simonj
Archie Stevens
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 817
|
Post by simonj on Mar 17, 2016 10:58:10 GMT
Why would anyone want a redeveloped Mem? We still have planning permission for a brand, spanking new stadium and now we also have wealthy owners and directors with the expertise to help us build it. 20,000 in town and I live around the corner...selfish I suppose.
|
|
harrybuckle
Always look on the bright side
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 5,430
|
Post by harrybuckle on Mar 17, 2016 10:58:29 GMT
Continue our boycott of Sainsburys stores forever now
|
|
|
Post by CabbagePatchBlues on Mar 17, 2016 11:00:41 GMT
It had to go to the wire or we'd have been asking what if? for ever and a day with never ending threads full of pointless debates. Higgs did his best and without that we wouldn't be looking at Uwe now.
|
|
|
We Lost
Mar 17, 2016 11:05:19 GMT
via mobile
Post by creationblue on Mar 17, 2016 11:05:19 GMT
I don't blame Higgs I blame the big corporation that stiffed us knowing that connections with people at the top could get them off Scott free, and in the meantime competitors didn't get the chance to build a store of their own.
I for one won't be shopping at sainsburys again!
|
|
|
Post by Finnish Gas on Mar 17, 2016 11:08:42 GMT
Bristol Rovers lose their court appeal against Sainsbury'sBristol Rovers have lost their appeal against Sainsbury's over the future of the Memorial Stadium in Horfield. The three Court of Appeal judges have ruled that the contract between the club and Sainsbury's was lawfully terminated and that the supermarket chain had not acted in bad faith. The club took Sainsbury's to court after alleging that the supermarket chain had reneged on a binding contract to buy the Memorial Stadium and therefore pave the way to Rovers going ahead with a new £40million stadium at Stoke Gifford. A Sainsbury's spokesperson said: "We're pleased that the Court has robustly dismissed Bristol Rover's appeal and ruled that the conditional contract lawfully ended in November 2014.
"We have been trading in Bristol for over 45 years and will continue to work with the local community via our existing stores which are extremely popular with customers."The club is expected to make a statement later. Read more: www.bristolpost.co.uk/Bristol-Rovers-lose-court-appeal-Sainsbury-s/story-28942457-detail/story.htmlThe spokeperson's statement shows utter contempt towards us!
|
|
|
Post by falsenumber9 on Mar 17, 2016 11:10:00 GMT
Continue our boycott of Sainsburys stores forever now Business is business at the end of the day. We lost this case because we failed to make the contract watertight and gave Sainsburys the opportunity to pull out. It was our failing, not theirs.
|
|
Rex
Predictions League
Joined: June 2014
Posts: 3,287
|
Post by Rex on Mar 17, 2016 11:14:54 GMT
Continue our boycott of Sainsburys stores forever now Will no one think of the Nectar points.
|
|
Peter Parker
Global Moderator
Richard Walker
You have been sentenced to DELETION!
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 4,920
|
Post by Peter Parker on Mar 17, 2016 11:21:34 GMT
Dismissing the club's appeal, however, Lord Justice Floyd said Sainsbury's was within its rights to terminate the contract. The supermarket chain had met its obligation to use "all reasonable endeavours" to obtain an "acceptable" planning consent for the project. Rovers said it had "consistently pressed" the supermarket chain to back the club's own bid to lift the delivery hours restriction. But the judge, sitting with Lords Justice Laws and McCombe, ruled that Sainsbury's had been under no legal obligation to "give its name" to the club's attempt. The court's ruling spells the end of Bristol Rovers' long legal campaign to force Sainsbury's into going through with the deal. The club, which was refused permission to appeal further to the Supreme Court, now also faces enormous legal costs bills. A Sainsbury's spokesperson said: "We're pleased that the Court has robustly dismissed Bristol Rover's appeal and ruled that the conditional contract lawfully ended in November 2014. "We have been trading in Bristol for over 45 years and will continue to work with the local community via our existing stores which are extremely popular with customers." The club is expected to make a statement later. Read more: www.bristolpost.co.uk/Bristol-Rovers-lose-court-appeal-Sainsbury-s/story-28942457-detail/story.html#ixzz439sKkL6J Follow us: @bristolpost on Twitter | bristolpost on Facebook
|
|
trunky
Joined: June 2014
Posts: 230
|
Post by trunky on Mar 17, 2016 11:23:18 GMT
I don't think any one of us can see the bigger picture, I have it on very good authority that we had to contest the original verdict because we now have a watertight case against our solicitors for cocking up the contract and that they are now liable to pay out millions in compensation.
|
|
|
Post by droitwichgas on Mar 17, 2016 11:25:58 GMT
I still can't understand why we ever agreed to the onerous conditions in the first place?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 17, 2016 11:27:20 GMT
Continue our boycott of Sainsburys stores forever now Too right, how dare they insist that contract terms are adhered to.
|
|
|
Post by Gastafari on Mar 17, 2016 11:29:43 GMT
Why would anyone want a redeveloped Mem? We still have planning permission for a brand, spanking new stadium and now we also have wealthy owners and directors with the expertise to help us build it. 20,000 in town and I live around the corner...selfish I suppose. It would be 18,000 and no room whatsoever for expansion. It would be big enough for us now, but not if we did progress like Swansea, Hull, Brighton etc have done over the last decade. A new purpose built 20,000+ stadium would also bring extra revenue streams into the club which in todays Football climate is a godsend. If it was possible to expand The Mem to over 20,000 then it would be perfect. But it isn't.
|
|
|
Post by gasparilla on Mar 17, 2016 11:46:11 GMT
I don't think any one of us can see the bigger picture, I have it on very good authority that we had to contest the original verdict because we now have a watertight case against our solicitors for cocking up the contract and that they are now liable to pay out millions in compensation. 2 members of the Law Society club suing each other - just see yet more cash pissed against the wall.
|
|
|
Post by Henbury Gas on Mar 17, 2016 11:49:28 GMT
Time to move on. At least we have a good future in front of us, irrespective of the decision. Very well said that man.
Redevelop Mem please.
more chance of me getting my way with Turnip face daniella radice
|
|
|
Post by Cosmic Pasty on Mar 17, 2016 11:53:28 GMT
I don't blame Higgs I blame the big corporation that stiffed us knowing that connections with people at the top could get them off Scott free, and in the meantime competitors didn't get the chance to build a store of their own. I for one won't be shopping at sainsburys again! If my kids were starving and Sainsbury's were the only shop open for miles then I'd use them, of course I would. Having said that, I passed two Sainsbury's express-type shops when I was down in town last week and couldn't bring myself to go in either of them. I walked on and found something else, even though it was freezing cold and I was keen to be somewhere warm. I don't blame Higgs either, in as much as I don't feel any ill will towards him. While he's pretty obviously central to the whole muck-up, it's hardly something he deliberately created with malicious intent and it's a big black mark on his reputation that he will carry around forever. I'd like to think he's redeemed himself by choosing new owners who understand what's always made the club tick and who have the contacts and resources to carry it forward into a prosperous future. If time proves that to be the case, then I don't see how we can call that a happy accident on Higgs's part yet still treat him as if he engineered the whole stadium fiasco on purpose. He can be a stubborn and closed-minded git at times, but at the end of the day I still feel that he's our stubborn and closed-minded git and I don't have a problem with him pitching up to watch the team play. I'm still kind of surprised by the whole Al Qadi thing, but I've seen enough last-gasp goals to know that refusing to give up and being granted a stroke of luck at the eleventh hour is not untypical of Rovers. I'm just grateful things worked out in the end and we've still got our club. I'm content to draw a line under it all and hope that the BRFC statement says something like 'It's time to knock it on the head. We've all got better things to think about now'.
|
|
|
Post by gasolder on Mar 17, 2016 11:56:31 GMT
It would be interesting to find out if the failed appeal is reflected in the purchasing sum that the new owners pay to the previous owners of the club. There could well be a retention clause with penalties in the event that the appeal fails.
|
|
Peter Parker
Global Moderator
Richard Walker
You have been sentenced to DELETION!
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 4,920
|
Post by Peter Parker on Mar 17, 2016 11:56:48 GMT
I still can't understand why we ever agreed to the onerous conditions in the first place? because it was the only deal that would generate enough money
|
|
|
Post by a more piratey game on Mar 17, 2016 12:03:06 GMT
He can be a stubborn and closed-minded git at times, but at the end of the day I still feel that he's our stubborn and closed-minded git and I don't have a problem with him pitching up to watch the team play.
|
|
|
Post by CountyGroundHotel on Mar 17, 2016 12:03:30 GMT
It would be interesting to find out if the failed appeal is reflected in the purchasing sum that the new owners pay to the previous owners of the club. There could well be a retention clause with penalties in the event that the appeal fails. I'd be surprised if the price paid wasn't conditional on the outcome of the appeal. Time to move on & see what the new owners can deliver now.
|
|
misspiggy
Predictions League
Joined: August 2014
Posts: 551
|
Post by misspiggy on Mar 17, 2016 12:03:44 GMT
No surprise there then , because of our new owners and our financial backing it seems easier to stomach . Think it would have been curtains for us had Higgs and co still been running the club . Relieved
|
|