james83
Joined: August 2014
Posts: 332
|
Post by james83 on May 15, 2015 20:16:10 GMT
we've won day 1? What makes you think that? Well do think we lost day 1 then? I don't think either of the 2 party's have won or gained anything from today but I asked you why you think we won round 1? I'm interested to know what has got you thinking we are in a stronger position than sainsburys on the first day in the court room?
|
|
|
Post by Topper Gas on May 15, 2015 20:29:48 GMT
Just the way the evidence has been presented, Sainsbury's seem to have been trying to wriggle out of a contract from virtually day 1, Rovers don't seem to have done a lot wrong, but it's only day 1 of 5.
|
|
|
Post by billyocean on May 15, 2015 21:06:12 GMT
To use a cricket analogy, Sainsbury's have been out there batting and we've have a pretty good day in the field, but it's very difficult to tell how it's going to end until you see how well we bat.
|
|
james83
Joined: August 2014
Posts: 332
|
Post by james83 on May 15, 2015 21:07:07 GMT
Just the way the evidence has been presented, Sainsbury's seem to have been trying to wriggle out of a contract from virtually day 1, Rovers don't seem to have done a lot wrong, but it's only day 1 of 5. well from the evidence that I've read I think both sides have a very good case and I think it's such a grey area that it's too hard to call, there doesn't seem to be anything in black and white that says there is and isn't a cut off period which should have been done in a contract that is of such importance like this. Higgs should know better with his background knowledge in the construction business! Hard one to call for the judge as this is huge not just for club but the community as a whole. Think a verdict could take a while and she probably will try and persuade sainsburys to pay a tidy compensation package to rovers but not anywhere near the 30 million asking price.
|
|
eppinggas
Administrator
Ian Alexander
Don't care
Joined: June 2014
Posts: 8,197
|
Post by eppinggas on May 15, 2015 21:14:34 GMT
I've read so much about this case. But surely it boils down to reasonable behaviour. Sainsbury's tried to pull out of the contract early on, and tried everything in their power to walk away. They did not behave reasonably, and they did not show good faith. So I am amazed we were not offered some kind of compensation before this came to court. It's now sh*t or bust time. But I think the odds are in our favour. Maybe not for the full £30mil and positive enforcement of the contract, but looking for an equitable settlement from the Judge. Fingers crossed. UTG.
|
|
|
Post by tanksfull on May 15, 2015 21:47:25 GMT
I've read so much about this case. But surely it boils down to reasonable behaviour. Sainsbury's tried to pull out of the contract early on, and tried everything in their power to walk away. They did not behave reasonably, and they did not show good faith. So I am amazed we were not offered some kind of compensation before this came to court. It's now sh*t or bust time. But I think the odds are in our favour. Maybe not for the full £30mil and positive enforcement of the contract, but looking for an equitable settlement from the Judge. Fingers crossed. UTG. What is an equitable settlement and who then owns The Memorial Ground (or is it Stadium now as was stated when we first took full control)?
If the current value of the property is £20m and Sainsbury's had agreed £30m is £10m equitable with Rovers keeping the property? That's no use to Rovers as far as UWE is concerned.
Is £20m and Rovers keep the property equitable? That's £10m over the £30m but still no use to Rovers as far as UWE is concerned. Would Sainsbury's entertain that or pay the £30m and then sell on the ground for £20m?
I can't really see a compromise. Even if Rovers win, they lose unless Sainsbury's are forced to pay the full £30m. Any delays in trying to resell will result in the UWE being lost.
It does seem that Sainsbury's wanted out long before anybody realised though. Hence not appearing for the JR and other procrastination on their part. It is thought that there is a clause requiring both parties to act in the best interest of completing the contract (we will find out next week). Interesting...
|
|
|
Post by lulworthgas on May 15, 2015 21:50:59 GMT
Just the way the evidence has been presented, Sainsbury's seem to have been trying to wriggle out of a contract from virtually day 1, Rovers don't seem to have done a lot wrong, but it's only day 1 of 5. well from the evidence that I've read I think both sides have a very good case and I think it's such a grey area that it's too hard to call, there doesn't seem to be anything in black and white that says there is and isn't a cut off period which should have been done in a contract that is of such importance like this. Higgs should know better with his background knowledge in the construction business! Hard one to call for the judge as this is huge not just for club but the community as a whole. Think a verdict could take a while and she probably will try and persuade sainsburys to pay a tidy compensation package to rovers but not anywhere near the 30 million asking price. The cut off date is irrelevant as sainsburys were in breech of contract way before this. That is the rovers argument. If sainsburys did Al they could as required by the contract then all the issues would have been resolved. Have faith. Today was a good day in court,
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 15, 2015 21:53:12 GMT
I've read so much about this case. But surely it boils down to reasonable behaviour. Sainsbury's tried to pull out of the contract early on, and tried everything in their power to walk away. They did not behave reasonably, and they did not show good faith. So I am amazed we were not offered some kind of compensation before this came to court. It's now sh*t or bust time. But I think the odds are in our favour. Maybe not for the full £30mil and positive enforcement of the contract, but looking for an equitable settlement from the Judge. Fingers crossed. UTG. What is an equitable settlement and who then owns The Memorial Ground (or is it Stadium now as was stated when we first took full control)?
If the current value of the property is £20m and Sainsbury's had agreed £30m is £10m equitable with Rovers keeping the property? That's no use to Rovers as far as UWE is concerned.
Is £20m and Rovers keep the property equitable? That's £10m over the £30m but still no use to Rovers as far as UWE is concerned. Would Sainsbury's entertain that or pay the £30m and then sell on the ground for £20m?
I can't really see a compromise. Even if Rovers win, they lose unless Sainsbury's are forced to pay the full £30m. Any delays in trying to resell will result in the UWE being lost.
It does seem that Sainsbury's wanted out long before anybody realised though. Hence not appearing for the JR and other procrastination on their part. It is thought that there is a clause requiring both parties to act in the best interest of completing the contract (we will find out next week). Interesting...
£10m builds a couple of new stands at the Mem, though.
|
|
james83
Joined: August 2014
Posts: 332
|
Post by james83 on May 15, 2015 21:57:30 GMT
What is an equitable settlement and who then owns The Memorial Ground (or is it Stadium now as was stated when we first took full control)?
If the current value of the property is £20m and Sainsbury's had agreed £30m is £10m equitable with Rovers keeping the property? That's no use to Rovers as far as UWE is concerned.
Is £20m and Rovers keep the property equitable? That's £10m over the £30m but still no use to Rovers as far as UWE is concerned. Would Sainsbury's entertain that or pay the £30m and then sell on the ground for £20m?
I can't really see a compromise. Even if Rovers win, they lose unless Sainsbury's are forced to pay the full £30m. Any delays in trying to resell will result in the UWE being lost.
It does seem that Sainsbury's wanted out long before anybody realised though. Hence not appearing for the JR and other procrastination on their part. It is thought that there is a clause requiring both parties to act in the best interest of completing the contract (we will find out next week). Interesting...
£10m builds a couple of new stands at the Mem, though. it would but I think 10 million would go to the directors and Higgs who would then quickly get out of this club! Can't see a penny of any possible compo fee going on stadium improvements
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 15, 2015 21:58:15 GMT
£10m builds a couple of new stands at the Mem, though. it would but I think 10 million would go to the directors and Higgs who would then quickly get out of this club! Can't see a penny of any possible compo fee going on stadium improvements Even better!
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 16, 2015 8:30:03 GMT
£10m builds a couple of new stands at the Mem, though. it would but I think 10 million would go to the directors and Higgs who would then quickly get out of this club! Can't see a penny of any possible compo fee going on stadium improvements That would be a huge leap forward.
|
|
|
Post by timothyq on May 16, 2015 9:17:37 GMT
I always thought the presumption in law was that both parties were of equal standing when entering into a contract so can't then say "sorry Guv didnt realise it was that complicated those nasty big supermarkets have done us up like a kipper" as an excuse. But no expert so happy to be put right on that one. In general if the wording of a contract is ambiguous the preferred meaning should be the one that works against the interests of the party who provided the wording. Assuming Sainsbury's provided the wording any ambiguity is therefore likely to go against them. However this may well be a situation where both contributed towards the wording as it appears to be a one off. Unfortunately there is no way this contract hadn't been drawn up through a collaborative process, and as someone else has mentioned, 'complexity' does not mean there would be any ambiguity of wording. What's worrying me is that the 'complexity' of the case could indicate that there are some contentious areas of law to be considered which would be very bad news for us. High court decisions can only be appealed if there is an error of law, not if you simply disagree with the judges interpretation of the facts. So if the judgement happens to rest on any legal grey areas, which can be the case in our common law system, then there is always a chance that we could get a result at the high court and still be subject to the uncertainty of an appeal. As we had been assured our contract was 'watertight' I hadn't previously considered this as a possibility!
|
|
|
Post by Topper Gas on May 16, 2015 9:44:16 GMT
At least if we win this trial there's hope we'll also win any Appeal, lose this one and we could be knackered given NH's apparent comments about Administration.
|
|
|
Post by bluebeard on May 16, 2015 10:00:55 GMT
This has just been posted by a shed claiming to be a trainee barrister on OTIB. He says he has read the court papers.
Posted A minute ago Having looked over the papers I got yesterday at the High Court from the Sainsbury's v R*vers case, one very interesting fact has come to light. I should stress that the following information is only something which appears in Sainsbury's claim and I have seen no mention of it in R*vers' case so it may not be accurate. It was a term of the contract between the two that the 'net proceeds of sale [of the Memorial Ground] ... [must be] greater than the ... building costs for the new stadium' (taken from Sainsbury's lawyers' skeleton argument, which appears to be quoting from the contract between the parties). Sainsbury's say that this was a condition precedent for the contract: i.e. that unless R*vers could show that they would get more from the sale of the Mem than it would cost to build the UWE, Sainsbury's wouldn't buy. The reason for this was that Sainsbury's did not want to become R*vers landlords (who can blame them?) or have to face the negative PR of evicting R*vers in the event that UWE was not completed. Sainsbury's go on to say that on 12 December 2014 R*vers told them that the building costs for the new stadium 'will exceed the Capital Sum [the amount gained by selling the Mem] by £1,169,569.99'. This means it would cost R*vers about £1.2m more to build UWE than they were getting from the sale of the Mem. It also mean R*vers were, and apparently still are, in breach of an important term of the contract. This appears to have two conclusions (to this non-expert!): the first is that I cannot see how Sainsbury's can now be compelled to complete the contract when such an important condition remains unfulfilled. The second is that either Nick Higgs will be looking for further external investment to complete the UWE contract or that project is not fully funded and so it looks even less likely that it will be completed. All of this appears towards the very end of Sainsbury's argument, I have not yet heard any argument about these points and it is not mentioned in a way to suggest Sainsbury's are making a particularly large amount of it. So my conclusions may be a little wide of the mark and make of the facts what you want but the underlying fact that UWE will cost more than R*vers will get from selling the Mem is interesting anyway - they really are in a mess!
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 16, 2015 10:07:40 GMT
Firstly, you'd think a trainee barrister would be more circumspect.
Secondly, you'd think they'd be brighter.
Thirdly, he's having a merry old time convincing himself of a fact everybody already knew: there's a funding gap caused (we'll argue) by Sainsburys pissing about.
Fourthly, December 2014 is a long time after we allege Sainsburys started to piss about.
And finally, £1.2m isn't that much in the scheme of things. We'd just have to sell Stuart Sinclair.
|
|
|
Post by Henbury Gas on May 16, 2015 10:11:33 GMT
Its also a matter of public record that Nick Higgs stated that any shortfall will be covered by the directors
|
|
|
Post by bluebeard on May 16, 2015 10:23:14 GMT
So in conclusion, we appear to be making a reasonable case in terms of the cut off and Sainsburys not acting in good faith / applying best endeavours etc. We all suspected that build costs had risen and that there would be a funding shortfall but it is hard to see how Rovers can counter a specific net sale proceeds to exceed costs clause. Sainsburys tactics are a factor but the JR was the main reason for delay. It is interesting though that the figure is broadly similar to the disputed levy and that Sainsburys did not highlight this potential loophole in their opening statement. I guess Rovers could argue that the stadium project is divisible into must have / nice to have so a useable stadium can be delivered within budget and the "frills" added at a later date? My niggling worry though, is that the law does try to apply common sense when an area is "grey" but but specific contractual causes are often taken literally. That said, if the directors are covering this shortfall I suppose it would be quite easy to manipulate a funding calculation so that some of the materials are being "gifted". Still optimistic.
|
|
womble
Arthur Cartlidge
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 300
|
Post by womble on May 16, 2015 10:33:04 GMT
Firstly, you'd think a trainee barrister would be more circumspect. Secondly, you'd think they'd be brighter. Thirdly, he's having a merry old time convincing himself of a fact everybody already knew: there's a funding gap caused (we'll argue) by Sainsburys pissing about. Fourthly, December 2014 is a long time after we allege Sainsburys started to piss about. And finally, £1.2m isn't that much in the scheme of things. We'd just have to sell Stuart Sinclair. £1.2m is nothing when you consider that £30m from Sainsbury's doesn't include a Football League grant (don't know if we have to be in it to get it!), leases for the gym, UWE teaching space etc. Building it won't be a problem if we get £30m. Making sure it runs at a profit to drive down our £7m debt is more of a concern.
|
|
|
Post by CountyGroundHotel on May 16, 2015 10:43:22 GMT
Firstly, you'd think a trainee barrister would be more circumspect. Secondly, you'd think they'd be brighter. Thirdly, he's having a merry old time convincing himself of a fact everybody already knew: there's a funding gap caused (we'll argue) by Sainsburys pissing about. Fourthly, December 2014 is a long time after we allege Sainsburys started to piss about. And finally, £1.2m isn't that much in the scheme of things. We'd just have to sell Stuart Sinclair. Where are we going to get he other £1,199,999 from?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 16, 2015 10:51:14 GMT
Firstly, you'd think a trainee barrister would be more circumspect. Secondly, you'd think they'd be brighter. Thirdly, he's having a merry old time convincing himself of a fact everybody already knew: there's a funding gap caused (we'll argue) by Sainsburys pissing about. Fourthly, December 2014 is a long time after we allege Sainsburys started to piss about. And finally, £1.2m isn't that much in the scheme of things. We'd just have to sell Stuart Sinclair. £1.2m is nothing when you consider that £30m from Sainsbury's doesn't include a Football League grant (don't know if we have to be in it to get it!), leases for the gym, UWE teaching space etc. Building it won't be a problem if we get £30m. Making sure it runs at a profit to drive down our £7m debt is more of a concern. There is only a significant debt (apart from Wonga) if the directors insist that our stadium is held to ransom to pay for their mistakes. Looking at those numbers, it makes the Wonga loan make some kind of sense, in fact, didn't Higgs say that those funds served a very specific purpose? But wouldn't the Wonga funds have hit the bank long after the contract with Sainsbury's expired?
|
|