kingswood Polak
Without music life would be a mistake
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 10,278
|
Post by kingswood Polak on Nov 15, 2015 23:22:01 GMT
I'm not avoiding them because it won't have an effect on anything Rovers related. Bristol Rovers were the ones who decided to conveniently avoid telling us they had tried to change the contract themselves plus said they owned 2 houses that formed the entrance when, truth is, they only bought the last one a very short while ago Wake up, please
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 15, 2015 23:46:17 GMT
|
|
Peter Parker
Global Moderator
Richard Walker
You have been sentenced to DELETION!
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 4,920
|
Post by Peter Parker on Nov 16, 2015 7:55:38 GMT
Shame on you. I have not shopped in S****burys since they reneged on the contract. Then again I have not set foot in a McDonald's for over 30 years due to them paying money to the IRA during the troubles. I thought that the judge ruled that they hadn't? That doesn't fit the story though does it Bamber?
|
|
|
Post by Bernard Briggs on Nov 16, 2015 7:59:51 GMT
Shame on you. I have not shopped in S****burys since they reneged on the contract. We're the least of Sainsbury's problems. They couldn't give less of a s*** about you. Also, any big business with shareholders would do the same if it meant salvaging money. If Rovers were in a position where there was a choice between doing something we'd agreed to do but would lose us huge amounts of money vs. weaselling out of it, everyone here would be screaming for them to weasel out of it. The most sensible and unbiased words, anybody`s written about the whole sorry saga.
|
|
Peter Parker
Global Moderator
Richard Walker
You have been sentenced to DELETION!
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 4,920
|
Post by Peter Parker on Nov 16, 2015 8:45:50 GMT
We're the least of Sainsbury's problems. They couldn't give less of a s*** about you. Also, any big business with shareholders would do the same if it meant salvaging money. If Rovers were in a position where there was a choice between doing something we'd agreed to do but would lose us huge amounts of money vs. weaselling out of it, everyone here would be screaming for them to weasel out of it. The most sensible and unbiased words, anybody`s written about the whole sorry saga. Rovers have tried to do it with players before and even wanted to change the sainsburys contract themselves as we hear in the trial Of course Rovers have been hard done by as that is the story the club want to paint, rather than getting mixed up in a business deal beyond us and our legals capabilities
|
|
|
Post by Bernard Briggs on Nov 16, 2015 11:30:00 GMT
The most sensible and unbiased words, anybody`s written about the whole sorry saga. Rovers have tried to do it with players before and even wanted to change the sainsburys contract themselves as we hear in the trial Of course Rovers have been hard done by as that is the story the club want to paint, rather than getting mixed up in a business deal beyond us and our legals capabilities Absolutely. We laid down with dogs and we got fleas. If this had happened to City rather than us, all the outraged malcontents on here, whose lives begin and end with eleven men kicking a ball about, would be gleefully spending every penny they could in Sainsbury`s.
|
|
|
Post by severnbeachline on Nov 16, 2015 12:14:40 GMT
We're the least of Sainsbury's problems. They couldn't give less of a s*** about you. Also, any big business with shareholders would do the same if it meant salvaging money. If Rovers were in a position where there was a choice between doing something we'd agreed to do but would lose us huge amounts of money vs. weaselling out of it, everyone here would be screaming for them to weasel out of it. Nothing to do with this topic, but I've just been reading your groundhopping website mentioned in your signature and it's very entertaining. I'd recommend it to others, especially the Salisbury v Rovers piece. partizanbristle.blogspot.co.uk/2015/07/7-raymond-mcenhill-stadium-salisbury-fc.htmlCheers Aghast, you're very kind.
|
|
csssmooth
Devon White
Joined: August 2014
Posts: 344
|
Post by csssmooth on Nov 16, 2015 12:46:43 GMT
Used to do the big family shop once a fortnight in Sainsburys, now go to Tescos instead which I now prefer, although I keep getting upset by their carrier bags which will forever remind me of the worst travesty of a Rovers kit ever
|
|
|
Post by bluegashead on Nov 16, 2015 14:47:14 GMT
My missus said to me that she wants to shop in Shamebullys over Christmas to get a good deal on their wine. I said if she shops in there I will hit the roof. She said don't you think your being a bit silly I said you should respect my decision. I have told her that I will give her the difference she would have saved and she is now going to Asda and I'll give her the money she would have saved. I won't give that horrible shop a penny again "ever" and I still haven't spent a penny on the Gloucester Road either. I stick to my word.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 16, 2015 15:37:15 GMT
Each to their own,i choose not to shop in Sainsbury's and so do every other member of my family. It just makes me feel better.
|
|
|
Post by bluebeard on Nov 16, 2015 20:23:35 GMT
The most sensible and unbiased words, anybody`s written about the whole sorry saga. Rovers have tried to do it with players before and even wanted to change the sainsburys contract themselves as we hear in the trial Of course Rovers have been hard done by as that is the story the club want to paint, rather than getting mixed up in a business deal beyond us and our legals capabilities Well maybe you should boycott Pirate Leisure? Sainsburys appear to have planted (or were gifted) a way out of the contract which they exploited. When the contract was drafted and signed both parties wanted, and fully expected, to proceed with the deal. The fact we asked for something to be changed and they said no is irrelevant. The timing of the transfer of title to houses at the site entrance is irrelevant and so is the quality, frequency or accuracy of our BODs communication with fans. The fact that Sainsburys offered a settlement suggests they acknowledged some degree of obligation. The courts may well determine that this is not a legal obligation but IMHO they have morally reneged on a project which would have benefited one of the communities they draw their substantial profits from. At the end of the day, Sainsburys offered to pay a huge premium for the MEM then changed their minds. They have come out of this situation a lot better off than we have .
I now boycott Sainsburys and choose to spend my £200 pw on fuel and food etc elsewhere. Some people appear to believe this whole sorry saga was in some way avoidable so, once again, the BOD is entirely to blame. That's fine, carry on shopping at Sainsburys, but a few on here appear to have acquired an air of intellectual superiority which really isn't warranted.
|
|
Peter Parker
Global Moderator
Richard Walker
You have been sentenced to DELETION!
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 4,920
|
Post by Peter Parker on Nov 16, 2015 21:04:40 GMT
Rovers have tried to do it with players before and even wanted to change the sainsburys contract themselves as we hear in the trial Of course Rovers have been hard done by as that is the story the club want to paint, rather than getting mixed up in a business deal beyond us and our legals capabilities Well maybe you should boycott Pirate Leisure? Sainsburys appear to have planted (or were gifted) a way out of the contract which they exploited. When the contract was drafted and signed both parties wanted, and fully expected, to proceed with the deal. The fact we asked for something to be changed and they said no is irrelevant. The timing of the transfer of title to houses at the site entrance is irrelevant and so is the quality, frequency or accuracy of our BODs communication with fans. The fact that Sainsburys offered a settlement suggests they acknowledged some degree of obligation. The courts may well determine that this is not a legal obligation but IMHO they have morally reneged on a project which would have benefited one of the communities they draw their substantial profits from. At the end of the day, Sainsburys offered to pay a huge premium for the MEM then changed their minds. They have come out of this situation a lot better off than we have .
I now boycott Sainsburys and choose to spend my £200 pw on fuel and food etc elsewhere. Some people appear to believe this whole sorry saga was in some way avoidable so, once again, the BOD is entirely to blame. That's fine, carry on shopping at Sainsburys, but a few on here appear to have acquired an air of intellectual superiority which really isn't warranted.If people dont want.to.shop there its their choice. Dont think it acheives much but if it makes anyone feel better than so be it. I wouldnt shop anywhere if i tried to take some stand against shops and 'unethical' practices. From my reading of the original judgment. We f'ed up and missed the relevant cut off date. If the appeal goes against us similarly who are we going to blame then? Rovers have painted Sainsburys as the big bad. Now i dont agree with all what Sainsburys have done, but we tried to change things to benefit us on a contract signed in 'good faith' so seems a bit rich to take some moral high ground to me. I see two businesses that have got into bed together and have both tried to take advantage of each other and we lost out
|
|
|
Post by droitwichgas on Nov 16, 2015 21:11:42 GMT
Then again both parties signed the contract in "good faith" but Sainsbury's seem to have deliberately dragged their feet so the contract lapsed, whilst we clearly agreed the contract you would still hope the Appeal Judges would see they were up to no good.
|
|
Peter Parker
Global Moderator
Richard Walker
You have been sentenced to DELETION!
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 4,920
|
Post by Peter Parker on Nov 16, 2015 21:20:44 GMT
Then again both parties signed the contract in "good faith" but Sainsbury's seem to have deliberately dragged their feet so the contract lapsed, whilst we clearly agreed the contract you would still hope the Appeal Judges would see they were up to no good. Where did Sainsburys drag there feet? According to the contract and what was said. Sainsbury only had to make one appeal and they did so well in the time frame. It failed and they were satisfied the contract was no longer live. We tried to argue they made a poor atempt of it, but we had to sign it off. Hence our cock up. I am no legal eagle but it seemed black and white to me. What did we pay our experts for?
|
|
|
Post by manorfarmgas on Nov 16, 2015 21:20:26 GMT
Cheers Aghast, you're very kind. Just read your piece on the Czech game - v. good, great pics too. Keep it up!
|
|
|
Post by bluebeard on Nov 16, 2015 21:31:54 GMT
Well maybe you should boycott Pirate Leisure? Sainsburys appear to have planted (or were gifted) a way out of the contract which they exploited. When the contract was drafted and signed both parties wanted, and fully expected, to proceed with the deal. The fact we asked for something to be changed and they said no is irrelevant. The timing of the transfer of title to houses at the site entrance is irrelevant and so is the quality, frequency or accuracy of our BODs communication with fans. The fact that Sainsburys offered a settlement suggests they acknowledged some degree of obligation. The courts may well determine that this is not a legal obligation but IMHO they have morally reneged on a project which would have benefited one of the communities they draw their substantial profits from. At the end of the day, Sainsburys offered to pay a huge premium for the MEM then changed their minds. They have come out of this situation a lot better off than we have .
I now boycott Sainsburys and choose to spend my £200 pw on fuel and food etc elsewhere. Some people appear to believe this whole sorry saga was in some way avoidable so, once again, the BOD is entirely to blame. That's fine, carry on shopping at Sainsburys, but a few on here appear to have acquired an air of intellectual superiority which really isn't warranted.If people dont want.to.shop there its their choice. Dont think it acheives much but if it makes anyone feel better than so be it. I wouldnt shop anywhere if i tried to take some stand against shops and 'unethical' practices. From my reading of the original judgment. We f'ed up and missed the relevant cut off date. If the appeal goes against us similarly who are we going to blame then? Rovers have painted Sainsburys as the big bad. Now i dont agree with all what Sainsburys have done, but we tried to change things to benefit us on a contract signed in 'good faith' so seems a bit rich to take some moral high ground to me. I see two businesses that have got into bed together and have both tried to take advantage of each other and we lost out The levy represented an unforeseen additional expense of £1.6m. We asked Sainsburys to cover it, they said no. There was no provision in the contract for this so we had to accept their decision. Deal still live. Sainsburys agreed to buy the MEM for £30m, TRASH held the project up for over a year, the world changed and Sainsburys wanted out. We did everything we could to meet our contractual obligations. They did everything they could to delay the process and ensure the contract end date was missed. Deal dead. Spot the difference.
|
|
Peter Parker
Global Moderator
Richard Walker
You have been sentenced to DELETION!
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 4,920
|
Post by Peter Parker on Nov 16, 2015 21:36:09 GMT
If people dont want.to.shop there its their choice. Dont think it acheives much but if it makes anyone feel better than so be it. I wouldnt shop anywhere if i tried to take some stand against shops and 'unethical' practices. From my reading of the original judgment. We f'ed up and missed the relevant cut off date. If the appeal goes against us similarly who are we going to blame then? Rovers have painted Sainsburys as the big bad. Now i dont agree with all what Sainsburys have done, but we tried to change things to benefit us on a contract signed in 'good faith' so seems a bit rich to take some moral high ground to me. I see two businesses that have got into bed together and have both tried to take advantage of each other and we lost out The levy represented an unforeseen additional expense of £1.6m. We asked Sainsburys to cover it, they said no. There was no provision in the contract for this so we had to accept their decision. Deal still live. Sainsburys agreed to buy the MEM for £30m, TRASH held the project up for over a year, the world changed and Sainsburys wanted out. We did everything we could to meet our contractual obligations. They did everything they could to delay the process and ensure the contract end date was missed. Deal dead. Spot the difference. As.above. the trial highligted that Sainsburys met their deadlines and fufilled their obligations to appeal delivery hous. An apoeal that failed that we had to green light
|
|
|
Post by bluebeard on Nov 16, 2015 21:39:10 GMT
Then again both parties signed the contract in "good faith" but Sainsbury's seem to have deliberately dragged their feet so the contract lapsed, whilst we clearly agreed the contract you would still hope the Appeal Judges would see they were up to no good. Where did Sainsburys drag there feet? According to the contract and what was said. Sainsbury only had to make one appeal and they did so well in the time frame. It failed and they were satisfied the contract was no longer live. We tried to argue they made a poor atempt of it, but we had to sign it off. Hence our cock up. I am no legal eagle but it seemed black and white to me. What did we pay our experts for? They were obliged to appeal again if counsels opinion was >x% of success. Theirs said no, ours said yes. Deadlock. We issued a writ, they appealed again, consent was granted. Meanwhile, the clock was ticking. It's hardly black and white, which is why we are appealing.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 16, 2015 21:46:26 GMT
The fact that Sainsburys offered a settlement suggests they acknowledged some degree of obligation. I read that offer as them knowing what was likely to happen in court and purely as a mitigation measure, but not being intellectually superior to a post-lobotomy newt, I'm probably wrong.
|
|
|
Post by bluebeard on Nov 16, 2015 22:03:19 GMT
The fact that Sainsburys offered a settlement suggests they acknowledged some degree of obligation. I read that offer as them knowing what was likely to happen in court and purely as a mitigation measure, but not being intellectually superior to a post-lobotomy newt, I'm probably wrong. Ok then, they acknowledged there was a risk of some degree of obligation. An astute observation, I think you do yourself a disservice sir.
|
|