|
|
Post by Gas Since 1957 on May 29, 2015 12:54:57 GMT
It's quite clear to me that Sainsbury's never wanted to build at Ashton Gate or the Memorial Stadium - their main agenda was to stop any competition. Unless they paid the dog walkers & Trash to challenge the schemes I'm not really sure there's any proof that is actually the case? Liking your conspiracy theory!!  Would be good to use a Freedom of Information request to find out exactly who donated to TRASH. |
|
|
|
Post by Gregory Stevens on May 29, 2015 13:08:07 GMT
Credit due to George...I dislike him for his rpz and cycle stuff...but you have to credit him for this.
Still won't vote for him UNLESS he vows to do something for the majority of taxpayers, car drivers....representative are to represent. Not to lead us and change us.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 29, 2015 13:38:37 GMT
I think the 'spokesman for Sainsbury's' probably talked the most sense in that article.
|
|
|
|
Post by Henbury Gas on May 29, 2015 13:53:09 GMT
I think the 'spokesman for Sainsbury's' probably talked the most sense in that article. Fully expected that type of comment of you Seth |
|
Peter Parker
Global Moderator
Richard Walker
You have been sentenced to DELETION!
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 4,920 
|
Post by Peter Parker on May 29, 2015 14:02:24 GMT
Well they might never of wanted to have built at The Mem, but Ashton Gate?
I am pretty sure Lansdown would have built the stadium with or without Sainsbury’s and sold AG to someone else if necessary.
not sure if Sainsbury's buying AG and doing nothing with it is relevant to anything
|
|
The Gas
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 484
|
Post by The Gas on May 29, 2015 15:19:36 GMT
Well they might never of wanted to have built at The Mem, but Ashton Gate?
I am pretty sure Lansdown would have built the stadium with or without Sainsbury’s and sold AG to someone else if necessary.
not sure if Sainsbury's buying AG and doing nothing with it is relevant to anything
The relevance in the Court case was that the delivery hours in the original planning permission for The Mem was exactly the same as was granted to AG.
As our QC pointed out, if it was accepted by Sainsbury as acceptable at AG, why did they invoke the "onerous condition" at The Mem.
|
|
Peter Parker
Global Moderator
Richard Walker
You have been sentenced to DELETION!
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 4,920
|
Post by Peter Parker on May 29, 2015 16:13:20 GMT
Well they might never of wanted to have built at The Mem, but Ashton Gate?
I am pretty sure Lansdown would have built the stadium with or without Sainsbury’s and sold AG to someone else if necessary.
not sure if Sainsbury's buying AG and doing nothing with it is relevant to anything
The relevance in the Court case was that the delivery hours in the original planning permission for The Mem was exactly the same as was granted to AG.
As our QC pointed out, if it was accepted by Sainsbury as acceptable at AG, why did they invoke the "onerous condition" at The Mem.
I know about the hours, i was refering to the idea Sainsburys didnt want to build at AG. Anyway lets not pretend this is ground breaking stuff. It has been known and mentioned lots of places that supermsrkets have bought land and land banked it. The only difference is Sainsburys dont want to buy the land now, which is all that matters to us |
|
|
|
Post by onedaytheuwe on May 29, 2015 16:30:46 GMT
The mayor is right Sainsbury's been acting like sneaks. They have been using people : stirring up the ANTI with protest groups ( Trash) . Then playing a game with members at the council when behind close doors putting up shutters.
The judge should see through this and at least award good comp to Rovers. Also in my view they have caused community divisions and high tension in North Bristol. They might think they can walk away and pay only 10-20-30% of the overall sum. However: their conduct : morals and ethics have been like 'snakes in the grass'.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 29, 2015 18:10:42 GMT
The relevance in the Court case was that the delivery hours in the original planning permission for The Mem was exactly the same as was granted to AG.
As our QC pointed out, if it was accepted by Sainsbury as acceptable at AG, why did they invoke the "onerous condition" at The Mem.
Why didn't we see the condition and just stick a thick black line through it before signing the contract? |
|
The Gas
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 484
|
Post by The Gas on May 29, 2015 18:13:48 GMT
The one thing that has never been proved or mentioned in Court is that Sainsbury and Trash etc were ever in contact with one another.
Any concrete evidence of that would have been interesting
|
|
The Gas
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 484
|
Post by The Gas on May 29, 2015 18:18:27 GMT
The relevance in the Court case was that the delivery hours in the original planning permission for The Mem was exactly the same as was granted to AG.
As our QC pointed out, if it was accepted by Sainsbury as acceptable at AG, why did they invoke the "onerous condition" at The Mem.
Why didn't we see the condition and just stick a thick black line through it before signing the contract? I'm afraid the answer is simple.
Sainsbury were the only one's offering the amount of money we needed and if we had insisted on that clause being deleted, it is unlikely Sainsbury would have signed the contract in the first place.
To be honest, it is all water under the bridge now and we have to await Mrs Justice Proudman's decision, hopefully in the near future.
|
|
The Gas
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 484
|
Post by The Gas on May 29, 2015 18:21:29 GMT
The relevance in the Court case was that the delivery hours in the original planning permission for The Mem was exactly the same as was granted to AG.
As our QC pointed out, if it was accepted by Sainsbury as acceptable at AG, why did they invoke the "onerous condition" at The Mem.
Anyway lets not pretend this is ground breaking stuff. It has been known and mentioned lots of places that supermsrkets have bought land and land banked it. The only difference is Sainsburys dont want to buy the land now, which is all that matters to us Sorry if I misunderstood your comment |
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 29, 2015 18:26:45 GMT
Why didn't we see the condition and just stick a thick black line through it before signing the contract? I'm afraid the answer is simple.
Sainsbury were the only one's offering the amount of money we needed and if we had insisted on that clause being deleted, it is unlikely Sainsbury would have signed the contract in the first place.
To be honest, it is all water under the bridge now and we have to await Mrs Justice Proudman's decision, hopefully in the near future.
Exactly that, we were (presumably) aware of the clause and still signed the document, so it's kind of irrelivant whether they genuinely needed the hours or not, we agreed to it. |
|
Peter Parker
Global Moderator
Richard Walker
You have been sentenced to DELETION!
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 4,920
|
Post by Peter Parker on May 29, 2015 18:28:31 GMT
I'm afraid the answer is simple.
Sainsbury were the only one's offering the amount of money we needed and if we had insisted on that clause being deleted, it is unlikely Sainsbury would have signed the contract in the first place.
To be honest, it is all water under the bridge now and we have to await Mrs Justice Proudman's decision, hopefully in the near future.
Exactly that, we were (presumably) aware of the clause and still signed the document, so it's kind of irrelivant whether they genuinely needed the hours or not, we agreed to it. Rovers chasing the money and perhaps not paying attention to the get outs |
|
|
|
Post by onedaytheuwe on May 29, 2015 18:35:55 GMT
The relevance in the Court case was that the delivery hours in the original planning permission for The Mem was exactly the same as was granted to AG.
As our QC pointed out, if it was accepted by Sainsbury as acceptable at AG, why did they invoke the "onerous condition" at The Mem.
Why didn't we see the condition and just stick a thick black line through it before signing the contract? But if it is found that Sainsbury's at to make every effort to push for EH and failed. Then you could argue they broke the contract. We just don't know but contracts work both ways. There are lots of conditions to every contract and it is a dual responsibility. |
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 29, 2015 18:43:07 GMT
Why didn't we see the condition and just stick a thick black line through it before signing the contract? But if it is found that Sainsbury's at to make every effort to push for EH and failed. Then you could argue they broke the contract. Didn't some people spend 6 days arguing this point recently? My point was that we are told that these same hours didn't form part of the application at Ashton Gate, so it should have been a bit of a red flag when it appeared in the contract that we signed, shouldn't it? |
|
|
|
Post by onedaytheuwe on May 29, 2015 19:30:42 GMT
All depends what was signed ! If the contract stated : 'Sainsbury's can only proceed once EH is granted by effort' . And Sainsbury's did nothing once they were rejected . Then it opens up all possibilities.
When your car fails a MOT and recommendations are made to pass it . Do you carry on driving it without resubmitting it ??
|
|
|
|
Post by Topper Gas on May 29, 2015 21:06:16 GMT
Problem is this contract seems to have been drawn up by Sainsbury's, it may have included a reasonable, or best, endeavours clause then again if Sainsbury's always intended using the "onerous conditions" clause did they, convinently, overlook including that clause?
|
|
Bridgeman
Alfie Biggs
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 3,549
|
Post by Bridgeman on May 30, 2015 16:47:12 GMT
All depends what was signed ! If the contract stated : 'Sainsbury's can only proceed once EH is granted by effort' . And Sainsbury's did nothing once they were rejected . Then it opens up all possibilities. When your car fails a MOT and recommendations are made to pass it . Do you carry on driving it without resubmitting it ?? No but it is the owner of the cars responsibility to ensure it is resubmitted for testing if they want to continue using it on the road. Of course as the owner you may consider the cost of repairs too expensive in relation to the value of the car and take it off the road. It rather sounds as if that's what Sainsbury's did. |
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 30, 2015 19:56:48 GMT
All depends what was signed ! If the contract stated : 'Sainsbury's can only proceed once EH is granted by effort' . And Sainsbury's did nothing once they were rejected . Then it opens up all possibilities. When your car fails a MOT and recommendations are made to pass it . Do you carry on driving it without resubmitting it ?? No but it is the owner of the cars responsibility to ensure it is resubmitted for testing if they want to continue using it on the road. Of course as the owner you may consider the cost of repairs too expensive in relation to the value of the car and take it off the road. It rather sounds as if that's what Sainsbury's did. More like agreeing to buy a car subject to the result of a MOT test, but agreeing to fix specific problems should the car fail the test on them, them maybe doing a bit of a dodgey repair and failing the retest? Have to say, if I was selling that car and the price was £30,000,000 I would have had a chat with the tester to understand exactly what he wanted and would have cast an eye over the repairs before it was re-tested to make sure that it was going to pass. |
|
Would be good to use a Freedom of Information request to find out exactly who donated to TRASH.
