Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 13, 2015 18:13:24 GMT
I guess we all 'eagerly' await UWE's response to this clusterf Radio Bristol just read a statement from UWE. They are sticking with us. That's good. So now we just need to raise £35 million. Oh, and £2 million to pay off Wonga in October or whenever it is. Any ideas?
|
|
vaughan
Joined: June 2014
Posts: 1,237
|
Post by vaughan on Jul 13, 2015 20:05:09 GMT
This is where Watola lost us the case both in his evidence and more importantly in delay post JR decision.
He should have insisted that Sainsbury's were EITHER commited to another S73 appeal (based on planning counsel) before JR or that BRFC would go to Court to do this themselves so as to meet the date.
26th November 2014 was the cut-off date!!! Which bit of cut-off date did we not understand? We lost 3 months between March and June 2014. Vital error.
**** If one observes this strict timetable it does seem that because of the concession made in evidence (WATOLA'S) about the intervention of the local elections, an Acceptable Store Planning Permission (which would have been obtained since the Club’s application was successful) could not have been obtained in time. The Unchallenged Date would have THE HON. MRS JUSTICE PROUDMAN Approved Judgment Sainsbury's Supermarkets Ltd v. Bristol Rovers (1883) Ltd 26 fallen on 21 December 2014 which is after 26 November 2014, the date of termination of the Agreement, 20 working days after the assumed service of a Termination Notice on the Club on 29 October 2014. 129. However I am not sure that a strict timetable can be imposed hypothetically when the events did not in fact happen. Mr Watola did indeed concede that he would not have resubmitted a s.73 application before the local elections which took place on 22 May 2014 and that the earliest date for resubmission would have been in June 2014. However his evidence was that he would have followed the advice of Pegasus Planning Group Limited (“Pegasus”) on this issue.
|
|
vaughan
Joined: June 2014
Posts: 1,237
|
Post by vaughan on Jul 13, 2015 20:14:12 GMT
So delay cost us and misjudgement cost us. Sainsbury's were never going to put in a second appeal: we had to force this and do it ouseleves and then we would have made the cut-off date.
Sorry to labour this, but the writing was on the wall and we did not react quickly enough.
****
In case I am wrong, however, I go on to consider the Club’s other submissions. Mr Matthias asserts that everything hinged on obtaining an Acceptable Store Planning Condition. Such permission would have to have become unchallengeable on 26 November 2014. 125. Mr Matthias says that if Sainsbury’s had acted in accordance with its contractual obligations (in the “no-breach world”) Sainsbury’s would have made a fresh application to BCC with more robust noise attenuation measures within 5 weeks of dismissal of the TRASHorfield application for judicial review and that would have been dealt within 3 months so that an Acceptable Store Planning Permission would have been in place by 7 August 2014. There would then need to be a further three months and two weeks for the Challenge Period to expire, taking the date up to 21 November 2014, within the period in which the Termination Date would expire.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 13, 2015 21:08:30 GMT
So delay cost us and misjudgement cost us. Sainsbury's were never going to put in a second appeal: we had to force this and do it ouseleves and then we would have made the cut-off date. Sorry to labour this, but the writing was on the wall and we did not react quickly enough. **** In case I am wrong, however, I go on to consider the Club’s other submissions. Mr Matthias asserts that everything hinged on obtaining an Acceptable Store Planning Condition. Such permission would have to have become unchallengeable on 26 November 2014. 125. Mr Matthias says that if Sainsbury’s had acted in accordance with its contractual obligations (in the “no-breach world”) Sainsbury’s would have made a fresh application to BCC with more robust noise attenuation measures within 5 weeks of dismissal of the TRASHorfield application for judicial review and that would have been dealt within 3 months so that an Acceptable Store Planning Permission would have been in place by 7 August 2014. There would then need to be a further three months and two weeks for the Challenge Period to expire, taking the date up to 21 November 2014, within the period in which the Termination Date would expire. Oh stop it Vaughan, these are just technicalities. Seriously though, good work, this lays out exactly what the critical points and dates were.
|
|
|
Post by billyocean on Jul 13, 2015 21:23:35 GMT
I think ultimately as soon as Sains ROCE fell well below what was acceptable for them to proceed with the project, they would have employed every trick in the book to get out of the contract regardless of how BRFC reacted. Yes BRFC made mistakes but even if they didn't, it's my opinion that this venture was doomed to fail the moment Sains wanted out. They set the contract up with so many conditions that it was easy for them to justify its termination as soon as they needed to.
|
|
c4h10
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 476
|
Post by c4h10 on Jul 13, 2015 21:25:07 GMT
you obviously dont play poker then? It is easy to be critical - and had the decision gone the other way you would have said? The argument has been lost (at the moment) on a technicality, and in time this might prove to have not been all in vain. Lets be thankful Churchill did not pull back in 40's. No doubt you would have advised him to do so. It's a moot point as any appeal will not keep UWE onboard. Can you not see this is now just about ego ? as for Churchill, I could tear that to shreds, given my family history it's something I have studied to the point of silliness. This is about the very existence of the club, sometimes you have to look at the bigger picture and not about someone trying to trying to cover up his own mess. I just feel gutted right now & don't want to get into point scoring here. KP I have followed your posts since the days of the club forum, so I am aware of some, at least, of your family history. I was most surprised, therefore, to see that you had "liked" a post that compared Nick Higgs to Adolf Hitler. Whilst I am sure that a large percentage of forum members may share your general view on the current situation, I think that the personal invective that you are directing at a fellow Rovers supporter (yes, he is, whatever his faults) don't reflect well on someone whose opinions are well-respected on here. Read through your posts on this thread (I've just trolled right through it, ouch!) and I think you'll find a few descriptions of Nick Higgs and the other directors that are a little "over the top" to say the least. Here endeth the lesson.
|
|
|
Post by badbloodash on Jul 13, 2015 21:26:05 GMT
They could sell the Mem and pocket the money. If they waste the equity recklessly chasing pipe dreams, the end result is the same, isn't it? Edit. UWE know something about new owners / investers, that's the only reason they would consider hanging in there. Let's hope so far too much time and money has been invested for this to fail also today of all days my daughter had her graduation ceremony today at the UWE !!! Didn't know whether to laugh or cry
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 13, 2015 21:33:53 GMT
If they waste the equity recklessly chasing pipe dreams, the end result is the same, isn't it? Edit. UWE know something about new owners / investers, that's the only reason they would consider hanging in there. Let's hope so far too much time and money has been invested for this to fail also today of all days my daughter had her graduation ceremony today at the UWE !!! Didn't know whether to laugh or cry Congratulations to the Daughter
|
|
|
Post by badbloodash on Jul 13, 2015 21:38:05 GMT
Let's hope so far too much time and money has been invested for this to fail also today of all days my daughter had her graduation ceremony today at the UWE !!! Didn't know whether to laugh or cry Congratulations to the Daughter Thanks bamber she's had to fight against the odds to achieve this but then she's one of us we don't give up and we never give in
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 13, 2015 21:52:10 GMT
Congratulations to the Daughter Thanks bamber she's had to fight against the odds to achieve this but then she's one of us we don't give up and we never give in Good for her. Very happy for you and for her.
|
|
Bridgeman
Alfie Biggs
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 3,549
|
Post by Bridgeman on Jul 13, 2015 22:05:57 GMT
I don't think this is very good news on the whole. Well I guess yours is a slightly more tempered view
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 13, 2015 22:20:56 GMT
I think ultimately as soon as Sains ROCE fell well below what was acceptable for them to proceed with the project, they would have employed every trick in the book to get out of the contract regardless of how BRFC reacted. Yes BRFC made mistakes but even if they didn't, it's my opinion that this venture was doomed to fail the moment Sains wanted out. They set the contract up with so many conditions that it was easy for them to justify its termination as soon as they needed to. And that in a nutshell is where we are.
|
|
Bridgeman
Alfie Biggs
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 3,549
|
Post by Bridgeman on Jul 13, 2015 22:23:42 GMT
Just need to obtain the planning permission. Again... Well that should be easy peasy with Ms Radice now Governor General for Sport in Bristol, after all it was her and her cronies who didn't want Sainsbury's and wanted to retain the Mem as a lasting memory to those who gave their lives so we might freely elect her. So come on Ms Radice lets see how much that means to you and help us deliver a 21st Century stadium in Horfield that properly holds the memory in perpetuity for those you claim you were protecting, perhaps Mr Carstairs would like to make the first substantial donation
|
|
Bridgeman
Alfie Biggs
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 3,549
|
Post by Bridgeman on Jul 13, 2015 22:30:32 GMT
When Sainsbury's didn't turn up to support us during the JR the rumours starting to circulate about them wanting to withdraw became confirmed and I mentioned this at the time. What a load of faff, hot air and words we've wasted during that time, not to have ensured we didn't get it completed by the contractual cut off date is criminal, I mean there eyes must have been on it as we've been assured that they took their eyes off our league safety until the last 70 minutes of the game
|
|
Peter Parker
Global Moderator
Richard Walker
You have been sentenced to DELETION!
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 4,920
|
Post by Peter Parker on Jul 14, 2015 5:29:26 GMT
When Sainsbury's didn't turn up to support us during the JR the rumours starting to circulate about them wanting to withdraw became confirmed and I mentioned this at the time. What a load of faff, hot air and words we've wasted during that time, not to have ensured we didn't get it completed by the contractual cut off date is criminal, I mean there eyes must have been on it as we've been assured that they took their eyes off our league safety until the last 70 minutes of the game Plenty of us asked.why it was us doing all the work, where were Sainsburys. Not sure what our obligations were, but how many people.just shrugged it off as nothing?
|
|
kingswood Polak
Without music life would be a mistake
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 10,282
|
Post by kingswood Polak on Jul 14, 2015 11:47:19 GMT
It's a moot point as any appeal will not keep UWE onboard. Can you not see this is now just about ego ? as for Churchill, I could tear that to shreds, given my family history it's something I have studied to the point of silliness. This is about the very existence of the club, sometimes you have to look at the bigger picture and not about someone trying to trying to cover up his own mess. I just feel gutted right now & don't want to get into point scoring here. KP I have followed your posts since the days of the club forum, so I am aware of some, at least, of your family history. I was most surprised, therefore, to see that you had "liked" a post that compared Nick Higgs to Adolf Hitler. Whilst I am sure that a large percentage of forum members may share your general view on the current situation, I think that the personal invective that you are directing at a fellow Rovers supporter (yes, he is, whatever his faults) don't reflect well on someone whose opinions are well-respected on here. Read through your posts on this thread (I've just trolled right through it, ouch!) and I think you'll find a few descriptions of Nick Higgs and the other directors that are a little "over the top" to say the least. Here endeth the lesson. Point taken. I can only say that my point is that Nick Higgs runs the club as a . There is no hiding from that I I could give many examples of it but, as you've been reading my posts, I guess you know them. I was and still am angry that we, as fans, plus the various board members, have allowed the club to cede so much power to one man. The share scheme was set up to stop this kind of thing from happening or that is my understanding of it ? I am sorry if it offends you, I am not here to offend anyone but what I do find grossly offensive is the way and direction the club has been directed in. I have been constant in my criticism. I suppose I cold have used any other example of ant other but I did not start the thread nor did I use Adolph Hitler but simply liked the post. Addendum Btw thanks for the bit about well respected but even though I feel I am very much on the outside, or that's how I see it. It's flattering in anycase. There are some genuinely great minds on here. That is just another of my frustrations, when the club doesn't use the assets it has at its disposal
|
|
|
Post by manchestergas on Jul 14, 2015 12:10:50 GMT
I think I posted the Hitler comment.
For the record I was not saying Nick Higgs can be likened to Hitler in totality or indeed is Hitler. My point was he seems at present to be displaying the attitude of Hitler in the bunker at the end to push on regardless - we will win regardless of sometimes the odds stacking up against him. He may be proved right in an appeal if filed (personally I doubt it but I stand to be corrected) and one can then liken him to Frederick the Great! Based on the balance of probabilities to date, the costs of pushing on, frankly I would cut my losses, but heh I am not Chairman of a Bristol Rovers FC.
*For the record shares can go up as well as down, this statement does not constitute legal advice, please consult your legal advisors for independent legal advice and whether your contract is watertight and you have very strong grounds for appeal.
|
|
|
Post by billyocean on Jul 14, 2015 12:36:56 GMT
When Sainsbury's didn't turn up to support us during the JR the rumours starting to circulate about them wanting to withdraw became confirmed and I mentioned this at the time. What a load of faff, hot air and words we've wasted during that time, not to have ensured we didn't get it completed by the contractual cut off date is criminal, I mean there eyes must have been on it as we've been assured that they took their eyes off our league safety until the last 70 minutes of the game To be fair it wasn't really BRFC that didn't get it completed, it was Sains. And the contract cut off date itself was the subject of hours and hours of debate in court because its poorly worded definition made it wide open to interpretation. Sains used it to their advantage in looking for an excuse to terminate the contract. Could BRFC have done more? Yes. Would it have changed the end result? No, IMO, because Sains would have found a different way out of it. The contract wasn't designed primarily to prevent both parties getting out of it. It was designed and drawn up with agreement from both parties when they actually wanted to proceed for their mutual benefit. The conditions were there so that Sains didn't end up buying the land but not being able to build a supermarket on it (because of a failed planning permission application). What changed over time was Sains projections and critically their ROCE not hitting hurdle. From that point on, they would use every trick in the book but, as has been now proved in court, it was all legal technically. Morally reprehensible yes. Illegal no.
|
|
Peter Parker
Global Moderator
Richard Walker
You have been sentenced to DELETION!
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 4,920
|
Post by Peter Parker on Jul 14, 2015 12:43:06 GMT
When Sainsbury's didn't turn up to support us during the JR the rumours starting to circulate about them wanting to withdraw became confirmed and I mentioned this at the time. What a load of faff, hot air and words we've wasted during that time, not to have ensured we didn't get it completed by the contractual cut off date is criminal, I mean there eyes must have been on it as we've been assured that they took their eyes off our league safety until the last 70 minutes of the game To be fair it wasn't really BRFC that didn't get it completed, it was Sains. And the contract cut off date itself was the subject of hours and hours of debate in court because its poorly worded definition made it wide open to interpretation. Sains used it to their advantage in looking for an excuse to terminate the contract. Could BRFC have done more? Yes. Would it have changed the end result? No, IMO, because Sains would have found a different way out of it. The contract wasn't designed primarily to prevent both parties getting out of it. It was designed and drawn up with agreement from both parties when they actually wanted to proceed for their mutual benefit. The conditions were there so that Sains didn't end up buying the land but not being able to build a supermarket on it (because of a failed planning permission application). What changed over time was Sains projections and critically their ROCE not hitting hurdle. From that point on, they would use every trick in the book but, as has been now proved in court, it was all legal technically. Morally reprehensible yes. Illegal no.
But, if we had sent back Sainsbury's Delivery hours appeal and asked for amendments to their proposals (as we had to sign of on it) the perhaps we would have made the cut-off date.
What did we doing that instance? just trusting that Sainsbury's had done enough because we believed they wanted the supermarket or did we do our own work and agree that their application was good enough?
|
|
|
Post by michaelb on Jul 14, 2015 12:54:24 GMT
I guess we all 'eagerly' await UWE's response to this clusterf Radio Bristol just read a statement from UWE. They are sticking with us. Thats interesting, either they have nothing else to do with the land or no one else to do it with or maybe there is a plan B ?
|
|