Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 9, 2015 15:28:54 GMT
I read that as UWE is losing patience because they need the car park built now, and if Rovers aren't going to build it they are going to have to go with a plan B. i bet the car park issue is just a red herring to get the high court case fast tracked You bet the club has just lied to the High Court? Wow, you really do think they're charlatans.
|
|
|
Post by tbonegas on Feb 9, 2015 15:37:15 GMT
The board should be sacked with immediate effect.
|
|
|
Post by laughinggas on Feb 9, 2015 15:39:37 GMT
i bet the car park issue is just a red herring to get the high court case fast tracked You bet the club has just lied to the High Court? Wow, you really do think they're charlatans. That's not how I read his comment, more like a piece of leverage. The statement about the car park may be true and as someone else said UWE want a plan b
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 9, 2015 15:40:42 GMT
i bet the car park issue is just a red herring to get the high court case fast tracked You bet the club has just lied to the High Court? Wow, you really do think they're charlatans. Tong in cheek comment Seth, don't be to literal if that possible
|
|
|
Post by Nobbygas on Feb 9, 2015 15:53:29 GMT
"Sainsbury's lawyer Mark Wonnacott QC agreed with the club that it was desirable that the hearing should be fast-tracked.
He told the judge: "If we're stuck with this contract it's as much in our interest to know that quickly as it is the club's.""
Wow, I'm surprised nobody has mentioned this line yet! It doesn't sound as though even Sainsbury's think it's a clear-cut decision ?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 9, 2015 15:54:20 GMT
You bet the club has just lied to the High Court? Wow, you really do think they're charlatans. Tong in cheek comment Seth, don't be to literal if that possible I think it helps to be literal. To go back to the source, the car park is not the be all and end all so you (ir)rationalising that it's not really an issue at all is doubly unhelpful. it says: 1. The club hopes (no assurances) that, if this can move forward by June, UWE might hang around until then. 2. Timescale aside, there are issues with the UWE contract (God help us) regarding use of the car parks. It sounds like more Is and Ts need dotting and crossing so it's not actually watertight.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 9, 2015 15:56:13 GMT
"Sainsbury's lawyer Mark Wonnacott QC agreed with the club that it was desirable that the hearing should be fast-tracked. He told the judge: "If we're stuck with this contract it's as much in our interest to know that quickly as it is the club's."" Wow, I'm surprised nobody has mentioned this line yet! It doesn't sound as though even Sainsbury's think it's a clear-cut decision ? ...which is the grown up way to be. Compare and contrast.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 9, 2015 16:03:33 GMT
Tong in cheek comment Seth, don't be to literal if that possible I think it helps to be literal. To go back to the source, the car park is not the be all and end all so you (ir)rationalising that it's not really an issue at all is doubly unhelpful. it says: 1. The club hopes (no assurances) that, if this can move forward by June, UWE might hang around until then. 2. Timescale aside, there are issues with the UWE contract (God help us) regarding use of the car parks. It sounds like more Is and Ts need dotting and crossing so it's not actually watertight. I understand a recent meeting @ South Glous planning addressed some of these issues with the Car park
|
|
RG2 Gas
Andy Spring
Joined: June 2014
Posts: 229
|
Post by RG2 Gas on Feb 9, 2015 16:11:44 GMT
It just did, sweetheart. It said, 'yes, fast track the main hearing to May'. Where Sainsbury's seem set to demonstrate that the contract had expired. Rovers seem to be saying that Sainsbury's didn't do everything in their power to make sure the contract was completed. Sainsbury's obvious reply could be that all of the planning deadlines, appeals deadlines were met but the contract simply time expired. Will be interesting to see if it had already expired before the last appeal for change of delivery hours. Wonder what outcome Higgs actually wants? If Sainsbury's are told they have to pay up that leaves him, based on figures quoted here, some £10m short of being able to build UWE, and that's before Wonga are paid or any of the internal debt is serviced. Interesting times That's my reading of the situation too. So it sounds like Sainsbury's aren't quibbling over any other contractual terms other than that the expiry date had passed. In that case, I guess the Rovers' case is that they didn't do all they could to expedite the contract within the deadline, so the Rovers themselves took it on themselves to do so. I guess it's all down to the wording of the contract and if there was an expectation on both parties to do all they could to satisfy the terms of the contract within agreed timescales. So it sounds like May *could* be the beginning of the end - either for the club or for this whole sorry saga. I wonder if there will be grounds to appeal for whichever party loses? Could be a massive 4 or 5 months ahead for Rovers both on and off the pitch!
|
|
|
Post by CountyGroundHotel on Feb 9, 2015 16:22:02 GMT
It just did, sweetheart. It said, 'yes, fast track the main hearing to May'. Where Sainsbury's seem set to demonstrate that the contract had expired. Rovers seem to be saying that Sainsbury's didn't do everything in their power to make sure the contract was completed. Sainsbury's obvious reply could be that all of the planning deadlines, appeals deadlines were met but the contract simply time expired. Will be interesting to see if it had already expired before the last appeal for change of delivery hours. Wonder what outcome Higgs actually wants? If Sainsbury's are told they have to pay up that leaves him, based on figures quoted here, some £10m short of being able to build UWE, and that's before Wonga are paid or any of the internal debt is serviced. Interesting times So let me get this straight, the judge believes there is a case to be heard? Amazing weren't you saying that Sainsburys had walked away and that was that? No need to consider any other option, don't like to say I told you so but ..... At least you weren't on your own in that view can't wait for everyone saying they called it wrong.
|
|
Peter Parker
Global Moderator
Richard Walker
You have been sentenced to DELETION!
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 4,920
|
Post by Peter Parker on Feb 9, 2015 16:26:53 GMT
"Sainsbury's lawyer Mark Wonnacott QC agreed with the club that it was desirable that the hearing should be fast-tracked. He told the judge: "If we're stuck with this contract it's as much in our interest to know that quickly as it is the club's."" Wow, I'm surprised nobody has mentioned this line yet! It doesn't sound as though even Sainsbury's think it's a clear-cut decision ? Well yes and No.
Maybe they think all is good on their side, they had washed their hands, however Rovers kept pushing to get it sorted in our favour. No matter how concrete Sainsbury's might think their argument is, there is always a chance they could lose.
Don't forget they have shareholders, so don't want a lengthy legal action (with the possibility of losing)
|
|
RG2 Gas
Andy Spring
Joined: June 2014
Posts: 229
|
Post by RG2 Gas on Feb 9, 2015 16:29:17 GMT
If it is as simple as 'did the contract expire or not' as reported in the press, then I'm surprised it's a 7 day hearing! Now I'm no legal expert but that seems like a lot of deliberation over whether a deadline had passed or not? There must be more to this, surely?
|
|
RG2 Gas
Andy Spring
Joined: June 2014
Posts: 229
|
Post by RG2 Gas on Feb 9, 2015 16:33:50 GMT
The other interesting thing here is that the value of the contract seems to be declared publically for the first time - £30m. I assume that's come from this court case and not speculation from the Forums?
|
|
|
Post by Blue Mist on Feb 9, 2015 16:34:18 GMT
How are BRFC responsible for planning conditions? They're not the ones building a f**kin supermarket. So Sainsbury can get out of any contract they like so long as they drag their heels in the planning process. How is that fair I ask your? I'm so f**king angry.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 9, 2015 16:36:12 GMT
How are BRFC responsible for planning conditions? They're not the ones building a fin supermarket. So Sainsbury can get out of any contract they like so long as they drag their heels in the planning process. How is that fair I ask your? I'm so f******g angry. Because those were the terms of the watertight contract that Higgs entered into and signed?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 9, 2015 16:36:47 GMT
How are BRFC responsible for planning conditions? They're not the ones building a fin supermarket. So Sainsbury can get out of any contract they like so long as they drag their heels in the planning process. How is that fair I ask your? I'm so fing angry. Then maybe phone whoever signed the contract on behalf of Rovers and explain that they shouldn't have agreed to those conditions?
|
|
irishrover
Global Moderator
Joined: June 2014
Posts: 3,372
|
Post by irishrover on Feb 9, 2015 16:38:16 GMT
It just did, sweetheart. It said, 'yes, fast track the main hearing to May'. Where Sainsbury's seem set to demonstrate that the contract had expired. Rovers seem to be saying that Sainsbury's didn't do everything in their power to make sure the contract was completed. Sainsbury's obvious reply could be that all of the planning deadlines, appeals deadlines were met but the contract simply time expired. Will be interesting to see if it had already expired before the last appeal for change of delivery hours. Wonder what outcome Higgs actually wants? If Sainsbury's are told they have to pay up that leaves him, based on figures quoted here, some £10m short of being able to build UWE, and that's before Wonga are paid or any of the internal debt is serviced. Interesting times That's logical, but doesn't it render the clubs long term argument that the contract is watertight irrelevant. Because it seems like it is actually all going to come down to the contract expiry date and where responsibility/liability lies for that not being met. Strictly speaking Sainsbury's aren't trying to get out of this on a contractual loophole - they're trying to get out of it ultimately due to delaying tactics. Oddly I think I am more confident with that being the terms of dispute than I would be if Sainsbury's were talking about contractual technicialities. I know it all comes back to that anyway regarding who had responsibility for what etc but it doesn't seem that there's a magic ticket there for Sainsbury's to get out of it. But as a clueless outsider on this it gives me some vague hope - maybe I'm being overly optimistic though.
|
|
|
Post by bemmygas on Feb 9, 2015 16:58:08 GMT
It just did, sweetheart. It said, 'yes, fast track the main hearing to May'. Where Sainsbury's seem set to demonstrate that the contract had expired. Rovers seem to be saying that Sainsbury's didn't do everything in their power to make sure the contract was completed. Sainsbury's obvious reply could be that all of the planning deadlines, appeals deadlines were met but the contract simply time expired. Will be interesting to see if it had already expired before the last appeal for change of delivery hours. Wonder what outcome Higgs actually wants? If Sainsbury's are told they have to pay up that leaves him, based on figures quoted here, some £10m short of being able to build UWE, and that's before Wonga are paid or any of the internal debt is serviced. Interesting times £30 million plus £8 million free land for naming rights, plus all the usual grants,would take it way over £40 million project.
|
|
|
Post by badbloodash on Feb 9, 2015 17:00:55 GMT
I think it helps to be literal. To go back to the source, the car park is not the be all and end all so you (ir)rationalising that it's not really an issue at all is doubly unhelpful. it says: 1. The club hopes (no assurances) that, if this can move forward by June, UWE might hang around until then. 2. Timescale aside, there are issues with the UWE contract (God help us) regarding use of the car parks. It sounds like more Is and Ts need dotting and crossing so it's not actually watertight. I understand a recent meeting @ South Glous planning addressed some of these issues with the Car park As I understood it the stadium gets built with 5000 parking spaces rovers pay for the build uwe get to use the facilities and car parks during the week without the stadium will South glos give permission for car parks alone and can the uwe pay for these and associated inferstructure without the stadium also were there not hotels etc planned to be part of this scheme seem to remember figure of 200 million plus worth of investment think a lot more to this than just us / sainsburys / uwe only time will tell
|
|
|
Post by Nobbygas on Feb 9, 2015 17:12:53 GMT
Remember all the speculation as to the identity of the person(s) funding TRASH? Wouldn't it be delicious if someone came up with proof that it was Sainsbury's?
|
|