|
Post by lulworthgas on Nov 14, 2014 13:21:07 GMT
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. Isn't Higgs supposed to be belling them up today? Some need would be nice as sainsburys silence is deafening
|
|
|
Post by bluebeard on Nov 14, 2014 13:47:36 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 In the absence of a specific deadline, I think that passage of time would only be a mitigant if neither party had made any effort to complete the contract. In this case, BRFC has clearly been doing everything required to fulfil its obligations. I'm optimistic about this. But then again, I was probably the last person on Earth to give up on the Mem redevelopment and I was convinced we would score a last minute equaliser against Mansfield!
|
|
faggotygas
Byron Anthony
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 1,862
|
Post by faggotygas on Nov 14, 2014 14:00:00 GMT
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 In the absence of a specific deadline, I think that passage of time would only be a mitigant if neither party had made any effort to complete the contract. In this case, BRFC has clearly been doing everything required to fulfil its obligations. I'm optimistic about this. But then again, I was probably the last person on Earth to give up on the Mem redevelopment and I was convinced we would score a last minute equaliser against Mansfield! That's a very good point. Applies to all of your points...
|
|
|
Post by frenchgashead on Nov 14, 2014 15:20:26 GMT
Surely the point is that if Sainsbury's believe they have a possible get out they will probably use it. They will say that something means that the contract is no longer valid. BRFC will have to sue them to complete the contract. This means a long and expensive court case. There are always two views of a contract - NH may say the contract is 'watertight' but Sainsbury's lawyers may say it isn't. Then it's up to the judge to decide. Can BRFC afford such a case especially if Sainsbury's offer a settlement in court? Money now and each side pays its own costs or a long battle which BRFC may or may not win and if they lose have to pay costs.
|
|
|
Post by bluebeard on Nov 14, 2014 15:35:29 GMT
Surely the point is that if Sainsbury's believe they have a possible get out they will probably use it. They will say that something means that the contract is no longer valid. BRFC will have to sue them to complete the contract. This means a long and expensive court case. There are always two views of a contract - NH may say the contract is 'watertight' but Sainsbury's lawyers may say it isn't. Then it's up to the judge to decide. Can BRFC afford such a case especially if Sainsbury's offer a settlement in court? Money now and each side pays its own costs or a long battle which BRFC may or may not win and if they lose have to pay costs. Yes we all know Sainsburys are looking for a get out but a contract should not be ambiguous. The grey areas will be whether provisions of the contract have been met. In this case it appears that they now have. Court cases are expensive but they don't necessarily have to be long and drawn out. If Sainsburys have the best lawyers they will get the best advice. Those with access to all of the facts will know the probable outcome in advance. We may have to call their bluff initially but it wouldn't surprise me if this never gets as far as court.
|
|
|
Post by PeterHooper57 on Nov 14, 2014 20:23:29 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. 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******g hard, especially when he has numptys like you on his back.
Supporter? Only in your dreams
Blah Blah Blah, easy to name call from behind a keyboard. Seems you have all the right opinions and all the answers. I dont remember anybody slagging off John Ward when we were at Twerton and neither when we were rock bottom at Christmas and he kept the team up two seasons ago.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 15, 2014 14:17:35 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.
The Is and Ts again. That was what they said in March. The PR man might have advised a different phrase to one that's already been used. So, in percentage terms, what confidence do people have that we will be on site in March? I'll go for about 12. It can't be 0 - it's possible - though if this decision had gone the other way it would have been nearer that than 12: this has upped it. The conviction that all is now sorted strikes me as risky. We thought that before the writ telling us Sainsbury's statements and mentioning the get out clauses; we just had a slight sense that things seemed mysteriously quiet, answered by the Is and Ts line. This has addressed one get-out clause but left the intent of all parties the sme. Basically, we don't know and are being told doddle squit other than bullish statements from people who have peddled them before. As for on site in March: 12% confidence in that from me.
|
|
|
Post by Antonio Fargas on Nov 15, 2014 14:19:58 GMT
3
no, 2
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 15, 2014 14:29:24 GMT
0.00000000000000000000001%
As you said, it is possible.
|
|
|
Post by Topper Gas on Nov 15, 2014 14:30:47 GMT
To be fair I doubt our BoD have a clue what Sainsbury's next move will be any more than we do?
They could just pay up, offer us compensation, or just say the deals off sue us if you feel the contracts are watertight.
|
|
brizzle
Lindsay Parsons
No Buy . . . No Sell!
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 4,293
|
Post by brizzle on Nov 15, 2014 14:54:37 GMT
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******g hard, especially when he has numptys like you on his back.
Supporter? Only in your dreams
Blah Blah Blah, easy to name call from behind a keyboard. Seems you have all the right opinions and all the answers. I dont remember anybody slagging off John Ward when we were at Twerton and neither when we were rock bottom at Christmas and he kept the team up two seasons ago. No? Well I most certainly do then, and I'm not even talking about his teams negative tactics neither. What I do remember was that as John Ward was approaching the end of his managerial contract, he entered into negotiations with BRFC to extend it. In time a deal was agreed with the club, and that deal remained on the table and unsigned by John Ward. But in the meantime Ward had been attending interviews for positions with other clubs, but these interviews all came to nothing. He then returned to the deal that was awaiting his signature, and said that he was now prepared to sign. BRFC having become aware of Ward's efforts to leave promptly took the offer of a contract off the table, leaving Ward to run down his existing contract and leave the club at the end of the season. Lots of supporters weren't too happy with John Ward's efforts, on or off the pitch.
|
|
|
Post by onedaytheuwe on Nov 15, 2014 17:12:33 GMT
Good news we won 7-2 on the vote. It will put pressure on Sainsburys to offer us a good amount. However : Do I think the UWE will happen ? NO!. I think it is about comp : readdressing our debts and expenditure on UWE project . And maybe leaving a bit behind for the club..
|
|
gas2
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 218
|
Post by gas2 on Nov 16, 2014 8:44:14 GMT
sky news saying sainsburys are planning to bulldoze the mem after there new t v advert is about the first world war there is a story about it in one ofd todays papers not sure whitch one tho its all about the mem gates
|
|
|
Post by Antonio Fargas on Nov 16, 2014 9:33:10 GMT
It's in the Sunday Times ‘Hypocritical’ Sainsbury’s in plan to bulldoze war memorial stadium ITS Christmas advertisement depicting the truce between British and German soldiers in the trenches 100 years ago has struck a chord with the public. But Sainsbury’s has been accused of hypocrisy over plans to build a superstore on a sports ground built in memory of those who fell during the First World War. www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/news/uk_news/article1484442.ece?CMP=OTH-gnws-standard-2014_11_15If anyone has access to the site, could they post a 'synopsis' please?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 16, 2014 9:47:29 GMT
Carstairs has finally found an audience, it seems.
I expect he thought all his Christmases had come at once when he saw the advert.
|
|
|
Post by Mr Pond on Nov 16, 2014 13:27:41 GMT
|
|
|
Post by a more piratey game on Nov 16, 2014 15:06:08 GMT
this looks significant to me - in that whatever they say, they feel sufficiently conflicted/bound by the 'watertight contract' that they can't publicly acknowledge that they no longer want it
|
|
|
Post by Mr Pond on Nov 16, 2014 16:57:53 GMT
|
|
gas2
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 218
|
Post by gas2 on Nov 16, 2014 18:05:45 GMT
it also says that there is a small reduction in the number of stores being built
|
|
|
Post by matealotblue on Nov 16, 2014 18:42:50 GMT
Carstairs has finally found an audience, it seems. I expect he thought all his Christmases had come at once when he saw the advert. The last twitchings of a dying has been.
|
|