vaughan
Joined: June 2014
Posts: 1,237
|
Post by vaughan on Mar 17, 2016 17:37:12 GMT
This is why we lost. I have saved you the trouble of reading all of it by extracting the below as this is the reason for our appeal being rejected
The contract was not watertight!!! Once we had relented on onerous store condition, the appeal was undertaken. But once it failed, there was no obligation for Sainsbury's to make further appeals. The agreement is openly criticised for the quality of its draftsmanship.
I see that That's life is making a dig. Let me remind him of why I am so angry with NH. When we won the appeal in March 2014, BRFC supporters were lied to. We were told that we had the green light to go ahead with the Stadium. Do you remember the celebrations?
These are the facts
41.Having received advice from its solicitors, on 7 February 2014 Sainsbury's Investment Board resolved to terminate the Agreement. In due course, on 11 February 2014, Sainsbury's informed Bristol by telephone that it would seek to terminate the agreement. No Termination Notice was served.
44.The TRASH JR was heard by Hickinbottom J on 13 March 2014 and dismissed by him on 20 March 2014. On 2 April 2014 TRASH confirmed that it would not appeal.
So keep defending the indefensible!!! Lied to!!!
*****
****
90.Under the September/October 2013 agreement Sainsbury's secured agreement that Condition 11 was a Store Onerous Condition, something which was in dispute, and could have been resolved against them. This was to the disadvantage of Bristol, who could otherwise have contended that the Store Planning Condition was satisfied. In return for Bristol's agreement about Condition 11, Sainsbury's agreed to lodge a section 73 application, a step which, on the common misapprehension that it was an Appeal, would otherwise have needed to pass the 60% test. This was a concession by Sainsbury's, who could (on the mistaken assumption) have insisted on the matter being placed before Planning Counsel, jointly instructed by the parties. It was also (on the mistaken assumption) a perceived benefit to Bristol, who thereby avoided any possibility of Planning Counsel rating the prospects as less than 60%. Both sides were concerned to avoid potential uncertainties which could have been fatal to their immediate objectives: in the case of Sainsbury's to avoid the Agreement becoming unconditional, and in the case of Bristol to avoid Sainsbury's planning obligations becoming spent.
91.The compromise was plainly determinative of the question whether a section 73 application was an Appeal for the purposes of the September/October 2013 agreement. Did the compromise bind the parties so that neither could subsequently assert that a section 73 application was not an Appeal, even after 28 January 2014 when the section 73 application was refused? It would do so only if it would be unconscionable for them to do so.
92.The judge did not spell out the reasons why she considered that it would be unconscionable for the parties to resile from the common assumption that a section 73 application was an Appeal for the purposes of the Agreement. However, it is not difficult to see why this should be so. Firstly, although the mistaken common assumption about the meaning of Appeal in paragraph 2.11 of Schedule 1 occurred in the context of the September/October 2013 agreement, it was a common assumption about the way in which the main Agreement, and in particular paragraph 2.11 of Schedule 1 of that Agreement, worked. The date 28 January 2014 (the date of the refusal of Sainsbury's section 73 application) therefore has no significance so far as the continued effect of the estoppel is concerned. Secondly, although the question of whether a section 73 application is an Appeal may seem an incidental and somewhat recondite question, its consequences for the operation of the Agreement are very important. Whether or not such an application is an Appeal can have an impact both on whether the Agreement becomes terminable (through the definition of Cut Off Date) and on whether Sainsbury's are placed in breach of their obligations in paragraph 2.8 of Schedule 1. For Bristol to resile from the common assumption so as to place Sainsbury's in breach is, on the face of it, unconscionable. Thirdly, although Sainsbury's never expressly asserted that they were not obliged to lodge a second section 73 application because it was an Appeal which had not passed the section 73 test, preferring to rely on other points, it was plainly a part of their armoury on which they were entitled to rely. Fourthly Bristol never revealed to Sainsbury's that it considered the common assumption to be erroneous. On the contrary, it continued to rely on the common assumption, and to assert that it would be unconscionable for Sainsbury's to resile from it.
93.In those circumstances it would, in my judgment, plainly be unjust to allow Bristol now to assert that Sainsbury's failure to lodge a further section 73 application was a breach of its planning obligations. Sainsbury's were not obliged to lodge such an application unless Planning Counsel advised that it passed the 60% test, and this had not occurred.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
We Lost
Mar 17, 2016 17:42:25 GMT
via mobile
Post by Deleted on Mar 17, 2016 17:42:25 GMT
I've just seen the Toni the till interview today. He interviewed quite well I thought It's always easier when you are interviewed by one of your co workers with pre agreed questions. Even then he managed to refuse to answer one!
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
We Lost
Mar 17, 2016 17:43:18 GMT
via mobile
Post by Deleted on Mar 17, 2016 17:43:18 GMT
You could always stay where you are? I think it's quite suitable for L2/non league matches?
|
|
|
Post by matealotblue on Mar 17, 2016 17:45:08 GMT
You could always stay where you are? I think it's quite suitable for L2/non league matches? Yep. Cheap option for your lot in a couple of seasons. Toilets might even suit one or two players as well.
|
|
|
Post by Blue Mist on Mar 17, 2016 18:06:47 GMT
Yes of course, based on an average attendance of 6000 of which 75% would be of an age that bought groceries, an average monthly spend of £200 pp and Sainsbury share of the market at 16.8% then we would need approximately 19 years to recover the £30million.* Don't count me in to your calculations, I'll shop wherever I get the best produce at the best price * caveat emptor These calculations do not consider the whimsical shopping habits of the capricious.
|
|
|
Post by Blue Mist on Mar 17, 2016 18:10:04 GMT
You could always stay where you are? I think it's quite suitable for L2/non league matches? Wash your mouth out Kaiser, it's not at all suitable for football at those levels.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
We Lost
Mar 17, 2016 18:13:03 GMT
via mobile
Post by Deleted on Mar 17, 2016 18:13:03 GMT
You could always stay where you are? I think it's quite suitable for L2/non league matches? Wash your mouth out Kaiser, it's not at all suitable for football at those levels. Sorry about that. I wouldn't know.
|
|
|
Post by Blue Mist on Mar 17, 2016 18:13:15 GMT
The fact that Nick Higgs gambled with our money makes me quite cross. That's just the Guinness talking!
|
|
|
Post by singupgas on Mar 17, 2016 18:24:37 GMT
I would hope now that we leave it be and just forget about sainsburys and there are no further appeals. It is embarrassing still, we've has 2 no's it's time to move and hope the new regime wouldn't want to or put up with anyone from the old regime hoping to still get a payoff. I think as much as it would be useful to have an extra 30 million in the pocket we aren't going to get. And if as it has been that our new stadium is not dependant on the court proceeding we shouldn't entertain it any longer.
|
|
|
We Lost
Mar 17, 2016 18:26:40 GMT
via mobile
Post by singupgas on Mar 17, 2016 18:26:40 GMT
20,000 in town and I live around the corner...selfish I suppose. It would be 18,000 and no room whatsoever for expansion. It would be big enough for us now, but not if we did progress like Swansea, Hull, Brighton etc have done over the last decade. A new purpose built 20,000+ stadium would also bring extra revenue streams into the club which in todays Football climate is a godsend. If it was possible to expand The Mem to over 20,000 then it would be perfect. But it isn't. I do think there will be new plans in excess of 30,000 unveiled in due course. I don't think 21000 seater would be considered as world class if that is what the owner would want.
|
|
|
Post by pirateduncan on Mar 17, 2016 19:07:42 GMT
Maybe (in fact almost certainly) I'm missing something but if there was a 'Plan B' that Rovers weren't willing to put it in the public domain I'm not entirely sure how Rovers could hinge a legal case against Sainsburys for not putting everything into the project. After all, weren't Sainsburys only enacting their own Plan B? Not criticising Rovers for planning (absolutely the right thing to do - though strange he'll still not spill the beans so maybe it's BS), but bit disingenuous to launch a legal case as they did.
My only hope is the club don't enter into a further legal battle by taking to the supreme court and I certainly don't see the sense in the suggestion of taking action against the Lawyers. I mean, they're there to advise and assist, no one ever said a Legal firm can guarantee you a watertight contract and if they could there would be no reason to have a judicial system.
In short, time to let it go. It's in the past and is where it belongs. All the best to Mr Higgs and his boardroom members, I wish them every success and happiness for the future.
Rovers can move onwards and hopefully upwards now.
|
|
|
Post by bangkokgas on Mar 17, 2016 19:17:36 GMT
Don't count me in to your calculations, I'll shop wherever I get the best produce at the best price. yep your defo an Aldi man Bamber
|
|
|
Post by bangkokgas on Mar 17, 2016 19:19:00 GMT
Supreme Court...are they living in some parallel universe or something? Are they completely delusional? This must be the end of it now. Move on and move up. It's taken too long, most of the time knowing that we were shafted by Sainsbury's because of our own incompetence. Someone said at the time UWE was announced we're Bristol Rovers things like this don't happen it's too good to be true. How right they were! Overall we were outwitted by a bigger, richer more savvy company. That they have a long line of similar cases show them up for what they are, a money making organisation with no qualms and no morals about shafting any group that gets in their way. As for working with their community, the idea is laughable. What they mean is they will work with their community (take their money), serve their community (take their money) and when it suits their business will make more money. However I am not surprised at this because that is what big business does it makes money unapologetically, why are we surprised? We were just as bad only smaller, poorer and with our BOD and legal team completely out of our depth. NH and the rest thought they had found the answer and did his best. Watertight!!! It was as watertight as some of our loan goalies over the past 5 years! We decided to go with them so we got all we deserved, what the **** did we expect? I have never had the stamina to follow every response, every thread on this issue and I know some of you know far more than me but for everyone's sake, esp Bristol Rovers FC let us move on over the next few days and trust that our new board live in a more business savvy world. I'm sure they do. Now all I want is to beat Newport on Saturday and have a good Easter and forget about Sainsbury's. Whatever, UTG!
|
|
|
Post by bangkokgas on Mar 17, 2016 19:24:53 GMT
All the legal claptrap is boring..most of us knew this would happen - let's be thankful we still have a club to support..am not yet convinced the new owners are going to be our saviours, but then that's 40 years of scepticism and disappointment for you following Rovers... from wide and far..
Here's hoping...
|
|
|
Post by lostinspace on Mar 17, 2016 19:34:09 GMT
Continue our boycott of Sainsburys stores forever now Will no one think of the Nectar points. not forgetting that your points are only worth half what they previously were.........so stuffed again!!!
|
|
keygas
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 177
|
Post by keygas on Mar 17, 2016 19:34:21 GMT
You could always stay where you are? I think it's quite suitable for L2/non league matches? At least we didn't get beat by a bunch of dog walkers.
|
|
|
Post by johnanagram on Mar 17, 2016 19:35:43 GMT
This is why we lost. I have saved you the trouble of reading all of it by extracting the below as this is the reason for our appeal being rejected The contract was not watertight!!! Once we had relented on onerous store condition, the appeal was undertaken. But once it failed, there was no obligation for Sainsbury's to make further appeals. The agreement is openly criticised for the quality of its draftsmanship. I see that That's life is making a dig. Let me remind him of why I am so angry with NH. When we won the appeal in March 2014, BRFC supporters were lied to. We were told that we had the green light to go ahead with the Stadium. Do you remember the celebrations? These are the facts 41.Having received advice from its solicitors, on 7 February 2014 Sainsbury's Investment Board resolved to terminate the Agreement. In due course, on 11 February 2014, Sainsbury's informed Bristol by telephone that it would seek to terminate the agreement. No Termination Notice was served. 44.The TRASH JR was heard by Hickinbottom J on 13 March 2014 and dismissed by him on 20 March 2014. On 2 April 2014 TRASH confirmed that it would not appeal. So keep defending the indefensible!!! Lied to!!! ***** **** 90.Under the September/October 2013 agreement Sainsbury's secured agreement that Condition 11 was a Store Onerous Condition, something which was in dispute, and could have been resolved against them. This was to the disadvantage of Bristol, who could otherwise have contended that the Store Planning Condition was satisfied. In return for Bristol's agreement about Condition 11, Sainsbury's agreed to lodge a section 73 application, a step which, on the common misapprehension that it was an Appeal, would otherwise have needed to pass the 60% test. This was a concession by Sainsbury's, who could (on the mistaken assumption) have insisted on the matter being placed before Planning Counsel, jointly instructed by the parties. It was also (on the mistaken assumption) a perceived benefit to Bristol, who thereby avoided any possibility of Planning Counsel rating the prospects as less than 60%. Both sides were concerned to avoid potential uncertainties which could have been fatal to their immediate objectives: in the case of Sainsbury's to avoid the Agreement becoming unconditional, and in the case of Bristol to avoid Sainsbury's planning obligations becoming spent. 91.The compromise was plainly determinative of the question whether a section 73 application was an Appeal for the purposes of the September/October 2013 agreement. Did the compromise bind the parties so that neither could subsequently assert that a section 73 application was not an Appeal, even after 28 January 2014 when the section 73 application was refused? It would do so only if it would be unconscionable for them to do so. 92.The judge did not spell out the reasons why she considered that it would be unconscionable for the parties to resile from the common assumption that a section 73 application was an Appeal for the purposes of the Agreement. However, it is not difficult to see why this should be so. Firstly, although the mistaken common assumption about the meaning of Appeal in paragraph 2.11 of Schedule 1 occurred in the context of the September/October 2013 agreement, it was a common assumption about the way in which the main Agreement, and in particular paragraph 2.11 of Schedule 1 of that Agreement, worked. The date 28 January 2014 (the date of the refusal of Sainsbury's section 73 application) therefore has no significance so far as the continued effect of the estoppel is concerned. Secondly, although the question of whether a section 73 application is an Appeal may seem an incidental and somewhat recondite question, its consequences for the operation of the Agreement are very important. Whether or not such an application is an Appeal can have an impact both on whether the Agreement becomes terminable (through the definition of Cut Off Date) and on whether Sainsbury's are placed in breach of their obligations in paragraph 2.8 of Schedule 1. For Bristol to resile from the common assumption so as to place Sainsbury's in breach is, on the face of it, unconscionable. Thirdly, although Sainsbury's never expressly asserted that they were not obliged to lodge a second section 73 application because it was an Appeal which had not passed the section 73 test, preferring to rely on other points, it was plainly a part of their armoury on which they were entitled to rely. Fourthly Bristol never revealed to Sainsbury's that it considered the common assumption to be erroneous. On the contrary, it continued to rely on the common assumption, and to assert that it would be unconscionable for Sainsbury's to resile from it. 93.In those circumstances it would, in my judgment, plainly be unjust to allow Bristol now to assert that Sainsbury's failure to lodge a further section 73 application was a breach of its planning obligations. Sainsbury's were not obliged to lodge such an application unless Planning Counsel advised that it passed the 60% test, and this had not occurred. Nail on head Vaughan.......
|
|
Igitur
Joined: June 2014
Posts: 2,294
|
Post by Igitur on Mar 17, 2016 19:47:17 GMT
Got to the bus stop this morning and a bus turned up in two minutes to take me to the train station, the train arrived very quickly to take me to London, the undergound train arrived in about two minutes and I was at the court in good time. There was time for a sausage, egg and bacon toastie with coffee and I was in the court in good time. What could possibly go wrong?
The m'lud turned up not even in his full regalia and the announcement took less time than Tom Hiddleston's fumble with Elizabeth Debicki in last Sunday's Night Manager (thought she was a bit short changed.)
Now I knew it would not take long, but nobody else linked to the case was there. I was not expecting a Blackadder moment or Perry Mason to leap up to save the day, but it was so coldly delivered. Thankfully this should be the end of the charade as the m'lud announced we are unable to appeal to the Supreme Court.
We have been over and over the case(s) before, and so the result was no surprise really. To even the untrained mind such as mine, when reading the judgement in the local pub, we (the club) had been easily out-manoeuvred and as said, in general the brighter and better your QC is, the greater chance you have of winning.
(I always go to two or three other places when going to London.)
|
|
|
Post by nickchippenhamgas on Mar 17, 2016 19:52:59 GMT
Supreme Court...are they living in some parallel universe or something? Are they completely delusional? This must be the end of it now. Move on and move up. It's taken too long, most of the time knowing that we were shafted by Sainsbury's because of our own incompetence. Someone said at the time UWE was announced we're Bristol Rovers things like this don't happen it's too good to be true. How right they were! Overall we were outwitted by a bigger, richer more savvy company. That they have a long line of similar cases show them up for what they are, a money making organisation with no qualms and no morals about shafting any group that gets in their way. As for working with their community, the idea is laughable. What they mean is they will work with their community (take their money), serve their community (take their money) and when it suits their business will make more money. However I am not surprised at this because that is what big business does it makes money unapologetically, why are we surprised? We were just as bad only smaller, poorer and with our BOD and legal team completely out of our depth. NH and the rest thought they had found the answer and did his best. Watertight!!! It was as watertight as some of our loan goalies over the past 5 years! We decided to go with them so we got all we deserved, what the **** did we expect? I have never had the stamina to follow every response, every thread on this issue and I know some of you know far more than me but for everyone's sake, esp Bristol Rovers FC let us move on over the next few days and trust that our new board live in a more business savvy world. I'm sure they do. Now all I want is to beat Newport on Saturday and have a good Easter and forget about Sainsbury's. Whatever, UTG! 100% agree time to move on!!
|
|
|
Post by pirateduncan on Mar 17, 2016 19:53:25 GMT
Thankfully this should be the end of the charade as the m'lud announced we are unable to appeal to the Supreme Court. So didn't TW say they were considering that as the next step? Yours, Confused of bath.
|
|