Jump to content

Welcome to One Team in Bristol - Bristol City Forums

Welcome to One Team in Bristol - Bristol City Forums, like most online communities you must register to view or post in our community, but don't worry this is a simple free process that requires minimal information for you to signup. Be a part of One Team in Bristol - Bristol City Forums by signing in or creating an account.

  • Start new topics and reply to others
  • Full access to all forums (not all viewable as guest)
  • Subscribe to topics and forums to get email updates
  • Get your own profile page and make new friends
  • Send personal messages to other members.
  • Support OTIB with a premium membership

42nite

Bristol Rovers Dustbin Thread

Recommended Posts

Henburygas proven wrong yet again, that guy is worse the kachina

Actually, I think his latest post might have a semblance of truth.

Didn't the Wonga type company have the ground as security against their loan? Wasn't the loan used to fund the legal costs?

Think the ground is, therefore, at risk unless the Directors stump up the cash.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I doubt that we will be hearing any more references to the "Trashton Tart Up" any more.

Their redevelopment constitutes installation of a tent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry i'll take the piss out of r*vers at any opportunity, but this is frankly a terrible decision for our City.

 

 

Yeah but really fun eh?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's still all our fault. Obvs.

 

twit.png

Standard pecking order. They blame us and we blame Little Lee

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Without question Sainsbury's acted in bad faith, agree with the other posts about the big boy shitting on the little boy as usual.

 

Karma for 82 and Ashton Vale

 

:clapping:

Edited by Rocky

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry i'll take the piss out of r*vers at any opportunity, but this is frankly a terrible decision for our City.

So was Ashton Vale, but and I saw little sympathy from the Sags then. So screw them.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So was Ashton Vale, but and I saw little sympathy from the Sags then. So screw them.

 

..and many of them actively signed against the build. Lets not also forget Rovers were the only club in the region not to support the WC bid because of it.   For all the shit we've had about 1982, Ashton Vale and so forth while I agree its the big corp crapping on the small guy, there is little sympathy for me. They took great delight when AV finally collapsed. 

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry i'll take the piss out of r*vers at any opportunity, but this is frankly a terrible decision for our City.

 

But does Bristol really need 2 20k+ stadiums?

With 27k AG and a new arena you have to ask yourself do we need a 3rd venue? 

I agree Bristol has been severely held back but i fail to see really what 2 20k+ stadiums unless both teams are playing at least championship football.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry i'll take the piss out of r*vers at any opportunity, but this is frankly a terrible decision for our City.

UWE is in South Gloucestershire not Bristol, therefore I don't see this affecting Bristol in the slightest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Kick in the teeth for Bristol my arsehole!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Without questions Sainsbury's acted in bad faith, agree with the other posts about the big boy shitting on the little boy as usual.

Karma for 82 and Ashton Vale

:clapping:

We could have been in much the same situation only our people saw the way the retail market was going and swerved the problem, well done and Thankyou. The Gas took a gamble against the Bigger Boys and lost. They were happy to jump into bed with them and must face the consequences of now being kicked out.

Meanwhile we are tearing down a stand they can only dream about having.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is the slightly bizarre final paragraph. Mrs Justice Proudman seems to be anticipating an appeal thee so could be more to come.

*Photo won't upload so here is the wording:

"Accordingly I find that Sainsbury's must succeed because of the construction of Schedule 1 to the Agreement [2.11] which seems to me to be an insuperable barrier to the Club. If this is wrong (and I do not think it is), I find that the Club must succeed.

There ma be a little bit of wriggle room there for the Gash but then that surely leaves it open to an appeal by Sainsburys should the Gash appeal and win. Then it will go on ad infinitum.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Have to say that while some will revel in this news, I can't help but think that I would never trust the justice system when it comes to corporate issues like this.

 

Celebrating this would feel like celebrating justice for those with the biggest wallets.

 

However, if true justice has been served then that is good news and I'm off to Sainsburys.

 

I can appreciate and understand why you would feel this way. To play devil's advocate if you agree a deal and part of that deal includes termination dates, to not give effect to those would commit you to an agreement you never agreed to be bound by in the very first place. There's plenty of reasoning for a cut off term - protects against equipment and price inflation, wage inflation, tying up your money etc. To not give effect to them it is unfair if it was part of the bargain.

 

Equally I can understand 'well yeah, but what about someone dragging their feet'. Well.... why didn't you have a contract term protecting against that? Is that then a different deal... was a termination date really a get out clause anyway and that was part of the deal agreed?

 

They might appeal but unless they can find new evidence it not get them very far will it? I guess they are basically potless now and have loans and legal bills to pay or extend. Got to feel a tiny bit for their fans but will enjoy seeing smug lardyarse Higgs face the music.

 

Not necessarily. It's quite different from a criminal process whereby evidence is put to a jury and they decide the facts, which are then presumed to be correct. Because its a case of interpreting provisions etc they may be able to convince an appeal court that a term had a particular effect without new evidence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We should have some shirts made up. Fair play sainsburys.

Is it too late now for BS to introduce another strip for this season..

' Carrier bag' ORANGE would be my colour choice..

Mr Highs (sorry I mean Higgs :) ) face it, you've been Tango'd ... and the future ain't looking too bright!

Edited by WhistleHappy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thankyou 29AR, you've obviously got knowledge and experience. I appreciate your replies on this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There ma be a little bit of wriggle room there for the Gash but then that surely leaves it open to an appeal by Sainsburys should the Gash appeal and win. Then it will go on ad infinitum.

 

From here the next step is the Court of Appeal and then if any party wants to appeal that decision the next and final stop would be the Supreme Court, so there is a final step. Of course there could be Sainsburys v Bristol Rovers (No. 2) on a different legal matter but relating to the same contract

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's 2 - 0 to me Woodsy!

 

Perhaps the mods can add a "Snort" button to go with the "Like" one.

 

Gaz 3 Woodsy 0!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From here the next step is the Court of Appeal and then if any party wants to appeal that decision the next and final stop would be the Supreme Court, so there is a final step. Of course there could be Sainsburys v Bristol Rovers (No. 2) on a different legal matter but relating to the same contract

You have a much better understanding of the legal process than me; how long do you believe it would take for the Gash to launch an appeal and get it to court?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From here the next step is the Court of Appeal and then if any party wants to appeal that decision the next and final stop would be the Supreme Court, so there is a final step. Of course there could be Sainsburys v Bristol Rovers (No. 2) on a different legal matter but relating to the same contract

 

I have to say, 29AR, your knowledge of these matters has been very helpful throughout this case.

 

Cheers ! :chant6ez:

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You have a much better understanding of the legal process than me; how long do you believe it would take for the Gash to launch an appeal and get it to court?

 

No idea really pal. As the good post Big Brother copied across said with Court vacation it may not be any time soon. This hearing was fast tracked and depending upon how UWE respond to this there may be no need to fast track the next (if any)....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just back from the court. 

7-8 Gasheads in attendance, 1 sh*thead, and Alistair Durdan. No other representation. 

The verdict was passed down - literally from the judge in the form of a report. The Sh*t had just finished training for the bar, so he gave us all a steer on the outcome. Basically she finds in Salisbury favor. A guidance on Schedule 1 (2.11) was given that she felt that this clause was not satisfied. The clause relates to planning permission for the buyer (Sainsburys) had to obtain, and from my quick assessment involved the stop dates that were not met. 

Read more: http://gasheads.org/thread/3580/high-court-decision-due-monday?page=8#ixzz3flacamWl

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My only glee in this is that the mem remains this day a sporting venue. Kind of makes me wonder if Karma is true. My wish is that one day the mem returns to being a ground dedicated to the rugby players of Bristol. Its hard to see Bristol returning but my hope is that Rugby somehow gets its mitts back on the ground. I see this decision not a kick in the teeth for Bristol in anyway but a result for at least today for the mem

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"There is little doubt that the Agreement is tortuously, laboriously and in some respects badly, drafted. It makes any draftsman itch to have a try at it. However I have to decide what it means."

 

Watertight indeed.

 

Edit: Ill refer you Tom to a big thread about moderators ;-)

Edited by Sydneybcfc
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is no emoticon on here that does this justice

 

For all you G*s *****s that laughed in 82, who took their dog for a shit at Ashton Vale - go **** yourself

 

OTIB - forever in our shadow, has never been as apt as today

  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just back from the court. 

7-8 Gasheads in attendance, 1 sh*thead, and Alistair Durdan. No other representation. 

The verdict was passed down - literally from the judge in the form of a report. The Sh*t had just finished training for the bar, so he gave us all a steer on the outcome. Basically she finds in Salisbury favor. A guidance on Schedule 1 (2.11) was given that she felt that this clause was not satisfied. The clause relates to planning permission for the buyer (Sainsburys) had to obtain, and from my quick assessment involved the stop dates that were not met. 

Read more: http://gasheads.org/thread/3580/high-court-decision-due-monday?page=8#ixzz3flacamWl

Okay I would pay extortionate amounts of money to see the 15'ers faces in court when the judge gave the verdict.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just back from the court. 

7-8 Gasheads in attendance, 1 sh*thead, and Alistair Durdan. No other representation. 

The verdict was passed down - literally from the judge in the form of a report. The Sh*t had just finished training for the bar, so he gave us all a steer on the outcome. Basically she finds in Salisbury favor. A guidance on Schedule 1 (2.11) was given that she felt that this clause was not satisfied. The clause relates to planning permission for the buyer (Sainsburys) had to obtain, and from my quick assessment involved the stop dates that were not met. 

Read more: http://gasheads.org/thread/3580/high-court-decision-due-monday?page=8#ixzz3flacamWl

 

I love the fact that despite the fact the City fan was explaining to them what was happening, they are still 'sh*t'

Sums them up, if the person was there to take the piss I'd get it

 

******* morons

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've had a bit of a read over the judgment and it all turns on whether had to appeal the planning permission to get one inline with that both sides agreed in the agreement. The way the contract worked was that if after a year from the date at which the last of all the planning permissions (at UWE and for the new store) those permissions were not adequate (the contract specified the terms both sides needed to make it viable) the contract could be terminated. The hearing hinged on whether Sainsbury's had the right to terminate as both sides agreed that what they did to terminate was valid, Rovers just said S weren't right to do so. The reason Rovers said that was because Sainsbury's didn't appeal the planning permission to change it and instead let the clock run so that the year would elapse and the contract terminate. The contract specified in what circumstances Sainsbury's were obliged to appeal, the most important of which was that if Planning Counsel (an expert lawyer in such matters) said it had a 60% or better of succeeding they had to appeal. In his opinion the chances of success were only 55%. Therefore, Sainsbury's were not obliged to appeal and were within their rights not to. As the contract made this clear, failing to appeal does not amount to bad faith at law (what we each may think of it is for us to decide) and Sainsbury's had the right to terminate which they did. They acted in accordance with the rights they agreed with Rovers. Costs and leave for appeal were both adjourned so there is still more to come but nothing quite as significant as this. After Tesco took the Tote End and Sainsbury's took the UWE I don't know which I prefer! I feel a new song should we ever play again after all their talk of boycotting various supermarkets: "We're Bristol City, we shop where we want!"

  • Like 8

Share this post


Link to post
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.


×
×
  • Create New...