Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 10, 2015 14:42:42 GMT
Finally we will get to know either way! Appeals pending, at least we can finally put this whole farce to bed once and for all.
For what it's worth this is my prediction on the verdict:
Justice Proudman will concur with Sainsbury's view that the contract had lapsed and so they are not compelled to complete the contract in full. However, she will find that they allowed Rovers to incur additional costs in pursuit of the sale when they had no intention to complete. Therefore, she will rule that Sainsbury's should compensate Rovers for the costs incurred, however Sainsbury's will not be liable for the full contract cost of £30m. A result that will write off the stadium losses incurred to date by Rovers but not the 'golden ticket' to get the UWE built. Rovers stay at the Mem (and retain ownership), but get enough cash to pay off the Wonga loan (which Rovers will argue was an additional cost of pursuing the stadium sale) and all other stadium sunk costs.
Are you shagging Proudman?
|
|
Peter Parker
Global Moderator
Richard Walker
You have been sentenced to DELETION!
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 4,920
|
Post by Peter Parker on Jul 10, 2015 14:43:19 GMT
The judge deciding the future of Bristol Rovers Memorial Stadium site will made her decision public on Monday morning. Seven weeks since barristers for both sides concluded their cases Mrs Justice Proudman will settle the dispute between the club and Sainsbury's at 10.30am at London's High Court. The case centre around an agreement by the supermarket chain to buy the Mem for £30m and redevelop it once Rovers moved to their planned new stadium at UWE's Frenchay campus. Earlier this year the judge heard the final arguments from both the club's lawyers and those representing Sainsbury's. David Matthias QC, for Bristol Rovers, told the judge that, after Bristol City Council refused to change Sainsbury's delivery hours in January last year, the firm 'pulled down the hatches'. He said that, having decided nothing more would be done to try to get the hours they wanted, they handed the matter over to their solictors who, he claimed, 'frustrated' progress. He added: "They did what was, from Sainsbury's point of view, an admirable job of ensuring that no progress was made, that every effort by Bristol Rovers to achieve progress was stymied and the clock was run down - that is, in a nutshell, what happened. "The reality was that, for all they said that they were using all reasonable endeavours to secure an acceptable store planning permission, they were doing quite the opposite. "They were using all reasonable endeavours to ensure that an acceptable store planning permission did not materialise." Mark Wonnacott QC, for Sainsbury's told the judge there was no obligation in the agreement with Rovers to 'make reasonable endeavours' beyond the initial planning application. He said that, after they had challenged the restrictions on delivery times once, and failed, they were then entitled to terminate the contract. The barrister added: "It is, frankly, ridiculous to suggest that Sainsbury's should have known that all they had to do after the refusal was put in another assessment with a few more fences and the application would be granted." Read more: www.bristolpost.co.uk/Judge-finally-settle-dispute-Bristol-Rovers/story-26877593-detail/story.html#ixzz3fV387GXm Follow us: @bristolpost on Twitter | bristolpost on Facebook
|
|
RG2 Gas
Andy Spring
Joined: June 2014
Posts: 229
|
Post by RG2 Gas on Jul 10, 2015 14:57:28 GMT
Finally we will get to know either way! Appeals pending, at least we can finally put this whole farce to bed once and for all.
For what it's worth this is my prediction on the verdict:
Justice Proudman will concur with Sainsbury's view that the contract had lapsed and so they are not compelled to complete the contract in full. However, she will find that they allowed Rovers to incur additional costs in pursuit of the sale when they had no intention to complete. Therefore, she will rule that Sainsbury's should compensate Rovers for the costs incurred, however Sainsbury's will not be liable for the full contract cost of £30m. A result that will write off the stadium losses incurred to date by Rovers but not the 'golden ticket' to get the UWE built. Rovers stay at the Mem (and retain ownership), but get enough cash to pay off the Wonga loan (which Rovers will argue was an additional cost of pursuing the stadium sale) and all other stadium sunk costs.
Are you shagging Proudman? I'd be in contempt of court if I told you.. ;-)
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 10, 2015 15:07:55 GMT
Well done Billy. I'm glad you got to break the news. So much for me saying the club will know in advance (it will have done) and will break the news ahead of the court listing (unless it can't be arsed or assumes we wouldn't be interested). I doubt they fancy a contempt of court order? Well done Billy for keeping us updated. Let's not go down the 'I'm sure they'd love to be more open but greater forces compel omertà' route again. It's one thing to hide behind vague mentions of confidentiality agreements / clauses [delete according to context], but court dates are not secret. Magna Carta did not die in vain. It is not contempt of court to tell anyone when you're due in court.
|
|
kingswood Polak
Without music life would be a mistake
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 10,278
|
Post by kingswood Polak on Jul 10, 2015 15:28:28 GMT
shrodingers Cat.
|
|
lbtp
Joined: August 2014
Posts: 17
|
Post by lbtp on Jul 10, 2015 15:31:47 GMT
why should are directors or legal team know the result anyway? isn't the point of going to court? I believe the legal representatives of both sides, and their clients, are informed of the judgement 24 hours in advance. It cannot be repeated or reported as that would put anyone doing so in contempt of court. Assuming that doesn't include weekends, the main players on both sides of this case will know the outcome already. Although whether that means every single director/club official will be informed is another matter, I doubt it.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 10, 2015 15:52:32 GMT
I doubt they fancy a contempt of court order? Well done Billy for keeping us updated. Let's not go down the 'I'm sure they'd love to be more open but greater forces compel omertà' route again. It's one thing to hide behind vague mentions of confidentiality agreements / clauses [delete according to context], but court dates are not secret. Magna Carta did not die in vain. It is not contempt of court to tell anyone when you're due in court. So they're just doing it to be dicks then?
|
|
Lazza
Rod Hull
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 264
|
Post by Lazza on Jul 10, 2015 15:56:25 GMT
Finally we will get to know either way! Appeals pending, at least we can finally put this whole farce to bed once and for all.
For what it's worth this is my prediction on the verdict:
Justice Proudman will concur with Sainsbury's view that the contract had lapsed and so they are not compelled to complete the contract in full. However, she will find that they allowed Rovers to incur additional costs in pursuit of the sale when they had no intention to complete. Therefore, she will rule that Sainsbury's should compensate Rovers for the costs incurred, however Sainsbury's will not be liable for the full contract cost of £30m. A result that will write off the stadium losses incurred to date by Rovers but not the 'golden ticket' to get the UWE built. Rovers stay at the Mem (and retain ownership), but get enough cash to pay off the Wonga loan (which Rovers will argue was an additional cost of pursuing the stadium sale) and all other stadium sunk costs.
In a nutshell! Bet against this post at your peril!
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 10, 2015 16:00:11 GMT
Finally we will get to know either way! Appeals pending, at least we can finally put this whole farce to bed once and for all.
For what it's worth this is my prediction on the verdict:
Justice Proudman will concur with Sainsbury's view that the contract had lapsed and so they are not compelled to complete the contract in full. However, she will find that they allowed Rovers to incur additional costs in pursuit of the sale when they had no intention to complete. Therefore, she will rule that Sainsbury's should compensate Rovers for the costs incurred, however Sainsbury's will not be liable for the full contract cost of £30m. A result that will write off the stadium losses incurred to date by Rovers but not the 'golden ticket' to get the UWE built. Rovers stay at the Mem (and retain ownership), but get enough cash to pay off the Wonga loan (which Rovers will argue was an additional cost of pursuing the stadium sale) and all other stadium sunk costs.
Shut up mystic meg.
|
|
|
Post by a more piratey game on Jul 10, 2015 16:07:10 GMT
what time you going to get there billy?
|
|
|
Post by billyocean on Jul 10, 2015 16:32:12 GMT
what time you going to get there billy? Might have to be 10:30 on the dot. An in and out job! If I arrive late and hear whoops of joy then happy days. Boos, not so good. Any other guzzlers going?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 10, 2015 16:33:23 GMT
Finally we will get to know either way! Appeals pending, at least we can finally put this whole farce to bed once and for all.
For what it's worth this is my prediction on the verdict:
Justice Proudman will concur with Sainsbury's view that the contract had lapsed and so they are not compelled to complete the contract in full. However, she will find that they allowed Rovers to incur additional costs in pursuit of the sale when they had no intention to complete. Therefore, she will rule that Sainsbury's should compensate Rovers for the costs incurred, however Sainsbury's will not be liable for the full contract cost of £30m. A result that will write off the stadium losses incurred to date by Rovers but not the 'golden ticket' to get the UWE built. Rovers stay at the Mem (and retain ownership), but get enough cash to pay off the Wonga loan (which Rovers will argue was an additional cost of pursuing the stadium sale) and all other stadium sunk costs.
She will also view the tactics behind letting the contract lapse and view it appropriately. If the contract had just lapsed as such with Sainsbury's playing the game then Rovers will stand no chance at all. And wouldn't be entitled to anything, why would they? But Sainsburys have played the stalling game to do just that, let the contract lapse. And it will bite them big time. I hope.
|
|
|
Post by Bath Gas on Jul 10, 2015 16:36:29 GMT
Might have to be 10:30 on the dot. An in and out job! If I arrive late and hear whoops of joy then happy days. Boos, not so good. Any other guzzlers going? Checked out the possibility, but trains are stupid prices, and coach leaves at 5.40 a.m.
|
|
|
Post by a more piratey game on Jul 10, 2015 16:48:02 GMT
Might have to be 10:30 on the dot. An in and out job! If I arrive late and hear whoops of joy then happy days. Boos, not so good. Any other guzzlers going? I'll try to join you. I thought it was usually 10am, as regular court kicks off at 10.30?
|
|
|
Post by interceptor on Jul 10, 2015 17:08:02 GMT
why should are directors or legal team know the result anyway? isn't the point of going to court? I did wonder whether they had been advised of the likely direction of the decision some weeks ago and the judge had urged them to find a mutually agreeable conclusion before she made her decision. The trouble with the british legal system is that there is generally one side left feeling a decision is unjust; you never get justice you simply get a legally binding decision. I hope and pray that Sainsburys feel they got the wrong decision come Monday afternoon!
|
|
brizzle
Lindsay Parsons
No Buy . . . No Sell!
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 4,293
|
Post by brizzle on Jul 10, 2015 17:17:35 GMT
Might have to be 10:30 on the dot. An in and out job! If I arrive late and hear whoops of joy then happy days. Boos, not so good.
Any other guzzlers going? I've no great knowledge of the justice system in this country, but it wouldn't surprise me at all, that when the decision is announced it may not be a straightforward ''win'' or ''lose'' scenario for either side. From what I've seen, when a judgement is handed down in a civil case it can be quite a lengthy process, and is not necessarily straightforward at all.
|
|
|
Post by billyocean on Jul 10, 2015 18:14:30 GMT
Might have to be 10:30 on the dot. An in and out job! If I arrive late and hear whoops of joy then happy days. Boos, not so good.
Any other guzzlers going? I've no great knowledge of the justice system in this country, but it wouldn't surprise me at all, that when the decision is announced it may not be a straightforward ''win'' or ''lose'' scenario for either side. From what I've seen, when a judgement is handed down in a civil case it can be quite a lengthy process, and is not necessarily straightforward at all. That is a concern and I can't stay for long as I'll be getting paid to do a full day's work I might have to go before we get to the verdict and then watch the forums for updates
|
|
|
Post by billyocean on Jul 10, 2015 18:19:33 GMT
Might have to be 10:30 on the dot. An in and out job! If I arrive late and hear whoops of joy then happy days. Boos, not so good. Any other guzzlers going? I'll try to join you. I thought it was usually 10am, as regular court kicks off at 10.30? It is 10 usually but it says half 10 on our ticket. Will confirm here monday am if going
|
|
Bridgeman
Alfie Biggs
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 3,549
|
Post by Bridgeman on Jul 10, 2015 19:21:47 GMT
Might have to be 10:30 on the dot. An in and out job! If I arrive late and hear whoops of joy then happy days. Boos, not so good. Any other guzzlers going? Can't we smuggle a couple of smoke bombs in there and do what the Vatican does when choosing a new Pope, but in our case let off a blue/white smoke bomb for good news and a red one for bad. Anyone know if Mrs Proudman can refuse an appeal against her decision ? How far can any side go in the appeal process if allowed ?
|
|
|
Post by Finnish Gas on Jul 10, 2015 19:24:11 GMT
Keith Chimp @realkeithchimp 5h5 hours ago Can't believe #BristolRovers and Sainsburys have agreed to settle out of court to cover all loses to the club - READ IT HERE FIRST! #UTG twitter.com/RealKeithChimpDoes this have any credibility?
|
|