|
|
Post by barleycorn48 on Mar 3, 2016 14:55:09 GMT
I know the outcome is sometime in March. Does any body know the exact date,
|
|
nerdgas
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 145 
|
Post by nerdgas on Mar 3, 2016 15:33:24 GMT
I know the outcome is sometime in March. Does any body know the exact date, Is it? Well that was more than I know.... |
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 3, 2016 15:39:27 GMT
Isn't it expected to be 4 to 8 weeks or some such after whenever the hearing was? That makes it 'probably March-ish' and that's it, until someone starts monitoring the court lists.
Can't say I'm that interested in the result now it won't result in the club going into financial meltdown.
|
|
brizzle
Lindsay Parsons
No Buy . . . No Sell!
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 4,293
|
Post by brizzle on Mar 3, 2016 15:50:50 GMT
Didn't the new owners say at the time of purchasing the club, that the result of the court of appeal hearing was now ''irrelevant'' to them?
But it will be interesting though, won't it?
|
|
Peter Parker
Global Moderator
Richard Walker
You have been sentenced to DELETION!
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 4,920
|
Post by Peter Parker on Mar 3, 2016 16:13:25 GMT
Didn't the new owners say at the time of purchasing the club, that the result of the court of appeal hearing was now ''irrelevant'' to them? But it will be interesting though, won't it? more like irrelevant to UWE project or another stadium.
not irrelevant as if we did win that is £30m quid
|
|
brizzle
Lindsay Parsons
No Buy . . . No Sell!
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 4,293
|
Post by brizzle on Mar 3, 2016 16:22:56 GMT
Didn't the new owners say at the time of purchasing the club, that the result of the court of appeal hearing was now ''irrelevant'' to them? But it will be interesting though, won't it? more like irrelevant to UWE project or another stadium.
not irrelevant as if we did win that is £30m quid
I really don't know what is in their minds as regards the outcome of the appeal, only what was reported at the time. I doubt anyone does know what they are thinking, outside of the inner circle that is. |
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 3, 2016 23:48:45 GMT
When will we find out whether or not Aston Villa have been relegated? Some time in the next couple of months.
But I'm not desperate to find out.
Plus I'm fairly sure I know the answer.
I agree, though, there's the outstanding possibility of 'blimey, I didn't expect that', and a windfall - but is that dependent on us shoving off pronto and not rethinking ('taking time over the planning') re what was planned at UWE? There's probably a court case in that, please no.
|
|
|
|
Post by richmace on Mar 4, 2016 7:41:57 GMT
The court case is not irrelevant, as the money would be very useful. The difference between a couple of weeks ago and today is that losing the court case will not result in the probable death of this football club.
It's certainly been removed from my radar...
|
|
|
|
Post by Cosmic Pasty on Mar 4, 2016 9:16:35 GMT
I'm interested in the outcome, but no longer worried by it.
|
|
Igitur
Joined: June 2014
Posts: 2,294
|
Post by Igitur on Mar 4, 2016 9:31:44 GMT
Suppose Sainsbury's have to pay up, they may buy the land and want us out, or though I am sure a deal could be made.
|
|
blueginger
David Williams
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 166
|
Post by blueginger on Mar 4, 2016 12:52:34 GMT
Suppose Sainsbury's have to pay up, they may buy the land and want us out, or though I am sure a deal could be made. Keep hearing rumors the land is already sold to one of the big house builders. |
|
|
|
Post by didlesknowmydad on Mar 4, 2016 13:16:37 GMT
Suppose Sainsbury's have to pay up, they may buy the land and want us out, or though I am sure a deal could be made. If the court finds that Sainsbury's had a contract but breached it they cannot make any demands under the contract unless Rovers were happy for them to do so. |
|
faggotygas
Byron Anthony
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 1,862
|
Post by faggotygas on Mar 4, 2016 13:30:15 GMT
Suppose Sainsbury's have to pay up, they may buy the land and want us out, or though I am sure a deal could be made. Didn't the contract say that we have to be in a new stadium before sainsburys could take possession? |
|
faggotygas
Byron Anthony
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 1,862
|
Post by faggotygas on Mar 4, 2016 13:31:35 GMT
Suppose Sainsbury's have to pay up, they may buy the land and want us out, or though I am sure a deal could be made. If the court finds that Sainsbury's had a contract but breached it they cannot make any demands under the contract unless Rovers were happy for them to do so. As I understand it, the case is enforcement of the contract, not breach |
|
|
|
Post by didlesknowmydad on Mar 4, 2016 13:36:38 GMT
If the court finds that Sainsbury's had a contract but breached it they cannot make any demands under the contract unless Rovers were happy for them to do so. As I understand it, the case is enforcement of the contract, not breach Yes but it will only be considering whether Sainsbury's should make reparations for failing to proceed with the contract. It's hardly possible to enforce two organisations embroiled in litigation with each other to then proceed in a contract with each other. |
|
faggotygas
Byron Anthony
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 1,862
|
Post by faggotygas on Mar 4, 2016 13:47:42 GMT
As I understand it, the case is enforcement of the contract, not breach Yes but it will only be considering whether Sainsbury's should make reparations for failing to proceed with the contract. It's hardly possible to enforce two organisations embroiled in litigation with each other to then proceed in a contract with each other. Where do you get that from? As I understand it, the case is to determine if the contract is still valid. If we win then the court will merely state that the contract is still valid. If either side subsequently fail to comply with the contract, then we have a breach situation, and back to court to compensate the breach, or more likely there will be a settlement.
Why is it not possible to proceed? Its a matter of Sainsbury's putting the purchase price in an escrow account, Rovers vacating the land when a stadium is built, and then Sainsbury's taking possession of the land when we vacate. All in line with the contract.
|
|
|
|
Post by didlesknowmydad on Mar 4, 2016 13:50:54 GMT
How could you successfully proceed with a contract when all goodwill has been lost? It's just not feasible and I'm sure no judge would try to enforce that.
|
|
brizzle
Lindsay Parsons
No Buy . . . No Sell!
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 4,293
|
Post by brizzle on Mar 4, 2016 13:54:02 GMT
I'm interested in the outcome, but no longer worried by it. Perfectly put, and they're my thoughts entirely. |
|
faggotygas
Byron Anthony
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 1,862
|
Post by faggotygas on Mar 4, 2016 14:10:49 GMT
How could you successfully proceed with a contract when all goodwill has been lost? It's just not feasible and I'm sure no judge would try to enforce that. Depends on the nature of the contract. Its a land sale, perfectly enforceable.
Quoting from Proudman's original judgement;
"This is an expedited trial of liability only to determine the status of a conditional contract dated 28 March 2011 (varied by a supplemental agreement dated 6 December 2011) for sale of the Memorial Stadium, Horfield, Bristol by the defendant (“the Club”) to the claimant (“Sainsbury’s”). The contract (comprising the original contract and a supplemental contract) is, where the context admits, compendiously described as “the Agreement” in this judgment and some relevant parts of it are annexed. Sainsbury’s case is that it has lawfully terminated the Agreement for non-satisfaction of conditions precedent; the Club’s case is that the Agreement is either still on foot or it has been terminated in breach of contract."
That's all it is, to determine the status of the contract. So yes, the appeal court could find the contract is still valid and has subsequently been breached, but settling the breach would require another case, and it doesn't have to find that the contract has been breached.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 4, 2016 14:31:51 GMT
Yes but it will only be considering whether Sainsbury's should make reparations for failing to proceed with the contract. It's hardly possible to enforce two organisations embroiled in litigation with each other to then proceed in a contract with each other. Where do you get that from? As I understand it, the case is to determine if the contract is still valid. If we win then the court will merely state that the contract is still valid. If either side subsequently fail to comply with the contract, then we have a breach situation, and back to court to compensate the breach, or more likely there will be a settlement.
Why is it not possible to proceed? Its a matter of Sainsbury's putting the purchase price in an escrow account, Rovers vacating the land when a stadium is built, and then Sainsbury's taking possession of the land when we vacate. All in line with the contract.
I got slightly confused, plus my memory's going: what was the case about? Sainsbury's were the claimant; was it basically to claim their right to walk away (in effect, to enforce that clause of the contract and have us stop bothering them)? Whatever the semantics, though, I agree with you. My understanding was that, based on the court case, the contract either stands (Sainsbury's pay £30 million, we build a stadium, move out, and they take possession), or it doesn't. In the unlikely event that it does, what would happen next (an agreed financial settlement to abandon the contract? Sainsbury's agree to wait while we rethink and go back to UWE?), who knows? Probably not an issue, though. |
|
