womble
Arthur Cartlidge
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 300
|
Post by womble on Mar 12, 2015 23:03:56 GMT
£29,000000 pounds in their bank account for 12 months longer than it should of been at 3% interest? Pays a few legal bills plus a bit more The legal costs from both sides will be more than £870,000. And I would imagine that Rovers will be claiming the interest they are paying on the Wonga funds that have been used fighting the case from Sainsbury's anyway. If the figure for contracts entered into, but no longer wanted, in the November strategic review by Sainsbury's includes the Mem site, as it should do - then Sainsbury's going to court is relatively low risk for them. Win and they get £30m back they have already written off, or lose and not be massively financially inconvenienced, as their legal team is mostly in house.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 13, 2015 12:24:53 GMT
Or maybe NH used a legal team that he knew from his past at Cowlin to draw up the contract, and with that previous experience they were aware of the type of 'clauses' that Sainsbury's would probably like to add to any contract that would enable them to walk away at any point. Maybe Sainsbury's have come up against a legal team that are experienced in these types of contracts, rather than a legal team from a local council would be? Just a thought. and what a wrote was, maybe nobody has had the money to take them on. Rovers have borrowed to do so. FACT and we will find out if it is a good move or not. Without that borrowing, could we afford to take them on however good our legal bods are?
Maybe Nick Higgs has a legal team that know what they are doing and have it sewn up. I mean we all hope he does.
Doesn’t say much for all the property dealers and legal experts that various councils etc. have employed over other projects
But the one council that took on Tesco won big time and got loads of compo
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 13, 2015 13:03:31 GMT
and what a wrote was, maybe nobody has had the money to take them on. Rovers have borrowed to do so. FACT and we will find out if it is a good move or not. Without that borrowing, could we afford to take them on however good our legal bods are?
Maybe Nick Higgs has a legal team that know what they are doing and have it sewn up. I mean we all hope he does.
Doesn’t say much for all the property dealers and legal experts that various councils etc. have employed over other projects
But the one council that took on Tesco won big time and got loads of compo Good news. In another unrelated event; Sirgiorgiro Clardy sued Nike when he was given a 100 year prison sentence for beating a man and stamping on him whilst wearing a pair of Air Jordan trainers. He claimed that Nike hadn't included a warning with the shoes that they should not be used as weapons to assault people with.
|
|
toteend
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 305
|
Post by toteend on Mar 13, 2015 13:27:30 GMT
I'm sure someone posted here or on the other forum that Sainsburys did indeed back down when a council threatened to sue them for pulling out of a development that was an integral part of a town centre development. Just can't find it at the moment. ( Was it Hemel Hempstead?)
What I don't understand is why our other partners in all this don't seem to be helping with the upfront costs of suing these nefarious people who believe big means the law is irrelevant to them. Perhaps this is where big companies start to get their comeuppance.
After all, BCC must have spent a hell of a lot of taxpayers money doing their bit to resolve these issues, not to mention that UWE are desperate to get a stadium built.
|
|
brizzle
Lindsay Parsons
No Buy . . . No Sell!
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 4,293
|
Post by brizzle on Mar 13, 2015 13:43:17 GMT
But the one council that took on Tesco won big time and got loads of compo Good news. In another unrelated event; Sirgiorgiro Clardy sued Nike when he was given a 100 year prison sentence for beating a man and stamping on him whilst wearing a pair of Air Jordan trainers. He claimed that Nike hadn't included a warning with the shoes that they should not be used as weapons to assault people with.When I read this part of your post, I was uncertain whether (or not) it was a joke. But after Googling the story I was surprised and amused, to see that it was not a joke . . . but absolutely true and a genuine news story. It made I laff. For anyone who would like to read the story, it's here . . . www.oregonlive.com/portland/index.ssf/2014/10/pimp_whose_100_million_suit_fa.html#incart_story_packageMy apologies for going ''off-massage'' by the way.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 13, 2015 14:02:46 GMT
I'm sure someone posted here or on the other forum that Sainsburys did indeed back down when a council threatened to sue them for pulling out of a development that was an integral part of a town centre development. Just can't find it at the moment. ( Was it Hemel Hempstead?) What I don't understand is why our other partners in all this don't seem to be helping with the upfront costs of suing these nefarious people who believe big means the law is irrelevant to them. Perhaps this is where big companies start to get their comeuppance. After all, BCC must have spent a hell of a lot of taxpayers money doing their bit to resolve these issues, not to mention that UWE are desperate to get a stadium built. TRASH Cost the Bristol tax payer over £60,000 alone....
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 13, 2015 14:03:09 GMT
Good news. In another unrelated event; Sirgiorgiro Clardy sued Nike when he was given a 100 year prison sentence for beating a man and stamping on him whilst wearing a pair of Air Jordan trainers. He claimed that Nike hadn't included a warning with the shoes that they should not be used as weapons to assault people with.When I read this part of your post, I was uncertain whether (or not) it was a joke. But after Googling the story I was surprised and amused, to see that it was not a joke . . . but absolutely true and a genuine news story. It made I laff. For anyone who would like to read the story, it's here . . . www.oregonlive.com/portland/index.ssf/2014/10/pimp_whose_100_million_suit_fa.html#incart_story_packageMy apologies for going ''off-massage'' by the way. Why apologise, Trym started talking about a local council sueing Tesco, unless I've missed something here, neither of them are involed in any way in the dispute between Rovers and Sainsbury's? This picture of a tiny pig running away with a carrot is also in today's news.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 13, 2015 14:05:47 GMT
Why apologise, Trym started talking about a local council sueing Tesco, unless I've missed something here, neither of them are involed in any way in the dispute between Rovers and Sainsbury's? This picture of a tiny pig running away with a carrot is also in today's news. My post was relevant to Peters post about councils not taking on Supermarket chains... Your picture is in error because you have not stated if the carrot came from Sainsbury's or not
|
|
brizzle
Lindsay Parsons
No Buy . . . No Sell!
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 4,293
|
Post by brizzle on Mar 13, 2015 14:07:28 GMT
Why apologise, Trym started talking about a local council sueing Tesco, unless I've missed something here, neither of them are involed in any way in the dispute between Rovers and Sainsbury's? This picture of a tiny pig running away with a carrot is also in today's news.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 13, 2015 14:12:02 GMT
Why apologise, Trym started talking about a local council sueing Tesco, unless I've missed something here, neither of them are involed in any way in the dispute between Rovers and Sainsbury's? This picture of a tiny pig running away with a carrot is also in today's news. My post was relevant to Peters post about councils not taking on Supermarket chains... Your picture is in error because you have not stated if the carrot came from Sainsbury's or not Have you got a link to the Council Vs Tesco story so that we can see how similar it is to R overs' problem with Sainsbury's?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 13, 2015 14:28:23 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 13, 2015 15:19:31 GMT
Don't see anything there about the terms of the original agreement, so impossible to judge if it's a victory for the council or just damage limitation? It reads as just damage limitation, that sort of settlement won't help Rovers one bit. So we get back our out of pocket expenses and keep the stadium, we are no further forward. Unless of course, 'Plan B' is a version of the redeveloped Mem with student accomodation but on UWE land? Edit. In fact, does it say anything about a cash settlement, or could it be that Tesco have bamboozled the council with fast talk about future investment and job creation in the area?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 13, 2015 15:37:51 GMT
Don't see anything there about the terms of the original agreement, so impossible to judge if it's a victory for the council or just damage limitation? It reads as just damage limitation, that sort of settlement won't help Rovers one bit. So we get back our out of pocket expenses and keep the stadium, we are no further forward. Unless of course, 'Plan B' is a version of the redeveloped Mem with student accomodation but on UWE land? Edit. In fact, does it say anything about a cash settlement, or could it be that Tesco have bamboozled the council with fast talk about future investment and job creation in the area? I would say it was a victory for the council myself. The agreement paid for the new swimming pool with money left over and they keep the land. The article says the pay off contributed towards paying off the cost of the pool, £5.3 million, but it actually paid it off with money leftover. But the case didn't go to court so the connection with the Rovers/Sainsbury's debacle is slim.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 13, 2015 15:44:58 GMT
Don't see anything there about the terms of the original agreement, so impossible to judge if it's a victory for the council or just damage limitation? It reads as just damage limitation, that sort of settlement won't help Rovers one bit. So we get back our out of pocket expenses and keep the stadium, we are no further forward. Unless of course, 'Plan B' is a version of the redeveloped Mem with student accomodation but on UWE land? Edit. In fact, does it say anything about a cash settlement, or could it be that Tesco have bamboozled the council with fast talk about future investment and job creation in the area? I would say it was a victory for the council myself. The agreement paid for the new swimming pool with money left over and they keep the land. The article says the pay off contributed towards paying off the cost of the pool, £5.3 million, but it actually paid it off with money leftover. But the case didn't go to court so the connection with the Rovers/Sainsbury's debacle is slim.
I believe a court date was set for this case but Tesco settled early with a gagging order in place
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 13, 2015 16:02:30 GMT
I would say it was a victory for the council myself. The agreement paid for the new swimming pool with money left over and they keep the land. The article says the pay off contributed towards paying off the cost of the pool, £5.3 million, but it actually paid it off with money leftover. But the case didn't go to court so the connection with the Rovers/Sainsbury's debacle is slim.
I believe a court date was set for this case but Tesco settled early with a gagging order in place Correct. I would say the compensation package was £6 million+ as the overall project was massive. Not just that land in the photo. Personally I think Rovers will win their case. Messing with a project which involves a University will be Sainsbury's undoing!! As well as a watertight contract of course!
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 13, 2015 16:03:40 GMT
Don't see anything there about the terms of the original agreement, so impossible to judge if it's a victory for the council or just damage limitation? It reads as just damage limitation, that sort of settlement won't help Rovers one bit. So we get back our out of pocket expenses and keep the stadium, we are no further forward. Unless of course, 'Plan B' is a version of the redeveloped Mem with student accomodation but on UWE land? Edit. In fact, does it say anything about a cash settlement, or could it be that Tesco have bamboozled the council with fast talk about future investment and job creation in the area? I would say it was a victory for the council myself. The agreement paid for the new swimming pool with money left over and they keep the land. The article says the pay off contributed towards paying off the cost of the pool, £5.3 million, but it actually paid it off with money leftover.
That's not what the story says, sounds as if you know more than they wanted you to Do you have a link to what actually happened? Edit. How do you know who insisted on the gagging order?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 13, 2015 16:10:12 GMT
I would say it was a victory for the council myself. The agreement paid for the new swimming pool with money left over and they keep the land. The article says the pay off contributed towards paying off the cost of the pool, £5.3 million, but it actually paid it off with money leftover.
That's not what the story says, sounds as if you know more than they wanted you to Do you have a link to what actually happened? Edit. How do you know who insisted on the gagging order? My info came from my usual contact in the planning office - Maybe they talk to their colleagues in other local planning offices ?
|
|
brizzle
Lindsay Parsons
No Buy . . . No Sell!
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 4,293
|
Post by brizzle on Mar 13, 2015 16:14:15 GMT
That's not what the story says, sounds as if you know more than they wanted you to Do you have a link to what actually happened? Edit. How do you know who insisted on the gagging order? My info came from my usual contact in the planning office - Maybe they talk to their colleagues in other local planning offices ?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 13, 2015 16:15:19 GMT
My info came from my usual contact in the planning office - Maybe they talk to their colleagues in other local planning offices ?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 13, 2015 16:15:36 GMT
That's not what the story says, sounds as if you know more than they wanted you to Do you have a link to what actually happened? Edit. How do you know who insisted on the gagging order? My info came from my usual contact in the planning office - Maybe they talk to their colleagues in other local planning offices ? So just gossip and hearsay then.
|
|