brizzle
Lindsay Parsons
No Buy . . . No Sell!
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 4,293
|
Post by brizzle on Oct 28, 2014 17:51:23 GMT
Why does everyone get so worked up about a non entity ! UWE will not happen because Sainsburys will / have .... pull / pulled out of the deal. Higgs is waiting for us to be up near the top of the League, where fans minds will be thinking of promotion and he will announce that plans will be to revamp the Mem ... he can then dine out off of that lie for the next three years. The fact he has bluffed and blustered his way to this point is proof to the mans lack of emotional intelligence about the damage he has caused this club. Like a knife through butter.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 28, 2014 19:41:28 GMT
Why does everyone get so worked up about a non entity ! UWE will not happen because Sainsburys will / have .... pull / pulled out of the deal. Higgs is waiting for us to be up near the top of the League, where fans minds will be thinking of promotion and he will announce that plans will be to revamp the Mem ... he can then dine out off of that lie for the next three years. The fact he has bluffed and blustered his way to this point is proof to the mans lack of emotional intelligence about the damage he has caused this club. Keep taking the happy pills, life will get better
|
|
|
Post by ellington on Oct 28, 2014 21:18:43 GMT
Why does everyone get so worked up about a non entity ! UWE will not happen because Sainsburys will / have .... pull / pulled out of the deal. Higgs is waiting for us to be up near the top of the League, where fans minds will be thinking of promotion and he will announce that plans will be to revamp the Mem ... he can then dine out off of that lie for the next three years. The fact he has bluffed and blustered his way to this point is proof to the mans lack of emotional intelligence about the damage he has caused this club. Like a knife through butter. "Put a muzzle on her Turkish"
|
|
aghast
David Williams
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 395
|
Post by aghast on Oct 28, 2014 21:47:28 GMT
Why does everyone get so worked up about a non entity ! UWE will not happen because Sainsburys will / have .... pull / pulled out of the deal. Higgs is waiting for us to be up near the top of the League, where fans minds will be thinking of promotion and he will announce that plans will be to revamp the Mem ... he can then dine out off of that lie for the next three years. The fact he has bluffed and blustered his way to this point is proof to the mans lack of emotional intelligence about the damage he has caused this club. Keep taking the happy pills, life will get better You might chuckle now, but we won't be chuckling when the forthcoming court case ends up with Rovers being awarded costs and loss of profit for the delay - a few million at best, and nothing like the £30m claimed. Sainsbury's don't want to build the store and they really, really don't want to pay us the full "agreed" value. So we will have to sue them. And they will defend themselves. I can think of some reasons they could put forward that a court might decide were reasonable grounds to pull out of the deal at minimal costs to themselves: 1) At the time the agreement was signed, store trading conditions were very different. Market changes since that time have made the store non-viable. 2) The extensive delays caused by TRASH and other objectors were not the fault of Sainsbury's, but are now requiring them to pay for a store that would have been seen as a valid project in 2012, but can no longer be seen that way by 2016 (or whenever the proposed store would open). 3) The market value of land with planning permission for a superstore is today, and will be in the future, far below that foreseen at the time of agreement. 4) The adverse publicity raised by objectors to those in the local community has damaged the image and reputation of the company and proposed store, and as such the agreement as originally signed is no longer valid. I'm sure Sainsbury's lawyers (having been made enormous amounts as an incentive), will think of many other persuasive arguments in their favour. We'll have to fork out several hundred thousands of ££s to fight this. Maybe an out-of-court settlement will happen. Maybe they'll pay for a new stand at the redeveloped Mem. But I can see no way we'll get £30m from them and go on to build the UWE, or at least not a UWE as we have understood it.
|
|
|
Post by christianandersen on Oct 28, 2014 22:16:45 GMT
Why does everyone get so worked up about a non entity ! UWE will not happen because Sainsburys will / have .... pull / pulled out of the deal. Higgs is waiting for us to be up near the top of the League, where fans minds will be thinking of promotion and he will announce that plans will be to revamp the Mem ... he can then dine out off of that lie for the next three years. The fact he has bluffed and blustered his way to this point is proof to the mans lack of emotional intelligence about the damage he has caused this club. In Higgs wee truss.
|
|
|
Post by Topper Gas on Oct 28, 2014 22:35:14 GMT
I thought shoppers were using Aldi/Lidl because they were cheaper not more expensive?? Whether it's Tesco or Aldi/Lidl the service is poor, only Sainsbury's or Waitrose give good customer service. What on earth do you base that statement on? My own personal experiences?
|
|
|
Post by Topper Gas on Oct 28, 2014 22:44:06 GMT
Keep taking the happy pills, life will get better You might chuckle now, but we won't be chuckling when the forthcoming court case ends up with Rovers being awarded costs and loss of profit for the delay - a few million at best, and nothing like the £30m claimed. Sainsbury's don't want to build the store and they really, really don't want to pay us the full "agreed" value. So we will have to sue them. And they will defend themselves. I can think of some reasons they could put forward that a court might decide were reasonable grounds to pull out of the deal at minimal costs to themselves: 1) At the time the agreement was signed, store trading conditions were very different. Market changes since that time have made the store non-viable. 2) The extensive delays caused by TRASH and other objectors were not the fault of Sainsbury's, but are now requiring them to pay for a store that would have been seen as a valid project in 2012, but can no longer be seen that way by 2016 (or whenever the proposed store would open). 3) The market value of land with planning permission for a superstore is today, and will be in the future, far below that foreseen at the time of agreement. 4) The adverse publicity raised by objectors to those in the local community has damaged the image and reputation of the company and proposed store, and as such the agreement as originally signed is no longer valid. I'm sure Sainsbury's lawyers (having been made enormous amounts as an incentive), will think of many other persuasive arguments in their favour. We'll have to fork out several hundred thousands of ££s to fight this. Maybe an out-of-court settlement will happen. Maybe they'll pay for a new stand at the redeveloped Mem. But I can see no way we'll get £30m from them and go on to build the UWE, or at least not a UWE as we have understood it. They all maybe valid but why would that allow them to break a legally binding contact (assuming it is one) as I can't see any of them have been caused by BRFC? It seems Sainsbury's already included the onerous conditions which would allow them to walk away, there was nothing stopping them including store delays caused by planning protests etc. If Sainsbury's were confident they could break the contracts they would have just ignored Rovers request to proceed with the delivery hours appeal and just said "sue us".
|
|
|
Post by lulworthgas on Oct 28, 2014 23:07:01 GMT
Keep taking the happy pills, life will get better You might chuckle now, but we won't be chuckling when the forthcoming court case ends up with Rovers being awarded costs and loss of profit for the delay - a few million at best, and nothing like the £30m claimed. Sainsbury's don't want to build the store and they really, really don't want to pay us the full "agreed" value. So we will have to sue them. And they will defend themselves. I can think of some reasons they could put forward that a court might decide were reasonable grounds to pull out of the deal at minimal costs to themselves: 1) At the time the agreement was signed, store trading conditions were very different. Market changes since that time have made the store non-viable. 2) The extensive delays caused by TRASH and other objectors were not the fault of Sainsbury's, but are now requiring them to pay for a store that would have been seen as a valid project in 2012, but can no longer be seen that way by 2016 (or whenever the proposed store would open). 3) The market value of land with planning permission for a superstore is today, and will be in the future, far below that foreseen at the time of agreement. 4) The adverse publicity raised by objectors to those in the local community has damaged the image and reputation of the company and proposed store, and as such the agreement as originally signed is no longer valid. I'm sure Sainsbury's lawyers (having been made enormous amounts as an incentive), will think of many other persuasive arguments in their favour. We'll have to fork out several hundred thousands of ££s to fight this. Maybe an out-of-court settlement will happen. Maybe they'll pay for a new stand at the redeveloped Mem. But I can see no way we'll get £30m from them and go on to build the UWE, or at least not a UWE as we have understood it. They did a deal for land subject to planning permission, which was granted. Booho that the climate hasn't gone there way. They owe the money and soon it will be time to pay up.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 28, 2014 23:19:05 GMT
If Sainsbury's were confident they could break the contracts they would have just ignored Rovers request to proceed with the delivery hours appeal and just said "sue us". They did. They only appealed because the club served an injunction on them to do so a few days before the appeal window closed. Banging in an appeal to what they thought was a lost cause and didn't intend putting any effort into was the easier option than dropping everything and fighting a bloody injunction. The horse was led to water because it was ni skin off the horse's nose and it shut an irritant up: it has no intention of drinking. The club were so clear Sainsbury's had effectively left the building - and were 'confident' in doing so - that they also formulated their own planning application for delivery hours at a supermarket (bizarre tho that sounds).
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 28, 2014 23:22:56 GMT
Keep taking the happy pills, life will get better You might chuckle now, but we won't be chuckling when the forthcoming court case ends up with Rovers being awarded costs and loss of profit for the delay - a few million at best, and nothing like the £30m claimed. Sainsbury's don't want to build the store and they really, really don't want to pay us the full "agreed" value. So we will have to sue them. And they will defend themselves. I can think of some reasons they could put forward that a court might decide were reasonable grounds to pull out of the deal at minimal costs to themselves: 1) At the time the agreement was signed, store trading conditions were very different. Market changes since that time have made the store non-viable. 2) The extensive delays caused by TRASH and other objectors were not the fault of Sainsbury's, but are now requiring them to pay for a store that would have been seen as a valid project in 2012, but can no longer be seen that way by 2016 (or whenever the proposed store would open). 3) The market value of land with planning permission for a superstore is today, and will be in the future, far below that foreseen at the time of agreement. 4) The adverse publicity raised by objectors to those in the local community has damaged the image and reputation of the company and proposed store, and as such the agreement as originally signed is no longer valid. I'm sure Sainsbury's lawyers (having been made enormous amounts as an incentive), will think of many other persuasive arguments in their favour. We'll have to fork out several hundred thousands of ££s to fight this. Maybe an out-of-court settlement will happen. Maybe they'll pay for a new stand at the redeveloped Mem. But I can see no way we'll get £30m from them and go on to build the UWE, or at least not a UWE as we have understood it. None of those reasons are valid and are all just tough on Sainsbury's. I bet they've got reasons that are, though. Beyond delivery hours, I wonder what the expiry clauses are.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 28, 2014 23:29:49 GMT
You might chuckle now, but we won't be chuckling when the forthcoming court case ends up with Rovers being awarded costs and loss of profit for the delay - a few million at best, and nothing like the £30m claimed. Sainsbury's don't want to build the store and they really, really don't want to pay us the full "agreed" value. So we will have to sue them. And they will defend themselves. I can think of some reasons they could put forward that a court might decide were reasonable grounds to pull out of the deal at minimal costs to themselves: 1) At the time the agreement was signed, store trading conditions were very different. Market changes since that time have made the store non-viable. 2) The extensive delays caused by TRASH and other objectors were not the fault of Sainsbury's, but are now requiring them to pay for a store that would have been seen as a valid project in 2012, but can no longer be seen that way by 2016 (or whenever the proposed store would open). 3) The market value of land with planning permission for a superstore is today, and will be in the future, far below that foreseen at the time of agreement. 4) The adverse publicity raised by objectors to those in the local community has damaged the image and reputation of the company and proposed store, and as such the agreement as originally signed is no longer valid. I'm sure Sainsbury's lawyers (having been made enormous amounts as an incentive), will think of many other persuasive arguments in their favour. We'll have to fork out several hundred thousands of ££s to fight this. Maybe an out-of-court settlement will happen. Maybe they'll pay for a new stand at the redeveloped Mem. But I can see no way we'll get £30m from them and go on to build the UWE, or at least not a UWE as we have understood it. They did a deal for land subject to planning permission, which was granted. Booho that the climate hasn't gone there way. They owe the money and soon it will be time to pay up. But the planning permission the contract demands wasn't granted, that's why the deal hasn't gone through. Boohoo.
|
|
Captain Jayho
Andy Tillson
Straight outta burrington...
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 472
|
Post by Captain Jayho on Oct 29, 2014 7:37:12 GMT
If Sainsbury's were confident they could break the contracts they would have just ignored Rovers request to proceed with the delivery hours appeal and just said "sue us". They did. They only appealed because the club served an injunction on them to do so a few days before the appeal window closed. Banging in an appeal to what they thought was a lost cause and didn't intend putting any effort into was the easier option than dropping everything and fighting a bloody injunction. The horse was led to water because it was ni skin off the horse's nose and it shut an irritant up: it has no intention of drinking. If the revised delivery hours get ratified then the horse is going to have to start pushing back pretty hard and pretty publicly in order not to drink though. I'm sure the horse has plenty of tricks (and money) hidden in it's legal saddlebag, but it's going to be pretty interesting to see how and what it devises to do that given the weight of pressure that will be upon it from BCC, BRFC and the local media.
|
|
lockleazer
Tarki Micalleff
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 411
|
Post by lockleazer on Oct 29, 2014 7:54:58 GMT
They did. They only appealed because the club served an injunction on them to do so a few days before the appeal window closed. Banging in an appeal to what they thought was a lost cause and didn't intend putting any effort into was the easier option than dropping everything and fighting a bloody injunction. The horse was led to water because it was ni skin off the horse's nose and it shut an irritant up: it has no intention of drinking. If the revised delivery hours get ratified then the horse is going to have to start pushing back pretty hard and pretty publicly in order not to drink though. I'm sure the horse has plenty of tricks (and money) hidden in it's legal saddlebag, but it's going to be pretty interesting to see how and what it devises to do that given the weight of pressure that will be upon it from BCC, BRFC and the local media. If BCC are firmly behind Rovers and the mem redevelopment it could be a major factor, im sure Sainsburys would want to open new smaller stores on BCC ran areas over the next few years and surely when they require planning permission for these stores BCC will have a memory of Sainsbury's trying to pick and choose when they actually want to build something and when they just spit the dummy out and refuse. Could be very tricky for them to get new stores in the future ?
|
|
|
Post by Topper Gas on Oct 29, 2014 8:31:47 GMT
Fine in theory but surely BCC would have to justify declining PP for any future stores not just because they bear a grudge?
Regardless if BCC do approve the new delivery times Sainsbury's will be under pressure to pay up, or pay a decent amount of compensation
|
|
Peter Parker
Global Moderator
Richard Walker
You have been sentenced to DELETION!
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 4,920
|
Post by Peter Parker on Oct 29, 2014 10:16:20 GMT
You might chuckle now, but we won't be chuckling when the forthcoming court case ends up with Rovers being awarded costs and loss of profit for the delay - a few million at best, and nothing like the £30m claimed. Sainsbury's don't want to build the store and they really, really don't want to pay us the full "agreed" value. So we will have to sue them. And they will defend themselves. I can think of some reasons they could put forward that a court might decide were reasonable grounds to pull out of the deal at minimal costs to themselves: 1) At the time the agreement was signed, store trading conditions were very different. Market changes since that time have made the store non-viable. 2) The extensive delays caused by TRASH and other objectors were not the fault of Sainsbury's, but are now requiring them to pay for a store that would have been seen as a valid project in 2012, but can no longer be seen that way by 2016 (or whenever the proposed store would open). 3) The market value of land with planning permission for a superstore is today, and will be in the future, far below that foreseen at the time of agreement. 4) The adverse publicity raised by objectors to those in the local community has damaged the image and reputation of the company and proposed store, and as such the agreement as originally signed is no longer valid. I'm sure Sainsbury's lawyers (having been made enormous amounts as an incentive), will think of many other persuasive arguments in their favour. We'll have to fork out several hundred thousands of ££s to fight this. Maybe an out-of-court settlement will happen. Maybe they'll pay for a new stand at the redeveloped Mem. But I can see no way we'll get £30m from them and go on to build the UWE, or at least not a UWE as we have understood it. They did a deal for land subject to planning permission, which was granted. Booho that the climate hasn't gone there way. They owe the money and soon it will be time to pay up. The point is they don't owe us any money yet.
Unless the delivery hours go through, they will be walking away. Sainsbury's know it and so do Rovers.
Even if they do go through, be prepared for the next delaying tactic whatever it is. There is no way Sainsburys are handing over £30m or whatever that easy
|
|
|
Post by bs20gas on Oct 29, 2014 10:28:47 GMT
The way things were explained to me was that there is not going to be a sainsburys built on the mem site(ever), B.R.F.C. are not wanting or trying to get compensation they want the full payment as originally agreed, so their wanting the delivery times and noise barrier to be allowed/granted permission and then they have kept to all the terms of the contract and sainsburys will have to fulfill there contractual obligations and pay us the money for the mem in full.
|
|
Captain Jayho
Andy Tillson
Straight outta burrington...
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 472
|
Post by Captain Jayho on Oct 29, 2014 10:54:04 GMT
The way things were explained to me was that there is not going to be a sainsburys built on the mem site(ever), B.R.F.C. are not wanting or trying to get compensation they want the full payment as originally agreed, so their wanting the delivery times and noise barrier to be allowed/granted permission and then they have kept to all the terms of the contract and sainsburys will have to fulfill there contractual obligations and pay us the money for the mem in full. If they paid up and land banked the site (or even onsold it) I would imagine it could get a bit uncomfortable from the perspective of what happens with the memorial garden that is meant to be built.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 29, 2014 10:56:56 GMT
The way things were explained to me was that there is not going to be a sainsburys built on the mem site(ever), B.R.F.C. are not wanting or trying to get compensation they want the full payment as originally agreed, so their wanting the delivery times and noise barrier to be allowed/granted permission and then they have kept to all the terms of the contract and sainsburys will have to fulfill there contractual obligations and pay us the money for the mem in full. In the real world that would be nice, but in the murky world of big business, a word here, a payment there and things get changed The UWE will be built but not completely funded by the proceeds from the mem Plan B is up and running and i'm sure Sir Nick will let us know when he can
|
|
faggotygas
Byron Anthony
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 1,862
|
Post by faggotygas on Oct 29, 2014 11:01:56 GMT
Keep taking the happy pills, life will get better You might chuckle now, but we won't be chuckling when the forthcoming court case ends up with Rovers being awarded costs and loss of profit for the delay - a few million at best, and nothing like the £30m claimed. Sainsbury's don't want to build the store and they really, really don't want to pay us the full "agreed" value. So we will have to sue them. And they will defend themselves. I can think of some reasons they could put forward that a court might decide were reasonable grounds to pull out of the deal at minimal costs to themselves: 1) At the time the agreement was signed, store trading conditions were very different. Market changes since that time have made the store non-viable. 2) The extensive delays caused by TRASH and other objectors were not the fault of Sainsbury's, but are now requiring them to pay for a store that would have been seen as a valid project in 2012, but can no longer be seen that way by 2016 (or whenever the proposed store would open). 3) The market value of land with planning permission for a superstore is today, and will be in the future, far below that foreseen at the time of agreement. 4) The adverse publicity raised by objectors to those in the local community has damaged the image and reputation of the company and proposed store, and as such the agreement as originally signed is no longer valid. I'm sure Sainsbury's lawyers (having been made enormous amounts as an incentive), will think of many other persuasive arguments in their favour. We'll have to fork out several hundred thousands of ££s to fight this. Maybe an out-of-court settlement will happen. Maybe they'll pay for a new stand at the redeveloped Mem. But I can see no way we'll get £30m from them and go on to build the UWE, or at least not a UWE as we have understood it. I can't see how any of those things make the contact impossible to perform, which is the only legitimate reason for breaching a contract. We may not get £30m, but compensatory damages are awarded, then that must be sufficient to put the injured party in mostly the same position as if the contract breaker had performed their obligations. So if the market value of the MEM has decreased, then Sainsburys would have to fully compensate us for that. They signed a contract. As long as the terms of that contract are met, and one side meets its contractual obligations, then the other side also has to as well. Think of it as if you had exchanged contract on a house, and the market falls through. That doesn't mean that the contract is no longer valid.
|
|
LJG
Peter Beadle
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 969
|
Post by LJG on Oct 29, 2014 11:47:47 GMT
You might chuckle now, but we won't be chuckling when the forthcoming court case ends up with Rovers being awarded costs and loss of profit for the delay - a few million at best, and nothing like the £30m claimed. Sainsbury's don't want to build the store and they really, really don't want to pay us the full "agreed" value. So we will have to sue them. And they will defend themselves. I can think of some reasons they could put forward that a court might decide were reasonable grounds to pull out of the deal at minimal costs to themselves: 1) At the time the agreement was signed, store trading conditions were very different. Market changes since that time have made the store non-viable. 2) The extensive delays caused by TRASH and other objectors were not the fault of Sainsbury's, but are now requiring them to pay for a store that would have been seen as a valid project in 2012, but can no longer be seen that way by 2016 (or whenever the proposed store would open). 3) The market value of land with planning permission for a superstore is today, and will be in the future, far below that foreseen at the time of agreement. 4) The adverse publicity raised by objectors to those in the local community has damaged the image and reputation of the company and proposed store, and as such the agreement as originally signed is no longer valid. I'm sure Sainsbury's lawyers (having been made enormous amounts as an incentive), will think of many other persuasive arguments in their favour. We'll have to fork out several hundred thousands of ££s to fight this. Maybe an out-of-court settlement will happen. Maybe they'll pay for a new stand at the redeveloped Mem. But I can see no way we'll get £30m from them and go on to build the UWE, or at least not a UWE as we have understood it. I can't see how any of those things make the contact impossible to perform, which is the only legitimate reason for breaching a contract. We may not get £30m, but compensatory damages are awarded, then that must be sufficient to put the injured party in mostly the same position as if the contract breaker had performed their obligations. So if the market value of the MEM has decreased, then Sainsburys would have to fully compensate us for that. They signed a contract. As long as the terms of that contract are met, and one side meets its contractual obligations, then the other side also has to as well. Think of it as if you had exchanged contract on a house, and the market falls through. That doesn't mean that the contract is no longer valid. Exactly - there's no recourse simply because you're the net loser on a deal and with hindsight you wish you'd never entered it. It'd be like returning half a tin of sardines to the supermarket because new research has found they're not actually a good source of Omega 3.
|
|