nsgas
Joined: July 2014
Posts: 61
|
Post by nsgas on Aug 3, 2014 12:20:06 GMT
Ask yourself what is more likely. A local newspaper just makes up a story and is quite happy to be sued for libel/defamation. Or, somebody who has inside knowledge, who can benefit from a story becoming public, "tips off" a local newspaper. I know where my money is.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 3, 2014 12:28:05 GMT
how would the insider benefit ?
|
|
toteend
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 305
|
Post by toteend on Aug 3, 2014 12:34:31 GMT
I really do worry sometimes at the level some people on here are at.
We have an ancient old HACK regurgitating info he could have got from any gas forum and panic ensues. Perhaps there should be a minimum age for people on public forums.
Basically he has said that Sainsburys want out (wrong) and the legal teams have met on a couple of occasions, (he is wrong there, they have met many times).
Sainsburys want to reduce the amount they are paying for the site in light of changed business conditions. Rovers rightly have told them to stick it where the sun don't shine. We have to. Without the full sum we can't move. It's a no brainer.
Next panic, they will tie us up in court for years. They might try, but when you try to avoid legal obligations, you can not only claim the agreed sums, but costs for any further increases due to delays whether deliberate or not. You can also claim for vexatious costs by trying to kill it by delay. So we could end up with not just the agreed figure, but also sue for additional costs of building due to delays, and if the judge feels Sainsburys are deliberately trying to kill the deal by stupid delays, then he can also allow damages for that.
Sainsburys beware. I know of no reason why NH would not be correct in saying that the contract is water tight, in which case they can 'build a chewing gum factory there for all I care'.
If Rovers lawyers say the deal is watertight, and they are wrong, that is not Rovers fault, or indeed NH, that is the lawyers who are wrong, and we could then lodge a claim with the Law Society.
Still, it's better to have another go at NH isn't it. He's got many things wrong, but in this regard you have to accept what you're legal team say, as he is no more a lawyer than most of us.
|
|
|
Post by bemmygas on Aug 3, 2014 12:37:16 GMT
UWE as a sellable/borrowing asset = £0. While I think it will go ahead,cop at least £10 million in compensation with grants means massive upgrade of the mem. Not so big but still left with a £20 million piece of real estate.As long as the board don't pocket it.
|
|
kingswood Polak
Without music life would be a mistake
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 10,278
|
Post by kingswood Polak on Aug 3, 2014 12:53:12 GMT
Seems Russell's just written an article based on posts on this forum, those he really have a source to say Sainsbury's want out, even if they do the contracts seem fairly watertight or they would have walked away already? Either they pay us £30m for the mem now or millions in compensation, hopefully, giving us enough to redevelop the mem, which is probably the last thing Trash/local residents wanted! It's TIME that matters. If we are not promoted this season then we have no monies from the FL. Sainsbury will be well aware of this and will drag it out till we are bankrupt. Both parties will know this too. It all makes sense now, Higgs frosty nature at the Q&A and the comment about doing what they want with the Mem. Sainsbury have kept Sourhend waiting five years and counting now. They have the wherewithal and nous to drag it on till we are in our knees. If you think we hold any cards here then I am sorry. This board will blame Sainsbury but NH is the self proclaimed "expert" on building. I know who I would place blame with and it ain't John Ward or Lennie Laurence.
|
|
kingswood Polak
Without music life would be a mistake
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 10,278
|
Post by kingswood Polak on Aug 3, 2014 12:57:01 GMT
I really do worry sometimes at the level some people on here are at. We have an ancient old HACK regurgitating info he could have got from any gas forum and panic ensues. Perhaps there should be a minimum age for people on public forums. Basically he has said that Sainsburys want out (wrong) and the legal teams have met on a couple of occasions, (he is wrong there, they have met many times). Sainsburys want to reduce the amount they are paying for the site in light of changed business conditions. Rovers rightly have told them to stick it where the sun don't shine. We have to. Without the full sum we can't move. It's a no brainer. Next panic, they will tie us up in court for years. They might try, but when you try to avoid legal obligations, you can not only claim the agreed sums, but costs for any further increases due to delays whether deliberate or not. You can also claim for vexatious costs by trying to kill it by delay. So we could end up with not just the agreed figure, but also sue for additional costs of building due to delays, and if the judge feels Sainsburys are deliberately trying to kill the deal by stupid delays, then he can also allow damages for that. Sainsburys beware. I know of no reason why NH would not be correct in saying that the contract is water tight, in which case they can 'build a chewing gum factory there for all I care'. If Rovers lawyers say the deal is watertight, and they are wrong, that is not Rovers fault, or indeed NH, that is the lawyers who are wrong, and we could then lodge a claim with the Law Society. Still, it's better to have another go at NH isn't it. He's got many things wrong, but in this regard you have to accept what you're legal team say, as he is no more a lawyer than most of us. Higgs may have time to mess with legalities but the football club do not Brian. Your logic is flawed, unless NH is prepared to pump money in after this season or we are done. We can't afford long in this division. Sainsbury have kept Southend going in 5 years. BTW. You could also be given false information mate. Don't think the old pals act makes you impervious to BS from a director or directors.
|
|
|
Post by Curly Wurly on Aug 3, 2014 13:00:52 GMT
So rather than running around like headless chickens, could someone with access actually tell us (precisely) what is said in the article. I have my own suspicions about the motives of the author, but until we have seen what he has to say, wouldn't it be wiser to keep powder dry for a while? I HAVE seen what he has to say that is why I started this thread! If you think no one else should comment unless they have also read the article directly you should practice what you preach and go and buy the bloody paper! Whether you like the author or not (because he is a s***head) the Sunday Independent is the only paper worth buying now if you want an insight into what is going on in local sport. The jounalists that cover us (Richard Latham is the other) always give us more than what was said by the manager or chairman and are not frightened to stand up to the board as Latham did a few weeks ago for them failing to meet with the supporters soon enough after relegation. Anyway, I've paraphrased the main points for you in the first post and given a direct quote in another post if thats not good enough get off your arse and buy the paper. In the meantime the rest of us can debate the very worrying inference. A rather more aggressive response than I had anticipated!. The Sunday Independent is not available within 60 miles of where I live, so it is more than getting off my arse to buy it. I since found it is available on line, but in truth, I suspect their motive of publishing the story in their last edition before the season starts isbto get gasheads like us to pay the subscription. I have got nothing against any debate on thesubject, but many of the contributions on here had obviously jumped to a premature conclusion.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 3, 2014 13:02:50 GMT
It's all John Wards fault. It yours for not beating up the other board members before you left!
|
|
|
Post by frenchgashead on Aug 3, 2014 13:11:17 GMT
This all ties in with the MPs letter and the recent press briefing from UWE. The signs for the last month have been that Sainsbury's want to get out of the deal. NH and the club's lawyers may think they have a watertight contract and maybe they have. Sainsbury's probably have better lawyers, more time and more money to drag this out through the courts and argue that it isn't a watertight contract - that's what lawyers are paid for. What will probably happen is that the two sets of lawyers will negotiate for a time - Sainsbury's knowing that we couldn't go through a court case that would last several years and possibly lose and have to pay all the costs. Then in a few months time they offer the club say £10 million compensation to end the matter. The question then would be what do the BoD do? Put the money into the club and do some work on the Mem or pay back their loans and clear off?
|
|
Peter Parker
Global Moderator
Richard Walker
You have been sentenced to DELETION!
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 4,920
|
Post by Peter Parker on Aug 3, 2014 13:19:42 GMT
The article also quotes a Rovers spokesman as saying "we dont want compensation to give up the contract" That suggests that Sainsburys have made a move to offer compensation to get out. If so that does provide some encouragement that they recognise that they cannot just pull out. So its probably now going to be about how little they can pay us without going to court. I think they will try and tempt the directors with enough money to repay their loans and maybe build a nice new stand at the current ground? Who was the spokesmen? They can give us compo to pull out as long as it is the full amount they were going to pay
|
|
|
Post by falsenumber9 on Aug 3, 2014 13:19:45 GMT
This all ties in with the MPs letter and the recent press briefing from UWE. The signs for the last month have been that Sainsbury's want to get out of the deal. NH and the club's lawyers may think they have a watertight contract and maybe they have. Sainsbury's probably have better lawyers, more time and more money to drag this out through the courts and argue that it isn't a watertight contract - that's what lawyers are paid for. What will probably happen is that the two sets of lawyers will negotiate for a time - Sainsbury's knowing that we couldn't go through a court case that would last several years and possibly lose and have to pay all the costs. Then in a few months time they offer the club say £10 million compensation to end the matter. The question then would be what do the BoD do? Put the money into the club and do some work on the Mem or pay back their loans and clear off? £10m sounds optimistic given the fact that Sainsbury's appear to be in a strong position. What's more, I can't imagine UWE will be happy for that land to remain in its current state whilst years of negotiating takes place. I always said that I'll believe the new stadium when I see it and it doesn't look like it'll happen anytime soon now realistically. Worryingly, any prolonged dispute will inevitability affect our prospects on the field given the costs and uncertainty involved.
|
|
|
Post by a more piratey game on Aug 3, 2014 13:23:50 GMT
If Rovers lawyers say the deal is watertight, and they are wrong, that is not Rovers fault, or indeed NH, that is the lawyers who are wrong, and we could then lodge a claim with the Law Society. Still, it's better to have another go at NH isn't it. He's got many things wrong, but in this regard you have to accept what you're legal team say, as he is no more a lawyer than most of us. I don't think any legal agreements are 'watertight' - that's the sort of phrase used for soundbites rather than legal analysis is my guess. What's more likely is that the agreement is deemed to be enforceable by the parties concerned - or additional parties (eg a court) should a dispute arise if it turns out that it is not enforceable/there is enough wriggle room for Sainsbury's not to follow through with the purchase, and Rovers' lawyers were instructed to provide such, or otherwise suggested to Rovers that it was enforceable, then Rovers could think about making a claim against their lawyers for professional negligence or breach of contract/fiduciary duty Rovers' lawyers would then, I think, put their professional indemnity insurers on notice of a 'circumstance', and then prescribed protocols would be followed I think that the expectation of NH would be that he would instruct lawyers with relevant experience - and I'd be very surprised if he hasn't done. If things have gone a bit wobbly, he might put another firm on notice to review the work done by the existing lawyers, with a view to asking them to lead a future claim against them. But I'd guess that that is somewhere ahead of where things might be at the moment if I were Sainsburys, and I'd changed my mind, I'd probably be asking my lawyer to take a very close look at the contracts, and possibly comment as to future options available - one of which might be to 'buy their way out of it', depending on price
|
|
GasHeadGaz
Vita Astafjevs
Joined: June 2014
Posts: 518
|
Post by GasHeadGaz on Aug 3, 2014 13:24:11 GMT
As the majority of the posts agree & back up the article, can someone please post a link to said article?
|
|
kingswood Polak
Without music life would be a mistake
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 10,278
|
Post by kingswood Polak on Aug 3, 2014 13:27:32 GMT
I really do worry sometimes at the level some people on here are at. We have an ancient old HACK regurgitating info he could have got from any gas forum and panic ensues. Perhaps there should be a minimum age for people on public forums. Basically he has said that Sainsburys want out (wrong) and the legal teams have met on a couple of occasions, (he is wrong there, they have met many times). Sainsburys want to reduce the amount they are paying for the site in light of changed business conditions. Rovers rightly have told them to stick it where the sun don't shine. We have to. Without the full sum we can't move. It's a no brainer. Next panic, they will tie us up in court for years. They might try, but when you try to avoid legal obligations, you can not only claim the agreed sums, but costs for any further increases due to delays whether deliberate or not. You can also claim for vexatious costs by trying to kill it by delay. So we could end up with not just the agreed figure, but also sue for additional costs of building due to delays, and if the judge feels Sainsburys are deliberately trying to kill the deal by stupid delays, then he can also allow damages for that. Sainsburys beware. I know of no reason why NH would not be correct in saying that the contract is water tight, in which case they can 'build a chewing gum factory there for all I care'. If Rovers lawyers say the deal is watertight, and they are wrong, that is not Rovers fault, or indeed NH, that is the lawyers who are wrong, and we could then lodge a claim with the Law Society. Still, it's better to have another go at NH isn't it. He's got many things wrong, but in this regard you have to accept what you're legal team say, as he is no more a lawyer than most of us. Higgs may have time to mess with legalities but the football club do not Brian. Your logic is flawed, unless NH is prepared to pump money in after this season or we are done. We can't afford long in this division. Sainsbury have kept Southend going in 5 years. BTW. You could also be given false information mate. Don't think the old pals act makes you impervious to BS from a director or directors.
|
|
GasHeadGaz
Vita Astafjevs
Joined: June 2014
Posts: 518
|
Post by GasHeadGaz on Aug 3, 2014 13:32:20 GMT
.....or is it just more guessing from a press desperate to sell papers. Someone is not telling the whole truth somewhere in all this! ".....or is it just more guessing from a press desperate to sell papers." SSshhhhhhh let's see if we can go for a record number of pages in this latest bitch-fest!? 3 pages & counting....
|
|
|
Post by Feeling The Blues on Aug 3, 2014 13:33:39 GMT
This all ties in with the MPs letter and the recent press briefing from UWE. The signs for the last month have been that Sainsbury's want to get out of the deal. NH and the club's lawyers may think they have a watertight contract and maybe they have. Sainsbury's probably have better lawyers, more time and more money to drag this out through the courts and argue that it isn't a watertight contract - that's what lawyers are paid for. What will probably happen is that the two sets of lawyers will negotiate for a time - Sainsbury's knowing that we couldn't go through a court case that would last several years and possibly lose and have to pay all the costs. Then in a few months time they offer the club say £10 million compensation to end the matter. The question then would be what do the BoD do? Put the money into the club and do some work on the Mem or pay back their loans and clear off? That's how I see it too. Sometimes in order to see the full picture you need to stand back and see everything. When you see this article along with the MPs letter, the UWE statement and the silence on the matter from the club I think we have the full picture. Actions speak louder than words as they say and I do think that the words that the club have used in the small meetings with supporters ( I was at one) are very carefully chosen and when one on one might be even be designed to mislead.
|
|
|
Post by whoisjamieshore on Aug 3, 2014 13:43:39 GMT
As the majority of the posts agree & back up the article, can someone please post a link to said article? It's behind a paywall, unfortunately, cannot be accessed unless you pay a quid.. you lot owe me..excuse typos STORES GROUP DECISION PUTS PIRATES' PLANS IN JEOPARDY Supermarket giants Sainsburys wants to pull the plug on the £20-Million deal to buy Bristol Rovers' ground for a new store. They claim delays and a changing public mood no longer make it viable. For Rovers it is a financial triple whammy just months after losing their Football League status after 93 years of continuous membership. The Pirates are braced, if necessary, to take Sainsbury's to court to protect the contract, which would give them the money to build a new stadium. Prime Minister David Cameron told local MP Charlotte Lesley recently in the commons that he very much hoped the stores group would go ahead with the land purchase, but they have decided it no longer makes commercial sense. When Rovers were relegated to the Conference in the spring, Chairman Nick Higgs promised the plans for the new stadium would still go ahead, although they would be put back a year. The promise was conditional on Sainsbury's still going ahead and providing the money for Rovers to move from the Memorial Stadium. Lawyers on both sides are involved and there have already been two legal skirmishes which have so far gone unreported. Since the banking crisis began, all the domestic stores have seen market share drift away to the German discount Groups Aldi and Lidl. The fear is those customers are unlikelt to come back now because while the recession is officially over, the purse strings are still very tight. Expansion plans throughout the country are being reviewed by the food groups, who are tending to look to establish smaller convenience stores. It is a major crisis for the football club. They have already lost regular rental income from Bristol Rugby, who have left the Mem after 93 years to move in with Bristol City, where their owner, Steve Lansdown is the biggest shareholder and boss. Rovers are facing up to lower revenues as a Non league club but insist their future is still secure. They have a Plan B to improve their present stadium which was agreed with the City Council before Sainsbury's came down the aisle. A club source said last night 'We don't want to see the arrangement with Sainsbury's scuppered. We believe the contract is pretty watertight but the last thing we want is another court case. We don't want compensation to give up the contract. We do want a new ground with facilities to see us through the 21st Century.' Bristol Rovers are the west;s oldest senior club, dating back to 1883, and truned professional in 1897 - the same year as Bristol City.
|
|
bs10er
Joined: June 2014
Posts: 51
|
Post by bs10er on Aug 3, 2014 13:44:36 GMT
I do not know if this is true or not,but IF Sainsburys want to pull out,how on earth can you blame Nick Higgs or any of the Board?
|
|
gas2
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 218
|
Post by gas2 on Aug 3, 2014 13:46:43 GMT
I thought they were paying more than £2o million for the mem ?
|
|
GasHeadGaz
Vita Astafjevs
Joined: June 2014
Posts: 518
|
Post by GasHeadGaz on Aug 3, 2014 13:46:49 GMT
As the majority of the posts agree & back up the article, can someone please post a link to said article? It's behind a paywall, unfortunately, cannot be accessed unless you pay a quid.. you lot owe me..excuse typos STORES GROUP DECISION PUTS PIRATES' PLANS IN JEOPARDY Supermarket giants Sainsburys wants to pull the plug on the £20-Million deal to buy Bristol Rovers' ground for a new store. They claim delays and a changing public mood no longer make it viable. For Rovers it is a financial triple whammy just months after losing their Football League status after 93 years of continuous membership. The Pirates are braced, if necessary, to take Sainsbury's to court to protect the contract, which would give them the money to build a new stadium. Prime Minister David Cameron told local MP Charlotte Lesley recently in the commons that he very much hoped the stores group would go ahead with the land purchase, but they have decided it no longer makes commercial sense. When Rovers were relegated to the Conference in the spring, Chairman Nick Higgs promised the plans for the new stadium would still go ahead, although they would be put back a year. The promise was conditional on Sainsbury's still going ahead and providing the money for Rovers to move from the Memorial Stadium. Lawyers on both sides are involved and there have already been two legal skirmishes which have so far gone unreported. Since the banking crisis began, all the domestic stores have seen market share drift away to the German discount Groups Aldi and Lidl. The fear is those customers are unlikelt to come back now because while the recession is officially over, the purse strings are still very tight. Expansion plans throughout the country are being reviewed by the food groups, who are tending to look to establish smaller convenience stores. It is a major crisis for the football club. They have already lost regular rental income from Bristol Rugby, who have left the Mem after 93 years to move in with Bristol City, where their owner, Steve Lansdown is the biggest shareholder and boss. Rovers are facing up to lower revenues as a Non league club but insist their future is still secure. They have a Plan B to improve their present stadium which was agreed with the City Council before Sainsbury's came down the aisle. A club source said last night 'We don't want to see the arrangement with Sainsbury's scuppered. We believe the contract is pretty watertight but the last thing we want is another court case. We don't want compensation to give up the contract. We do want a new ground with facilities to see us through the 21st Century.' Bristol Rovers are the west;s oldest senior club, dating back to 1883, and truned professional in 1897 - the same year as Bristol City. Cheers mate, I went to their website & couldn't find anything. I now know why.
|
|