Jump to content
IGNORED

Bristol R*vers dustbin thread


42nite

Recommended Posts

So do I.

Wasn't the suggestion made that AG was worth only half as much had it been developed as Red Trousers' housing scheme than had it been sold for a supermarket?

Perhaps someone with a better memory can remind me.

Not sure about actual figures, but I clearly remember SL stating that selling AG to anything other than a supermarket, was not financially viable. Edited by BS15_RED
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's a slight nuance but today is just an introduction to the grounds Rovers will rely upon rather than a total assessment of their merits. That's slightly confusing the matter because leave should not be granted if there is little prospect of success, which is what Sainsbury's are saying.

 

Hard to explain but whilst today she's not endorsing Rovers' appeal or prospects, she's saying based upon what I've heard and the submission I think there's merit in proceeding to a full appeal hearing.

 

Haven't seen today's arguments but from the original judgement I wouldn't read too much into the Gas claiming they'd won the majority of the argument first time around. Yes, Sainsbury's hadn't formally issued papers to annul the contract, but as the judge enquired of their QC had they been unrestrained in being able to do so by Higgs intervention that indeed is what they would have done.

 

It appeared the main grounds for appeal lay with the interpretation of the extent to which, in good faith, Sainsbury's sought removal of the 'onerous consent'. It was clear both sides were of the opinion that the first appeal was likely to fail (due wholly to the politics involved in Horfield ahead of the election.) The judge, however, made clear whatever the interpretation of the cut-off Sainsbury's obligation extended beyond that date.  But: 

  • Had Sainsbury's not appealed until the election had passed then the cut off ,too, would have passed and they could have annulled, albeit with counterclaim they'd failed to act in good faith by not appealing;
  • Critically, in appealing, Sainsbury's shared detail of the application with The Gas who endorsed its submission in the terms explicit;
  • That being the case Sainsbury's were said to have discharged their obligation to appeal and with no clear prospect of a secondary appeal lifting the onerous condition, according to the planning advice sought, they might not be expected to further pursue;

Whilst the judge implied had Sainsbury's really, really wanted to see the deal through then seeing out the political gerrymandering would have seen the constraint lifted (which of course transpired when The Gas appealed the consent,) she pointed out it was immaterial as the cut off would have passed, hence the contract terms had not been complied with and they could break.

 

A second tack might be to argue that the constraining consent was never material to Sainsbury's operations, that it was always a backdoor ruse to allow them to 'wriggle out' should they cool on the deal. Sainsbury's made clear The Gas had no objections to the condition being made a material point in construction of the deal, neither did they complain when they supported the appeal against said constraint. Presumably and for consistency, The Gas wouldn't have been able to support the appeal given the 'constrained delivery times' were considered insignificant,  of little merit. Now if Sainsbury's say it is material and 'we best know how we run supermarkets' I struggle to see how The Gas or judge might argue otherwise. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Haven't seen today's arguments but from the original judgement I wouldn't read too much into the Gas claiming they'd won the majority of the argument first time around. Yes, Sainsbury's hadn't formally issued papers to annul the contract, but as the judge enquired of their QC had they been unrestrained in being able to do so by Higgs intervention that indeed is what they would have done.

It appeared the main grounds for appeal lay with the interpretation of the extent to which, in good faith, Sainsbury's sought removal of the 'onerous consent'. It was clear both sides were of the opinion that the first appeal was likely to fail (due wholly to the politics involved in Horfield ahead of the election.) The judge, however, made clear whatever the interpretation of the cut-off Sainsbury's obligation extended beyond that date. But:

  • Had Sainsbury's not appealed until the election had passed then the cut off ,too, would have passed and they could have annulled, albeit with counterclaim they'd failed to act in good faith by not appealing;
  • Critically, in appealing, Sainsbury's shared detail of the application with The Gas who endorsed its submission in the terms explicit;
  • That being the case Sainsbury's were said to have discharged their obligation to appeal and with no clear prospect of a secondary appeal lifting the onerous condition, according to the planning advice sought, they might not be expected to further pursue;
Whilst the judge implied had Sainsbury's really, really wanted to see the deal through then seeing out the political gerrymandering would have seen the constraint lifted (which of course transpired when The Gas appealed the consent,) she pointed out it was immaterial as the cut off would have passed, hence the contract terms had not been complied with and they could break.

A second tack might be to argue that the constraining consent was never material to Sainsbury's operations, that it was always a backdoor ruse to allow them to 'wriggle out' should they cool on the deal. Sainsbury's made clear The Gas had no objections to the condition being made a material point in construction of the deal, neither did they complain when they supported the appeal against said constraint. Presumably and for consistency, The Gas wouldn't have been able to support the appeal given the 'constrained delivery times' were considered insignificant, of little merit. Now if Sainsbury's say it is material and 'we best know how we run supermarkets' I struggle to see how The Gas or judge might argue otherwise.

Indeed.

"We won the majority of the argument" is about as useful as saying 99.9% of my boat doesn't have a hole in it.

  • Like 8
Link to comment
Share on other sites

People shouldn't take the pi$$. I heard they have received a very nice sponsorship package with this deal. Free chips and sausages for the players (extra if they bring the away team back to the pub) and a promotion bonus of 2 free goes on the pool tables and a quid on the juke box.

And pizza, mind. Very good at the Sportsman :)

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Indeed.

"We won the majority of the argument" is about as useful as saying 99.9% of my boat doesn't have a hole in it.

During the whole of the 2013-14 season, Rovers were only in a relegation position for 20 minutes.
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...