|
Post by Antonio Fargas on Jan 20, 2015 14:33:27 GMT
Who says that this will actually go to court! Yeah. I imagine the majority of these sort of cases, someone blinks before it gets to court.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 20, 2015 14:38:25 GMT
and the own their ground don't they ? Don't THEY ?? Maybe not They do, yes. i thought the Chairman owned the ground not the fans
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 20, 2015 14:40:06 GMT
Who says that this will actually go to court! Yeah. I imagine the majority of these sort of cases, someone blinks before it gets to court. Well Toni's stiff letter in November doesn't seem to have had the desired effect. Sainsbury's don't seem to be easy to intimidate so far.
|
|
harrybuckle
Always look on the bright side
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 5,429
|
Post by harrybuckle on Jan 20, 2015 14:43:52 GMT
A settlement out of court may be best way forward save a lot of legal fees and finally end this misery once and for all for both parties. I do wonder what the UWE are saying about this at the moment if anything ?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 20, 2015 14:44:42 GMT
i thought the Chairman owned the ground not the fans Same as Bristol Rovers then. Its all John Wards fault.
|
|
dagnogo
Joined: June 2014
Posts: 872
|
Post by dagnogo on Jan 20, 2015 14:49:54 GMT
i thought the Chairman owned the ground not the fans The trust got it back from Steve Hayes.
|
|
|
Post by nailseagas36 on Jan 20, 2015 14:57:57 GMT
Everyone always like to bash NH and the board, me included as I have directed my fury to the lofty heights of box 1. But considering NH makes a living from property development, I would assume he has some experience in property and the contracts that go with them.
Sainsbury’s are a huge corporation true, but why should we be scared of them, we have a contract in place (watertight or not).
considering they are pulling out of quite a few planned development due to the changing nature of the high street (corporate speak for these budget supermarkets are killing us and we can't take huge bonus now) then other people must be looking at this case with interest, if Sainsbury do settle out of court for say 20 million + cost, then the other sites they aren't buying will jump on the band wagon and sue them as well.
If Sainsbury felt they could get out of the contract then they would off pulled the plug months ago, the board wouldn't spend the extra money for the appeal of delivery hours or actually go ahead with the court case and waste money we don't really have.
Yes the judge is likely to recommend we come to an agreement to settle before it actually goes to the high court. But we don’t have to take their offer.
Personally I think they are running scared and their lawyers haven't found a smoking gun as such which allows them to walk out without paying a penny. That it has got to this stage makes me think we stand a high chance of winning the case.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 20, 2015 15:04:00 GMT
i thought the Chairman owned the ground not the fans The trust got it back from Steve Hayes. Then i stand corrected ! Thanks
|
|
Peter Parker
Global Moderator
Richard Walker
You have been sentenced to DELETION!
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 4,920
|
Post by Peter Parker on Jan 20, 2015 15:08:41 GMT
You can see the headline now
Giant Killing! Non-League Minnows slay Premier League Supermarket
|
|
Thatslife
"Decisions are made by those who turn up"
Joined: June 2014
Posts: 669
|
Post by Thatslife on Jan 20, 2015 15:11:33 GMT
Everyone always like to bash NH and the board, me included as I have directed my fury to the lofty heights of box 1. But considering NH makes a living from property development, I would assume he has some experience in property and the contracts that go with them.
Sainsbury’s are a huge corporation true, but why should we be scared of them, we have a contract in place (watertight or not).
considering they are pulling out of quite a few planned development due to the changing nature of the high street (corporate speak for these budget supermarkets are killing us and we can't take huge bonus now) then other people must be looking at this case with interest, if Sainsbury do settle out of court for say 20 million + cost, then the other sites they aren't buying will jump on the band wagon and sue them as well.
If Sainsbury felt they could get out of the contract then they would off pulled the plug months ago, the board wouldn't spend the extra money for the appeal of delivery hours or actually go ahead with the court case and waste money we don't really have.
Yes the judge is likely to recommend we come to an agreement to settle before it actually goes to the high court. But we don’t have to take their offer.
Personally I think they are running scared and their lawyers haven't found a smoking gun as such which allows them to walk out without paying a penny. That it has got to this stage makes me think we stand a high chance of winning the case.
I agree, good post.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 20, 2015 15:12:49 GMT
A settlement out of court may be best way forward save a lot of legal fees and finally end this misery once and for all for both parties. I do wonder what the UWE are saying about this at the moment if anything ? The implication from what Garaham Russell was saying last summer is that compensation-linked settlement and termination had been offered by Sainsbury's. Some dissed all that on the basis that the guy is old and overly keen on the red team, but he's thrown more light on all this than most, and been proved right. It seems the board's response was defecate or bust, maybe because they were too far out on a limb, or too bullish to contemplate a neater way out. Any offer from Sainsbury's would have had 'Without Prejudice' written on it very clearly. People reassure themselves that NH knows building contracts: how many land deals have Sainsbury's done over the past 30 years? Our side says 'watertight'. That's worryingly naive in itself. Then there are the other onerous conditions which, in the writ, we say Sainsbury's said they wouldn't hold us to. As someone said a week or so ago, was that ever in writing? There's a huge difference between 'needn't be a problem' (potentially) and formally dismissed. 'We wouldn't proceed if our lawyers didn't think we had a case': there's a difference between what lawyers advise and what clients do. I think Sainsbury's think they're on solid ground, offered compromise, but that window of easy and potentially most beneficial solution has been shut from this end. Here come another 6 months of speculation and rune reading by us and expense, distraction, and non-progress by the club, all, I think, with a grizzly ending. Not a good call, imo.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 20, 2015 15:15:52 GMT
Erm, wasn't Higgs a builder? He built things after this sort of thing was sorted? I mean, I'm pretty sure his job at Cowlin would have never seen him involved in this side of the game...
|
|
|
Post by Nobbygas on Jan 20, 2015 15:22:44 GMT
Seth - You seem to think that the board should have doffed their caps at Sainsbury's and accepted 10 quid compo? How would have accepting an alleged early offer of compo from Sainsbury's have been "potentially most beneficial solution" for the club?
|
|
|
Post by fanatical on Jan 20, 2015 15:48:21 GMT
Everyone always like to bash NH and the board, me included as I have directed my fury to the lofty heights of box 1. But considering NH makes a living from property development, I would assume he has some experience in property and the contracts that go with them.
Sainsbury’s are a huge corporation true, but why should we be scared of them, we have a contract in place (watertight or not).
considering they are pulling out of quite a few planned development due to the changing nature of the high street (corporate speak for these budget supermarkets are killing us and we can't take huge bonus now) then other people must be looking at this case with interest, if Sainsbury do settle out of court for say 20 million + cost, then the other sites they aren't buying will jump on the band wagon and sue them as well.
If Sainsbury felt they could get out of the contract then they would off pulled the plug months ago, the board wouldn't spend the extra money for the appeal of delivery hours or actually go ahead with the court case and waste money we don't really have.
Yes the judge is likely to recommend we come to an agreement to settle before it actually goes to the high court. But we don’t have to take their offer.
Personally I think they are running scared and their lawyers haven't found a smoking gun as such which allows them to walk out without paying a penny. That it has got to this stage makes me think we stand a high chance of winning the case.
I agree, good post. which is no doubt what our BOD have been advised
|
|
RG2 Gas
Andy Spring
Joined: June 2014
Posts: 229
|
Post by RG2 Gas on Jan 20, 2015 15:55:00 GMT
Everyone always like to bash NH and the board, me included as I have directed my fury to the lofty heights of box 1. But considering NH makes a living from property development, I would assume he has some experience in property and the contracts that go with them.
Sainsbury’s are a huge corporation true, but why should we be scared of them, we have a contract in place (watertight or not).
considering they are pulling out of quite a few planned development due to the changing nature of the high street (corporate speak for these budget supermarkets are killing us and we can't take huge bonus now) then other people must be looking at this case with interest, if Sainsbury do settle out of court for say 20 million + cost, then the other sites they aren't buying will jump on the band wagon and sue them as well.
If Sainsbury felt they could get out of the contract then they would off pulled the plug months ago, the board wouldn't spend the extra money for the appeal of delivery hours or actually go ahead with the court case and waste money we don't really have.
Yes the judge is likely to recommend we come to an agreement to settle before it actually goes to the high court. But we don’t have to take their offer.
Personally I think they are running scared and their lawyers haven't found a smoking gun as such which allows them to walk out without paying a penny. That it has got to this stage makes me think we stand a high chance of winning the case.
Agree with most of that except the 'they are running scared' bit. The fact that the Rovers are taking this to court (I refuse to say 'we' as I feel as disenfranchised as ever right now) means that the Rovers' lawyers feel they have a good case. The fact that Sainsbury's haven't (as yet, at least) conceded on this and are prepared to go to court (I'm assuming this anyway, maybe they will buckle ahead of the court hearing?) means that they also must feel that they have a strong case. So it'll be down to the law courts to decide the outcome and a fair and equitable settlement based on the terms of the signed contract. Whilst Sainsburys are a big corporate juggernaut, they still have to answer ultimately to their shareholders and will not sink unnecessary legal costs (potentially for both parties) into a case they believe they can't win. They will look to achieve the best outcome for the business and their shareholders. If this does indeed go all the way to the High Court in a year or so's time, then this would seem to me to suggest that both sides believe the chances of success for their side is high and are willing to incur the necessary costs to test that through the legal process.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 20, 2015 15:58:04 GMT
Seth - You seem to think that the board should have doffed their caps at Sainsbury's and accepted 10 quid compo? How would have accepting an alleged early offer of compo from Sainsbury's have been "potentially most beneficial solution" for the club? I expect it was more than £10. it's about the best way to get to get to the desired end as soon as possible. Sainsbury's don't want to buy it and probably won't. After that it's a question of how well we come out of that and are able to move on, preferably with finding another buyer for the site, with our main aim being to build the new stadium, not to make Sainsbury's life difficult. If we'd taken compensation twelve months ago, we could be well on the way to that, time-wise and financially. We should look to move ourselves forward from the position we find ourselves in, not Aim our at fire at others (see also Wycombe Wanderers). As it is, we're at square 1. At what point are UWE going to lose patience? I doubt if the contract with them equates to a perpetual option to build on the land at some time of our convenience. No cap doffing required.
|
|
irishrover
Global Moderator
Joined: June 2014
Posts: 3,372
|
Post by irishrover on Jan 20, 2015 16:06:03 GMT
Firstly once again none of us know anything about the contract or it's conditions, but Rovers won't take on Sainsbury's unless they have a good chance of winning. I also think that if there is one person who knows about building contracts then it is going to be Higgs who has built a small fortune from them. Then of course there is the negativity on here. Whatever Rovers do some of you just moan and moan. Deebs if you are walking away if we don't get a new ground, go now. AG is rebuilding, go there and watch the development. As for those who want to develop the Mem; where is the money coming from? Then the "let the fans run the club" group. What fans are they? They need to be rich ones that is for sure, and personally I don't know anyone. As for a supporters trust, well that really works, Brentford had one and they went down to Div 2, they then sold it to an individual and look where they are now. Or the mighty Exeter city, they have won.................nothing. We need to accept that we are a small club ran by small businessmen who all happen to be supporters. Of course we could be owned and run by people who aren't supporters. Who wants that? And for all those that think you can run a successful club on gates of 5000, that doesn't even cover the wages of a 22 man squad in Division 1 (given that so many people think that is where we should be). Well I accept the limitation of fan ownership (certainly the way English football is currently set up) and the dangers of being owned by people who don't have any interest in the club is clear. Although I do reject the idea that the choices are that simplisitic - it is possible to have elements of all these things. However, the ownership model you advocate doesn't really exist anymore and certainly doesn't at Rovers. English football was always run like this with local patron's supporting the local club in various guises in a kind of unofficial ways (many of them rather grubby to be honest). What's changed is that back in the day this used to be a pretty straight forward mutual arrangement. Owners could make a fair bit of money (generally in the past by ripping off the players) and fans had their clubs protected in perpetuity. Then the club would be passed on to the next set of patron's often via quite dodgy and convuluted means. But the key thing was that the club was (at least in spirit) seen to some extent as a community asset by both fans and owners. They both got what they wanted out of the arrangement and the club endured (this was obviously not universally the case but it generally applied in most places). Now what's happened at Rovers (and pretty much everywhere else) over a period of time is that the club has ceased to be viewed as a community asset by those that own it and that patron model has ceased to exist; the club has become a private asset (the 'it's their club and they can do what they like with it' view). So instead of being a kind of mutual arrangement between fans and owners with the ultimate aim being the continued existance and health of the football club - it is now far more along the line of business-customer in every sense with no proper accountability to fans. Therefore whether it is owned by people with the club's best interest at heart or not is simply a matter of time. Regardless of his intentions Nick Higgs is not going to own Rovers till the end of time and will presumably believe that he has the right to reclaim the money he has invested; it's possible that the next person will also have Rovers interests at heart and maybe the next but will the next? and the next? and the next? The point is the model you describe has already gone because the club is now viewed as a private asset; that mutual patronage arrangement has gone and probably finally went out with Dennis Dunford. The club will at some point be sold and that could be to anyone because at the very least they'll put equal weight to getting value for their money against protecting a community institution and at worst are going to simply sell to the highest bidder (or in our case probably lowest bidder depending on state of the club) and justify it on the basis that they have to get value for their investment/cut their losses. Various alternatives to protect against this have been put forward over the years; from changing the constitution of the club, to full fan ownership to % ownership to various trustee schemes. Some more realistic than others. None of these have been taken up but the idea that the current ownership model protects the club from future cowboy investors is a bizarre one; the current model creates exactly that risk even if the people who are in charge have nothing but angelic intentions. What we're left with is a board who appear to have leveraged the entire future of the club on a massive stadium project. They have stuck all the eggs in the one basket; they have practically revelled in creating splits by marginalising, removing or banning anyone who has questioned this approach or proposed an alternative and they have transformed the club from having a community feel in which people felt they could influence things or help out if they could be bothered to being very much a 'pay your money and shut up arrangement'; that's not the club that I started supporting. No doubt some see this as 'vital modernisation'. We appear to have just entered the endgame to see if it was all worth it; I genuinely hope for both their sakes and for the future of Rovers that it is. I don't think this is actually much of a story; it's just confirming what everyone already knew or strongly suspected; ie that we'll have to squeeze every last penny out of Sainsbury's in court. I have no idea whether it will be successful or not and I'm not going to pretend to have a clue on the details but I don't think Rovers had any choice at all but to do this and let's hope we are successful or I think the future looks very bleak indeed.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 20, 2015 16:15:40 GMT
Seth - You seem to think that the board should have doffed their caps at Sainsbury's and accepted 10 quid compo? How would have accepting an alleged early offer of compo from Sainsbury's have been "potentially most beneficial solution" for the club? I expect it was more than £10. it's about the best way to get to get to the desired end as soon as possible. Sainsbury's don't want to buy it and probably won't. After that it's a question of how well we come out of that and are able to move on, preferably with finding another buyer for the site, with our main aim being to build the new stadium, not to make Sainsbury's life difficult. If we'd taken compensation twelve months ago, we could be well on the way to that, time-wise and financially. We should look to move ourselves forward from the position we find ourselves in, not Aim our at fire at others (see also Wycombe Wanderers). As it is, we're at square 1. At what point are UWE going to lose patience? I doubt if the contract with them equates to a perpetual option to build on the land at some time of our convenience. No cap doffing required. Rovers have a contract with UWE as well you know and The UWE can only pull out after a predetermined time set in the contract ( Normally 5 years ). Also Rovers have to start building the Stadium within a certain timescale as per Planning permission requirements or apply for an extension to that timescale
|
|
|
Post by nailseagas36 on Jan 20, 2015 16:22:44 GMT
we can spectulate until the cows come home, over who has the best chance of winning what compinsation we where offered or the terms, unless some talented hackers(I hear North Korea have a talented bunch of keyboard warriors, maybe someone want's to tell them sainsbury insulted their glorious leader) takes their time to pull all the documents from sainsburys network we will never know.
as usual with this whole stadium deal it a pipe dream, i knew i celebrated too early when it was announced and the pictures where put up, it all looked so good, nice new shiney stadium, the s**t had theirs plans knocked back over a village green, things where looking up for the Gas.
now years later, we are in the conference, a few managers down the line , jesus has come to the mem and left, (turned out his was as much use as a property contract with sainsburys)
so as normal being a gashead it wait and see what noises come from box 1 ( which will be as much noise as trash are making over their legal cost)
|
|
eppinggas
Administrator
Ian Alexander
Don't care
Joined: June 2014
Posts: 8,181
|
Post by eppinggas on Jan 20, 2015 17:26:12 GMT
All so sadly predictable. So a non-league football club approx. £8mil in debt and running at a yearly loss... are taking a FTSE 100 Company to the High Court over the minutia of a "watertight" contract. Wonder who will win that particular legal battle? Tough call. Although we are probably not the most important thing on their minds right now - realistically we know it's a lost cause. If it settles out of court - the amount will be embarrassingly low and I can see the Board hinding behind some 'confidentiality clause' to avoid disclosing it. Honestly I would love to be proved wrong. But I won't be. What a total waste of time, effort and money. Desperate. Embarrassing. Stupid. I wouldn't expect anything else from our glorious leaders. See you all at Dartford. Maybe that's when our new Middle-Eastern billionaire owners will be unveiled. You have to laugh. You really have to laugh.
|
|