|
Post by ellington on Nov 12, 2014 21:14:15 GMT
I found this article extremely interesting.
"The move came as the supermarket conducted a strategic review which saw it write off £287m off the value of its property portfolio, mainly due to land bought which will now no longer be developed. Of this charge, £31m related to contracts it has already entered into which will not be needed."
This sounds as if they have already allowed for this if the onerous condition was met which unfortunately for them it has ,so maybe they'll part with the money and recoup by other means at a loss to perhaps housing or land bank until the market changes.
|
|
faggotygas
Byron Anthony
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 1,862
|
Post by faggotygas on Nov 12, 2014 21:25:42 GMT
For those who perceive that Sainsburys offering us compensation of any amount is great, thank god you are not acting on behalf of the club. Why would they offer anything? If they think the contract has failed for any reason, they will pay nowt. If they offer anything, that is tantamount to admitting they have breached the terms of the contract, so we then go for full payment. More to the point, who will ever trust Sainsburys in any future dealings with anyone if they think they can just walk away from any contract they don't like. Remember the council have also laid out a hell if a lot of money on issues relating to the development of the Mem site. What does strike me as odd though, is that there were no club directors at the meeting today. Toni the Till was there but is not a director, and basically added nothing to the debate Eddie Ware was outside the council house before the meeting with TW, but did not come in to the meeting. What's all that about? Enforcement of the contract isn't the only waythat a judge can deal with a breach of contact - they can alternatively anull the contract and award compensatory damages. In the best case scenario, that would mean Rovers finding someone else to buy the land and being awarded compensation for loss of value of the land, costs, and loss of income due to unreasonable delays in Sainsburys part.
|
|
|
Post by ellington on Nov 12, 2014 21:31:29 GMT
For those who perceive that Sainsburys offering us compensation of any amount is great, thank god you are not acting on behalf of the club. Why would they offer anything? If they think the contract has failed for any reason, they will pay nowt. If they offer anything, that is tantamount to admitting they have breached the terms of the contract, so we then go for full payment. More to the point, who will ever trust Sainsburys in any future dealings with anyone if they think they can just walk away from any contract they don't like. Remember the council have also laid out a hell if a lot of money on issues relating to the development of the Mem site. What does strike me as odd though, is that there were no club directors at the meeting today. Toni the Till was there but is not a director, and basically added nothing to the debate Eddie Ware was outside the council house before the meeting with TW, but did not come in to the meeting. What's all that about? Enforcement of the contract isn't the only waythat a judge can deal with a breach of contact - they can alternatively anull the contract and award compensatory damages. In the best case scenario, that would mean Rovers finding someone else to buy the land and being awarded compensation for loss of value of the land, costs, and loss of income due to unreasonable delays in Sainsburys part. Surely the best case scenario however likely would be that Sainsburys pay the full contracted amount plus costs etc etc £31 million , then we can build
|
|
|
Post by brovers90 on Nov 12, 2014 23:48:40 GMT
This is great news for Nick Higgs, it will certainly improve his negotiating position when settling a claim for damages. Sainsburys are a massive business, they are not going to be forced into buying the MEM because of the enhanced opening hours; their strategic position going forward is to open smaller high street shops. Sainsburys will do what they want, we all know deep down Higgs will need to look for a new business partner. This whole **** fest to be honest has got in the way of the football, and IMO contributed in part to Higgs taking his eye off the ball and club being relegated twice since he took office in Box 1. UTG Sainsburys will not "do what they like" they are bound to a contract like anyone else would be. Our legal system simply doesn't work like that. Anything to knock the board though eh
|
|
faggotygas
Byron Anthony
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 1,862
|
Post by faggotygas on Nov 13, 2014 6:13:20 GMT
Enforcement of the contract isn't the only waythat a judge can deal with a breach of contact - they can alternatively anull the contract and award compensatory damages. In the best case scenario, that would mean Rovers finding someone else to buy the land and being awarded compensation for loss of value of the land, costs, and loss of income due to unreasonable delays in Sainsburys part. Surely the best case scenario however likely would be that Sainsburys pay the full contracted amount plus costs etc etc £31 million , then we can build I mean best case scenario in the event that compensatory damages are awarded rather than performance of the contract
|
|
|
Post by frenchgashead on Nov 13, 2014 7:11:54 GMT
Until we know what is actually in the contract we don't know if Sainsbury's have got an easy let out - say for example there was a time clause by which the sale had to be completed or something else in the small print. All they have to do is find an arguable point and let it all go to court when BRFC try to enforce the contract. On the other hand they might buy the Mem and then not incur the costs of building the store and then try and sell it off. TRASH can't appeal against planning permission being granted but they can try another JR about the procedure used - that BCC didn't take sufficient account of some aspect.
|
|
Peter Parker
Global Moderator
Richard Walker
You have been sentenced to DELETION!
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 4,920
|
Post by Peter Parker on Nov 13, 2014 7:44:27 GMT
Until we know what is actually in the contract we don't know if Sainsbury's have got an easy let out - say for example there was a time clause by which the sale had to be completed or something else in the small print. All they have to do is find an arguable point and let it all go to court when BRFC try to enforce the contract. On the other hand they might buy the Mem and then not incur the costs of building the store and then try and sell it off. TRASH can't appeal against planning permission being granted but they can try another JR about the procedure used - that BCC didn't take sufficient account of some aspect. exactly, and even the words Rover shave used are more grounded. I am sure they ar emore hopeful now this bridge has been crossed, but I think they are preparing themselves
"We will make contact with Sainburys in the next 48 hours and set out what we now expect of them. Hopefully that will meet with a positive response and we will be able to move the project forwards."
“If we meet the terms of the contract then we expect to complete.”
We have, or are going to make our position clear. Whether Sainsbury's want to play fair (contract or not) is up to them
|
|
|
Post by Topper Gas on Nov 13, 2014 8:54:10 GMT
Those were in response to the interviewer who was clearly trying to imply Sainsbury's weren't going to play ball. It seems probably only the Sainsbury's BoD know how they are going to respond now, they could well have legal advice saying pay up or they will lose big time if they don't.
We'll just have to wait and see!!
|
|
|
Post by Antonio Fargas on Nov 13, 2014 9:02:36 GMT
What I don't get, and don't recall it ever being explained, is how (or whether) under such a water-tight contract the delivery times extension managed to become a vital factor. Surely if it was water-tight, this should have been irrelevant. And if this was a legitimate loophole, why aren't there others?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 13, 2014 9:31:54 GMT
Until we know what is actually in the contract we don't know if Sainsbury's have got an easy let out - say for example there was a time clause by which the sale had to be completed or something else in the small print. All they have to do is find an arguable point and let it all go to court when BRFC try to enforce the contract. On the other hand they might buy the Mem and then not incur the costs of building the store and then try and sell it off. TRASH can't appeal against planning permission being granted but they can try another JR about the procedure used - that BCC didn't take sufficient account of some aspect. We don't know if Sainsburys have got an easy get out? They don't because they would have been long gone up the road if they did! Your time clause example would be covered by the threat of a writ coming sainsburys way for deliberately causing that/any delay I would hope.Yesterdays decision draws the line in the sand and sainsburys will now have to work out what is the most economical way for them to proceed.Trash are potless aren't they? Begging bowls could be out again though I suppose.
|
|
Igitur
Joined: June 2014
Posts: 2,294
|
Post by Igitur on Nov 13, 2014 9:47:02 GMT
From the OS:
Councillors have today granted planning permission to increase the number of delivery hours to the proposed Sainsburys supermarket at the Memorial Stadium site by a vote of 7-2.
Bristol Rovers Finance Director Toni Watola said “We are very relieved and very satisfied that the officers recommendation was approved by the committee which is another hurdle that we have now got over.
“There are a number of hurdles that we have to get over, this is probably the biggest of those but we still have a few I’s to dot and T’s to cross however, none of them should be a problem in terms of us completing the contract.
“We look forward to progressing with all of our partners and as a club hope that we can get ourselves in a position to be on site next March”.
Earlier today it was reported that Sainsbury’s are set to withdraw funding from new stores, but Toni Watola insisted that the club has a contract in place.
“We’ve read the press the same as everyone else and there clearly are some issues but we must remember that Sainsburys have a contract with us.
“If we meet the terms of the contract then we expect to complete.”
I wonder what the 'is' we need to dot and 'ts' we need to cross are.
|
|
|
Post by CountyGroundHotel on Nov 13, 2014 9:54:49 GMT
What I don't get, and don't recall it ever being explained, is how (or whether) under such a water-tight contract the delivery times extension managed to become a vital factor. Surely if it was water-tight, this should have been irrelevant. And if this was a legitimate loophole, why aren't there others? And on the flipside it's never been explained how if the contract isn't watertight & is full of holes & Sainsburys want out why they haven't already cancelled the contract. Given their last trading update this week they would've got out of every contract they could've prior to that to improve their outlook.
|
|
|
Post by theroversram on Nov 13, 2014 10:21:24 GMT
Agree with the last few posts - sainsburys would have been long gone if it was that easy to leave the contract.
|
|
faggotygas
Byron Anthony
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 1,862
|
Post by faggotygas on Nov 13, 2014 10:23:14 GMT
I think perhaps you are right KP, but it just struck me as odd that he was with TW outside on Park Street then didn't come in to the meeting. TW isn't breaching any confidentiality over this (honest I'm not trying to defend him) he is just stating fact. It would take over two months to drum up the plant required to commence the stadium, and that is January. Why not start in sensible weather in March. After all it would still be completed by June 2016 leaving plenty of time for the trial games and H&S sign offs. Glad I'm not related to PeterHooper 57. I get depressed over his depression.What part of punitive damages don't you understand? They were legislated for, for just this kind of thing. Big bar stewards thinking they can run roughshod over little bar stewards. You can't just pick and choose your contracts no matter who you are. They carry the weight of law. Just think, if Sainsburys drag their feet we might end up with another £10m to buy a team with. Happy days. Why do you think punitive damages instead of compensatory damages toteend?
|
|
|
Post by stevek192 on Nov 13, 2014 10:33:57 GMT
The trounle here is that instead of just sitting and await the final outcome like sensible people would ,most prefer to speculate over every issue not knowing full facts but only the facts they want to know to back up their case. I will hold back from any criticism or praise until a final decision is made and we are then aware of the full facts. All this scare mongering is doing no one any good whatsoever and we would all be better putting our energies into supporting the club and let the worrying stay where it should be- in the Boardroom.
|
|
nerdgas
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 145
|
Post by nerdgas on Nov 13, 2014 10:42:23 GMT
Is there really any need for this? grow up man (not you jools). Water off of a Ducks back Oxon. Thanks though. I think 99.9 % see Paul in the same light anyway and I will avoid replying henceforth as it obviously gives him the little joy he gets from the poor attempt at being a WUM. Thing is, a decent WUM can be funny, look at JONOGAS. I really do pity the guy. I can't take anyone seriously who stands for an SC director position and then blubbers in front of a small group of 20 people about how having to stand up and give a speech on his suitability for the position is, in his words, 'unfair'. The guys a spineless tw@t and I'm surprised any of you rise to him or even pay him any attention. As you say he seems to think working as a shop boy for the SC provides him justification to attack other supporters. The blokes a knob....
|
|
faggotygas
Byron Anthony
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 1,862
|
Post by faggotygas on Nov 13, 2014 11:07:14 GMT
The trounle here is that instead of just sitting and await the final outcome like sensible people would ,most prefer to speculate over every issue not knowing full facts but only the facts they want to know to back up their case. I will hold back from any criticism or praise until a final decision is made and we are then aware of the full facts. All this scare mongering is doing no one any good whatsoever and we would all be better putting our energies into supporting the club and let the worrying stay where it should be- in the Boardroom. Human nature. Doubt it does any harm anyway.
|
|
|
Post by gasparilla on Nov 13, 2014 13:16:24 GMT
The bottom line is that Sainsburys lawyers are bigger than ours and their pockets significantly deeper. Whilst pleasantly surprised by this news all it does is strengthen the Boards position in negotiating a settlement. A lengthy and expensive court action will serve only to line lawyers pockets and take us beyond the point when the window of opportunity for the UWE stadium to close.
|
|
|
Post by Curly Wurly on Nov 13, 2014 13:20:52 GMT
The bottom line is that Sainsburys lawyers are bigger than ours and their pockets significantly deeper. Whilst pleasantly surprised by this news all it does is strengthen the Boards position in negotiating a settlement. A lengthy and expensive court action will serve only to line lawyers pockets and take us beyond the point when the window of opportunity for the UWE stadium to close. "We're J Sainsbury's....we'll do want we want" Maybe, maybe not.
|
|
toteend
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 305
|
Post by toteend on Nov 13, 2014 15:53:08 GMT
Faggotygas. The reason I said punitive damages was in response to many posters saying that Sainsburys would now drag it out for years. That is what attracts punitive damages.
Compensatory damages are a totally different entity as you know, but I can't be bothered to go down that route now.
|
|