|
Post by Topper Gas on Feb 11, 2015 18:59:45 GMT
I suspect that Sainsburys wanted the extended hours when they still wanted the land, then they have a change in policy and want out. So they put in a half heated change to the BCC, knowing it would fail, it does and they tell Rovers that they are pulling out. In return Rovers pressure them to appeal; but time is running out and Sainsburys are going to use the rejected PP to get out of the contract. So, rather than let Sainsburys get away with walking away quietly Rovers appeal on Sainsburys behalf, and win. Sainsburys are thinking "oh crap" and so do nothing but say that the contract is out of time, which I think would be 2 years from the date they got the original planning permission. Thats about how I see it, plus didn't the Sainsbury's legal person say "they need to find out of they are stuck with this" ? if so that sounds to me like a less than confident statement otherwise they would of denied any liability Problem is we know what led up to that comment, the Judge could have said "whilst you feel you have a very good case wouldn't it be better if this case was heard sooner rather later for all concerned", to which the response could have been "your honour if we are stuck with this......" What's disappointing is how so little was published by the B Post in their article, I assume our case was presented in court but all was reported was Sainsbury's had suggested that the contract had expired and the "stuck with this" comments. If it does eventually go to a trial whilst the contracts won't be disclosed I assume we'll get a very good idea what was in them?
|
|
Peter Parker
Global Moderator
Richard Walker
You have been sentenced to DELETION!
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 4,920
|
Post by Peter Parker on Feb 11, 2015 19:02:42 GMT
I suspect that Sainsburys wanted the extended hours when they still wanted the land, then they have a change in policy and want out. So they put in a half heated change to the BCC, knowing it would fail, it does and they tell Rovers that they are pulling out. In return Rovers pressure them to appeal; but time is running out and Sainsburys are going to use the rejected PP to get out of the contract. So, rather than let Sainsburys get away with walking away quietly Rovers appeal on Sainsburys behalf, and win. Sainsburys are thinking "oh crap" and so do nothing but say that the contract is out of time, which I think would be 2 years from the date they got the original planning permission. Thats about how I see it, plus didn't the Sainsbury's legal person say "they need to find out of they are stuck with this" ? if so that sounds to me like a less than confident statement otherwise they would of denied any liability But they have shareholders as a plc and will need to know. They dontwant uncertainty
|
|
|
Post by stevek192 on Feb 12, 2015 10:27:31 GMT
There will be no compromise. Its got to this stage for a reason and its sh-t or bust. Any compensation will not allow us to build the UWE. If the contract is watertight then it will hold up in Court and the judge will rule in favour of us. If it isn't then heaven help us!!!
|
|
Captain Jayho
Andy Tillson
Straight outta burrington...
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 472
|
Post by Captain Jayho on Feb 12, 2015 10:34:49 GMT
If the only two options are (1)sh-t or (2)bust then I'm not sure I want either of them!
|
|
Peter Parker
Global Moderator
Richard Walker
You have been sentenced to DELETION!
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 4,920
|
Post by Peter Parker on Feb 12, 2015 10:54:51 GMT
There will be no compromise. Its got to this stage for a reason and its sh-t or bust. Any compensation will not allow us to build the UWE. If the contract is watertight then it will hold up in Court and the judge will rule in favour of us. If it isn't then heaven help us!!! Unless Sainsbury's are 100% confident of getting away paying nothing, then if they tempt us with a 'reasonable' compo offer the latest figures suggest we aren't really in a place to turn it down.
If offered a few million to clear some debt (especially the MSP loan) can we really gamble
|
|
|
Post by stevek192 on Feb 12, 2015 11:30:35 GMT
If they try tempting us with an offer then it will ONLY because they feel they cannot win the case. Why else would they try to tempt us with money? If they are so confident in winning the case they may as well see it through. The fact this has dragged on so long I hope it is to our advantage and the Judge will see that Sainsburys entered into the contract and should be made to see it out.
|
|
Peter Parker
Global Moderator
Richard Walker
You have been sentenced to DELETION!
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 4,920
|
Post by Peter Parker on Feb 12, 2015 12:33:21 GMT
If they try tempting us with an offer then it will ONLY because they feel they cannot win the case. Why else would they try to tempt us with money? If they are so confident in winning the case they may as well see it through. The fact this has dragged on so long I hope it is to our advantage and the Judge will see that Sainsburys entered into the contract and should be made to see it out. To solely think that and plough ahead would be a mistake. If Sainsbury’s offered compo, it wouldn’t mean they aren’t that confident. If their legal team weighing up the cases said it’s 50/50, Sainsbury’s might feel offering a few million quid as compo is the best course. A simple cost benefit analysis. Cleaner, quieter, potential less bad press. They have shareholders to keep happy If we were offered a reasonable pay off, I am not saying take it and run away, but the club given it’s financial position would have to consider it as they have painted the picture for everyone should be lose. A 99% chance of winning is still a 1% chance of losing and we cannot afford to lose
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 12, 2015 12:39:10 GMT
If they try tempting us with an offer then it will ONLY because they feel they cannot win the case. Why else would they try to tempt us with money? If they are so confident in winning the case they may as well see it through. The fact this has dragged on so long I hope it is to our advantage and the Judge will see that Sainsburys entered into the contract and should be made to see it out. Going by their statement on the matter, they dont seem so confident saying they need to know if they have to pay or not. So is it worth them offering a few million as a pay off in an attempt to save themselves £30 million? I would if I was them. Its then down to Rovers to accept it or not. Like in deal or no deal. 2 boxes left, 1p and £250k. Dealer offers £70k in a hope to tempt the person to take it as the dealer dont want to pay out £250k and the person could be tempted as dont want to be left with 1p. If Sainsburys was confident then of course they wouldnt offer any payout. But they dont sound confident and if they are not confident then it would make business sense to persuade Rovers to take a pay off reminding Rovers that Rovers risk getting nothing. Im sure Sainsburys (who could win the court case) would rather lose a few million over losing £30 million. So how confident are they?
|
|
irishrover
Global Moderator
Joined: June 2014
Posts: 3,372
|
Post by irishrover on Feb 12, 2015 13:45:50 GMT
If they try tempting us with an offer then it will ONLY because they feel they cannot win the case. Why else would they try to tempt us with money? If they are so confident in winning the case they may as well see it through. The fact this has dragged on so long I hope it is to our advantage and the Judge will see that Sainsburys entered into the contract and should be made to see it out. Going by their statement on the matter, they dont seem so confident saying they need to know if they have to pay or not. So is it worth them offering a few million as a pay off in an attempt to save themselves £30 million? I would if I was them. Its then down to Rovers to accept it or not. Like in deal or no deal. 2 boxes left, 1p and £250k. Dealer offers £70k in a hope to tempt the person to take it as the dealer dont want to pay out £250k and the person could be tempted as dont want to be left with 1p. If Sainsburys was confident then of course they wouldnt offer any payout. But they dont sound confident and if they are not confident then it would make business sense to persuade Rovers to take a pay off reminding Rovers that Rovers risk getting nothing. Im sure Sainsburys (who could win the court case) would rather lose a few million over losing £30 million. So how confident are they? And how confident are we too? If the board just want to get their loans back (which they're obviously fully entitled too) then accepting any compensation offer that allows them to do this makes sense for both them and the club. If however, they have eyes on a bigger prize; ie the potential of the legacy of a new stadium plus the fact that the value of the club would presumably skyrocket with the new stadium and their investment in club might then payoff financially then it may be that we're the one's with the incentive not to settle. I think it's important to consider that on Sainsbury's side you have a massive institution for which this is a significant (but not critically large) amount of money and on our side ultimately we have a set of people for whom this is a much more critical amount of money both them personally and for the club. That adds all kinds of aspects to the cat and mouse here and the various incentives the 2 parties have. I think people who are saying this is an equal exchange now between legal teams are not really correct because the incentive and reward levels (and the implications of these) for the two parties remain completely different. That £30 million means something very different to Sainsbury's than it does to Rovers.
|
|
Peter Parker
Global Moderator
Richard Walker
You have been sentenced to DELETION!
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 4,920
|
Post by Peter Parker on Feb 12, 2015 13:52:05 GMT
Going by their statement on the matter, they dont seem so confident saying they need to know if they have to pay or not. So is it worth them offering a few million as a pay off in an attempt to save themselves £30 million? I would if I was them. Its then down to Rovers to accept it or not. Like in deal or no deal. 2 boxes left, 1p and £250k. Dealer offers £70k in a hope to tempt the person to take it as the dealer dont want to pay out £250k and the person could be tempted as dont want to be left with 1p. If Sainsburys was confident then of course they wouldnt offer any payout. But they dont sound confident and if they are not confident then it would make business sense to persuade Rovers to take a pay off reminding Rovers that Rovers risk getting nothing. Im sure Sainsburys (who could win the court case) would rather lose a few million over losing £30 million. So how confident are they? And how confident are we too? If the board just want to get their loans back (which they're obviously fully entitled too) then accepting any compensation offer that allows them to do this makes sense for both them and the club. If however, they have eyes on a bigger prize; ie the potential of the legacy of a new stadium plus the fact that the value of the club would presumably skyrocket with the new stadium and their investment in club might then payoff financially then it may be that we're the one's with the incentive not to settle. I think it's important to consider that on Sainsbury's side you have a massive institution for which this is a significant (but not critically large) amount of money and on our side ultimately we have a set of people for whom this is a much more critical amount of money both them personally and for the club. That adds all kinds of aspects to the cat and mouse here and the various incentives the 2 parties have. I think people who are saying this is an equal exchange now between legal teams are not really correct because the incentive and reward levels (and the implications of these) for the two parties remain completely different. That £30 million means something very different to Sainsbury's than it does to Rovers. Indeed.
I mean for arguments sake there was suddenly a £6m offer on the table. Not much for Sainsbury's in the grand scheme of things, but a hell of a lot more significant for Rovers.
Do you take it, or risk losing it all for the chance for the big prize (which still has it's own uncertainties, although perhaps easier to sort if we do hit big)
|
|
|
Post by Dr John Dee on Feb 12, 2015 14:11:36 GMT
And how confident are we too? If the board just want to get their loans back (which they're obviously fully entitled too) then accepting any compensation offer that allows them to do this makes sense for both them and the club. If however, they have eyes on a bigger prize; ie the potential of the legacy of a new stadium plus the fact that the value of the club would presumably skyrocket with the new stadium and their investment in club might then payoff financially then it may be that we're the one's with the incentive not to settle. I think it's important to consider that on Sainsbury's side you have a massive institution for which this is a significant (but not critically large) amount of money and on our side ultimately we have a set of people for whom this is a much more critical amount of money both them personally and for the club. That adds all kinds of aspects to the cat and mouse here and the various incentives the 2 parties have. I think people who are saying this is an equal exchange now between legal teams are not really correct because the incentive and reward levels (and the implications of these) for the two parties remain completely different. That £30 million means something very different to Sainsbury's than it does to Rovers. Indeed.
I mean for arguments sake there was suddenly a £6m offer on the table. Not much for Sainsbury's in the grand scheme of things, but a hell of a lot more significant for Rovers.
Do you take it, or risk losing it all for the chance for the big prize (which still has it's own uncertainties, although perhaps easier to sort if we do hit big)
Is that why this guy is hanging around the club? I say open the box!
|
|
LPGas
Stuart Taylor
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 1,240
|
Post by LPGas on Feb 12, 2015 15:39:54 GMT
I thought you'd already said before in previous posts we had no chance ( or words to that affect) and we should of grabbed any money Sainsburys ( supposedly ) offered as compensation ? No. You misread or misunderstood, or failed to grasp. On our chances in court, I say that I sense this is not at all a shoe in or watertight when people convince themselves it is. That's not the same as saying we have 'no chance'. On the longer view, I would have been looking to avoid ever getting to this stage, since Sainsbury's expressed at least a year ago that they wanted out. I'd have gone for getting a settlement with them that allowed both sides to move on and focus on something else, rather than trying to hold their feet to the fire in a zero-sum game, submitting planning applications for supermarket delivery hours, and associated non-core activity. Maybe there never was a compromise settlement available, but that wasn't what the jungle drums were saying last summer. Who knows, the club might be vindicated, but it strikes me there might be better strategies toward building a stadium at UWE than trying to out manoeuvre a company that has done hundreds of land deals. but how many of those deals have resulted in a High Court action against them?
|
|
|
Post by CountyGroundHotel on Feb 12, 2015 16:00:37 GMT
Going by their statement on the matter, they dont seem so confident saying they need to know if they have to pay or not. So is it worth them offering a few million as a pay off in an attempt to save themselves £30 million? I would if I was them. Its then down to Rovers to accept it or not. Like in deal or no deal. 2 boxes left, 1p and £250k. Dealer offers £70k in a hope to tempt the person to take it as the dealer dont want to pay out £250k and the person could be tempted as dont want to be left with 1p. If Sainsburys was confident then of course they wouldnt offer any payout. But they dont sound confident and if they are not confident then it would make business sense to persuade Rovers to take a pay off reminding Rovers that Rovers risk getting nothing. Im sure Sainsburys (who could win the court case) would rather lose a few million over losing £30 million. So how confident are they? And how confident are we too? If the board just want to get their loans back (which they're obviously fully entitled too) then accepting any compensation offer that allows them to do this makes sense for both them and the club. If however, they have eyes on a bigger prize; ie the potential of the legacy of a new stadium plus the fact that the value of the club would presumably skyrocket with the new stadium and their investment in club might then payoff financially then it may be that we're the one's with the incentive not to settle. I think it's important to consider that on Sainsbury's side you have a massive institution for which this is a significant (but not critically large) amount of money and on our side ultimately we have a set of people for whom this is a much more critical amount of money both them personally and for the club. That adds all kinds of aspects to the cat and mouse here and the various incentives the 2 parties have. I think people who are saying this is an equal exchange now between legal teams are not really correct because the incentive and reward levels (and the implications of these) for the two parties remain completely different. That £30 million means something very different to Sainsbury's than it does to Rovers. A fair point Irish but until or if Sainsburys offer a deal it remains a fair (or fairly) fight between the legal team. Most of are barroom lawyers have said its an open & shut case in Sainsbury favour so why should they offer a deal?
|
|
kingswood Polak
Without music life would be a mistake
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 10,307
|
Post by kingswood Polak on Feb 12, 2015 16:04:56 GMT
Exactly the response I predicted weeks ago, oh dear Jack's wrong and trying to rewrite history. Its hilarious. But the contract has not time expired because Sainsbury are going to court. Why bother if they are 100% sure that the law of contract is on their side ?? I predict that Sainsbury will get their corporate fingers burned on this one and may well set a precedent (which English Law is based on) for other cases to follow For the clubs sake, the fans. I hope you are correct mate
|
|
kingswood Polak
Without music life would be a mistake
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 10,307
|
Post by kingswood Polak on Feb 12, 2015 16:11:43 GMT
Twerton nowhere near suitable for league football. (!) Lucky we're non league then eh
|
|
Alveston Gas
Brucie Bannister
Once a Gashead always a Gashead
Joined: June 2014
Posts: 746
|
Post by Alveston Gas on Feb 12, 2015 16:14:46 GMT
Does the fact that there is/was a Contract in place, in all good faith to sell the ground to Sainsburys if a b c and d happens, not stand Rovers in the stronger position. If Sainsburys joined into that Contract surely there is a responsibility on their part to abide by it unless there are bloody good reasons not to. Will the fact that the timing of the deal might have been slightly extended be enough to over rule the entire Contracted responsibility?
|
|
kingswood Polak
Without music life would be a mistake
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 10,307
|
Post by kingswood Polak on Feb 12, 2015 16:46:44 GMT
A few things that give me (some) confidence of a positive result: 1) presumably our lawyers have advised we have a strong case otherwise this wouldn't go to court 2). we raised the 'best endeavours' issue in the writ last July -Sainsbury's submission was error strewn and when refused they refused to appeal until we forced the issue 3) the judge clearly thinks there is case to be considered and lusted it for a prompt hearing. I'm sure if he felt the balance was weighted strongly to one side or the other he would have made that clear and one or other party would withdraw and save costs 4) why would known for short term lending lend money to the club that would take a long time to recover if the contract would not complete 5) whatever anyone thinks of NH and the clubs communication of the saga, I'm sure he wouldn't risk the future of Bristol Rovers unless he felt we had a winnable position. That said there are no certainties in litigation......... One can never cease to be amazed at the hubris shown by our chairman
|
|
kingswood Polak
Without music life would be a mistake
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 10,307
|
Post by kingswood Polak on Feb 12, 2015 17:03:09 GMT
If they try tempting us with an offer then it will ONLY because they feel they cannot win the case. Why else would they try to tempt us with money? If they are so confident in winning the case they may as well see it through. The fact this has dragged on so long I hope it is to our advantage and the Judge will see that Sainsburys entered into the contract and should be made to see it out. To solely think that and plough ahead would be a mistake. If Sainsbury’s offered compo, it wouldn’t mean they aren’t that confident. If their legal team weighing up the cases said it’s 50/50, Sainsbury’s might feel offering a few million quid as compo is the best course. A simple cost benefit analysis. Cleaner, quieter, potential less bad press. They have shareholders to keep happy If we were offered a reasonable pay off, I am not saying take it and run away, but the club given it’s financial position would have to consider it as they have painted the picture for everyone should be lose. A 99% chance of winning is still a 1% chance of losing and we cannot afford to lose Sees Noel Edmonds going to open the box
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 12, 2015 17:57:26 GMT
To solely think that and plough ahead would be a mistake. If Sainsbury’s offered compo, it wouldn’t mean they aren’t that confident. If their legal team weighing up the cases said it’s 50/50, Sainsbury’s might feel offering a few million quid as compo is the best course. A simple cost benefit analysis. Cleaner, quieter, potential less bad press. They have shareholders to keep happy If we were offered a reasonable pay off, I am not saying take it and run away, but the club given it’s financial position would have to consider it as they have painted the picture for everyone should be lose. A 99% chance of winning is still a 1% chance of losing and we cannot afford to lose Sees Noel Edmonds going to open the box Is that a euphemism?
|
|
kingswood Polak
Without music life would be a mistake
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 10,307
|
Post by kingswood Polak on Feb 12, 2015 17:59:20 GMT
Sees Noel Edmonds going to open the box Is that a euphemism? If only. I seem to have lost a lot of the self deprecating and hallows humour after the relegation but thanks for gettingr to at least smile
|
|