faggotygas
Byron Anthony
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 1,862
|
Post by faggotygas on Nov 13, 2014 15:55:10 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. Ah, get you. Well I guess its possible.
|
|
|
Post by lulworthgas on Nov 13, 2014 16:17:12 GMT
Agree with the last few posts - sainsburys would have been long gone if it was that easy to leave the contract. All the stores that they walked away from this year either had parts in the contract that were not met, had a jr from another supermarket against them or the land they were building on was lease hold. The most interesting one is hinkley where they tried walking away but the council fought them as all contract conditions were met. Sainsbury ended up back tracking and have now reaffirmed their commitment to building the store after publicly stating that they were withdrawing! This case gives me hope that regardless of how billy big swollocks sainsburys lawyers think they are, BRFC have them over a barrel.
|
|
|
Post by Finnish Gas on Nov 13, 2014 16:46:03 GMT
|
|
|
Post by PeterHooper57 on Nov 13, 2014 19:55:38 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 What happened to your "Nick Higgs reign will be in tatters this week" ?? Nick Higgs great chairman, two relegations in four years, cut the playing budget by 50% when the gates are as good as last year, IMO I am watching the worse team to ever represent BRFC in the last fifty years, no goal scorer, a manager who is unable to attract any decent players. I must admit I am am surprised the councillors changing their mind on block and voted in favour of rovers, maybe there was a three line whip, or maybe there is an election next year. Still a long way from building a new stadium, sainsburys are not going to be bullied by Nick Higgs. Their decision to buy or not to buy from Nick will not be decided on how and when a lorry can enter the site. Only time will tell.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 13, 2014 20:00:31 GMT
What did DC say when you got on the coach and told him all that
|
|
faggotygas
Byron Anthony
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 1,862
|
Post by faggotygas on Nov 13, 2014 21:09:29 GMT
The things that worry me are the conditions that were waived. Could they not be un-waived?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 13, 2014 21:55:57 GMT
What happened to your "Nick Higgs reign will be in tatters this week" ?? Nick Higgs great chairman, two relegations in four years, cut the playing budget by 50% when the gates are as good as last year, IMO I am watching the worse team to ever represent BRFC in the last fifty years, no goal scorer, a manager who is unable to attract any decent players. I must admit I am am surprised the councillors changing their mind on block and voted in favour of rovers, maybe there was a three line whip, or maybe there is an election next year. Still a long way from building a new stadium, sainsburys are not going to be bullied by Nick Higgs. Their decision to buy or not to buy from Nick will not be decided on how and when a lorry can enter the site. Only time will tell. To be fair, gates are not the be-all and end-all of our income difference this season. Collective sponsorship, TV money etc have all fallen due to our relegation. I believe there is one season's worth of parachute payments but I doubt it will cover the whole of the fall in income. There also seem to have been more ticket give aways, special deals etc this season so numbers through the gate won't tell the whole story. Planning committee cotes are unwhipped I believe
|
|
|
Post by CountyGroundHotel on Nov 13, 2014 22:06:24 GMT
The things that worry me are the conditions that were waived. Could they not be un-waived? I guess it depends if they were waived in writing or verbally.
|
|
womble
Arthur Cartlidge
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 300
|
Post by womble on Nov 13, 2014 22:35:20 GMT
What happened to your "Nick Higgs reign will be in tatters this week" ?? Nick Higgs great chairman, two relegations in four years, cut the playing budget by 50% when the gates are as good as last year, IMO I am watching the worse team to ever represent BRFC in the last fifty years, no goal scorer, a manager who is unable to attract any decent players. I must admit I am am surprised the councillors changing their mind on block and voted in favour of rovers, maybe there was a three line whip, or maybe there is an election next year. Still a long way from building a new stadium, sainsburys are not going to be bullied by Nick Higgs. Their decision to buy or not to buy from Nick will not be decided on how and when a lorry can enter the site. Only time will tell. Why would you be surprised about the councillors voting in favour? I am not aware of Rovers ever having had a planning application refused.
|
|
|
Post by bluebeard on Nov 13, 2014 22:55:13 GMT
Nick Higgs great chairman, two relegations in four years, cut the playing budget by 50% when the gates are as good as last year, IMO I am watching the worse team to ever represent BRFC in the last fifty years, no goal scorer, a manager who is unable to attract any decent players. I must admit I am am surprised the councillors changing their mind on block and voted in favour of rovers, maybe there was a three line whip, or maybe there is an election next year. Still a long way from building a new stadium, sainsburys are not going to be bullied by Nick Higgs. Their decision to buy or not to buy from Nick will not be decided on how and when a lorry can enter the site. Only time will tell. Why would you be surprised about the councillors voting in favour? I am not aware of Rovers ever having had a planning application refused. Probably because we were being told that the extended delivery hours were unprecedented?
|
|
|
Post by bluebeard on Nov 13, 2014 22:57:26 GMT
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.... Seems to me you're just as bad
|
|
nerdgas
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 145
|
Post by nerdgas on Nov 13, 2014 23:05:44 GMT
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.... Seems to me you're just as bad Well that's your opinion. Won't change mine based upon Swampy's behaviour I've witnessed over many years on various forums.
|
|
LPGas
Stuart Taylor
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 1,240
|
Post by LPGas on Nov 13, 2014 23:09:51 GMT
What happened to your "Nick Higgs reign will be in tatters this week" ?? Nick Higgs great chairman, two relegations in four years, cut the playing budget by 50% when the gates are as good as last year, IMO I am watching the worse team to ever represent BRFC in the last fifty years, no goal scorer, a manager who is unable to attract any decent players. I must admit I am am surprised the councillors changing their mind on block and voted in favour of rovers, maybe there was a three line whip, or maybe there is an election next year. Still a long way from building a new stadium, sainsburys are not going to be bullied by Nick Higgs. Their decision to buy or not to buy from Nick will not be decided on how and when a lorry can enter the site. Only time will tell. Wrong, the worst team were last years team who couldn't give a toss, and the worst manager was Ward, who told us we didn't need a striker, and who let the players go out drinking when they wanted. At least we have some discipline, not to mention a manager with half the budget of Ward. Add to this a lot of part time players don't want to go full time as they have good jobs, and that's what makes being manager of BRFC so f**king hard, especially when he has numptys like you on his back.
Supporter? Only in your dreams
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 13, 2014 23:37:52 GMT
Actually, ill discipline in the squad's private time was Ward's downfall first time around as well
|
|
faggotygas
Byron Anthony
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 1,862
|
Post by faggotygas on Nov 14, 2014 8:01:19 GMT
The things that worry me are the conditions that were waived. Could they not be un-waived? I guess it depends if they were waived in writing or verbally. Yeah that would come into it. But maybe even if waived in writing, they could say that circumstances have changed? Long way to go with this, I fear.
|
|
|
Post by CountyGroundHotel on Nov 14, 2014 10:25:26 GMT
I guess it depends if they were waived in writing or verbally. Yeah that would come into it. But maybe even if waived in writing, they could say that circumstances have changed? Long way to go with this, I fear. I would think legally if it was agreed in writing by both parties to the contract to waive or remove those onerous conditions then it would also require the agreement of both parties to reinstate them.
|
|
|
Post by droitwichgas on Nov 14, 2014 11:30:10 GMT
You sense the only defence Sainsbury's can now use is that it's taken so long to get full pp the deals not what they entered into originally, whether they'll use that defence, and if the courts will accept it is a reasonable one, is anybody's guess at present.
|
|
|
Post by bluebeard on Nov 14, 2014 13:16:45 GMT
From personal experience I can tell you that although a court may sympathise with external factors, a properly drafted contract is binding and enforceable. If one party is unwilling but able to complete they will be made to do so. If the party is unable to complete, an out of court settlement or compromise is usually in everyone's best interests. However, from a legal perspective, not getting a good deal or simply not having the money to proceed is irrelevant. Sainsbury's may feel now that they're not getting a good deal but they clearly have the funds to complete the purchase. Unless there are obvious loopholes in the contract it doesn't matter how good their lawyers are, they don't have a leg to stand on. This bit is speculation, but I think the courts will recognise deliberate delaying tactics so there is a real risk of Sainsbury's incurring substantial additional damages if they try to string it out. If I was J Sainsbury Esq I would go through the contract one last time then reach for my cheque book. Kerching. UTG
|
|
faggotygas
Byron Anthony
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 1,862
|
Post by faggotygas on Nov 14, 2014 13:17:03 GMT
Yeah that would come into it. But maybe even if waived in writing, they could say that circumstances have changed? Long way to go with this, I fear. I would think legally if it was agreed in writing by both parties to the contract to waive or remove those onerous conditions then it would also require the agreement of both parties to reinstate them. I don't know, for a contract to be valid both parties have to give something of value, so if the waiver was unilateral... Goes beyond my rough contract law knowledge.
|
|
faggotygas
Byron Anthony
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 1,862
|
Post by faggotygas on Nov 14, 2014 13:19:53 GMT
From personal experience I can tell you that although a court may sympathise with external factors, a properly drafted contract is binding and enforceable. If one party is unwilling but able to complete they will be made to do so. If the party is unable to complete, an out of court settlement or compromise is usually in everyone's best interests. However, from a legal perspective, not getting a good deal or simply not having the money to proceed is irrelevant. Sainsbury's may feel now that they're not getting a good deal but they clearly have the funds to complete the purchase. Unless there are obvious loopholes in the contract it doesn't matter how good their lawyers are, they don't have a leg to stand on. This bit is speculation, but I think the courts will recognise deliberate delaying tactics so there is a real risk of Sainsbury's incurring substantial additional damages if they try to string it out. If I was J Sainsbury Esq I would go through the contract one last time then reach for my cheque book. Kerching. UTG Contract law is a branch of equity though, I think, so maybe the passage of time could be a mitigating factor? Like you though, I think probably not. Hope not anyway
|
|