Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 17, 2016 20:05:17 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. Watola's ill-advised interview has been widely reported on the local news. I can only assume it was a case of our new owners offering him enough rope...
|
|
|
Post by pirateduncan on Mar 17, 2016 20:10:57 GMT
So didn't TW say they were considering that as the next step? Yours, Confused of bath. Watola's ill-advised interview has been widely reported on the local news. I can only assume it was a case of our new owners offering him enough rope... Agreed, but can't help but think (much as I've never taken to the bloke) Rovers could do with some old heads as well as new. Take him out of the firing line and what advice he has that feels right...ditch the rest.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 17, 2016 20:13:32 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. True but that looks a blessing in disguise now because it looks like we would have been done up the backside by Sainsburys too like you have. Plus we get to stay where I've always wanted us to play. So looks like the dog walkers did us a favour.
|
|
|
Post by Topper Gas on Mar 17, 2016 20:20:09 GMT
At least we didn't get beat by a bunch of dog walkers. True but that looks a blessing in disguise now because it looks like we would have been done up the backside by Sainsburys too like you have. Plus we get to stay where I've always wanted us to play. So looks like the dog walkers did us a favour. Purpose built state of the art stadium with good transport links v revamped stadium in a s**thole pull the other one if they think they did you a favour. If we do ever get a fully built & kitted out UWE then, grounds wise, we could be light years ahead.
|
|
Angas
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 2,068
|
Post by Angas on Mar 17, 2016 20:22:27 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. According to his youtube interview, if the judge says "no" we just go direct to the Supreme Court to ask them for permission. If this was the old board it wouldn't surprise me that they'd do that, though I'm surprised that the new owners appear to be considering it. I'm wondering if possibly they may have agreed with NH that, in the event of us losing today, they would ask their solicitors to look at the case again and consider whether we should appeal further. Just as a matter of courtesy - and our new owners do appear to be pretty courteous (actually, very courteous in comparison to the last lot).
|
|
faggotygas
Byron Anthony
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 1,862
|
Post by faggotygas on Mar 17, 2016 20:26:57 GMT
Higgs was duped in my eyes, and I'm not letting him off the hook for allowing himself to be duped. However, I'm not letting Sainsburys off the hook either for their spoiling tactics. The contract wasn't immoral, but Sainsbury's reasons for entering it were, as we now know.
No, we don't know any such thing. Market conditions changed, had they moved in the opposite direction there would be a store built there today. We missed a trick and didn't make sure that we understood exactly what the planners needed to approve the extended hours at the first time of asking. With so much riding on that application we have nobody to blame but ourselves. Markets changed so much, in 2 years? And a company as big as sainsburys couldn't see it coming? Also, if it's fine for businesses to pull out of contracts due to changing market conditions, then why was there no such clause in the contract? They engineered an opportunity to get out, without regard to the affect on the business of the other party, or the community in which they are operating. In doing so, they did not act in good faith, they were duplicitous.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 17, 2016 20:37:58 GMT
No, we don't know any such thing. Market conditions changed, had they moved in the opposite direction there would be a store built there today. We missed a trick and didn't make sure that we understood exactly what the planners needed to approve the extended hours at the first time of asking. With so much riding on that application we have nobody to blame but ourselves. Markets changed so much, in 2 years? And a company as big as sainsburys couldn't see it coming? Also, if it's fine for businesses to pull out of contracts due to changing market conditions, then why was there no such clause in the contract? They engineered an opportunity to get out, without regard to the affect on the business of the other party, or the community in which they are operating. In doing so, they did not act in good faith, they were duplicitous. But the club signed that contract. They thought it (especially the 30 mill, presumably) was something that suited them. I can't see any duplicity. Furthermore, if it had suited the club to get out of it, I'm fairly sure it would have tried. I can't see the grounds for indignant self-pity.
|
|
faggotygas
Byron Anthony
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 1,862
|
Post by faggotygas on Mar 17, 2016 20:44:09 GMT
Markets changed so much, in 2 years? And a company as big as sainsburys couldn't see it coming? Also, if it's fine for businesses to pull out of contracts due to changing market conditions, then why was there no such clause in the contract? They engineered an opportunity to get out, without regard to the affect on the business of the other party, or the community in which they are operating. In doing so, they did not act in good faith, they were duplicitous. But the club signed that contract. They thought it (especially the 30 mill, presumably) was something that suited them. I can't see any duplicity. Furthermore, if it had suited the club to get out of it, I'm fairly sure it would have tried. I can't see the grounds for indignant self-pity. Do you really think that the reason that sainsburys used to get out of the contract, was the real reason that they wanted to get out of the contract?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 17, 2016 20:50:29 GMT
But the club signed that contract. They thought it (especially the 30 mill, presumably) was something that suited them. I can't see any duplicity. Furthermore, if it had suited the club to get out of it, I'm fairly sure it would have tried. I can't see the grounds for indignant self-pity. Do you really think that the reason that sainsburys used to get out of the contract, was the real reason that they wanted to get out of the contract? Does it matter??
|
|
Cheshiregas
Global Moderator
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 2,166
|
Post by Cheshiregas on Mar 17, 2016 20:56:08 GMT
Wash your mouth out Kaiser, it's not at all suitable for football at those levels. Sorry about that. I wouldn't know. Did you not support City82 when they were in the old Fourth Division then kaiser? Not a fair weather supporter are you matey?
|
|
faggotygas
Byron Anthony
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 1,862
|
Post by faggotygas on Mar 17, 2016 21:00:55 GMT
Do you really think that the reason that sainsburys used to get out of the contract, was the real reason that they wanted to get out of the contract? Does it matter?? yes, if you are trying to show that sainsburys acted badly. Just to be clear again though, sainsburys acting badly does not let higgs and Co off the hook.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 17, 2016 21:04:14 GMT
No, we don't know any such thing. Market conditions changed, had they moved in the opposite direction there would be a store built there today. We missed a trick and didn't make sure that we understood exactly what the planners needed to approve the extended hours at the first time of asking. With so much riding on that application we have nobody to blame but ourselves. Markets changed so much, in 2 years? And a company as big as sainsburys couldn't see it coming? Also, if it's fine for businesses to pull out of contracts due to changing market conditions, then why was there no such clause in the contract? They engineered an opportunity to get out, without regard to the affect on the business of the other party, or the community in which they are operating. In doing so, they did not act in good faith, they were duplicitous. Every word in that contract was there for a reason. And it wasn't exactly the small print that tripped us up, it was a stated onerous condition. Yes, the markets, including Sainsbury's and Tesco, were surprised by the growth of the value outlets. Hard to imagine that they just sat on their hands and let Aldi and Lidl take market share.
|
|
Thatslife
"Decisions are made by those who turn up"
Joined: June 2014
Posts: 669
|
Post by Thatslife on Mar 17, 2016 21:13:43 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....... I said I wasn't having ago at you Vaughan but if you want me to I will. Would you have preferred that NH &Co did nothing to try and progress the club? Would you have preferred that there was "no hope" Yes with 20/20 hindsight maybe they did seek professional advice that, again with hindsight, may not have been correct but at least they tried., unlike some keyboard warriors who just moan moan moan. You have a great way of stabbing Nick the back when he is down. The club was left by the board in a sellable state, surely he deserves some credit for that but on second thoughts that ain'to ever going to happen, not on this forum.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 17, 2016 21:15:04 GMT
Nail on head Vaughan....... I said I wasn't having ago at you Vaughan but if you want me to I will. Would you have preferred that NH &Co did nothing to try and progress the club? Would you have preferred that there was "no hope" Yes with 20/20 hindsight maybe they did seek professional advice that, again with hindsight, may not have been correct but at least they tried., unlike some keyboard warriors who just moan moan moan. You have a great way of stabbing Nick the back when he is down. The club was left by the board in a sellable state, surely he deserves some credit for that but on second thoughts that ain'to ever going to happen, not on this forum. None of it is hindsight.
|
|
|
Post by buckrippers on Mar 17, 2016 21:15:29 GMT
Bristol Rovers lose their court appeal against Sainsbury'sBristol Rovers have lost their appeal against Sainsbury's over the future of the Memorial Stadium in Horfield. The three Court of Appeal judges have ruled that the contract between the club and Sainsbury's was lawfully terminated and that the supermarket chain had not acted in bad faith. The club took Sainsbury's to court after alleging that the supermarket chain had reneged on a binding contract to buy the Memorial Stadium and therefore pave the way to Rovers going ahead with a new £40million stadium at Stoke Gifford. A Sainsbury's spokesperson said: "We're pleased that the Court has robustly dismissed Bristol Rover's appeal and ruled that the conditional contract lawfully ended in November 2014.
"We have been trading in Bristol for over 45 years and will continue to work with the local community via our existing stores which are extremely popular with customers."The club is expected to make a statement later. Read more: www.bristolpost.co.uk/Bristol-Rovers-lose-court-appeal-Sainsbury-s/story-28942457-detail/story.htmlThe spokeperson's statement shows utter contempt towards us! Far worse than that he has no idea how to use an apostrophe. Bristol Rover's? Deserves the death penalty! signed A. Pedant
|
|
kingswood Polak
Without music life would be a mistake
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 10,278
|
Post by kingswood Polak on Mar 17, 2016 21:18:41 GMT
Nail on head Vaughan....... I said I wasn't having ago at you Vaughan but if you want me to I will. Would you have preferred that NH &Co did nothing to try and progress the club? Would you have preferred that there was "no hope" Yes with 20/20 hindsight maybe they did seek professional advice that, again with hindsight, may not have been correct but at least they tried., unlike some keyboard warriors who just moan moan moan. You have a great way of stabbing Nick the back when he is down. The club was left by the board in a sellable state, surely he deserves some credit for that but on second thoughts that ain'to ever going to happen, not on this forum. In all honesty Nick Higgs gave a hell of a lot of ammunition to have those knives in his back, front and elsewhere. He may have left it in a sellable condition but that was his only option as, even had we won, he could no longer get the stadium built as per plan. Then, there is the external debt.
|
|
faggotygas
Byron Anthony
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 1,862
|
We Lost
Mar 17, 2016 21:43:07 GMT
via mobile
Post by faggotygas on Mar 17, 2016 21:43:07 GMT
Markets changed so much, in 2 years? And a company as big as sainsburys couldn't see it coming? Also, if it's fine for businesses to pull out of contracts due to changing market conditions, then why was there no such clause in the contract? They engineered an opportunity to get out, without regard to the affect on the business of the other party, or the community in which they are operating. In doing so, they did not act in good faith, they were duplicitous. Every word in that contract was there for a reason. And it wasn't exactly the small print that tripped us up, it was a stated onerous condition. Yes, the markets, including Sainsbury's and Tesco, were surprised by the growth of the value outlets. Hard to imagine that they just sat on their hands and let Aldi and Lidl take market share. But you said yourself that it wasn't the onerous condition that made sainsburys want to get out of the contract, it was the change in market conditions.
|
|
|
Post by billyocean on Mar 17, 2016 21:53:17 GMT
For anyone that sat in court (I did, albeit only for an hour or so at a time for a few days) or read the details of the original ruling, this will come as no surprise whatsoever.
If you had millions of pounds riding on the outcome you'd have chased it too, despite the huge odds weighted against you. Let's hope this becomes an insignificant keynote in our history that simply preceded something much bigger and better.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 17, 2016 22:02:14 GMT
Every word in that contract was there for a reason. And it wasn't exactly the small print that tripped us up, it was a stated onerous condition. Yes, the markets, including Sainsbury's and Tesco, were surprised by the growth of the value outlets. Hard to imagine that they just sat on their hands and let Aldi and Lidl take market share. But you said yourself that it wasn't the onerous condition that made sainsburys want to get out of the contract, it was the change in market conditions. You're beginning to sound desperate.
|
|
Angas
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 2,068
|
Post by Angas on Mar 17, 2016 22:13:40 GMT
Lines like this really bug me. Plenty tried but Box 1 wouldn't have any of it.
|
|