|
Post by Topper Gas on May 16, 2015 17:51:24 GMT
This guy on OTIB wouldn't be the first person to profess knowledge he does not possess an online forum but if he's correct (did he say where you can access the skeleton arguments btw?) then it's difficult to see how Rovers will not have breached the contract if the build costs of the UWE stadium will have exceeded the proceeds of sale from the mem and this would be the case regardless of whether the club had an adequate plan to make up the shortfall. On the subject of his 'non-expert' status, you don't need an expensive legal education to understand that law is often a very specialist business, and commercial property transactions of this kind will be rather niche, therefore, even someone who has completed a legal degree and the BVC (or whatever it's called now) and secured pupillage will not necessarily be an expert on any given subject. However, he apparantly still knows how to access and analyse a barristers skelton argument, and he will have greater understanding of how thins happen in court and what factors will shape the judges decision. So, when he says he is 'non-expert' we should take it to mean 'I don't much about the subject, but I know more than you.' But does the £30m, at 2012 prices when the contract was agreed, exceed just the build costs or exceed the build coat plus Directors loans? If the latter can the Directors claim they are happy not to have their loans paid off so keeping the build costs within the £30m purchase price for the Mem? In fact is that the specific reason the wonga loan was taken out, as the Directors didn't want to loan further money they might not be able to recoup? As far as obtaining access to the skeleton arguments I assume the OP hoodwink one of the solicitors into handing them over as he's in the profession, although if Sainsbury's/BRFC follow the forums they might asking who was daft enough from their legal teams to hand them over! As
|
|
LPGas
Stuart Taylor
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 1,240
|
Post by LPGas on May 16, 2015 17:54:25 GMT
1-0 to the Gas
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 16, 2015 17:55:48 GMT
This has just been posted by a shed claiming to be a trainee barrister on OTIB. He says he has read the court papers. Posted A minute ago Having looked over the papers I got yesterday at the High Court from the Sainsbury's v R*vers case, one very interesting fact has come to light. I should stress that the following information is only something which appears in Sainsbury's claim and I have seen no mention of it in R*vers' case so it may not be accurate. It was a term of the contract between the two that the 'net proceeds of sale [of the Memorial Ground] ... [must be] greater than the ... building costs for the new stadium' (taken from Sainsbury's lawyers' skeleton argument, which appears to be quoting from the contract between the parties). Sainsbury's say that this was a condition precedent for the contract: i.e. that unless R*vers could show that they would get more from the sale of the Mem than it would cost to build the UWE, Sainsbury's wouldn't buy. The reason for this was that Sainsbury's did not want to become R*vers landlords (who can blame them?) or have to face the negative PR of evicting R*vers in the event that UWE was not completed. Sainsbury's go on to say that on 12 December 2014 R*vers told them that the building costs for the new stadium 'will exceed the Capital Sum [the amount gained by selling the Mem] by £1,169,569.99'. This means it would cost R*vers about £1.2m more to build UWE than they were getting from the sale of the Mem. It also mean R*vers were, and apparently still are, in breach of an important term of the contract. This appears to have two conclusions (to this non-expert!): the first is that I cannot see how Sainsbury's can now be compelled to complete the contract when such an important condition remains unfulfilled. The second is that either Nick Higgs will be looking for further external investment to complete the UWE contract or that project is not fully funded and so it looks even less likely that it will be completed. All of this appears towards the very end of Sainsbury's argument, I have not yet heard any argument about these points and it is not mentioned in a way to suggest Sainsbury's are making a particularly large amount of it. So my conclusions may be a little wide of the mark and make of the facts what you want but the underlying fact that UWE will cost more than R*vers will get from selling the Mem is interesting anyway - they really are in a mess! Do people actually believe that codswollop? By the way, Elvis still drives the No.78 on the moon and the sky is a reflection of the sea!
|
|
dagnogo
Joined: June 2014
Posts: 872
|
Post by dagnogo on May 16, 2015 18:00:24 GMT
Why is there even a thread about it on their forum?
They've won the double and all they can do is whack off over a court case about a 5th tier team.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 16, 2015 18:28:50 GMT
Maybe so, but it's more like a penalty shoot out than a goal from open play. They take their first spot kick on Monday.
|
|
|
Post by bates1980 on May 18, 2015 12:43:48 GMT
Does anyone have any news or updates from todays proceedings?
|
|
|
Post by a more piratey game on May 18, 2015 12:46:31 GMT
Higgsy's had a busy few days. Beyond that, good question
|
|
Peter Parker
Global Moderator
Richard Walker
You have been sentenced to DELETION!
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 4,920
|
Post by Peter Parker on May 18, 2015 12:49:17 GMT
Does anyone have any news or updates from todays proceedings? yeah would be good to get some updates.
To me yesterday was only part 1 of achieving anything as good as the feeling was and is
|
|
Peter Parker
Global Moderator
Richard Walker
You have been sentenced to DELETION!
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 4,920
|
Post by Peter Parker on May 18, 2015 12:50:03 GMT
nicked from Gaschat
George Ferguson tweeting, assume he's there (@georgefergusonx) 18/05/2015 13:40 #Sainsburys playing fast and loose with facts in attempt to renege on contract with #Bristol #Rovers @official_BRFC pic.twitter.com/kvWhffnyFD
|
|
|
Post by badbloodash on May 18, 2015 12:52:51 GMT
nicked from Gaschat
George Ferguson tweeting, assume he's there (@georgefergusonx) 18/05/2015 13:40 #Sainsburys playing fast and loose with facts in attempt to renege on contract with #Bristol #Rovers @official_BRFC pic.twitter.com/kvWhffnyFD What's that clown doing there Bristol city council has never actively supported us in anything suppose he's trying to jump on the band wagon now we are a league club again
|
|
|
Post by billyocean on May 18, 2015 12:58:12 GMT
Does anyone have any news or updates from todays proceedings? I've just come back but was late and they stopped for lunch dead on 1pm so only saw 40 mins. The questioning of Templeman is over and they have switched to Pitman (who reports into him). All of what I saw was Matthias trying to demonstrate JS planned to dump the contract and were looking for reasons to get out of it. Particularly around the delivery hours restrictions but also some detail on how much "General Merchandise" they could sell - which I think is non-food and clothes. They were initially hoping for £1m revenue per week and that projection dropped to just over £800k. Deliveries of at least 5am-midnight were seen as critical if 24-7 wasn't allowed by BCC. There was a lot of talk of "onerous conditions" and suggestions that Pitman and Templeman were digging for more conditions so that they could get out of the contract without Rovers having some comeback Templeman and Pitman both seemed quite relaxed, not under any real pressure. I'm sure you'll get a decent write up later from the guy that's in there all day. Mine is mostly waffle! Watola had his suitcase with him
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 18, 2015 13:03:59 GMT
This morning's EP carried a summary of what happened on Friday, the interesting thing about it was that the wording was subtly different to what was being put on forums etc last Friday.
Assuming that the EP have things right (they would, I guess, need to report accurately?) I'm not sure that the day was quite as bad for Sainsbury's as we were lead to believe?
|
|
|
Post by Henbury Gas on May 18, 2015 13:13:44 GMT
George may be there because the Role Bristol city council may be under discussion and the role of Councillors in the planning application ?
|
|
|
Post by billyocean on May 18, 2015 13:34:55 GMT
This morning's EP carried a summary of what happened on Friday, the interesting thing about it was that the wording was subtly different to what was being put on forums etc last Friday. Assuming that the EP have things right (they would, I guess, need to report accurately?) I'm not sure that the day was quite as bad for Sainsbury's as we were lead to believe? I don't think anyone really knows and people just offer an opinion based on what they hear. There is definitely evidence that JS were up to no good but whether it's enough to rule against them, only time will tell. The only opinion that counts is Mrs Justice Proudman
|
|
brizzle
Lindsay Parsons
No Buy . . . No Sell!
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 4,293
|
Post by brizzle on May 18, 2015 14:23:20 GMT
This morning's EP carried a summary of what happened on Friday, the interesting thing about it was that the wording was subtly different to what was being put on forums etc last Friday. Assuming that the EP have things right (they would, I guess, need to report accurately?) I'm not sure that the day was quite as bad for Sainsbury's as we were lead to believe? I've always believed in the old adage that ''in business one should never assume anything,'' which should come with a rider of ''particularly so if the Bristol Post reported it.''It may well be not their intention to do so, but they do have a very poor track record of getting things right on a regular basis.
|
|
|
Post by lulworthgas on May 18, 2015 14:51:54 GMT
Does anyone have any news or updates from todays proceedings? I've just come back but was late and they stopped for lunch dead on 1pm so only saw 40 mins. The questioning of Templeman is over and they have switched to Pitman (who reports into him). All of what I saw was Matthias trying to demonstrate JS planned to dump the contract and were looking for reasons to get out of it. Particularly around the delivery hours restrictions but also some detail on how much "General Merchandise" they could sell - which I think is non-food and clothes. They were initially hoping for £1m revenue per week and that projection dropped to just over £800k. Deliveries of at least 5am-midnight were seen as critical if 24-7 wasn't allowed by BCC. There was a lot of talk of "onerous conditions" and suggestions that Pitman and Templeman were digging for more conditions so that they could get out of the contract without Rovers having some comeback Templeman and Pitman both seemed quite relaxed, not under any real pressure. I'm sure you'll get a decent write up later from the guy that's in there all day. Mine is mostly waffle! Watola had his suitcase with him Let's hope this pitman fires wildly over the bar to!!
|
|
|
Post by Bath Gas on May 18, 2015 15:47:46 GMT
This morning's EP carried a summary of what happened on Friday, the interesting thing about it was that the wording was subtly different to what was being put on forums etc last Friday. Assuming that the EP have things right (they would, I guess, need to report accurately?) I'm not sure that the day was quite as bad for Sainsbury's as we were lead to believe? The EP aren't there, they are using a Court reporter, so I would hope that they are experienced in delivering an accurate account of events.
|
|
Peter Parker
Global Moderator
Richard Walker
You have been sentenced to DELETION!
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 4,920
|
Post by Peter Parker on May 18, 2015 15:55:09 GMT
a brief 'summary' if you can call it that from the OS
The judge deciding the fate of Bristol's Memorial Stadium site today told the High Court she was pleased to hear of Rovers' promotion.
Mrs Justice Proudman, who is hearing the dispute between the club and Sainsbury's over a £30m deal to redevelop the site and fund a new 21,700 stadium, said: "Good", when told of yesterday's triumph over Grimsby Town.
Rovers won on penalties at Wembley to secure a place in the football league.
David Matthias QC, representing the club, told the judge of the historic win before continuing his cross-examination of Chris Templeman, Sainsbury's head of planning.
Mr Templeman said Sainsbury's had used 'all reasonable endeavours' to go through with the proposed supermarket development.
The court heard that, after Bristol City Council refused the shopping chain's application to change restrictions on its delivery times, the store could not go ahead.
Mr Matthias asked if Sainsbury's could have withdrawn the application, in view of an ongoing judicial review by pressure group Traders and Residents Against Sainsbury's Horfield (Trash), and applied again at a 'better time’.
Mr Templeman replied: "Well yes, whatever a better time means. (One councillor) said we should wait until the following year, or maybe a year after that, and there was a suggestion we could have applied after the store was open - neither of those options was commercially viable."
He also refuted the barrister's suggestion that it was 'bad faith' not to tell Rovers about the expected problems with the delivery restrictions in advance of the council's decision.
Mr Matthias then asked if Sainsbury's board members were 'pleased' with the outcome.
Mr Templeman said: "In the context of the commercial situation, if that meant we did not have to complete the purchase of the site, given what I said earlier about the expected return on investment, then yes, that was a positive outcome."
The club's barrister also referred to an email sent immediately after the council's decision, in which Mr Templeman said he 'feared the worst in PR terms' but that the supermarket chain would be withdrawing from the deal with Rovers.
The hearing continues.
|
|
|
Post by droitwichgas on May 18, 2015 15:55:16 GMT
More poor evidence from Templeman today it seems The judge deciding the fate of Bristol's Memorial Stadium site today told the High Court she was pleased to hear of Rovers' promotion. Mrs Justice Proudman, who is hearing the dispute between the club and Sainsbury's over a £30m deal to redevelop the site and fund a new 21,700 stadium, said: "Good", when told of yesterday's triumph over Grimsby Town. Rovers won on penalties at Wembley to secure a place in the football league. David Matthias QC, representing the club, told the judge of the historic win before continuing his cross-examination of Chris Templeman, Sainsbury's head of planning. Mr Templeman said Sainsbury's had used 'all reasonable endeavours' to go through with the proposed supermarket development. The court heard that, after Bristol City Council refused the shopping chain's application to change restrictions on its delivery times, the store could not go ahead. Mr Matthias asked if Sainsbury's could have withdrawn the application, in view of an ongoing judicial review by pressure group Traders and Residents Against Sainsbury's Horfield (Trash), and applied again at a 'better time’. Mr Templeman replied: "Well yes, whatever a better time means. (One councillor) said we should wait until the following year, or maybe a year after that, and there was a suggestion we could have applied after the store was open - neither of those options was commercially viable." He also refuted the barrister's suggestion that it was 'bad faith' not to tell Rovers about the expected problems with the delivery restrictions in advance of the council's decision. Mr Matthias then asked if Sainsbury's board members were 'pleased' with the outcome. Mr Templeman said: "In the context of the commercial situation, if that meant we did not have to complete the purchase of the site, given what I said earlier about the expected return on investment, then yes, that was a positive outcome." The club's barrister also referred to an email sent immediately after the council's decision, in which Mr Templeman said he 'feared the worst in PR terms' but that the supermarket chain would be withdrawing from the deal with Rovers. The hearing continues. Read more at www.bristolrovers.co.uk/news/article/update-rovers-in-the-high-court-2461715.aspx#f64d7cQ8k3FaPiTy.99
|
|
Peter Parker
Global Moderator
Richard Walker
You have been sentenced to DELETION!
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 4,920
|
Post by Peter Parker on May 18, 2015 16:18:06 GMT
Basically from today’s small summary so far we don’t know much more other than we seem to have got someone else from Sainsbury’s to reaffirm they were looking to get out of the deal in some form (be that underhand or under the terms of the contract). The summary of what is on the OS is that brief, that either nothing interesting was said or it picks the bits that suit us best.
As for the judge and her reaction to our promotion. Not sure that should matter
|
|