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

Bristol Rovers Dustbin Thread


Recommended Posts

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
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)....

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

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
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
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
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.

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
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 7
Link to post
Share on other sites

 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!"

 

BCL........ I really love you!

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Can we now have a two day limit for further comment on Rovers and get back to focussing on our own club and what real football is all about. Silence about Rovers could be as deafening as the million comments made over the past 14 months!

 

There's nothing to talk about.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Can we now have a two day limit for further comment on Rovers and get back to focussing on our own club and what real football is all about. Silence about Rovers could be as deafening as the million comments made over the past 14 months!

or we could have deafening laughter!!
Link to post
Share on other sites

Can we now have a two day limit for further comment on Rovers and get back to focussing on our own club and what real football is all about. Silence about Rovers could be as deafening as the million comments made over the past 14 months!

And not laugh at the drawn out fall out, ending in administration. I think you over estimate their chances of this not getting much, much worse.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Can we now have a two day limit for further comment on Rovers and get back to focussing on our own club and what real football is all about. Silence about Rovers could be as deafening as the million comments made over the past 14 months!

Use the ignore button.. :thumbsup:  :thumbsup:

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.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...