Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 9, 2015 17:16:17 GMT
Is the hearing, or whatever it is called,in febuary not happening now It just did, sweetheart. It said, 'yes, fast track the main hearing to May'. Thank you darling,didn't realise it was already upon us,i thought it was the 24th Feb.
|
|
|
Post by sw18gas on Feb 9, 2015 17:19:23 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? I am fairly sure that when the writ was issued it quoted bits of the contract saying Sainsbury's had to use all reasonable endeavours to pursue getting all the required permissions. This wording would mean that they were not allowed to 'drag their feet'. We know they tried to, but at the very last minute appealed the delivery hours issue. So the wording worked on that occasion. Were other deadlines missed though? It looks to me that this might be a subjective judgement on whether they did what they could or not. And you can be quite sure they did delay; did they stay on 'the right side of the line' though? What an enormous event in the 120+ years of the history of our club this hearing will be.
|
|
|
Post by Feeling The Blues on Feb 9, 2015 17:22:45 GMT
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. I still think we have a chance of holding Sainsburys to account but lets get one thing straight, they HAVE walked away hence we need to take them to the high court. Sainsburys are asking the court to cancel the contract at the same time we are asking it to enforce it.
|
|
|
Post by DudeLebowski on Feb 9, 2015 17:45:41 GMT
The high court judge is a Gashead.
It's fine dudes, we've got this!
|
|
brizzle
Lindsay Parsons
No Buy . . . No Sell!
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 4,293
|
Post by brizzle on Feb 9, 2015 18:07:26 GMT
The high court judge is a Gashead. It's fine dudes, we've got this! I'm totally reassured, many thanks.
|
|
|
Post by onedaytheuwe on Feb 9, 2015 18:10:19 GMT
Planning permission was agreed in January 2013. It took to spring 2013 to sort out the 106 agreement : (which is nothing to do with Rovers). Then Sainsbury's say to us " You have a year to sort everything out or else". Trash appeals the decision ( nothing to do with us ) : another legal challenge via EH ( nothing to do with us). And around mid to late 2014 Sainsbury's say " We are out now".
A few objective points to consider...
Can an organisation expect a delay of 1-2 years on a macro project ? Are they aware there could be legal challenges ? Are they aware of Judical reviews ? Finally: given all of the above is now passed : why not proceed ?
My view is a major major project could take years to build given the strong protest groups. The judge might think Sainsbury's are making excuses..
|
|
LPGas
Stuart Taylor
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 1,240
|
Post by LPGas on Feb 9, 2015 18:12:22 GMT
Well, was I dreaming when our own babe in Westminster urged Sainsburys to "get on with this project, for the good of the local economy?" and didn't Cameron back her? Or did I eat too much cheese that evening?
|
|
LPGas
Stuart Taylor
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 1,240
|
Post by LPGas on Feb 9, 2015 18:14:27 GMT
Planning permission was agreed in January 2013. It took to spring 2013 to sort out the 106 agreement : (which is nothing to do with Rovers). Then Sainsbury's say to us " You have a year to sort everything out or else". Trash appeals the decision ( nothing to do with us ) : another legal challenge via EH ( nothing to do with us). And around mid to late 2014 Sainsbury's say " We are out now". A few objective points to consider... Can an organisation expect a delay of 1-2 years on a macro project ? Are they aware there could be legal challenges ? Are they aware of Judical reviews ? Finally: given all of the above is now passed : why not proceed ? My view is a major major project could take years to build given the strong protest groups. The judge might think Sainsbury's are making excuses.. Well it took Brighton 10 years to get their new ground, or so I was told, so yes a big project takes time
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 9, 2015 18:19:52 GMT
Planning permission was agreed in January 2013. It took to spring 2013 to sort out the 106 agreement : (which is nothing to do with Rovers). Then Sainsbury's say to us " You have a year to sort everything out or else". Trash appeals the decision ( nothing to do with us ) : another legal challenge via EH ( nothing to do with us). And around mid to late 2014 Sainsbury's say " We are out now". A few objective points to consider... Can an organisation expect a delay of 1-2 years on a macro project ? Are they aware there could be legal challenges ? Are they aware of Judical reviews ? Finally: given all of the above is now passed : why not proceed ? My view is a major major project could take years to build given the strong protest groups. The judge might think Sainsbury's are making excuses.. Well it took Brighton 10 years to get their new ground, or so I was told, so yes a big project takes time Different circumstances, they had the money and no permission, we have the permission but Higgs doesn't have the money.
|
|
dagnogo
Joined: June 2014
Posts: 872
|
Post by dagnogo on Feb 9, 2015 18:20:53 GMT
Brighton is/was a very different situation with lots of extra legal problems.
Plus, in the end, Tony Bloom bought the club and wrote them a big fat cheque - if Nick would like to do that then things may get easier.
Basically, all the speculation can pretty much end here - either we get the full whack, we get some kind of settlement, or we're at square one.
|
|
|
Post by onedaytheuwe on Feb 9, 2015 18:21:50 GMT
Which then makes me think it can't be JUST about a cut off date. If it is then I think we have a 'fair shout' to win...
|
|
brizzle
Lindsay Parsons
No Buy . . . No Sell!
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 4,293
|
Post by brizzle on Feb 9, 2015 18:37:07 GMT
Planning permission was agreed in January 2013. It took to spring 2013 to sort out the 106 agreement : (which is nothing to do with Rovers). Then Sainsbury's say to us " You have a year to sort everything out or else". Trash appeals the decision ( nothing to do with us ) : another legal challenge via EH ( nothing to do with us). And around mid to late 2014 Sainsbury's say " We are out now". A few objective points to consider... Can an organisation expect a delay of 1-2 years on a macro project ? Are they aware there could be legal challenges ? Are they aware of Judical reviews ? Finally: given all of the above is now passed : why not proceed ? My view is a major major project could take years to build given the strong protest groups. The judge might think Sainsbury's are making excuses... . . or being just plain cynical?
|
|
|
Post by a more piratey game on Feb 9, 2015 18:40:14 GMT
Let me get my popcorn. This is sure to be torn apart, word for word, by the barrack room lawyers on here In the following posts look out for a lot of 'if's', 'maybe's' and 'I assume'! This has to be good news, and dare I say it.......... progress!!!!!!. No ifs and buts about it. Yes, fully agree. We appear to have a time boundary and a decent shot at this
|
|
|
Post by a more piratey game on Feb 9, 2015 18:42:18 GMT
How is that fair I ask your? I'm so f******g angry. don't be silly - fair doesn't come into it
I reckon we've a decent shot at this though
|
|
|
Post by badbloodash on Feb 9, 2015 19:04:09 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? My gut feeling is it was someone much closer to home maybe someone on here with a fiscal investigation background could enlighten us although someone could hide funding through various companies etc I mean no one knew Steve landsdown was bankrolling bristol rugby for 3 years
|
|
crater
Joined: June 2014
Posts: 1,444
|
Post by crater on Feb 9, 2015 19:13:04 GMT
Still ain't shopping there...they used to get £30-£40 of my money each week...irrespective of what happens I won't be going back there
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 9, 2015 19:23:42 GMT
A friend of a number of us on here, posted this earlier on his blog. Excellent stuff:
"Never before has the term ‘s**t or bust’ been more appropriate than with Bristol Rovers’ efforts to get the UWE Stadium built and more specifically flogging the Memorial Stadium to Sainsburys. The Bristol Post today reports that a High Court Judge will decide in May whether Rovers can hold the supermarket giants to a £30 million deal to buy the site. Sainsburys argue that planning conditions were not met by a cut-off date last year, and so they were entitled to terminate the deal which was to buy the Memorial Stadium. Well, this seems very straightforward to me. There either was a cut off date or there wasn’t. On the basis of what the paper says, the judge will be able to decide in about two minutes.
We now learn from the Post that ‘there have been complications over plans for a shared car park used by the University during the week, and the stadium on match days.’ It doesn’t add what these complications are but would it be too far out to speculate that the UWE is fed up waiting and if Rovers don’t deliver soon, they will look to other partners to get them their car park? And the UWE stadium site will disappear at a stroke. It’s all speculation, which is what you get when the football club does its business on a ‘need to know’ basis or rather ‘you don’t need to know’ basis. For God knows how long we have been fed the line that everything is progressing well and it’s just a matter of dotting the ‘i’s and crossing the ‘t’s. No indications that Sainsburys wanted to pull out ages ago. I know there are things that can’t be put in the public arena for the usual catch-all ‘legal reasons’ but I do wonder if the ever passionate Rovers fans, who always support their team in bad times and in worse, are treated like mushrooms, fed s**t and kept in the dark.
The stadium is everything to Rovers’ future now. Without it and what’s left? Yet another plan at yet another location yet to be determined or a couple of new stands at the Memorial Stadium? This legal action malarkey can’t be cheap because Sainsburys have plainly hired the best legal minds that money can buy. I can’t imagine Rovers will do anything less. In the summer, during my final dealings with the club, we were told that the agreement with Sainsburys was ‘cast iron’. Sainsburys were committed in the eyes of the law to buy the land to buy a supermarket they no longer want to build and haven’t wanted to build for a very long time.
An outright win for the Rovers and, you assume, they get the money and the builders move in at the UWE stadium. Lose and the club is lumbered with a large legal bill, a crumbling old stadium and significant debts. It’s s**t or bust all right. Nick Higgs and the rest of the board had better be sure they win because the entire future of the club rests on it"
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 9, 2015 19:28:10 GMT
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. Quite the opposite. I suggested more than once that if Sainsbury's had walked away then one possible explanation would be that the contract had time expired. I don't recall you saying that Sainsbury's would claim that the contract had expired but that Rovers would challenge that and that would be what the case came down to. Link to the post where you called this correctly please?
|
|
The Gas
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 484
|
Post by The Gas on Feb 9, 2015 20:23:03 GMT
An outright win for the Rovers and, you assume, they get the money and the builders move in at the UWE stadium. Lose and the club is lumbered with a large legal bill, a crumbling old stadium and significant debts. It’s s*** or bust all right. Nick Higgs and the rest of the board had better be sure they win because the entire future of the club rests on it" As far as I am aware, the only loan that is now attached to The Mem is the recently loan taken out.
My understanding is that the loans given by the Directors are "unsecured loans" and therefore they cannot ask for the ground to be sold to repay themselves. If they decided to sue the football club for their money, the football club do not own The Mem, The Mem own the football club.
So I cannot see the Directors wanting to sue themselves.
Now if we default on the loan, that is a different matter and I even I would begin to worry. I would love to know the size of the loan and the repayment terms but if I ask at the AGM, I know the answer will be "that is commercially sensitive information" and I would not expect to be told.
|
|
|
Post by Topper Gas on Feb 9, 2015 20:57:58 GMT
Planning permission was agreed in January 2013. It took to spring 2013 to sort out the 106 agreement : (which is nothing to do with Rovers). Then Sainsbury's say to us " You have a year to sort everything out or else". Trash appeals the decision ( nothing to do with us ) : another legal challenge via EH ( nothing to do with us). And around mid to late 2014 Sainsbury's say " We are out now". A few objective points to consider... Can an organisation expect a delay of 1-2 years on a macro project ? Are they aware there could be legal challenges ? Are they aware of Judical reviews ? Finally: given all of the above is now passed : why not proceed ? My view is a major major project could take years to build given the strong protest groups. The judge might think Sainsbury's are making excuses.. Surely if all parties agreed the cut off date was last year it doesn't matter if Sainsbury's should have known there could be appeals etc, as Rovers agreed to the date of the cut off point. As others have suggested I assume Rovers will claim Sainsbury's deliberately delayed matters but Sainsbury's will just point to Trash/the JR etc as the main reasons for the delay. One thing is for sure that NH must have known the contract wasn't "watertight" when he claimed it was late this year?
|
|