The Gas
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 484
|
Post by The Gas on Dec 16, 2014 13:11:59 GMT
The Contract for the sale of The Mem was signed ages ago.
However, it can only be completed when ALL conditions that are in the Contract have been completed and we are NOT at that stage. TW has confirmed that there are still i's to dot and t's to cross and until these have ALL been completed Sainsbury have every right to say that the Contract cannot be enforced as ALL the conditions have not yet been met. I am under the impression that we have completed all the conditions of the S106 so that is not an issue.
So it is no good trying to sue Sainsbury at the moment as until we have completed ALL the contract conditions, we would fail in the action. When the club have dealt with all the outstanding matters, then is the time to ask Sainsbury to make payment on the completed contract.
TW confirmed to me that the above was correct, after the Wellling game
|
|
co3
Joined: September 2014
Posts: 34
|
Post by co3 on Dec 16, 2014 13:14:48 GMT
Time to wake up and smell the coffee uwe isn't and will not happen higgs is the one stalling not Sainsburys he is the one feeding everyone crap to take the pressure off him ull all see by Feb rovers will end up with no more then 5 million in compo and Sainsburys will be happy with that!
|
|
faggotygas
Byron Anthony
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 1,862
|
Post by faggotygas on Dec 16, 2014 13:20:19 GMT
Time to wake up and smell the coffee uwe isn't and will not happen higgs is the one stalling not Sainsburys he is the one feeding everyone crap to take the pressure off him ull all see by Feb rovers will end up with no more then 5 million in compo and Sainsburys will be happy with that! Hi c03, what are you basing that on please? Just a hunch?
|
|
The Gas
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 484
|
Post by The Gas on Dec 16, 2014 13:22:38 GMT
Time to wake up and smell the coffee uwe isn't and will not happen higgs is the one stalling not Sainsburys he is the one feeding everyone crap to take the pressure off him ull all see by Feb rovers will end up with no more then 5 million in compo and Sainsburys will be happy with that! I'd love to hear your evidence of the above statement "higgs is the one stalling not Sainsburys".
Have you spoken to NH, TW or EW, if not, you are just assuming that.
I am NOT saying that I am 100% confident that Sainsbury will pay us, in fact, I have reduced my 90% confidence to 50/50.
|
|
Peter Parker
Global Moderator
Richard Walker
You have been sentenced to DELETION!
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 4,920
|
Post by Peter Parker on Dec 16, 2014 13:30:02 GMT
The Contract for the sale of The Mem was signed ages ago.
However, it can only be completed when ALL conditions that are in the Contract have been completed and we are NOT at that stage. TW has confirmed that there are still i's to dot and t's to cross and until these have ALL been completed Sainsbury have every right to say that the Contract cannot be enforced as ALL the conditions have not yet been met. I am under the impression that we have completed all the conditions of the S106 so that is not an issue.
So it is no good trying to sue Sainsbury at the moment as until we have completed ALL the contract conditions, we would fail in the action. When the club have dealt with all the outstanding matters, then is the time to ask Sainsbury to make payment on the completed contract.
TW confirmed to me that the above was correct, after the Wellling game
Unfortunatley I (and many others) don't believe much of what comes out on Toni Watola's mouth. I think he has Geoff's syndrome. He doesn't lie, but doesn't tell you the whole truth
|
|
The Gas
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 484
|
Post by The Gas on Dec 16, 2014 13:46:30 GMT
The Contract for the sale of The Mem was signed ages ago.
However, it can only be completed when ALL conditions that are in the Contract have been completed and we are NOT at that stage. TW has confirmed that there are still i's to dot and t's to cross and until these have ALL been completed Sainsbury have every right to say that the Contract cannot be enforced as ALL the conditions have not yet been met. I am under the impression that we have completed all the conditions of the S106 so that is not an issue.
So it is no good trying to sue Sainsbury at the moment as until we have completed ALL the contract conditions, we would fail in the action. When the club have dealt with all the outstanding matters, then is the time to ask Sainsbury to make payment on the completed contract.
TW confirmed to me that the above was correct, after the Wellling game
Unfortunatley I (and many others) don't believe much of what comes out on Toni Watola's mouth. I think he has Geoff's syndrome. He doesn't lie, but doesn't tell you the whole truth
It's all very easy to say that, tell me were any of the above is not correct.
Have we fulfilled all the Contract conditions so that Sainsbury cannot say the Contract is not yet valid. If you have NO evidence, you along with many others are just guessing.
I am only interested in the hard evidence that ALL the Contract conditions have been met and not just wild assumptions.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 16, 2014 13:50:39 GMT
If Sainsburys are indeed obligated to buy the Mem and fail to so do then the ground would still belong to us, but as they(Sainsburys) would have failed to fulfill their obligations within the terms of the contract and if there were conditions within the contract allowing for compensation in the event that the contract was breached, then we could be due compensation. So, we would still own the Mem and Sainsburys could pay us compensation...Sainsburys do not intend to buy the Mem or build a supermarket on the site-have you not been following? HTH Contract law does not allow you to receive something for nothing. Compensation means just that - its a payment to put a party that has been damaged, back into the condition they would have been in had the damage not occurred. If the contract is enforced then the ground would not belong to Rovers. If compensatory damages are paid, then the ground would belong to Rovers, but the value of the ground would be deducted from the compensation due. I believe you are talking about a penalty clause. What makes you think that such a thing exists? Even if one exists, excessive penalty clauses are unenforceable. What Sainsburys intend to do with the site is irrelevant. A contract can mean anything and can contain any conditions the parties to the contract agree upon, provided all parties wish to be bound by it, it is enforceable in the jurisdiction in which it is enacted, their is consideration and none of the conditions are onerous, there are other elements which are necessary but these cover your points. So if the conditions of the contract allow for it, if Sainsburys fail to fulfill their obligations under the contract Rovers could both maintain their ownership of the Mem and be compensated for Sainsburys breach of the contract, how they would be compensated and to what extent would depend upon the conditions contained in the contract and potentially English law.
|
|
|
Post by bluebeard on Dec 16, 2014 13:57:08 GMT
Interesting that the existing stadium loan with Barclays has just been refinanced by MCP. According to their website, MCP Capital is a private equity funder - i.e. a long term investor who invariably takes share capital and puts one of their own on to the board of directors. This could of course be a bail out scenario but, being an optimist, I think it could also mean something big (e.g. transition to new debt free stadium) is about to happen. PE investors are much more flexible than the banks but as far as I'm aware they don't usually pawnbroke (in the sense that they lend directly against an asset). Someone, somewhere must have produced a fairly convincing business plan based on the expected outcome with Sainsburys.
|
|
brizzle
Lindsay Parsons
No Buy . . . No Sell!
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 4,293
|
Post by brizzle on Dec 16, 2014 13:59:08 GMT
Under what circumstances would Rovers get payment for the Mem, AND still own the Mem? Maximum is surely only either enforcement of the contract, or contract value less market rate? The recent delays to resolution have been in ensuring any contractual conditions to the sale of the Mem have been met, i.e. extended delivery hours - have you not been following? If Sainsburys are indeed obligated to buy the Mem and fail to so do then the ground would still belong to us, but as they(Sainsburys) would have failed to fulfill their obligations within the terms of the contract and if there were conditions within the contract allowing for compensation in the event that the contract was breached, then we could be due compensation. So, we would still own the Mem and Sainsburys could pay us compensation... Sainsburys do not intend to buy the Mem or build a supermarket on the site-have you not been following? HTH I still fail to understand how this can be posted as being factual. When have Sainsbury's ever said that they do not intend to buy the Mem, or build a supermarket on the site? Most certainly I have never heard, or read such a thing.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 16, 2014 14:01:59 GMT
Contract law does not allow you to receive something for nothing. Compensation means just that - its a payment to put a party that has been damaged, back into the condition they would have been in had the damage not occurred. If the contract is enforced then the ground would not belong to Rovers. If compensatory damages are paid, then the ground would belong to Rovers, but the value of the ground would be deducted from the compensation due. I believe you are talking about a penalty clause. What makes you think that such a thing exists? Even if one exists, excessive penalty clauses are unenforceable. What Sainsburys intend to do with the site is irrelevant. A contract can mean anything and can contain any conditions the parties to the contract agree upon, provided all parties wish to be bound by it, it is enforceable in the jurisdiction in which it is enacted, their is consideration and none of the conditions are onerous, there are other elements which are necessary but these cover your points. So if the conditions of the contract allow for it, if Sainsburys fail to fulfill their obligations under the contract Rovers could both maintain their ownership of the Mem and be compensated for Sainsburys breach of the contract, how they would be compensated and to what extent would depend upon the conditions contained in the contract and potentially English law. Any half decent legal team will have no trouble getting punitive terms rescinded. The Faggoty one is spot on with his post above.
|
|
|
Post by fanatical on Dec 16, 2014 14:03:23 GMT
The Contract for the sale of The Mem was signed ages ago.
However, it can only be completed when ALL conditions that are in the Contract have been completed and we are NOT at that stage. TW has confirmed that there are still i's to dot and t's to cross and until these have ALL been completed Sainsbury have every right to say that the Contract cannot be enforced as ALL the conditions have not yet been met. I am under the impression that we have completed all the conditions of the S106 so that is not an issue.
So it is no good trying to sue Sainsbury at the moment as until we have completed ALL the contract conditions, we would fail in the action. When the club have dealt with all the outstanding matters, then is the time to ask Sainsbury to make payment on the completed contract.
TW confirmed to me that the above was correct, after the Wellling game
Unfortunatley I (and many others) don't believe much of what comes out on Toni Watola's mouth. I think he has Geoff's syndrome. He doesn't lie, but doesn't tell you the whole truth
summed him up perfectly - but are you sure about the lies?
|
|
brizzle
Lindsay Parsons
No Buy . . . No Sell!
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 4,293
|
Post by brizzle on Dec 16, 2014 14:06:35 GMT
The Contract for the sale of The Mem was signed ages ago.
However, it can only be completed when ALL conditions that are in the Contract have been completed and we are NOT at that stage. TW has confirmed that there are still i's to dot and t's to cross and until these have ALL been completed Sainsbury have every right to say that the Contract cannot be enforced as ALL the conditions have not yet been met. I am under the impression that we have completed all the conditions of the S106 so that is not an issue.
So it is no good trying to sue Sainsbury at the moment as until we have completed ALL the contract conditions, we would fail in the action. When the club have dealt with all the outstanding matters, then is the time to ask Sainsbury to make payment on the completed contract.
TW confirmed to me that the above was correct, after the Wellling game This is a very sensible and responsible post in my opinion, totally devoid of any speculation.
|
|
|
Post by Topper Gas on Dec 16, 2014 14:07:08 GMT
Under what circumstances would Rovers get payment for the Mem, AND still own the Mem? Maximum is surely only either enforcement of the contract, or contract value less market rate? The recent delays to resolution have been in ensuring any contractual conditions to the sale of the Mem have been met, i.e. extended delivery hours - have you not been following? If Sainsburys are indeed obligated to buy the Mem and fail to so do then the ground would still belong to us, but as they(Sainsburys) would have failed to fulfill their obligations within the terms of the contract and if there were conditions within the contract allowing for compensation in the event that the contract was breached, then we could be due compensation. So, we would still own the Mem and Sainsburys could pay us compensation...Sainsburys do not intend to buy the Mem or build a supermarket on the site-have you not been following? HTH Why must there be conditions in the contract to allow compensation? if that was the case then any contract w/o compensation terms would be worthless as one party could just wlak away from the contract at any point. You, like most of us, clearly haven't a clue what's go on, as SteveK suggests there's 50% chance you are correct but equally 50% chance you are wrong.
|
|
|
Post by daniel300380 on Dec 16, 2014 14:07:12 GMT
Sainsburys might still decide to build this store anyway. They said they are reducing their new builds by a third not stopping them. They said they are stopping building large out of town stores, last time I checked this was in a prime spot with loads of housing around it. They said they were only going to build mixed use sites which includes housing as they can still make money on them, this site includes that. Know that the delivery times have been granted it will make it more profitable.
They have a contract that they know they will have to pay up eventually and this site ticks all the boxes. Every article says the same, reducing new builds by a third yet lots are saying they are not building any.
Can one of these people show me one statement from Sainsburys saying they are not building any new stores??
I think they are still deciding which stores to go ahead with, which will make them the most money etc. I think this site has to be one of the best options.
If they decide not to build it they have said that they have hundreds of millions to write off schemes and bank the land.
If it was that easy to get out of the contract they would have already if they wanted to.
Part of me still thinks something will go wrong, it won't happen as were Bristol rovers and something always goes wrong! But all the people saying it's 100% dead already are just guessing.
|
|
faggotygas
Byron Anthony
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 1,862
|
Post by faggotygas on Dec 16, 2014 14:09:07 GMT
Contract law does not allow you to receive something for nothing. Compensation means just that - its a payment to put a party that has been damaged, back into the condition they would have been in had the damage not occurred. If the contract is enforced then the ground would not belong to Rovers. If compensatory damages are paid, then the ground would belong to Rovers, but the value of the ground would be deducted from the compensation due. I believe you are talking about a penalty clause. What makes you think that such a thing exists? Even if one exists, excessive penalty clauses are unenforceable. What Sainsburys intend to do with the site is irrelevant. A contract can mean anything and can contain any conditions the parties to the contract agree upon, provided all parties wish to be bound by it, it is enforceable in the jurisdiction in which it is enacted, their is consideration and none of the conditions are onerous, there are other elements which are necessary but these cover your points. So if the conditions of the contract allow for it, if Sainsburys fail to fulfill their obligations under the contract Rovers could both maintain their ownership of the Mem and be compensated for Sainsburys breach of the contract, how they would be compensated and to what extent would depend upon the conditions contained in the contract and potentially English law. Well I must admit I've been assuming that the contract of sale was would be under English jurisdiction, being that both parties are based in England, and the land in question is in England, and the recent writ was issued in England. The rest of your post, you seem to both agree and disagree with me. Penalty clauses have to be reasonable, and designed to compensate for material loss. A clause that is greater than the value of the contract, in the case of a land purchase, could not be considered reasonable. Again, I think you are confused about what the word 'compensation' means. Compensation is designed to negate an actual loss. Its not a punishment, it is an equitable solution to a dispute. Your post indicated that Rovers could be compensated to the value of the contract, and keep the land. That's not possible as then Rovers would not have brought any consideration to the contract. A contract cannot just mean anything, not in English law anyway. It has to be equitable.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 16, 2014 14:09:58 GMT
A contract can mean anything and can contain any conditions the parties to the contract agree upon, provided all parties wish to be bound by it, it is enforceable in the jurisdiction in which it is enacted, their is consideration and none of the conditions are onerous, there are other elements which are necessary but these cover your points. So if the conditions of the contract allow for it, if Sainsburys fail to fulfill their obligations under the contract Rovers could both maintain their ownership of the Mem and be compensated for Sainsburys breach of the contract, how they would be compensated and to what extent would depend upon the conditions contained in the contract and potentially English law. Any half decent legal team will have no trouble getting punitive terms rescinded. The Faggoty one is spot on with his post above. I've never known a contract to contain onerous terms because competent legal professionals sort these out in advance.
|
|
|
Post by stig-of-the-gas on Dec 16, 2014 14:15:55 GMT
Interesting that the existing stadium loan with Barclays has just been refinanced by MCP. According to their website, MCP Capital is a private equity funder - i.e. a long term investor who invariably takes share capital and puts one of their own on to the board of directors. This could of course be a bail out scenario but, being an optimist, I think it could also mean something big (e.g. transition to new debt free stadium) is about to happen. PE investors are much more flexible than the banks but as far as I'm aware they don't usually pawnbroke (in the sense that they lend directly against an asset). Someone, somewhere must have produced a fairly convincing business plan based on the expected outcome with Sainsburys. Who are the directors of MCP, any clues who is behind it?
|
|
Peter Parker
Global Moderator
Richard Walker
You have been sentenced to DELETION!
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 4,920
|
Post by Peter Parker on Dec 16, 2014 14:19:21 GMT
Unfortunatley I (and many others) don't believe much of what comes out on Toni Watola's mouth. I think he has Geoff's syndrome. He doesn't lie, but doesn't tell you the whole truth
summed him up perfectly - but are you sure about the lies? well, I shan't be calling either of them liars on a forum
|
|
Peter Parker
Global Moderator
Richard Walker
You have been sentenced to DELETION!
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 4,920
|
Post by Peter Parker on Dec 16, 2014 14:21:36 GMT
Unfortunatley I (and many others) don't believe much of what comes out on Toni Watola's mouth. I think he has Geoff's syndrome. He doesn't lie, but doesn't tell you the whole truth
It's all very easy to say that, tell me were any of the above is not correct.
Have we fulfilled all the Contract conditions so that Sainsbury cannot say the Contract is not yet valid. If you have NO evidence, you along with many others are just guessing.
I am only interested in the hard evidence that ALL the Contract conditions have been met and not just wild assumptions.
I didn't say any of it wasn't correct. I suggested it may not be the whole truth
I am sure we are dotting I's and crossing t's, just like we were many months ago, when we were desperate to be on site in May despite the onerous delivery hours condition that was never mentioned at the time
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 16, 2014 14:22:16 GMT
A contract can mean anything and can contain any conditions the parties to the contract agree upon, provided all parties wish to be bound by it, it is enforceable in the jurisdiction in which it is enacted, their is consideration and none of the conditions are onerous, there are other elements which are necessary but these cover your points. So if the conditions of the contract allow for it, if Sainsburys fail to fulfill their obligations under the contract Rovers could both maintain their ownership of the Mem and be compensated for Sainsburys breach of the contract, how they would be compensated and to what extent would depend upon the conditions contained in the contract and potentially English law. Well I must admit I've been assuming that the contract of sale was would be under English jurisdiction, being that both parties are based in England, and the land in question is in England, and the recent writ was issued in England. The rest of your post, you seem to both agree and disagree with me. Penalty clauses have to be reasonable, and designed to compensate for material loss. A clause that is greater than the value of the contract, in the case of a land purchase, could not be considered reasonable. Again, I think you are confused about what the word 'compensation' means. Compensation is designed to negate an actual loss. Its not a punishment, it is an equitable solution to a dispute. Your post indicated that Rovers could be compensated to the value of the contract, and keep the land. That's not possible as then Rovers would not have brought any consideration to the contract. A contract cannot just mean anything, not in English law anyway. It has to be equitable. Just pointing out some basics. You're right I do agree with much of what you say but the contact is the contract and I very much doubt it's watertight. I never mentioned penalty clauses ie punishment, you did. Equally rather like onerous terms equitability is always sorted out in advance. Consideration doesn't have to be paid it merely has to be provided for within the contract. Little point in us continuing the debate, we can do that when Sainsbury's formally withdraws and it really does hit the fan.
|
|