Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 20, 2015 11:17:53 GMT
Well I am hoping that there may still be a positive ending! If we look at what has happened we have been dogged by bad luck as much as timing ....... stupid trash / change of shopping habits / change of CEO at Sainsbury but the biggest culprits are TRASH who but for their actions and ultimate delays we would already be starting the stadium - I personally will not forgive any of them and hope that some form of bad Karma affects them! However IF the contract is watertight and we have as it appears met ALL the conditions in the small print then surely any Judge will not allow Sainsburys not to commit just because it no longer suits them commercially? Hopefully if he is in possession of ALL the facts and build up surrounding the case old he may side with 'the people' / relative 'minnows' and NOT the commercial giant? One way or another in due course we will know whether the board have to their best of ability tried to deliver what we all want or if major shortcomings are shown to be true then they will have little alternative but to quit due to lack of credibility? Agree with what you say but the bit about quitting.... who if anybody would replace him/them ?? Any interested bodies would have come forward by now ?
|
|
|
Post by CountyGroundHotel on Jan 20, 2015 11:24:34 GMT
Hoping we have the financial wherewithal to do this properly. They can afford to strung this out whereas I don't believe we can, that is unless we can get a legal team who are so strongly behind us, that they take pay when it's over. I so hope we can win this, it's about time we had some divine intervention on our behalf eh Brian lets hope that our legal team, aren't a bunch of money gabbing barstools who dont give a flying f what the outcome is all they want is their fee's. be nice if they legal team are behind the case 100% and the judge is a relation o. Br fellow lodge member with the sainsbury board They will be top flight solicitors so of course they will be money grabbing b'stards, but top flight solicitors also tend to be extremely competitive so I imagine they will be relishing the fight with Sainsburys legal team & will be looking to win to increase their reputations and by extension how much they can charge in future.
|
|
|
Post by Nobbygas on Jan 20, 2015 11:28:06 GMT
lets hope that our legal team, aren't a bunch of money gabbing barstools who dont give a flying f what the outcome is all they want is their fee's. be nice if they legal team are behind the case 100% and the judge is a relation o. Br fellow lodge member with the sainsbury board They will be top flight solicitors so of course they will be money grabbing b******s, but top flight solicitors also tend to be extremely competitive so I imagine they will be relishing the fight with Sainsburys legal team & will be looking to win to increase their reputations and by extension how much they can charge in future. Spot on !
|
|
|
Post by matealotblue on Jan 20, 2015 11:31:59 GMT
lets hope that our legal team, aren't a bunch of money gabbing barstools who dont give a flying f what the outcome is all they want is their fee's. be nice if they legal team are behind the case 100% and the judge is a relation o. Br fellow lodge member with the sainsbury board They will be top flight solicitors so of course they will be money grabbing b******s, but top flight solicitors also tend to be extremely competitive so I imagine they will be relishing the fight with Sainsburys legal team & will be looking to win to increase their reputations and by extension how much they can charge in future. Which is different from other professions in what way?
|
|
|
Post by Topper Gas on Jan 20, 2015 11:35:11 GMT
lets hope that our legal team, aren't a bunch of money gabbing barstools who dont give a flying f what the outcome is all they want is their fee's. be nice if they legal team are behind the case 100% and the judge is a relation o. Br fellow lodge member with the sainsbury board They will be top flight solicitors so of course they will be money grabbing b******s, but top flight solicitors also tend to be extremely competitive so I imagine they will be relishing the fight with Sainsburys legal team & will be looking to win to increase their reputations and by extension how much they can charge in future. Surely likewise Sainsbury's solicitors will be looking to impress in order to get more work form them in the future?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 20, 2015 11:46:36 GMT
It's all John Ward's fault.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 20, 2015 11:51:32 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 20, 2015 12:05:05 GMT
Or could it be we are doing this to get things moving?
|
|
dagnogo
Joined: June 2014
Posts: 872
|
Post by dagnogo on Jan 20, 2015 12:05:27 GMT
So another 9 months tacked onto an already delayed process. Sainsbury's using the old "Carstairs" tactic, delay until they run out of cash.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 20, 2015 12:07:44 GMT
I really hope the national media take a interest.
|
|
Lazza
Rod Hull
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 264
|
Post by Lazza on Jan 20, 2015 12:52:44 GMT
I say well done NH and the Board for keeping going with this Sainsbury's won't be enjoying this, and I think we're in with more than a 'puncher's chance'. But we'll see. There are plenty of other things that Sainsbury's aren't enjoying at the moment, so we won't be top of the pile A "puncher's chance" of what though AMPG, that is the BIG question and has been for a while now? I reckon even if we do end up with any compensation it will be peanuts in the big realm of things, it certainly won't be millions that much is sure. It will then possibly pose more questions than it provides solutions. I've accepted for some time that we will be at the Mem with it being redeveloped at best. But will that happen? Club being run at a loss with BoD chipping in all the time year after year is NO permanent solution. The bubble has to burst at some stage, can't see them staying as their money is not infinite. How the money has/is spent or peoples opinions on mismanagement of the day to day running of the club is a whole other subject, obviously.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 20, 2015 12:59:17 GMT
I say well done NH and the Board for keeping going with this Sainsbury's won't be enjoying this, and I think we're in with more than a 'puncher's chance'. But we'll see. There are plenty of other things that Sainsbury's aren't enjoying at the moment, so we won't be top of the pile A "puncher's chance" of what though AMPG, that is the BIG question and has been for a while now? I reckon even if we do end up with any compensation it will be peanuts in the big realm of things, it certainly won't be millions that much is sure. It will then possibly pose more questions than it provides solutions. I've accepted for some time that we will be at the Mem with it being redeveloped at best. But will that happen? Club being run at a loss with BoD chipping in all the time year after year is NO permanent solution. The bubble has to burst at some stage, can't see them staying as their money is not infinite. How the money has/is spent or peoples opinions on mismanagement of the day to day running of the club is a whole other subject, obviously. I think Sainsbury would have offered compo by now and we have refused it because rightly or wrongly they want the motherload. its now down to who has got the conkers for the fight. Remember Sainsburys have to account for all their legal fees and ours if the loose and report that back to their shareholders and be fully accountable i do believe we have a good case and hope we pursue it to the bitter end
|
|
|
Post by YateTown on Jan 20, 2015 13:00:31 GMT
I say well done NH and the Board for keeping going with this Sainsbury's won't be enjoying this, and I think we're in with more than a 'puncher's chance'. But we'll see. There are plenty of other things that Sainsbury's aren't enjoying at the moment, so we won't be top of the pile This! This forum is so bloody negative and begging for Rovers to fail at everything it's unbelievable! Most of you literally can't wait for us to fail so you can celebrate! It's a shame you can't get behind the club for once. But hey ho...
|
|
|
Post by a more piratey game on Jan 20, 2015 13:01:43 GMT
I say well done NH and the Board for keeping going with this Sainsbury's won't be enjoying this, and I think we're in with more than a 'puncher's chance'. But we'll see. There are plenty of other things that Sainsbury's aren't enjoying at the moment, so we won't be top of the pile A "puncher's chance" of what though AMPG, that is the BIG question and has been for a while now? I reckon even if we do end up with any compensation it will be peanuts in the big realm of things, it certainly won't be millions that much is sure. It will then possibly pose more questions than it provides solutions. I've accepted for some time that we will be at the Mem with it being redeveloped at best. But will that happen? Club being run at a loss with BoD chipping in all the time year after year is NO permanent solution. The bubble has to burst at some stage, can't see them staying as their money is not infinite. How the money has/is spent or peoples opinions on mismanagement of the day to day running of the club is a whole other subject, obviously. getting a big fat award, and not 'peanuts', or more probably Sainsbury's backing down and fulfilling the contract. If we get a fat one we can build the UWE is my thinking - simplistic, but maybe realistic
|
|
dogbert
Joined: August 2014
Posts: 12
|
Post by dogbert on Jan 20, 2015 13:03:39 GMT
Will be an interesting one. I think the legal argument now comes down to the Spirit vs the Letter of the contract.
I think Sainsburys will argue that the noise abatement measures for the extended hours are going to cost too much. The contract said something along the lines of it only being valid if it cost less than £40,000, so they can claim that it isn't valid permission within the terms of the contract.
However Rovers have offered to pay whatever it costs to put up the fence, so if good faith / spirit of the contract applies then it probably is valid. There is also some clause in the contract about both parties acting in good faith - not sure how much weight that actually carries legally though.
So, any contract lawyers out there?
|
|
LPGas
Stuart Taylor
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 1,240
|
Post by LPGas on Jan 20, 2015 13:08:31 GMT
Fits well with the Rovers way this, still no new permanent stand paid for by the club since the Tote End. Wrong, built an all seater stand at Twerton
|
|
LPGas
Stuart Taylor
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 1,240
|
Post by LPGas on Jan 20, 2015 13:09:57 GMT
This is Bristol Rovers Is anybody really surprised? We'll still be playing at The Mem in 100 years time! There'll still be a s*** tent at one end If The UWE doesn't come off them i'm going to walk away for good, I will have had enough of this absolute embarrassment of a football club Bye
|
|
|
Post by a more piratey game on Jan 20, 2015 13:11:11 GMT
ignoring legalities, which we can't hope to understand, but looking at politics instead:
- Rovers, and the individuals running Rovers, have a lot at stake, so will be expected to fight much harder than Sainsbury's (and expected by Sainsbury's to fight long and hard) - Rovers leaders are too bothered about negative press coverage, at least not compared to Sainsbury's
- Sainsbury's profits last year were around £900m, so £40m represents about 8% of that - the 'net cost' will be much less - they will buy the land again and then, worst case, sell it or something. Maybe for, say £35m - they are in the business of flogging groceries, not landbanking (whatever the papers might say). They won't want this distraction going on long-term, especially with the accompanying press coverage, although the short-term coverage of their profitability will mean that they won't want any short-term hits (a capital expenditure shouldn't hit reported profits though?) - Sainsbury's management will, in the end, take the path of least resistance
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 20, 2015 13:11:14 GMT
Will be an interesting one. I think the legal argument now comes down to the Spirit vs the Letter of the contract. I think Sainsburys will argue that the noise abatement measures for the extended hours are going to cost too much. The contract said something along the lines of it only being valid if it cost less than £40,000, so they can claim that it isn't valid permission within the terms of the contract. However Rovers have offered to pay whatever it costs to put up the fence, so if good faith / spirit of the contract applies then it probably is valid. There is also some clause in the contract about both parties acting in good faith - not sure how much weight that actually carries legally though. So, any contract lawyers out there? Most of the noise abatement measures have been removed at the request of Bristol City Council planning
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 20, 2015 13:15:54 GMT
One way or another in due course we will know whether the board have to their best of ability tried to deliver what we all want or if major shortcomings are shown to be true then they will have little alternative but to quit due to lack of credibility? You think they still have credibility? How did it survive relegation, not just from league 1, but from the league? Then there are the Is and Ts comments and the expected start dates of end of May, end of the summer, end of the year, and now end of March all passing without comment, let alone any sign of us being remotely closer to starting to build a new stadium. The issue to me isn't whether they 'have to the best of their ability tried', it's that their ability, basic instincts and (lack of) strategy for about the last 15 years has been wrong. They roll the dice, add in a toxic cocktail of arrogance, complacency and hope, put everything on black, and then get huffy when we end up in another ditch, on and off the pitch. Big picture: 2015, and we're non-league, playing at a dump of a ground. How would that have been deemed acceptable if known about in say 2012, 2007, 2001, whenever? And you worry about them 'losing credibility'. On this issue alone, this latest twist has been on the horizon since November 2013, when Sainsbury's intimated that they didn't want to buy the land, but we've plumped for trying to force their hand, which some might think was either an optimistic or foolish option. Like so many other things, it was their call, and it's not working.
|
|