Super Posted July 31, 2015 Report Share Posted July 31, 2015 rovers turned down an offerhttp://www.bristolpost.co.uk/Bristol-Rovers-turned-1-5-million-offer-Sainsbury/story-27521827-detail/story.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Red-Robbo Posted July 31, 2015 Report Share Posted July 31, 2015 rovers turned down an offerhttp://www.bristolpost.co.uk/Bristol-Rovers-turned-1-5-million-offer-Sainsbury/story-27521827-detail/story.html In fairness, I can see why. The offer was fairly derisory. I can see an eventual settlement a few times more than that, but not anywhere near the original contract price. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Langford Red Posted July 31, 2015 Report Share Posted July 31, 2015 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 31, 2015 Report Share Posted July 31, 2015 If the judge said they should have taken the 1.5M then they ain't gonna get a lot more than that even if they win the appeal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Malago Posted July 31, 2015 Report Share Posted July 31, 2015 If the judge said they should have taken the 1.5M then they ain't gonna get a lot more than that even if they win the appeal.[/quote Exactly. Higgs has backed the sags into s terrible dead end. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Red-Robbo Posted July 31, 2015 Report Share Posted July 31, 2015 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BS15_RED Posted July 31, 2015 Report Share Posted July 31, 2015 (edited) 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 July 31, 2015 by BS15_RED Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BTRFTG Posted July 31, 2015 Report Share Posted July 31, 2015 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redmycolour Posted July 31, 2015 Report Share Posted July 31, 2015 Just gone past the mem.all the sags going to the ground.who are they playing.? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Red-Robbo Posted July 31, 2015 Report Share Posted July 31, 2015 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. 8 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nogbad the Bad Posted July 31, 2015 Report Share Posted July 31, 2015 Just gone past the mem.all the sags going to the ground.who are they playing.? West Brom, testimonial for Phil Kite. Apparently new signing Lambert is turning out for West Brom. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redmycolour Posted July 31, 2015 Report Share Posted July 31, 2015 Sags 0 WBA 3. Latest . Live stream on there website Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redmycolour Posted July 31, 2015 Report Share Posted July 31, 2015 Correction. 0.2 not 0.3 to WBA Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
archie andrews Posted July 31, 2015 Report Share Posted July 31, 2015 kem Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I am the mole Posted July 31, 2015 Report Share Posted July 31, 2015 Correction. 0.2 not 0.3 to WBAi like to laugh at the gas as much as the next person but losing a friendly is really taking it to far and something that's not important in arsenal of ammunition to throw at them!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TinnionForEngland Posted July 31, 2015 Report Share Posted July 31, 2015 2 goals so far for Lambert vs Gas! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bristol Rob Posted July 31, 2015 Report Share Posted July 31, 2015 2 goals so far for Lambert vs Gas! This is all very George Michael. #ScoringInToilets 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim Bartlett Posted July 31, 2015 Report Share Posted July 31, 2015 Just read that Rovers have sold 25000 season tickets now they are a pro club again in League 2? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim Bartlett Posted July 31, 2015 Report Share Posted July 31, 2015 No sorry misread, 2500 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swede Posted August 1, 2015 Report Share Posted August 1, 2015 So, are we saying that they are sh@gged well and truly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aizoon Posted August 1, 2015 Report Share Posted August 1, 2015 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 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aizoon Posted August 1, 2015 Report Share Posted August 1, 2015 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. 99.9% of the voyage was iceberg-free. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coombsy Posted August 1, 2015 Report Share Posted August 1, 2015 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
samo II Posted August 1, 2015 Report Share Posted August 1, 2015 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BTRFTG Posted August 1, 2015 Report Share Posted August 1, 2015 (edited) Edited August 1, 2015 by BTRFTG 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aizoon Posted August 1, 2015 Report Share Posted August 1, 2015 There are some things I wouldn't do for money - in any case I couldn't, as my current role doesn't require it I don't have the appropriate licence. What? You're not CORGI registered? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pongo88 Posted August 1, 2015 Report Share Posted August 1, 2015 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. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Esmond Million's Bung Posted August 1, 2015 Report Share Posted August 1, 2015 The gas now denying that they were offered 1.5 mil by Sainsbury's, this becoming like a Blott on the landscape by Tom Sharpe. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bristol Rob Posted August 1, 2015 Report Share Posted August 1, 2015 http://www.bristolrovers.co.uk/news/article/rovers-explain-rejection-of-derisory-sainsburys-offer-2585761.aspx They're clearly going all-in. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Esmond Million's Bung Posted August 1, 2015 Report Share Posted August 1, 2015 Very very strange. 15 minutes ago the Bristol post published a story from the gas stating that the club denied having ever being offered 1.5mil by Sainsbury's, that story has already been pulled. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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.