LPGas
Stuart Taylor
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 1,240
|
Post by LPGas on May 15, 2015 16:16:50 GMT
What I don't understand was why didn't Sainsburys put in their delivery times in the initial planning permission? And really was it up to Rovers to sort it? I thought that Sainsburys had their delivery extension refused, and they refused to appeal, then Rovers won it. Surely it was Sainsburys job to "sort it" not ours. I haven't been to Sainsburys in years, and never will b'stards
|
|
Peter Parker
Global Moderator
Richard Walker
You have been sentenced to DELETION!
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 4,920
|
Post by Peter Parker on May 15, 2015 16:19:52 GMT
In the history of the world there never has been , nor ever will be, any such beast as a "watertight" contract. Laughable phrase to use and NH is well aware of that. I'm glad he did though. "We got it covered" and "funding is in place" has got a bit tiresome so it will be nice to have some new rope to hang him with. I think you will find those are Geoffreys words
|
|
|
Post by matealotblue on May 15, 2015 16:20:07 GMT
What I don't understand was why didn't Sainsburys put in their delivery times in the initial planning permission? And really was it up to Rovers to sort it? I thought that Sainsburys had their delivery extension refused, and they refused to appeal, then Rovers won it. Surely it was Sainsburys job to "sort it" not ours. I haven't been to Sainsburys in years, and never will b******s Well yes, thought it was always "their" application so up to them. But clearly our learned friends have other ideas.
|
|
|
Post by gasheadpirate on May 15, 2015 16:22:14 GMT
Summary: Sainsburys say BCC didn't grant full enough planning permission. Sainsbury's told us to sort it, we left it to the last minute "scrabbling around" and missed the cut off date, allowing them to walk away. We say Sainsburys were obliged to help change the planning conditions but didn't, and that the cut off date did not allow them to walk away. I say we appear to acknowledge the existence of a cut off date and I suddenly feel a whole lot less confident. Source: Points West lunchtime bulletin, I apologise for any errors! Surely Sainsbury should have been responsible for its own planning application? Why would they leave it to Rovers to sort out? Does not make sense.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 15, 2015 16:27:14 GMT
Summary: Sainsburys say BCC didn't grant full enough planning permission. Sainsbury's told us to sort it, we left it to the last minute "scrabbling around" and missed the cut off date, allowing them to walk away. We say Sainsburys were obliged to help change the planning conditions but didn't, and that the cut off date did not allow them to walk away. I say we appear to acknowledge the existence of a cut off date and I suddenly feel a whole lot less confident. Source: Points West lunchtime bulletin, I apologise for any errors! Surely Sainsbury should have been responsible for its own planning application? Why would they leave it to Rovers to sort out? Does not make sense. you would have thought so, yes.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 15, 2015 16:28:34 GMT
What I don't understand was why didn't Sainsburys put in their delivery times in the initial planning permission? And really was it up to Rovers to sort it? I thought that Sainsburys had their delivery extension refused, and they refused to appeal, then Rovers won it. Surely it was Sainsburys job to "sort it" not ours. I haven't been to Sainsburys in years, and never will b******s This has been going on so long now it's difficult to remember every twist and turn, so maybe I've got this all wrong, but I thought that the longer delivery hours were one of the original 'onorous' conditions? Why Sainsbury's didn't appeal when the seperate application to extend the hours was rejected is an interesting question. Didn't someone say on here a while back that by the time that application was rejected there wasn't time to appeal before the contract expired? Sit tiight, as always with these things, it will all come out in the wash. One thing we did learn today, Sainsbury's didn't have a man waiting on the court steps with a cheque book.
|
|
|
Post by bluebeard on May 15, 2015 16:28:42 GMT
I'm glad he did though. "We got it covered" and "funding is in place" has got a bit tiresome so it will be nice to have some new rope to hang him with. I think you will find those are Geoffreys words Satan, devil, Beelzebub, lucifer, the evil one, enemy of righteousness. Same thing surely?
|
|
Peter Parker
Global Moderator
Richard Walker
You have been sentenced to DELETION!
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 4,920
|
Post by Peter Parker on May 15, 2015 16:29:37 GMT
Summary: Sainsburys say BCC didn't grant full enough planning permission. Sainsbury's told us to sort it, we left it to the last minute "scrabbling around" and missed the cut off date, allowing them to walk away. We say Sainsburys were obliged to help change the planning conditions but didn't, and that the cut off date did not allow them to walk away. I say we appear to acknowledge the existence of a cut off date and I suddenly feel a whole lot less confident. Source: Points West lunchtime bulletin, I apologise for any errors! Surely Sainsbury should have been responsible for its own planning application? Why would they leave it to Rovers to sort out? Does not make sense. Maybe thats part of whats in the contract. You would think it up to them and not much of a defence if not
|
|
crater
Joined: June 2014
Posts: 1,444
|
Post by crater on May 15, 2015 16:34:29 GMT
Felt at the time and even more so now that it was highly significant that Rovers and not that supermarket whose name begins with a S submitted the appeal regarding delivery hours. Think this is an important factor as on the face of it how can a party appeal over a matter that is not their business? We must have been advised to lodge this appeal in case the matter ever ended up in the high court
|
|
|
Post by Finnish Gas on May 15, 2015 16:40:35 GMT
Sainsbury's and Bristol Rovers in legal play-off over 'dilapidated' stadiumSupermarket chain agreed £30m deal to buy football club’s Memorial stadium and lease it back but now wants to terminate the contract, court hears Sainsbury’s is locked in a legal battle with Bristol Rovers over its “old-fashioned and rather dilapidated sports ground”. The Conference Premier team are hoping to build a 21,700-seat stadium at the University of the West of England’s Frenchay campus in Stoke Gifford, a judge heard. The supermarket chain had agreed a £30m deal to buy the club’s 12,000-capacity Memorial stadium in north Bristol, lease it back for a peppercorn rent until the new ground was ready, and then redevelop the old stadium as a new store. But on Friday Sainsbury’s argued at the high court in London that it was legally entitled to terminate the contract because conditions linked to the agreement had not been satisfied. Lawyers for the club said that either the contract “is still on foot” or Sainsbury’s had breached it. In the next six days, 10 witnesses are expected to be called to give evidence to settle the dispute. The presiding judge, Mrs Justice Proudman, described the case as “extremely complex”. Announcing that she would reserve her decision to a later date, the judge said: “There is no way I will write the judgment immediately after this case.” The club indicated it was vital that it knew by June whether it could hold Sainsbury’s to the deal and keep the university on board with the proposals for a new stadium. David Matthias QC, for Rovers, conceded in court that the agreement between Sainsbury’s and the club was “byzantine in its complexity”. At an earlier hearing he described Rovers as being “in the doldrums” in the Conference Premier following relegation from the Football League and said they were seeking to boost their fortunes by moving to the new stadium. Advertisement Bristol Rovers take on Grimsby Town on Sunday in a play-off to win promotion back to the Football League. Mark Wonnacott QC, for Sainsbury’s, who described the Memorial stadium as “old-fashioned and rather dilapidated”, argued that the “structure of the contract” meant that conditions had not been met by a cut-off date and the contract had been lawfully terminated. Matthias said: “With respect, my learned friend misunderstands the significance of the term ‘cut-off date’ in this agreement. “There is nothing in this agreement that stipulates, implies or requires that the cut-off date will bring about the cessation of any obligations on any party.” In written submissions to the court, lawyers for Rovers describe the Memorial Stadium at Filton Avenue, Horfield, as “tired and unfit for purpose”. Sainsbury’s won a bidding process in March 2012 and entered into an agreement to buy the ground, intending to build a superstore and 65 new homes. The club says money from the sale will largely finance its new stadium - “to that extent the completion of the sale of the site is critical to ambitions to deliver the new stadium”. The hearing continues. www.theguardian.com/football/2015/may/15/sainsburys-bristol-rovers-legal-play-off-stadium-court-football
|
|
|
Post by Somerset Blue on May 15, 2015 16:41:32 GMT
I just hope our Boards inabilities haven't been found out yet again
This time in a lack of understanding of building contracts ...Christ it feels like Sainsburys could wriggle out of this one!!
I sense these next seven days are defining any future our club might have.
|
|
Peter Parker
Global Moderator
Richard Walker
You have been sentenced to DELETION!
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 4,920
|
Post by Peter Parker on May 15, 2015 16:45:11 GMT
Would like to know this wording regarding cut off date.
We seem to say their is a cut off date, but the cut off date doesnt mean end of contract
|
|
|
Post by Finnish Gas on May 15, 2015 16:46:25 GMT
Sainsbury’s in Bristol Rovers ground battle 15th May 2015 One of the country’s largest supermarket chains is locked in a legal battle with a football club over “an old-fashioned and rather dilapidated sports ground”. A judge heard that Bristol Rovers were hoping to build a 21,700-seat stadium on the Frenchay campus of the University of the West of England. Sainsbury’s agreed a £30 million deal to buy the club’s 12,000-capacity Memorial Stadium in northern Bristol, lease it back for a peppercorn rent until the Frenchay stadium was ready, and then redevelop the old stadium as a new store. But today the supermarket giant argued at London’s High Court that it was legally entitled to terminate the contract because conditions linked to the agreement had not been satisfied. Lawyers for the club say that either the contract “is still on foot” or Sainsbury’s has breached it. In the next six days 10 witnesses are expected to be called to give evidence to settle the dispute. The presiding judge, Mrs Justice Proudman, described the case as “extremely complex”. Announcing that she would reserve her decision to a later date, the judge said: “There is no way I will write the judgment immediately after this case.” The club has indicated it is vital to know by June whether it can hold Sainsbury’s to the deal and keep the university on board with its proposals for a new stadium. David Matthias QC, for Rovers, conceded in court that the agreement between Sainsbury’s and the club was “Byzantine in its complexity”. At an earlier hearing he described Rovers as being “in the doldrums” in the Conference Premier following relegation from the Football League and they were seeking to boost their fortunes by moving to the new stadium in Stoke Gifford. Mark Wonnacott QC, for Sainsbury’s, who described the Memorial Stadium as “old-fashioned and rather dilapidated”, argued that the “structure of the contract” meant that conditions had not been met by a cut-off date and the contract had been lawfully terminated. Mr Matthias said: “With respect, my learned friend misunderstands the significance of the term ‘cut-off date’ in this agreement. “There is nothing in this agreement that stipulates, implies or requires that the cut-off date will bring about the cessation of any obligations on any party.” Listening to the start of the case at the back of the Chancery Division court was Bristol Rovers chairman Nick Higgs, who had earlier said he was “exceptionally grateful” to supporters for “sticking with us through the whole process”.He said: “We hope that at the end of it all we can bring you a positive conclusion.” business-reporter.co.uk/2015/05/15/sainsburys-in-bristol-rovers-ground-battle/Similar links: www.westerndailypress.co.uk/Sainsbury-s-continues-locked-battle-Bristol/story-26509142-detail/story.htmlwww.itv.com/news/west/update/2015-05-15/bristol-rovers-in-high-court-battle-with-sainsburys-over-sale-of-memorial-stadium/
|
|
|
Post by lulworthgas on May 15, 2015 17:15:24 GMT
Match Report: Sainsbury's v NLBRHPFC* *Warning: read at own risk, might cause sudden sleepiness. Sainsbury's are seeking an order form the High Court to the effect that Sainsbury's termination of the contract was valid. R*vers are counter-claiming for an order that it was not and that as a result they want damages or that the contract survives and is to be completed. That is why the name of the case has changed from R*vers suing to the other way around but it doesn't really change anything. I only managed to pick up a copy of the legal arguments late in the day so I haven't had a chance to look at them properly yet but I will report back in full when I have had the time. What I will say that will no doubt be of interest to the OTIB community is that Sainsbury's on the first page of their argument state the following: 'The Memorial Stadium is an old-fashioned and rather dilapidated sports ground in a northern suburb of Bristol.' Today we mainly heard evidence from Sainsbury's head of Supermarket Development, Chris Templeman. He was mainly cross-examined by R*vers' barrister as to when Sainsbury's decided to pull out of the contract. It is agreed when this decision was communicated to R*vers. Therefore, any significant gap between Sainsbury's deciding and telling R*vers would suggest that Sainsbury's were not acting in good faith or with best endeavours to secure the completion of the project if they had decided not to continue but let R*vers incur further expense and so on. The effect of the questioning with Sainbury's chap doing well on some points but looking shaky on others. He didn't say as much but it very much seemed to me that Sainsbury's wanted out a long while ago (perhaps late 2012) because it would not make them enough money. It was openly stated that the scheme would be profitable but not to such an extent that it met Sainsbury's internal requirements so they wanted to do something else. However, he made it clear that whilst it wouldn't make them enough money as a store that wasn't an end of things, they were looking at changing the plans to make it more profitable and also at buying the land but selling it to someone else to develop. His evidence will continue on Monday but I spoke to R*vers' lawyers at the end and they seemed pleased with how it had gone as they managed to land a number of points, but that is always when you are the one cross-examining. What was of particular interest from our point of view is that R*vers are in a desperate situation financially. One of the sticking points between them and Sainsbury's was who would pay a fee levied by the Council to make the planning permission effective. This was the sum of £2.1m. It was part of what is called the Community Infrastructure Levy. Sainsbury's see this as a tax on developers so refused to pay and in the contract they agreed with R*vers only to pay £500k. They therefore wanted R*vers to pay the outstanding £1.6m. Higgs was not happy about this. One witness apparently said he was angry about it and aggressive in a meeting. That is contested though. What isn't doubted though is that R*vers offered Sainsbury's naming rights at the UWE ground if Sainsbury's paid. It was also suggested as a bit of posturing by Higgs to Sainsbury's that if he had to pay the money he would likely end up having to put the club into administration and withdraw his funding as it would not be viable. It was not clear to me from what was said, but it seemed that the eventual solution was R*vers lowered the asking price by £1.6m and got Sainsbury's to pay up. This means R*vers didn't have the cash to pay up immediately themselves and that they were so desperate to go ahead that they are prepared to take on that kind of loss. As soon as this was agreed and this way out of the contract (if the money wasn't paid there could be no supermarket) Sainsbury's mentioned that they weren't happy with the store delivery hours. That is what then led to the various other hearings when we first started to realise something had gone wrong for the R*vers. Sainsbury's seemed to be quite pleased when the original planning was Judicially Reviewed. Ironically, this was taken up by someone who had opposed them elsewhere but this time they seemed rather happy to see him as Sainsbury's wanted out by then. The case will be going on all of next week and concluding next Friday. We will not get judgment at that time though so we will have to keep a look for when that is announced. I will hopefully go along next week when I can, particularly Higgs giving his evidence if I can.
Until then, I will post a synopsis of the legal arguments for those who are interested when I have had a chance to look at that. One R*vers fan there told me that he would rather they win in court than at Wembley so do not underestimate the significance of this trial.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 15, 2015 17:21:19 GMT
Just for balance, here's a Rovers fan who would rather win at Wembley than in court.
|
|
c13
Rickie Lambert
Joined: June 2014
Posts: 424
|
Post by c13 on May 15, 2015 17:25:45 GMT
F***ing Nick Higgs, I swear to God. "Watertight" contract. Right. That's some tight waters there, risking a blow to our case because of a date.
Seriously, only at Rovers. Only at Rovers.
|
|
|
Post by lulworthgas on May 15, 2015 17:31:23 GMT
First slide Sainsbury's were looking for a 'silver bullet’ to kill off its agreement with Bristol Rovers over the development of the Memorial Stadium, the High Court has heard.
The supermarket giant is locked in a legal battle with the football club over a contract to buy and redevelop the site of the 'old-fashioned and dilapidated’ stadium.
The deal, finalised in March 2012, was for Sainsbury's to buy the stadium for £30m, lease it back to the club for a peppercorn rent until a new community stadium on the University of the West of England's (UWE) Frenchay campus was completed, and then build a superstore and 65 flats on the site.
Sainsbury's contends that it had every right to terminate the agreement last year, as it had not secured an 'acceptable' planning permission for the site by the contract 'cut off' date.
But lawyers for the club today claimed the supermarket giant had been looking for a way out of its commitment to the club - which was 'critical' to Rovers’ long-held aspiration for a new stadium - from as early as June 2013.
David Matthias QC, for the club, said the proposed store had become ‘less financially viable' amid a difficult trading climate and as a result of a nearby site being earmarked for redevelopment by rival chain, ASDA.
He said Sainsbury's saw restrictions placed on its delivery times as an opportunity to get out of the contract and 'did nothing' from January 2014 to challenge those restrictions and get suitable planning permission.
The club went back to Bristol City Council without Sainsbury's and managed to get the restrictions lifted in December last year.
Cross-examining Chris Templeman, head of supermarket planning for the chain, Mr Matthias asked him about email exchanges relating to the proposed store.
He said: "All you were talking about, in these exchanges, was ways out of the contract, wasn't it?"
Mr Templeman replied: "What we were talking about was understanding what these planning conditions were and to what extent there were any that we considered to be onerous."
He said the conditions, which included a ban on deliveries between 5am and 6am, would have affected the store's ability to be up and running, with the shelves fully stacked, when it opened.
Mr Matthias then said: "You used the phrase 'silver bullet' - was that a silver bullet to kill off the agreement", to which Mr Templeman replied: "I'm not sure I necessarily had that in mind when I wrote that". The barrister also asked him what he had meant when he wrote: "It's good news for the chairman of Bristol Rovers FC", in response to an email about the grant of planning permission, in June 2013.
Mr Matthias said: "The clear implication is it was not good news for Sainsbury's."
Mr Templeman responded: "The clear implication is that, from my knowledge, this was a very high-profle project at the time, to secure not only a new home for Bristol Rovers, but also a new stadium for UWE.
"The chairman had invested a lot of his own time in making the scheme happen so clearly the granting of planning permission to Sainsbury's, which unlocks the funding to deliver what has been an incredibly high-profile project, was good news".
He added: "The scheme that was underpinning that was one which was financially beyond our hurdle rate, so yes, the prospect of either building a store that would not hit our financial hurdles or purchasing a site we would then have to sell at a loss would not be good news."
Mr Matthias told Mrs Justice Proudman, hearing the case, that the club believes Sainsbury's has been in breach of its agreement since November 2013 and therefore had no right to terminate it - meaning it is still in existence.
He said the agreement came about following a 'competitive bidding process’ with various supermarkets, which Sainsbury's emerged from as the winner, adding: “The completion of the sale of the site to the claimant (Sainsbury's) is critical to the defendant's (the club's) ambitions to deliver the new stadium."
Mr Matthias argued that the supermarket chain should have taken steps to address the concerns of councillors and the public regarding the restrictions on delivery times, and that its failure to do so was a 'clear breach' of the agreement.
He also said Sainsbury's should have told Bristol Rovers about the difficulties it faced with this aspect of the planning permission.
He added: "This would have been an obvious step to have taken because of the defendant's ability to bring elements of political pressure to bear on elected members and galvanise the support of local residents, many of whom are supporters of the football club and are passionate about its ambition to relocate to the UWE stadium."
The barrister said: "The true position is that no endeavours to secure an acceptable store planning permission whatsoever were employed after January 2014.
"All of the claimant's endeavours after this point, such as they were, were directed towards terminating the agreement and 'running down the clock'."
The hearing continues.
|
|
|
Post by a more piratey game on May 15, 2015 17:34:05 GMT
hmmmm....it does look like there was bad faith, or something similar to that
I didn't read that as Rovers having 'lost' any points today
|
|
|
Post by a more piratey game on May 15, 2015 17:36:42 GMT
and, reading the 2nd piece, like we might have scored some too
|
|
|
Post by Topper Gas on May 15, 2015 17:45:41 GMT
Where are Asda looking to build "nearby"? Also how could we offer Sainsbury's stadium naming rights, I thought we were stuck with the" UWE Staduim" has they had naming rights themselves?
We seemed to have won day 1 but there's 4 days still to go.
|
|