eppinggas
Administrator
Ian Alexander
Don't care
Joined: June 2014
Posts: 8,132
|
Post by eppinggas on Jun 24, 2015 13:13:58 GMT
I asked a similar question back in February... wondered what the thoughts are now. I'm expecting a compensation figure around the £5mil mark...
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 24, 2015 13:30:03 GMT
What about Sainsbury's winning and us having to pay their costs?
|
|
|
Post by Henbury Gas on Jun 24, 2015 13:56:02 GMT
What about Sainsbury's winning and us having to pay their costs? The asked the court for clarification of contract exit we did not take them to court
|
|
Peter Parker
Global Moderator
Richard Walker
You have been sentenced to DELETION!
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 4,920
|
Post by Peter Parker on Jun 24, 2015 14:40:58 GMT
What about Sainsbury's winning and us having to pay their costs? The asked the court for clarification of contract exit we did not take them to court Yet some people.dont think the club need to clarify this as it obviously could make a difference. Almost like they want to.paint it as we took on the big bad supermarket and won
|
|
|
Post by Centenary Gas on Jun 24, 2015 15:24:11 GMT
Is compensation even an option?
Either Sainsburys win and they walk away for £0, or we win and demand a cheque for the full £30m or whatever it is..?
|
|
|
Post by croscombegas on Jun 24, 2015 15:27:12 GMT
It will be nothing for us and their costs added to the bill !
|
|
LPGas
Stuart Taylor
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 1,240
|
Post by LPGas on Jun 24, 2015 15:51:41 GMT
Complex case, but Sainsburys are unlikely to offer compo because it may well open the doors for others to claim. Also the costs aren't always paid by the losers, and as usual most people on here are negative. I personally think we will win it.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 24, 2015 16:18:36 GMT
What about Sainsbury's winning and us having to pay their costs? The asked the court for clarification of contract exit we did not take them to court Correct, but if we are told that Sainsbury's have done nothing wrong then they could, if they decided it was in their interests, issue a claim against us for their costs.
|
|
|
Post by Henbury Gas on Jun 24, 2015 18:35:36 GMT
The asked the court for clarification of contract exit we did not take them to court Correct, but if we are told that Sainsbury's have done nothing wrong then they could, if they decided it was in their interests, issue a claim against us for their costs. How can they do that if we didnot issue cort proceedings against them ? We could also ask them for our costs because they drag us through court for no reason what so ever ?
|
|
|
Post by bangkokgas on Jun 24, 2015 19:21:09 GMT
If, we get nothing and/or have to pay compensation, and were there the money to do so - could we develop the mem?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 24, 2015 20:13:07 GMT
Correct, but if we are told that Sainsbury's have done nothing wrong then they could, if they decided it was in their interests, issue a claim against us for their costs. How can they do that if we didnot issue cort proceedings against them ? We could also ask them for our costs because they drag us through court for no reason what so ever ? Rovers had already indicated that they feel entitled to costs, that's part of the writ.
Sainsbury's are now defending their position by asking for confirmation that the contract is dead. Maybe?
|
|
Bridgeman
Alfie Biggs
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 3,549
|
Post by Bridgeman on Jun 24, 2015 23:54:34 GMT
Correct me if I'm wrong but this isn't about what compensation we're going to get as it's not us who have taken Sainsbury's to court. Sainsbury's have gone to court to confirm that in their opinion the contract has expired. The Judge is now in the process of considering all the various evidence that has been presented to her. Scenario 1 - If in her opinion the contract hasn't expired then Sainbury's will be required to continue with the contract. As part of that contract we have to ensure the costs of the stadium will be met in full, Sainsbury's aren't just going to hand over millions to us without the assurety we can deliver the stadium, remember they don't get their hands on the Mem until UWE is built, it's all part of the contract. Sainsbury's may appeal the decision, they may not. If they don't appeal they may decide to enforce the contract in full upon us, are we in a financial position to deliver it ? Scenario 2 - If in the opinion of the Judge the contract has expired, presumably we get nothing and possibly costs awarded against us. Why would Sainsbury's give us compensation if (a) they can enforce the contract knowing we may not be in a financial position to deliver and therefore by that means bring it to a conclusion or (b) the Judge considers the contract has expired meaning we get nothing or even worse. There we go, that's my four pennorth's worth, chew over that ! Oh and UTG !!
|
|
|
Post by Gregory Stevens on Jun 25, 2015 5:47:03 GMT
Judgement day is inevitable. The launch sequences will be initiated at 6.18pm. You will not survive.
|
|
irishrover
Global Moderator
Joined: June 2014
Posts: 3,372
|
Post by irishrover on Jun 25, 2015 11:30:20 GMT
Correct me if I'm wrong but this isn't about what compensation we're going to get as it's not us who have taken Sainsbury's to court. Sainsbury's have gone to court to confirm that in their opinion the contract has expired. The Judge is now in the process of considering all the various evidence that has been presented to her. Scenario 1 - If in her opinion the contract hasn't expired then Sainbury's will be required to continue with the contract. As part of that contract we have to ensure the costs of the stadium will be met in full, Sainsbury's aren't just going to hand over millions to us without the assurety we can deliver the stadium, remember they don't get their hands on the Mem until UWE is built, it's all part of the contract. Sainsbury's may appeal the decision, they may not. If they don't appeal they may decide to enforce the contract in full upon us, are we in a financial position to deliver it ? Scenario 2 - If in the opinion of the Judge the contract has expired, presumably we get nothing and possibly costs awarded against us. Why would Sainsbury's give us compensation if (a) they can enforce the contract knowing we may not be in a financial position to deliver and therefore by that means bring it to a conclusion or (b) the Judge considers the contract has expired meaning we get nothing or even worse. There we go, that's my four pennorth's worth, chew over that ! Oh and UTG !! Yes - this is the bit I don't really get when people are talking about compensation. As far as I can see the judge does not have the power to order Sainsbury's to pay compensation because that is not what this case is about. Sainsbury's have taken us to court, not the other way around. We're not suing them for some form of breach of contract in this case. Either they are made to abide by the contract or they're allowed to get out of the contract. I'm definitely not a legal expert but I can't see where the middle ground is for the Judge here - it would seem a weird decision in this case to rule that Sainsbury's have the right to walk away but they have to pay us X to do so; on what basis would that be done? Now Sainsbury's may offer compensation outside of the process I suppose but what on earth would they have to gain from that at this stage? I think a lot of the talk of compensation is more out of hope than based on anything tangible. I think there is a possibility of compensation from Sainsbury's if we were to WIN the case because then Sainbury's could make the case that the UWE is not viable in its original form so to save further complications and yet more court decisions they'll give us some money to get out of the contract. An unlikely scenario but possible I think. That's the only way I see any sort of compensation here - I don't see it coming out of this court case, unless I badly misunderstood what's going on which is possible since legal shenanigans bore me to tears.
|
|
brizzle
Lindsay Parsons
No Buy . . . No Sell!
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 4,293
|
Post by brizzle on Jun 25, 2015 11:53:03 GMT
It will be nothing for us and their costs added to the bill ! It's a good job that your thoughts and opinions will in no way affect the final outcome. But then again, perhaps you were being ever-so-slightly sardonic?
|
|
|
Post by croscombegas on Jun 25, 2015 17:27:38 GMT
It will be nothing for us and their costs added to the bill ! It's a good job that your thoughts and opinions will in no way affect the final outcome. But then again, perhaps you were being ever-so-slightly sardonic? After 47 years of mostly downs and disappointments watching Rovers, my opinion is bound to be negative, but your right it is a good job my opinion will not affect the outcome, as a lowly courier it would be strange if it did !!
|
|
|
Post by onedaytheuwe on Jun 25, 2015 19:32:23 GMT
And of course croscombegas your views are justified. It would be interesting to do some research on the five divisions and FIND another club who have never built a stand in 60 years. The small stand at Twerton was built by Bath City and I believe the west stand at the MEM was funded by Bristol Rugby. To think we have never built a stand for family's to sit in since the 1950's is totally shocking.
So of course when we are told 'we will get a stadium' along with the three other projects at the MEM ( 1999) (2005) (2008) . Even a positive person like me needs convincing...
|
|
Bridgeman
Alfie Biggs
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 3,549
|
Post by Bridgeman on Jun 26, 2015 19:37:33 GMT
And of course croscombegas your views are justified. It would be interesting to do some research on the five divisions and FIND another club who have never built a stand in 60 years. The small stand at Twerton was built by Bath City and I believe the west stand at the MEM was funded by Bristol Rugby. To think we have never built a stand for family's to sit in since the 1950's is totally shocking. So of course when we are told 'we will get a stadium' along with the three other projects at the MEM ( 1999) (2005) (2008) . Even a positive person like me needs convincing... Yep and even the roof on the North Terrace at the Mem was paid for by fans. Does the South 'Stand' belong to us or is it on hire ?
|
|
Peter Parker
Global Moderator
Richard Walker
You have been sentenced to DELETION!
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 4,920
|
Post by Peter Parker on Jun 27, 2015 7:45:30 GMT
Correct me if I'm wrong but this isn't about what compensation we're going to get as it's not us who have taken Sainsbury's to court. Sainsbury's have gone to court to confirm that in their opinion the contract has expired. The Judge is now in the process of considering all the various evidence that has been presented to her. Scenario 1 - If in her opinion the contract hasn't expired then Sainbury's will be required to continue with the contract. As part of that contract we have to ensure the costs of the stadium will be met in full, Sainsbury's aren't just going to hand over millions to us without the assurety we can deliver the stadium, remember they don't get their hands on the Mem until UWE is built, it's all part of the contract. Sainsbury's may appeal the decision, they may not. If they don't appeal they may decide to enforce the contract in full upon us, are we in a financial position to deliver it ? Scenario 2 - If in the opinion of the Judge the contract has expired, presumably we get nothing and possibly costs awarded against us. Why would Sainsbury's give us compensation if (a) they can enforce the contract knowing we may not be in a financial position to deliver and therefore by that means bring it to a conclusion or (b) the Judge considers the contract has expired meaning we get nothing or even worse. There we go, that's my four pennorth's worth, chew over that ! Oh and UTG !! Yes - this is the bit I don't really get when people are talking about compensation. As far as I can see the judge does not have the power to order Sainsbury's to pay compensation because that is not what this case is about. Sainsbury's have taken us to court, not the other way around. We're not suing them for some form of breach of contract in this case. Either they are made to abide by the contract or they're allowed to get out of the contract. I'm definitely not a legal expert but I can't see where the middle ground is for the Judge here - it would seem a weird decision in this case to rule that Sainsbury's have the right to walk away but they have to pay us X to do so; on what basis would that be done? Now Sainsbury's may offer compensation outside of the process I suppose but what on earth would they have to gain from that at this stage? I think a lot of the talk of compensation is more out of hope than based on anything tangible. I think there is a possibility of compensation from Sainsbury's if we were to WIN the case because then Sainbury's could make the case that the UWE is not viable in its original form so to save further complications and yet more court decisions they'll give us some money to get out of the contract. An unlikely scenario but possible I think. That's the only way I see any sort of compensation here - I don't see it coming out of this court case, unless I badly misunderstood what's going on which is possible since legal shenanigans bore me to tears. And of course as usual a lot of confusion stems from BRFC its self. I appreciate there is stuff they are unable to say, but i am sure it would have been easy for BRFC (maybe the.PR consultant could have suggested thi, his he a thing still?) To outline the basic of the case. I.e Sainsburys seeking clarification of case. That is the only issue to be determined by this case. Full stop if that is.indeed the case Rovers have been happy to have us assume it was us taking them to court and.we were gonna take them to the cleaners and we could all basque in the glory of slaying the evil giant
|
|
Bridgeman
Alfie Biggs
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 3,549
|
Post by Bridgeman on Jun 27, 2015 14:50:45 GMT
Yes - this is the bit I don't really get when people are talking about compensation. As far as I can see the judge does not have the power to order Sainsbury's to pay compensation because that is not what this case is about. Sainsbury's have taken us to court, not the other way around. We're not suing them for some form of breach of contract in this case. Either they are made to abide by the contract or they're allowed to get out of the contract. I'm definitely not a legal expert but I can't see where the middle ground is for the Judge here - it would seem a weird decision in this case to rule that Sainsbury's have the right to walk away but they have to pay us X to do so; on what basis would that be done? Now Sainsbury's may offer compensation outside of the process I suppose but what on earth would they have to gain from that at this stage? I think a lot of the talk of compensation is more out of hope than based on anything tangible. I think there is a possibility of compensation from Sainsbury's if we were to WIN the case because then Sainbury's could make the case that the UWE is not viable in its original form so to save further complications and yet more court decisions they'll give us some money to get out of the contract. An unlikely scenario but possible I think. That's the only way I see any sort of compensation here - I don't see it coming out of this court case, unless I badly misunderstood what's going on which is possible since legal shenanigans bore me to tears. And of course as usual a lot of confusion stems from BRFC its self. I appreciate there is stuff they are unable to say, but i am sure it would have been easy for BRFC (maybe the.PR consultant could have suggested thi, his he a thing still?) To outline the basic of the case. I.e Sainsburys seeking clarification of case. That is the only issue to be determined by this case. Full stop if that is.indeed the case Rovers have been happy to have us assume it was us taking them to court and.we were gonna take them to the cleaners and we could all basque in the glory of slaying the evil giant Absolutely, the whole process has been extremely poorly managed by the club and the whole facade about it being a 'water tight contract' when no such contract ever exists makes them look even more foolish than many of us even thought they were and if they actually believed that then they were either extremely niave about the whole process or were being very poorly advised. I mean if it was so 'water tight' how the hell have Sainsbury's taken us to court ?
|
|