Steve Watts Posted May 19, 2015 Report Share Posted May 19, 2015 Sainsburys will rent it to Rovers at a massive rate or improve the pitch by turning it into allotments. Not so sure....think I read somewhere that until the slags moved into a new stadium the rent payable to Sainsbury would be a peppercorn (i.e.a nominal sum), so this may not be possible if contract performance is ordered. The hearing continues. Read more at http://www.bristolrovers.co.uk/news/article/update-rovers-in-the-high-court-2463464.aspx#58qPRM3u82RSCXvT.99 Gotta say I've no idea who those two slags are on the sides of the page in that link, but the one on the left looks like he's about to mug you, and the one on the right looks like he's thinking about his own sister! Just an observation, like.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Up The City! Posted May 20, 2015 Report Share Posted May 20, 2015 Got to say in this latest revelation it really doesn't look good for them. If I was the judge in this I would say relations between parties have broken down. The best course of action is for the parties to share the costs upto now and then go their seperate ways. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
havanatopia Posted May 20, 2015 Report Share Posted May 20, 2015 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Red Rich Posted May 20, 2015 Report Share Posted May 20, 2015 Anyone in my view whose family cruises about in cars with dumbass personalised number plates needs a darn good shoeing!!! Step forward the FD who doesn't know how to budget.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkeh Posted May 20, 2015 Report Share Posted May 20, 2015 Reflecting on a few remarks to the above that followed this posting it is confusing here because at the start it says Sainsbury's agreed to pay the 500k then later that NHiggs is upset he has to pay it. Do we assume, because it does not say it, that Sainsbury simply withdrew their offer to pay? Further, Rovers agreed to reduce the selling price by 1.6 million. I do not think this exchange places either party morally better off than the other and has to be taken in the overall context of the proceedings. From what i see so far Rovers have a much stronger case but they could trip up over cross examination. Hopefully the judge is experienced enough to set aside the miscellany and erroneous and concentrate only on the known facts. Perhaps that means overall she only has the fact that Rovers are now a league team to go on; the rest is grey!l The way I read it was, Sainsburys agreed to pay the cif up to a maximum of 500k, The cif exceeded that and rovers wanted sainsburys to pay it sainsburys refused, (one of the conditions) rovers then tried to change the terms of the contract to get sainsburys to pay and that's where it broke down, Remember this isn't rovers court case it's sainsburys taking rovers to court Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
havanatopia Posted May 20, 2015 Report Share Posted May 20, 2015 l The way I read it was, Sainsburys agreed to pay the cif up to a maximum of 500k, The cif exceeded that and rovers wanted sainsburys to pay it sainsburys refused, (one of the conditions) rovers then tried to change the terms of the contract to get sainsburys to pay and that's where it broke down, Remember this isn't rovers court case it's sainsburys taking rovers to court Interesting and different interpretation which makes sense but it could have been more clear ... That is not a criticism of the poster but the court if the wording is verbatum. The fact then that it is not Rovers' case, which i thought it was, i do not think has any lesser or greater bearing on what looks like a bit of a slip up on their part; what is the adage?... I cannot remember but words to the effect forearmed is forewarned; prepare for such an outcome to any deal and you are likely to have far fewer cobwebs in the pantry to have to deal with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted May 20, 2015 Report Share Posted May 20, 2015 The summary from Gaschat sounds very interesting. They've not nearly made enough of WYGs evidence but if their consultants performed well in the box it could be highly persuasive to the judge of Sainsburys acting reasonably. I think this is the most important point from the summary. A lot is made of TW's concession. That's just witness management from Counsel. I don't think it's important and I don't think the judge will be moved by getting Watola to concede perhaps they tried to renegotiate 'the deal'. It seems it was an unforeseen and unpredicted additional expense and it would be absolutely normal to attempt to negotiate this in view of changing circumstances... No-one would expect otherwise. The admission that the relationship between the parties is dead is important if the 15ers succeed. Could be shooting in the foot as regards an order for completion of the contract. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brizzlelou Posted May 20, 2015 Report Share Posted May 20, 2015 Seems strange he's supporting a Sainsburys near the vibrant Glos Rd but didn't support one at AG. It's almost as though he has business interests on North street.......hmmmmmmmm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arkateee Posted May 20, 2015 Author Report Share Posted May 20, 2015 Simple. Those of you who have the power to do so need to vote the self-serving hypocrite out of office next time round. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arkateee Posted May 20, 2015 Author Report Share Posted May 20, 2015 I'll will certainly be making sure i vote this clown out, when he is due for re-election. Has done so much damage to small businesses, he's a complete and utter joke. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coombsy Posted May 20, 2015 Report Share Posted May 20, 2015 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Rizzle Posted May 20, 2015 Report Share Posted May 20, 2015 So.... What's going to happen with this, Percentage wise? When are we likely to find out? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cityloyal473 Posted May 20, 2015 Report Share Posted May 20, 2015 So.... What's going to happen with this, Percentage wise? When are we likely to find out? Not sure any percentage can be put on the likelihood of the outcome. It comes solely down to the legal aspects of the case. I think a decision is due in June. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arkateee Posted May 20, 2015 Author Report Share Posted May 20, 2015 That's how i understand it. Mrs judge proudman said she would look at the evidence for and against, and come back with a verdict in June. Even if rovers win, sainsbury will appeal, and things will drag on, something that the gas can ill afford. They just want to take the money and run Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coombsy Posted May 20, 2015 Report Share Posted May 20, 2015 Comments (0) A judge was told that Sainsbury's would have set an "awful trap" for Bristol Rovers if it had withdrawn a planning application for a new store at the Memorial Stadium. Mark Wonnacott QC argued that if the supermarket chain had pulled out of its bid to change Bristol City Council's restrictions on the proposed store's delivery hours, it would have been able to end its agreement with the club at that point. He added that as it was, Sainsbury's did not end the contract until after the council refused to alter the delivery times - which he said released them from the agreement. The club has previously argued that the supermarket chain should have withdrawn the application and tried again at a later date, when it became apparent the council would not alter the delivery hours - amid intense local pressure and while a judicial review by TRASHorfield was ongoing. RELATED CONTENT Political game playing could signal the end of Bristol Rovers' new stadium dream Bristol Rovers: Club tells court it would be a "catastrophe" if Sainsbury's does not buy the Mem Bristol Rovers to stage open-top bus parade next Monday Bristol Rovers v Sainsbury's: Judge in High Court legal dispute pleased to hear of promotion Bristol Rovers v Sainsbury's: Not having to buy the Mem would be a "positive outcome" for firm The council eventually agreed to the hours originally asked for by Sainsbury's after the club took it upon itself to make its own application. Mr Wonnacott said: "We say that, if the application - which we agreed to make - had been withdrawn, that would have exhausted that appeal. "The effect of that appeal being exhausted would have been that the cut-off date had occurred, and we would have had a right to serve the termination notice (on the club). "That is why I said previously that withdrawing the application would have been an awful trap. "It would have been the most self-interested thing we could have done." Mr Wonnacott also said he had been made aware of a discussion in an online forum between Rovers' supporters who were following the case, in which one fan had asked: "When is a cut-off date not a cut-off date?" The barrister added: "That, in a nutshell, is our position. "If there is a planning refusal at the end of the process, then the cut-off date occurs and we have a right to terminate the agreement." Earlier, the court was told that Steve Gosling, a sound expert hired by Bristol Rovers, prepared a report offering suggestions to reduce noise from the proposed store following the council's refusal to change delivery times. Mr Wonnacott suggested there was 'little difference' between the measures in his report and those in Sainsbury's application - the latter of which he said had been approved by both Rovers and their planning consultants. The barrister said: "I am going to suggest to you that your measures were little more than a figleaf to give the council an excuse to allow an application it had previously refused." Mr Gosling replied: "No, that is not what happened." The hearing continues. Read more: http://www.bristolpost.co.uk/Sainsbury-s-tells-judge-pulled-contract-Rovers/story-26542581-detail/story.html#ixzz3ahsjKKUK Follow us: @BristolPost on Twitter | bristolpost on Facebook Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coombsy Posted May 20, 2015 Report Share Posted May 20, 2015 I must admit that my first thought was that perhaps they don't want to take any money from fans until the court case is over, in case we lose and go into administration. The only other explanation is incompetence, which I suppose can't be ruled out entirely! Somebody reassure me that there's a good explanation why a professional football club is not selling season-tickets in mid-May. Read more: http://gasheads.org/thread/3250/season-ticket-prices#ixzz3ai1zeVoG Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coombsy Posted May 20, 2015 Report Share Posted May 20, 2015 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cityexile Posted May 20, 2015 Report Share Posted May 20, 2015 Have to say I think he is being to pesimistic. Their barrister would say that! As a layman, its fairly obvious to all after signing the contract, pretty quickly they wanted out, and were looking to run the clock down. Reasonable endeavours seems in doubt, and to bring the impartiality of the Councils planning in to it seems a long shot to say the least. Sounds like their approach is more to suggest BR must take some of the blame. It will come down to the technical clauses in the contract, but pretty sure BR will win. The question is how big. Sainsburys case already sounds more like a 'in mitigation' plea more than anything else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Malago Posted May 20, 2015 Report Share Posted May 20, 2015 Have to say I think he is being to pesimistic. Their barrister would say that! As a layman, its fairly obvious to all after signing the contract, pretty quickly they wanted out, and were looking to run the clock down. Reasonable endeavours seems in doubt, and to bring the impartiality of the Councils planning in to it seems a long shot to say the least. Sounds like their approach is more to suggest BR must take some of the blame. It will come down to the technical clauses in the contract, but pretty sure BR will win. The question is how big. Sainsburys case already sounds more like a 'in mitigation' plea more than anything else. You may well be right. The one thing I would say is that BCC's approval of the change in deilivery hours the second time around was politically motivated rather than due to any material change in the physical circumstances at the proposed site. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ohbasso Posted May 20, 2015 Report Share Posted May 20, 2015 I must admit that my first thought was that perhaps they don't want to take any money from fans until the court case is over, in case we lose and go into administration. The only other explanation is incompetence, which I suppose can't be ruled out entirely! Somebody reassure me that there's a good explanation why a professional football club is not selling season-tickets in mid-May. Read more: http://gasheads.org/thread/3250/season-ticket-prices#ixzz3ai1zeVoG I'm no expert on their financial situation but I'd be pretty worried reading that post/thread if I was unfortunate enough to be one of the blue few. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Red Tel Posted May 20, 2015 Report Share Posted May 20, 2015 I must admit that my first thought was that perhaps they don't want to take any money from fans until the court case is over, in case we lose and go into administration. The only other explanation is incompetence, which I suppose can't be ruled out entirely! Somebody reassure me that there's a good explanation why a professional football club is not selling season-tickets in mid-May. Read more: http://gasheads.org/thread/3250/season-ticket-prices#ixzz3ai1zeVoG Just a thought, if anyone knows the answer....If Rovers were to lose the court case, and If they were to go into administration (and ultimately fold), would those fans that bought Early Bird season tickets be classes as preferential creditors, or would they lose their money? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Admin Maesknoll Red Posted May 20, 2015 Admin Report Share Posted May 20, 2015 Just a thought, if anyone knows the answer....If Rovers were to lose the court case, and If they were to go into administration (and ultimately fold), would those fans that bought Early Bird season tickets be classes as preferential creditors, or would they lose their money? No idea, but thats why you should always pay for stuff thats in advance on your credit card, you get the money back off them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
In the Net Posted May 20, 2015 Report Share Posted May 20, 2015 That's how i understand it. Mrs judge proudman said she would look at the evidence for and against, and come back with a verdict in June. Even if rovers win, sainsbury will appeal, and things will drag on, something that the gas can ill afford. They just want to take the money and run They can only appeal on a point of law, not just because they don't agree with the decision. Have to admit I was surprised that TW performed well in the box - fair play to whoever prepped him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Northern Red Posted May 20, 2015 Report Share Posted May 20, 2015 Could the lack of ST sales simply be a case of not knowing which division they were going to be in? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slartibartfast Posted May 20, 2015 Report Share Posted May 20, 2015 They can only appeal on a point of law, not just because they don't agree with the decision. Have to admit I was surprised that TW performed well in the box - fair play to whoever prepped him. I thought they said he was crap ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted May 20, 2015 Report Share Posted May 20, 2015 Have to say I think he is being to pesimistic. Their barrister would say that! As a layman, its fairly obvious to all after signing the contract, pretty quickly they wanted out, and were looking to run the clock down. Reasonable endeavours seems in doubt, and to bring the impartiality of the Councils planning in to it seems a long shot to say the least. Sounds like their approach is more to suggest BR must take some of the blame. Not sure if inadvertently but through your wording you raise an important legal point re construction and interpretation of contractual terms. If you read through a contract you will notice in some places it may say 'best endeavours' and some 'reasonable endeavours' and it's not to prevent repetition; it's two whole different obligations. Best endeavours is a requirement to do all you can to perform your obligation. Reasonable endeavour however allows commercial rationalisation and consideration of all circumstances; perhaps even including consideration of a now reduced profit margin and changing retail habits. If, for example, Sainsburys needed to exercise reasonable endeavours to secure suitable licences (such as delivery hours) there's arguably merit in a ground that, in light of those commercial changes, making no such application or appeal is in fact reasonable. What sounds unreasonable may be in the eyes of the law reasonable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
In the Net Posted May 20, 2015 Report Share Posted May 20, 2015 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Up The City! Posted May 21, 2015 Report Share Posted May 21, 2015 So far I think Sainsburys have this in the bag. That's my interpretation anyways. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Red Bill Posted May 21, 2015 Report Share Posted May 21, 2015 To me this looks a real 50/50 situation. However, should BRFC win they should not expect a nice fat cheque in the post the following day. There will surely be an appeal on some technicality or other and I can see this dragging on for many months - even years. Meanwhile their financial problems can only get worse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arkateee Posted May 21, 2015 Author Report Share Posted May 21, 2015 That's what will happen red bill, let's make no doubt about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.