|
Post by onedaytheuwe on Feb 10, 2015 13:52:28 GMT
This is getting confusing now !. Sainsbury's got planning permission in January 2013 and I understand were happy with the agreed opening hours. However: decided 13 months later to apply for extended hours which was refused. We then re-applyed and were successful 6 months after.
So Sainsbury's could be arguing by not getting EH . The deadline have now passed for 'sale date' access. Therefore : wanted out some time last year. My question is why wait 13 months to change the first application ? And why not wait another few months for us to challenge this decision ?. They can't have it both ways...
I am trying to keep it plain and simple.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 10, 2015 13:57:34 GMT
This is getting confusing now !. Sainsbury's got planning permission in January 2013 and I understand were happy with the agreed opening hours. No, everything we have been told to date suggests that they were not prepared to complete without the extended delivery hours. But wait a few mins, Henbury seems to be saying that he has just popped off to dig out documents that demonstrate that they did in fact agree to progress the contract with shorter delivery hours.
|
|
|
Post by imanobody on Feb 10, 2015 14:02:59 GMT
Can somebody explain to me how long we have delayed the proceedings by so to give sainsburys a reason to pull out?? It seems we can only leave the mem in the summer months so this yr was always going to be too early so next summer is the next possible time to move and we could have still met that target if they paid up now!
|
|
|
Post by onedaytheuwe on Feb 10, 2015 14:13:21 GMT
Sorry I am struggling to understand Sainsbury's point. They agreed to planning consent ( January 2013) on the basis of getting further EH agreed ?. So why take 13 months to CHANGE the agreed PP ?. They then apply but are refused and decide not to proceed. However: we say 'let us try' a few months later and are successful .
So what is the basis of their dispute ? Is it timescale ? _ they took 13 months and we took 6 months. Or are they saying they have a right to 'opt out' if EH is refused.
If that is written in the first contract eg: If at a later stage we apply for extra conditions and are refused we can opt out ' . Then I agreed we are stuffed. However: I am not convinced that is true from my contacts..
|
|
|
Post by onedaytheuwe on Feb 10, 2015 14:14:39 GMT
Can somebody explain to me how long we have delayed the proceedings by so to give sainsburys a reason to pull out?? It seems we can only leave the mem in the summer months so this yr was always going to be too early so next summer is the next possible time to move and we could have still met that target if they paid up now!
|
|
|
Post by westbourne gas on Feb 10, 2015 16:30:44 GMT
I dont pretend to understand much of this but it does seem that Sainsburys are clutching at straws a bit. May be they hope that the club will accept an out of court settlement which are common in most court proceedings of this complexity. Im not a great fan of Higgs but I have a feeling hes confident of winning this. I hope so. Does anyone kno the value of the mem site for housing?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 10, 2015 16:40:20 GMT
I dont pretend to understand much of this but it does seem that Sainsburys are clutching at straws a bit. May be they hope that the club will accept an out of court settlement which are common in most court proceedings of this complexity. Im not a great fan of Higgs but I have a feeling hes confident of winning this. I hope so. Does anyone kno the value of the mem site for housing? Depending upon number of permitted starts, percentage of affordable units and pre construction preparation costs I would think somewhere between £650k and £850k per acre.
|
|
|
Post by onedaytheuwe on Feb 10, 2015 16:46:09 GMT
I dont pretend to understand much of this but it does seem that Sainsburys are clutching at straws a bit. May be they hope that the club will accept an out of court settlement which are common in most court proceedings of this complexity. Im not a great fan of Higgs but I have a feeling hes confident of winning this. I hope so. Does anyone kno the value of the mem site for housing?
|
|
|
Post by onedaytheuwe on Feb 10, 2015 16:55:05 GMT
There certainly 'clutching at straws' if their argument is the planning wasn;t agreed in time . But they themselves took a mouth watering 13 months to change the first contract. It's a bit like buying a site and stating ' extras need to be completed in 18 months' and the housing developers take 13 months to apply'.
The judge should ask why it takes 13 months on such a critical issue ? And why now they can't proceed ?. It sounds like they want their cake and eat it...
|
|
|
Post by Finnish Gas on Feb 10, 2015 17:37:33 GMT
Does anybody have any knowledge or insight into whether:
UWE;
Bristol City Council; and
South Gloucestershire Council;
will wish to participate in the Court proceedings as "interested/affected parties"?
|
|
|
Post by badbloodash on Feb 10, 2015 17:53:57 GMT
Hang on a minute Sainsbury's didn't include Extended hours in the alpha contract. They waited 13 months before they opted to change their minds. So why did it take 13 months ? And I bet they will blame the council now for delays in planning consent ? Of course they want to rush it through so much so they took 13 months to drag their feet on extended hours and break the first contract with no mention of extended hours. They kept very quiet right until WE got extended hours granted and then decided to come out the woodwork. It's just a joke now... Simple question if the only reason holding this up was time and in the original timescale meant the earliest we could have possibly handed over the mem to sainsburys was July of this year why not just say right you have it in July we will find alternative venue Cheltenham, Swindon , bath anywhere for I season speed up the build from 60 to 52 weeks kick off August 16 in our new stadium sainsburys can do what they want on Filton ave
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 10, 2015 18:08:16 GMT
BCC would be on a bit of a sticky wicket, they can hardly argue the site needs a supermarket.
SG would be on firmer ground, and UWE firmer still.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 10, 2015 18:10:00 GMT
Hang on a minute Sainsbury's didn't include Extended hours in the alpha contract. They waited 13 months before they opted to change their minds. So why did it take 13 months ? And I bet they will blame the council now for delays in planning consent ? Of course they want to rush it through so much so they took 13 months to drag their feet on extended hours and break the first contract with no mention of extended hours. They kept very quiet right until WE got extended hours granted and then decided to come out the woodwork. It's just a joke now... Simple question if the only reason holding this up was time and in the original timescale meant the earliest we could have possibly handed over the mem to sainsburys was July of this year why not just say right you have it in July we will find alternative venue Cheltenham, Swindon , bath anywhere for I season speed up the build from 60 to 52 weeks kick off August 16 in our new stadium sainsburys can do what they want on Filton ave I bet that would wipe the smile off their faces.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 10, 2015 18:13:53 GMT
There certainly 'clutching at straws' if their argument is the planning wasn;t agreed in time . But they themselves took a mouth watering 13 months to change the first contract. It's a bit like buying a site and stating ' extras need to be completed in 18 months' and the housing developers take 13 months to apply'. The judge should ask why it takes 13 months on such a critical issue ? And why now they can't proceed ?. It sounds like they want their cake and eat it... Were any deadlines for applications or appeals missed?
|
|
|
Post by banjoflyer on Feb 10, 2015 19:16:41 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.........
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 10, 2015 19:18:17 GMT
Does anybody have any knowledge or insight into whether: UWE; Bristol City Council; and South Gloucestershire Council; will wish to participate in the Court proceedings as "interested/affected parties"? As its not an inquiry I can't see how a retrospective class action claim would run, however even if it could if I were in Rovers or Sainsbury's positions I'd resist the potential muddying of the waters when what I really want to establish is a clear cut simple victory.
|
|
The Concept
Joined: June 2014
Posts: 2,579
Member is Online
|
Post by The Concept on Feb 10, 2015 20:12:22 GMT
Is the hearing, or whatever it is called,in febuary not happening now A few other comments on this thread have mentioned they thought the hearing was in February and quote the 23rd. I'm no expert, but reading between the lines perhaps the decision yesterday was this 23rd date brought forward? Perhaps it was always a hearing that would then confirm the date for a trial? Going by the terminology in Rovers statement today leads me to believe so: "At a hearing in the High Court yesterday, Mr Justice Roth agreed with the club’s argument and found that the case was sufficiently urgent that it should be the subject of an accelerated trial." It then goes on to say: "The Judge therefore ordered that the claims should be heard no later than 14 May 2015". Therefore you have two separate parts: an initial hearing and then a trial.
|
|
The Concept
Joined: June 2014
Posts: 2,579
Member is Online
|
Post by The Concept on Feb 10, 2015 20:21:50 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 £30 million plus £8 million free land for naming rights, plus all the usual grants,would take it way over £40 million project. Don't forget the proceeds we'll get when Nigel Kennedy plays that concert he promised to help fund our new stadium.
|
|
|
Post by Topper Gas on Feb 10, 2015 20:56:33 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......... 1) Lawyers are not always right and will have an eye on a good pay day themselves, they could have even suggested it's 50/50 or worse but NH feels it's worth the risk. 2) TW said that writ was never issued, it was just a threat, whether it helps or not will come out in the trail 3) Yesterday was just an application by Rovers for an early trail whether or case as any merit would have been irrelevant to the Judge who was just setting a trial date. Although you'd hope our case had so, even merit! 4) MSP Cap could have had their loans guaranteed by NH/the BoD or just see profit from selling the Mem if our case fails? 5) NH could see proceedings as the last throw of the dice for Rovers and his own investment, he may know deep down Sainsbury's have a good case but hopes a writ will force them into making an offer, rather than face bad publicity if they force us into Administration?
|
|
|
Post by Antonio Fargas on Feb 10, 2015 21:12:18 GMT
1) Lawyers are not always right and will have an eye on a good pay day themselves, Yeah, it turns out that they're actually wrong exactly 50% of the time. Weird how they keep getting paid for that, though.
|
|