!

Wash your mouth out

 

[carefreeoufc]

Wash your mouth out

Maybe that’s why she’s on this crusade. She was desparate for @ArrowsNumber9 and being spurned by an avid Oxford United fan has left her permanently scarred.

He’s to blame!

 

[Berliner]

Maybe that’s why she’s on this crusade. She was desparate for @ArrowsNumber9 and being spurned by an avid Oxford United fan has left her permanently scarred.

He’s to blame!

Well, one of my old aunts once refused to walk up a street in town because someone she didn't like moved in there and she stayed that way until the day she died (despite the alternative route being longer).

Never underestimate the stubbornness and grudges held by old f*ckwits!

 

[holdsteady]

I do have to own up and say I was interested in her at the time!!

I like to think I have seen some sights and not easily shocked, only this March I watched a married couple dressed as Darth Vader and Princess Leia have sex while on segways in front of a bar full of people in Benidorm after a dwarf dressed as Captain America told me about it, but this revelation has blown me away.

Most shocking thing on yellows forum ever.

 

[uptheus]

f**k Leigh Day! If true!

 

[holdsteady]

f**k Leigh Day!

They will do anything to sell greetings cards nowadays, Leigh will be needing the next day off.

 

[uptheus]

Right I think ive finally figured out the timeline for this appeal

Fosb apply to the Court of appeal

That is then checked to see if it has any merit to proceed
If no thats it end off
That takes 2 weeks

If yes it moves to a full hearing its not read on papers again
That will take a while

How long’s a while?

 

[uptheus]

I'd take that with a pinch of salt. Leigh Day would tell you there's a chance of them finding the loch ness monster if they thought you'd be gullible enough to pay them or determined enough to find said monster.

But they’re still out of f*****g order if it’s about money!

 

[Orkney Islands Yellow]

And Leigh Day say the opposite.

Which is what you'd expect from both given the circumstances.

Both trying to deflect.

 

[outsidethebox]

How I imagine the conversation went:

FoSB: So we lost in the High Court, could we win on appeal?
LD: Well, you _could_...
FoSB: what will it cost us?
LD: £660 to the court and £3k to us.
FoSB: Any risk we'd have to pay more?
LD: Drop the traffic ground and then there's little chance CDC can get the Aarhus cap removed.Then you'll owe us about £40k and CDC,OCC and OUFC no more than 10K combined.
FoSB: OK - go for it.

I wonder how much FoSB have paid Leigh Day so far and how much they owe them. Their war chest seems to be a mix of cash in the bank and pledges.

If they do reach the point where pledges are called in, will they be honoured? Not that I'm doubting reliable pledgees like Ellen Musk and Jeff Beeswax or that some form of due diligence of those giving pledges won't have been done. But some people do tend to choose when they jump on and off a bandwagon.

If the above guesswork is correct there is the possibility of fosb Members needing to step in and make up the shortfall.

Now I'm sure no fosb Members read this thread ........ but I might just be getting a bit twitchy if I was one. I'd certainly want some reassurances from those leading the crusade as to not ending up personally liable for any debts they are wracking up.

 

[Billyox]

I wanted to test something properly rather than just go on gut feeling.

Leigh Day have now put out two articles about FoSB’s legal challenge to the Oxford United stadium, and what stood out was how cautious the wording was.

So rather than just saying “that sounds weak”, I went back through around 20 other planning and environmental Judicial Review cases on Leigh Day’s own website.

The reason was simple: I wanted to see whether Leigh Day always write like that, or whether they use stronger language when they are prepared to put their own legal view behind a case.

The answer is interesting.

In some cases Leigh Day’s lawyers have been very direct. They have used phrases such as “we consider this unlawful”, “clearly unlawful”, “plainly arguable”, or said an approach “does not tally with government policy”.

Sometimes those cases won. Sometimes they lost. So the wording is NOT a magic predictor of the result.

But Oxford is still striking.

In the FoSB articles, Ricardo Gama repeatedly keeps the claims at arm’s length:

“Our clients are concerned.”

“They feel…”

“Their concerns…”

“Their arguments…”

Leigh Day even described the claimed legal defects as “alleged errors”.

Then we looked at cases where permission was refused on paper and taken further. Again, some claimants recovered and eventually won. Sarah Finch is the obvious example.

But that normally involved the higher court identifying a clear legal point worth hearing.

FoSB have now been refused permission twice, including at an oral hearing, and yet publicly we still haven’t seen Leigh Day say:

“We consider the judge was wrong.”

“We consider Cherwell acted unlawfully.”

Or:

“This raises an important point of law.”

That does not prove Leigh Day think FoSB will lose.

But after comparing their wording across around 20 other cases, it is very noticeable just how carefully Leigh Day continue to distance their own legal voice from FoSB’s claims.

 

[Boris]

And Leigh Day say the opposite.

Which is what you'd expect from both given the circumstances.

Difficult to know who to believe: a well-respected legal firm that knows its way around the law and has a reputation to uphold, or a north Oxford snob with a chip on her shoulder and too much time on her hands. I'll have to give that some thought.

 

[Essexyellows]

Leigh Day will take the money - its what they do.

They will "distance themselves" from their clients just enough to say "Well we did say................."

FoSB will remain the gullible fools and be parted from their, and other peoples, money.

Following the results so far this should be viewed as vexatious and chucked out at the earliest opportunity.

 

[uptheus]

I wanted to test something properly rather than just go on gut feeling.

Leigh Day have now put out two articles about FoSB’s legal challenge to the Oxford United stadium, and what stood out was how cautious the wording was.

So rather than just saying “that sounds weak”, I went back through around 20 other planning and environmental Judicial Review cases on Leigh Day’s own website.

The reason was simple: I wanted to see whether Leigh Day always write like that, or whether they use stronger language when they are prepared to put their own legal view behind a case.

The answer is interesting.

In some cases Leigh Day’s lawyers have been very direct. They have used phrases such as “we consider this unlawful”, “clearly unlawful”, “plainly arguable”, or said an approach “does not tally with government policy”.

Sometimes those cases won. Sometimes they lost. So the wording is NOT a magic predictor of the result.

But Oxford is still striking.

In the FoSB articles, Ricardo Gama repeatedly keeps the claims at arm’s length:

“Our clients are concerned.”

“They feel…”

“Their concerns…”

“Their arguments…”

Leigh Day even described the claimed legal defects as “alleged errors”.

Then we looked at cases where permission was refused on paper and taken further. Again, some claimants recovered and eventually won. Sarah Finch is the obvious example.

But that normally involved the higher court identifying a clear legal point worth hearing.

FoSB have now been refused permission twice, including at an oral hearing, and yet publicly we still haven’t seen Leigh Day say:

“We consider the judge was wrong.”

“We consider Cherwell acted unlawfully.”

Or:

“This raises an important point of law.”

That does not prove Leigh Day think FoSB will lose.

But after comparing their wording across around 20 other cases, it is very noticeable just how carefully Leigh Day continue to distance their own legal voice from FoSB’s claims.

And yet it’s portrayed by FoSB’s wording that their lawyers advised they have grounds to appeal!!

 

[Rach]

And yet it’s portrayed by FoSB’s wording that their lawyers advised they have grounds to appeal!!

FoSB want to save face. They don't like being seen as losing anything. This way, they can claim that the legal system let them down, rather than admitting that they are just complete bellends.

 

[uptheus]

Leigh Day will take the money - its what they do.

They will "distance themselves" from their clients just enough to say "Well we did say................."

FoSB will remain the gullible fools and be parted from their, and other peoples, money.

Following the results so far this should be viewed as vexatious and chucked out at the earliest opportunity.

And yet it could impact the completion date timeframe, meaning we may have to seek alternative ground share/extend lease (if possible) the Kassam, meaning it’ll be a logistical nightmare if we have to move mid season. And the extra cost!

 

[Bicester Yellow]

This is the part that worries me somewhat, looks like FoSB were ready to walk.
Leigh Day persuaded them otherwise, they must have something to take to the table.

Leigh Day want the business, its money for f**k all.

FOSB are that thick they have agreed.

 

[Orkney Islands Yellow]

A passionate plea: