brizzle
Lindsay Parsons
No Buy . . . No Sell!
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 4,293
|
Post by brizzle on Sept 20, 2014 21:06:49 GMT
Out of interest, how has Higgs f**ked up? Presided over the worst period in the entire history of Bristol Rovers Football Club. Well, no-one could possibly disagree with that statement. I'm sorry to say that in my opinion he is not competent or qualified to be Chairman of BRFC, as I have posted before it is my opinion that he is over-promoted. This is primarily because he has bought his position on the Board, and not earned it. However his performance on the football front shouldn't be confused with his efforts on the stadium front. I've always believed that as poor as he's been on the one, he has been outstanding on the other. But with all of the other parties and influences involved in the arrangement of the UWE stadium and selling the Mem to Sainsbury's, he has so far been unsuccessful. But I really don't think that any blame can be attached to him for that. Personally I should like to see him stand down as Chairman and dedicate himself full-time to the UWE, but given his level of shareholding I doubt that this will happen any time soon.
|
|
GasHeadGaz
Vita Astafjevs
Joined: June 2014
Posts: 518
|
Post by GasHeadGaz on Sept 20, 2014 21:13:17 GMT
Mr Carstairs is still at it I see Dear Friends Just when it seemed it was all over for the Sainsbury’s superstore at the Memorial Ground, a new danger is emerging. The new planning application is being seriously considered by Bristol City Council. This application (14/04174/X) was submitted on 21 August in the name of Bristol Rovers (1883) Ltd, and not by Sainsbury’s. It seeks to erect high noise barriers (up to 11 feet 8 inches), which will adversely affect neighbouring houses and gardens, as well as extend delivery hours for 44 ton lorries, to 19 hours every day. If successful, a superstore could be built on the Memorial Ground and a dire precedent will have been set for all UK supermarkets. The consultation period ends on Monday 29 September. Objections need to be submitted to Bristol City Council, by Sunday 28 September, at tinyurl.com/a...ation14-04174-X. Other developments make for a confusing picture: On 17 July, Bristol Rovers (1883) Limited started a high court case against Sainsbury’s, claiming Sainsbury’s have been sluggish to proceed with their superstore plans and other breaches of contract. The writ claims that Sainsbury’s are contractually obliged to build their superstore on the Memorial Ground.On 28 July, Bristol Rovers (1883) Ltd/Sainsbury’s appealed to the Planning Inspectorateagainst Bristol City Council’s refusal to increase delivery hours from 17 to 19 hours every day. On 10 September, the Inspectorate agreed to put the appeal in abeyance for three months at the Council’s request. Given the uncertain outcomes of the above, and the very real danger of Sainsbury’s going ahead with their plans, the long term future of the Memorial Ground is still a matter for public concern. Vandalism on a grand scale should not be an option. Has the owner of the Memorial Ground forgotten that this War Memorial was established through the charity of Frank Cowlin and thousands of other Bristolians? It was the conviction of the people of Bristol that the sacrifices made would be honoured by the community through life-inspiring sport at the Memorial Ground, in perpetuity. Thank you for your support. Jamie The writ claims nothing of the sort. It merely claims that Sainsburys are contractually obliged to buy the land for the agreed price if no store onerous conditions exist. Rovers couldn't give a toss whether the supermarket is built or not, in fact we would prefer not because it would save us having to fork out cost of said sound barriers. Top post!
|
|
|
Post by Edward Teach on Sept 20, 2014 21:16:34 GMT
Definately not a Higgs fan as his record at running a Football is dire but I really don't see that Hoggs can be blamed for Sainsburys moving the goal posts . It could be argued though that because of our relegation which incidentally is Higgs and his fellow board members fault that Sainsburys are playing it cool for a cheaper deal with a prime bit of real estate. Gawd at last, someone else apart from me talking like they know what they're talking about. Humility is not your strong point, is it.
|
|
Thatslife
"Decisions are made by those who turn up"
Joined: June 2014
Posts: 669
|
Post by Thatslife on Sept 20, 2014 21:16:49 GMT
The fact that BRFC is taking saisbury's to court tells me that the project is still ongoing, if it wasnt why would BRFC waste the money on cosiderable legal costs. The legal case is about the speed or lack of, that Saisbury's are pursuing the project, not IF they are progressing but how fast. ThatsLife, not sure that means the 'project' is still ongoing, maybe more about enforcing a contract. Whether a store is built or not is irrelevant to Rovers, its whether they get the money. Anyway we haven't even got to that bit. Aren't the present proceedings about 'delay' not enforcing the ultimate contract which is a different issue. What you say is true, it doesnt matter a jot if sainsbury's builds or not, but i assume the deal can only go ahead if all the legal obsticles to the build are over come, hence the writ to move things towards the final permission(s). Nick Higgs says he has a watert tight contract but I assume all the planning issues need resolving before he get his cheque. The writ is a good thing, the fact we had to issue one is not. I say again that ther is no eidence that the sale of the Mem wont go ahead.
|
|
GasHeadGaz
Vita Astafjevs
Joined: June 2014
Posts: 518
|
Post by GasHeadGaz on Sept 20, 2014 21:18:54 GMT
Gawd at last, someone else apart from me talking like they know what they're talking about. Humility is not your strong point, is it. When you're talking to someone who clearly hasn't a clue what they're on about, then no.
|
|
Bridgeman
Alfie Biggs
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 3,549
|
Post by Bridgeman on Sept 20, 2014 21:20:14 GMT
What do you base your knowledge on then? If BRFC are having to take Sainsburys to Court for them to go through with the deal then the idea that they're not all that keen isn't based on hearsay is it? The fact that BRFC is taking saisbury's to court tells me that the project is still ongoing, if it wasnt why would BRFC waste the money on cosiderable legal costs. The legal case is about the speed or lack of, that Saisbury's are pursuing the project, not IF they are progressing but how fast. But Sainsbury's don't want to pursue the project they want to walk away from it in its entirety that's what Higgs and Watola confirmed following the meeting they held with Sainsbury's in November 2013. We won the judicial review but Sainsbury's took no part in because they didn't want to progress the project. Other than the tendering process which Sainsbury's won by submitting the highest bid for the Memorial Stadium sadly there has been very little positive about their involvement with this project.
|
|
GasHeadGaz
Vita Astafjevs
Joined: June 2014
Posts: 518
|
Post by GasHeadGaz on Sept 20, 2014 21:25:04 GMT
Just say the project did go tits up, Sainsbury managed to pull out of the deal with out a penny compensation, does anyone know if any other supermarkets/businesses would be interested in buying The Mem?
|
|
|
Post by manchestergas on Sept 20, 2014 21:29:20 GMT
ThatsLife, when one party to a contract has to sue another its never a good thing. A contract is meant to avoid disputes.
There are no watertight contracts.
Anyway I am happy to see how things pan out, as there are too many people second guessing matters. Cant see this being resolved for a while yet.
|
|
Thatslife
"Decisions are made by those who turn up"
Joined: June 2014
Posts: 669
|
Post by Thatslife on Sept 20, 2014 21:30:31 GMT
Just say the project did go tits up, Sainsbury managed to pull out of the deal with out a penny compensation, does anyone know if any other supermarkets/businesses would be interested in buying The Mem? Lidles and Aldi are the only supermarkets who turnover is on the up. I believe that one of them is going to develop the former Ford Garage / Bus station on Muller road, maybe the other would like the Mem site?
|
|
|
Post by manchestergas on Sept 20, 2014 21:30:38 GMT
GasHeadGaz, I suspect it would be more likely to bought for housing. With the supermarket sector how it is not sure it would be attractive for a larger store and even if, the offer price would be lower.
|
|
Thatslife
"Decisions are made by those who turn up"
Joined: June 2014
Posts: 669
|
Post by Thatslife on Sept 20, 2014 21:35:32 GMT
ThatsLife, when one party to a contract has to sue another its never a good thing. A contract is meant to avoid disputes. There are no watertight contracts. Anyway I am happy to see how things pan out, as there are too many people second guessing matters. Cant see this being resolved for a while yet. I assure you that N.H had a top legal team draw up the contract, the same team that saw us through the J.R and appeal and who have issued the writ. If N.H says its water tight then I believe him beacause its not his opinion that its water tight, its his legal teams opinion. I have no reason or evidence to base any doubts on.
|
|
|
Post by manchestergas on Sept 20, 2014 21:56:49 GMT
I assure you his legal team would not have given him a 100 percent assurance he will win.
They would have potentially said you are likely to win thats a different matter.
There is never a 100 percent watertight contract.
Firstly this matter would have been informally argued between the parties in a 'nice way', that failed; secondly there probably would have been a hell of a lot of pre-litigation correspondence, that failed; now we are in court.
The fact we are in court implies Sainsbury at least think there is some get out of the contract. Whether that get out has a good chance of success or not, I don't know.
A top legal team may be involved, but Sainsbury have as good if not better team.
I think we will just have to wait and see how things pan. I am not saying it won't happen, I am just saying the likelihood is less than 100 percent which you seem to imply is the case.
|
|
Bridgeman
Alfie Biggs
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 3,549
|
Post by Bridgeman on Sept 20, 2014 22:15:50 GMT
I really cannot see any other supermarket chain now wanting to buy the Mem, why would they ? There would be constant harrassment from various pressure groups against the planning process. Our best hope is that the Government Inspector who will have to consider the appeal to prolong the delivery times to the proposed Sainsbury site upholds the appeal. That means Sainsbury's cannot withdraw their bid because of the onerous condition they want delivered. It's at that point Bristol Rovers 1883 Ltd can then say they have delivered the requirements necessary for the store to operate. The club can then say to Sainsbury's conditions have now been met for you to operate your store, hand over the money or we'll sue you for compensation for the exact amount you bid for the Memorial Stadium plus all the other costs that you have caused us to incur. So not only would we get the money we'd also get to keep the Mem too ! It all rests on the Government Inspector now......come on, come on....get into 'em !
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 20, 2014 22:46:06 GMT
So not only would we get the money we'd also get to keep the Mem too ! That award won't be made. And even if it were likely, which it isn't, Sainsbury's would complete and take the site. Sat behind all of this is more than a hint that the contract may have an expiry date, something that Sainsbury's have used previously when they didn't want to complete a transaction.
|
|
toteend
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 305
|
Post by toteend on Sept 21, 2014 0:08:04 GMT
Actually, the case is in abeyance. Sainsburys have not yet submitted a defence to the writ, and are unlikely to do so.
How do I know?
I rang the court and asked them. It has not been progressed in any way since the writ was issued. They have failed to make 'best endeavours' to progress the outstanding onerous condition, as required in the original contract. This can be evidenced by the fact that Rovers appealed the decision as Sainsburys wished it to collapse by running out of time.
Sainsburys realise they cannot possibly defeat the writ as the details can plainly be seen.
I would further suggest that they realise that Rovers will not roll over in the main contract either. Therefore they will back down.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 21, 2014 0:26:42 GMT
Lets concentrate on the football. We all really know, although Higgs does not have the balls to sday it, he has ******* up and there will be no new stadium. IMO the sooner Higgs ***** off the better. UTG time for another board bashing session then ?? Can't complain about the football so lets have another go at Mr Higgs oh dear.....
|
|
Thatslife
"Decisions are made by those who turn up"
Joined: June 2014
Posts: 669
|
Post by Thatslife on Sept 21, 2014 6:26:39 GMT
I assure you his legal team would not have given him a 100 percent assurance he will win. They would have potentially said you are likely to win thats a different matter. There is never a 100 percent watertight contract. Firstly this matter would have been informally argued between the parties in a 'nice way', that failed; secondly there probably would have been a hell of a lot of pre-litigation correspondence, that failed; now we are in court. The fact we are in court implies Sainsbury at least think there is some get out of the contract. Whether that get out has a good chance of success or not, I don't know.
A top legal team may be involved, but Sainsbury have as good if not better team. I think we will just have to wait and see how things pan. I am not saying it won't happen, I am just saying the likelihood is less than 100 percent which you seem to imply is the case. Sainsburys are in court not because they think there is some way out of it, Sainsbury's are in court because they have no choice but to be in court, not appearing would be the worst thing Sainsbury's could do. I am no legal expert but by not appearing the judge could find against them in their absence.
|
|
gas2
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 218
|
Post by gas2 on Sept 21, 2014 7:12:50 GMT
I can see a out of court settlement comming on this one
|
|
Thatslife
"Decisions are made by those who turn up"
Joined: June 2014
Posts: 669
|
Post by Thatslife on Sept 21, 2014 8:17:38 GMT
I can see a out of court settlement comming on this one Would seem the likely outcome. 50% would do nicely
|
|
toteend
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 305
|
Post by toteend on Sept 21, 2014 8:41:21 GMT
It's all or nothing. If we are right Sainsburys pay in full. If we are not we get nowt. What use is half, we still can't get the UWE, and we will die at the Mem.
That's life, Sainsburys are not in court. What makes you think they are? Why isn't there a court case pending? Perhaps it's because it will not be fought. Sainsburys didn't expect us to take them on.
They might, just might have decided the bad publicity etc that would be generated , is just not worth it.
|
|