Smithy Gas
Craig Hinton
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 271
|
Post by Smithy Gas on Aug 6, 2015 15:34:07 GMT
Didn't someone for the BCC say that Sainsburys appeal was amateurish? or words to that effect? If they did, and it most probably did happen, we agreed for that appeal documentation to go into the council. Why?
|
|
Angas
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 2,068
|
Post by Angas on Aug 6, 2015 18:08:54 GMT
I would hazard a guess that, because it wasn't actually spelt out in the contract that Sainsbury's only had to appeal once, we assumed if the first attempt failed another would be made. Sadly for us, the wording was non specific and open to interpretation. Maybe this is the point that we're appealing? Who knows ...
|
|
|
Post by Topper Gas on Aug 6, 2015 18:41:54 GMT
Didn't someone for the BCC say that Sainsburys appeal was amateurish? or words to that effect? If they did, and it most probably did happen, we agreed for that appeal documentation to go into the council. Why? I think they problem was we trusted then given we had no experience in how to submit such an appeal, it's only when we figured what they were up to and took independent advice we realised the problem. I always our defence was Sainsbury's deliberately delayed the appeal etc to get beyond the cut off date but the Judge seemed to ignore that in her Judgement? Basically saying tough Sainsbury's reached the cut off point.
|
|
Peter Parker
Global Moderator
Richard Walker
You have been sentenced to DELETION!
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 4,920
|
Post by Peter Parker on Aug 6, 2015 19:49:30 GMT
If they did, and it most probably did happen, we agreed for that appeal documentation to go into the council. Why? I think they problem was we trusted then given we had no experience in how to submit such an appeal, it's only when we figured what they were up to and took independent advice we realised the problem. I always our defence was Sainsbury's deliberately delayed the appeal etc to get beyond the cut off date but the Judge seemed to ignore that in her Judgement? Basically saying tough Sainsbury's reached the cut off point. But what did they delay?. Ignoring the quality of the appeal, they appealed well before the cut off date. It failed so they beleived they were done
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 6, 2015 20:12:35 GMT
If they did, and it most probably did happen, we agreed for that appeal documentation to go into the council. Why? I think they problem was we trusted then given we had no experience in how to submit such an appeal, it's only when we figured what they were up to and took independent advice we realised the problem. I always our defence was Sainsbury's deliberately delayed the appeal etc to get beyond the cut off date but the Judge seemed to ignore that in her Judgement? Basically saying tough Sainsbury's reached the cut off point. I don't buy this 'poor innocents abroad' line: Nick Higgs and Ed Ware are steeped in the planning process. Though quite how much Ed Ware gets asked for his opinion might be relevant in the above statement.
|
|
The Gas
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 484
|
Post by The Gas on Aug 6, 2015 20:17:15 GMT
Not sure if it is relevant but I believe that Edward Ware's wife works for our solicitors.
|
|
|
Post by Topper Gas on Aug 6, 2015 20:30:05 GMT
I think they problem was we trusted then given we had no experience in how to submit such an appeal, it's only when we figured what they were up to and took independent advice we realised the problem. I always our defence was Sainsbury's deliberately delayed the appeal etc to get beyond the cut off date but the Judge seemed to ignore that in her Judgement? Basically saying tough Sainsbury's reached the cut off point. But what did they delay?. Ignoring the quality of the appeal, they appealed well before the cut off date. It failed so they beleived they were done I recall our argument was they didn't act in good faith by putting in a poor appeal and not warning us they were facing problems. Once we put in a decent appeal it was passed. I have come across this good summary of the Judgement, it seems from what this solicitor is saying our "good faith" argument has never been accepted by the courts, including the Court of Appeal. If so, on what basis do our legal team feel we have good prospects of success? www.blakemorgan.co.uk/news-events/blog/2015/08/04/bristol-rovers-shown-limits-good-faith/
|
|
Peter Parker
Global Moderator
Richard Walker
You have been sentenced to DELETION!
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 4,920
|
Post by Peter Parker on Aug 6, 2015 20:44:24 GMT
But what did they delay?. Ignoring the quality of the appeal, they appealed well before the cut off date. It failed so they beleived they were done I recall our argument was they didn't act in good faith by putting in a poor appeal and not warning us they were facing problems. Once we put in a decent appeal it was passed. I have come across this good summary of the Judgement, it seems from what this solicitor is saying our "good faith" argument has never been accepted by the courts, including the Court of Appeal. If so, on what basis do our legal team feel we have good prospects of success? www.blakemorgan.co.uk/news-events/blog/2015/08/04/bristol-rovers-shown-limits-good-faith/Did we actually say that "Sainsburys relied on the black letter of the contract" surelt that is the.essence of a contract? When you read that summary makes you wonder more what advice we are getting
|
|
|
Post by Topper Gas on Aug 6, 2015 21:03:17 GMT
Has we will never be privy to the advice there's always the chance it's suggesting we have little chance of success! Not sure which 4 arguments we apparently won looking at that summary it doesn't seem we actually won any of them.
|
|
Smithy Gas
Craig Hinton
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 271
|
Post by Smithy Gas on Aug 6, 2015 22:04:52 GMT
I think they problem was we trusted then given we had no experience in how to submit such an appeal, it's only when we figured what they were up to and took independent advice we realised the problem. I always our defence was Sainsbury's deliberately delayed the appeal etc to get beyond the cut off date but the Judge seemed to ignore that in her Judgement? Basically saying tough Sainsbury's reached the cut off point. I don't buy this 'poor innocents abroad' line: Nick Higgs and Ed Ware are steeped in the planning process. Though quite how much Ed Ware gets asked for his opinion might be relevant in the above statement. Exactly. Not only have Nick and, I would say especially, Ed, experience in the vagaries of planning process, they had a pretty damn big and successful planning consultancy working for them throughout the whole process. Surely running the appeal by these guys (can't remember if it was WYG or Pegasus now) it would be patently obvious that the appeal would be substandard and would not be satisfactory. For whatever reason, we agreed for this to be submitted, probably through naivety and belief in "watertight" contract. Once we agreed to this, it seems we have shot ourselves in the foot and blown a gert big hole in that contract which Sainsburys have escaped through. I I can see why we are appealing, but cannot see us winning and as such, what is going to happen beyond that... Watertight future?
|
|
|
Post by bluebeard on Aug 6, 2015 22:06:22 GMT
That's a pretty clear summary of the judge's interpretation of the key points. It does make you wonder why a) we are bothering to appeal and b) she agreed to let us. I'm running very low on optimism now but the wording she used "if I'm wrong (and I don't think I am) then I find in favour of the club" suggests there is a hint of grey to the black letter. The article doesn't mention that rovers own planning counsel gave a better than 60% chance of success. If this is irrelevant why did Sainsburys agree to appeal a second time in response to the writ? Perhaps they did so in the knowledge that time was running out anyway. I guess they can argue they did what they were obliged to do so the bad faith thing some of us were pinning our hopes on doesn't apply. I wonder if £1.5m would be acceptable if it was offered now?
|
|
|
Post by bluebeard on Aug 6, 2015 22:32:23 GMT
I don't buy this 'poor innocents abroad' line: Nick Higgs and Ed Ware are steeped in the planning process. Though quite how much Ed Ware gets asked for his opinion might be relevant in the above statement. Exactly. Not only have Nick and, I would say especially, Ed, experience in the vagaries of planning process, they had a pretty damn big and successful planning consultancy working for them throughout the whole process. Surely running the appeal by these guys (can't remember if it was WYG or Pegasus now) it would be patently obvious that the appeal would be substandard and would not be satisfactory. For whatever reason, we agreed for this to be submitted, probably through naivety and belief in "watertight" contract. Once we agreed to this, it seems we have shot ourselves in the foot and blown a gert big hole in that contract which Sainsburys have escaped through. I I can see why we are appealing, but cannot see us winning and as such, what is going to happen beyond that... Watertight future? If the contract specifically states that they were only obliged to appeal once then I think you have it spot on. If the contract simply states they were obliged to appeal then this 60% chance of success thing and their delay in submitting a second appeal could offer a glimmer of hope?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 7, 2015 1:04:22 GMT
But the aim of the game is supposed to be funding a new build at UWE. Even without all the ifs and buts, this isn't doing it. I wish we'd move on.
|
|
|
Post by Henbury Gas on Aug 7, 2015 2:54:40 GMT
But the aim of the game is supposed to be funding a new build at UWE. Even without all the ifs and buts, this isn't doing it. I wish we'd move on. Move on to what ? Administration ?
|
|
|
Post by Topper Gas on Aug 7, 2015 7:44:10 GMT
But the aim of the game is supposed to be funding a new build at UWE. Even without all the ifs and buts, this isn't doing it. I wish we'd move on. Move on to what ? Administration ? If that's the case why didn't we take the £1.5m offered prior to the trial? As far as the appeals it seems the contract just refers to appeal in the singular not appeals if that summary is correct, I can't why it won't be, I can't see what grounds we are actually hoping to win our appeal?
|
|
|
Post by PeterHooper57 on Aug 7, 2015 8:24:33 GMT
Where is Higgs ? why is he not speaking to the supporters, it is our club, he may own it, but without us there is no club.Said he was not going to make the mistakes of the past, for me, saying nothing meaningful is an insult.UTG
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 7, 2015 8:27:18 GMT
Where is Higgs ? why is he not speaking to the supporters, it is our club, he may own it, but without us there is no club.Said he was not going to make the mistakes of the past, for me, saying nothing meaningful is an insult.UTG Off assembling his migrant workforce in perpetration for grape harvesting?
|
|
|
Post by Henbury Gas on Aug 7, 2015 8:28:38 GMT
Where is Higgs ? why is he not speaking to the supporters, it is our club, he may own it, but without us there is no club.Said he was not going to make the mistakes of the past, for me, saying nothing meaningful is an insult.UTG In Italy i was told
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 7, 2015 8:29:35 GMT
Where is Higgs ? why is he not speaking to the supporters, it is our club, he may own it, but without us there is no club.Said he was not going to make the mistakes of the past, for me, saying nothing meaningful is an insult.UTG In Italy i was told For a month?
|
|
|
Post by Henbury Gas on Aug 7, 2015 9:29:03 GMT
why not he only gets sh*t of Forum fans over here
|
|