|
|
Post by Henbury Gas on Oct 21, 2014 10:04:51 GMT
Just had a call from a fellow Gashead (thanks Dave) that the Development planning meeting re our revised application for delivery Hours is on the 12th Nov with committee "B"
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 21, 2014 10:08:38 GMT
It's a formality, the problem is Sainsbury's still aren't going to proceed.
|
|
|
|
Post by RD on Oct 21, 2014 10:11:57 GMT
It's a formality, the problem is Sainsbury's still aren't going to proceed. So what? My understanding is that if this "formality" gets agreed, they HAVE to honor the contract. Might take a little while to get the money, but one way or another, we will get £40m (or whatever the agreed amount was). |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 21, 2014 10:20:35 GMT
It's a formality, the problem is Sainsbury's still aren't going to proceed. So what? My understanding is that if this "formality" gets agreed, they HAVE to honor the contract. Might take a little while to get the money, but one way or another, we will get £40m (or whatever the agreed amount was). My understanding is that they don't have to honour the contract (their view) and it might take a lot of time and money resolving the differences of legal advice being offered to both parties. |
|
|
|
Post by meader on Oct 21, 2014 10:42:56 GMT
This issue could be resolved by the end of the week. I will win tonights Euro Lottery of £143m, then offer £40m to Nick Higgs with instructions to get contractors on site on 2nd Jan 2015!
|
|
|
|
Post by Rovers 12th Man on Oct 21, 2014 10:44:43 GMT
Either way, it is potentially a milestone is this saga.
To me, it doesn't matter how big Sainsburys are, if it is a legally binding contract and these extra clauses are met, I don't see how they can get out of it.
|
|
|
|
Post by baggins on Oct 21, 2014 10:58:13 GMT
This issue could be resolved by the end of the week. I will win tonights Euro Lottery of £143m, then offer £40m to Nick Higgs with instructions to get contractors on site on 2nd Jan 2015! Any chance of a beer then? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 21, 2014 11:32:35 GMT
This issue could be resolved by the end of the week. I will win tonights Euro Lottery of £143m, then offer £40m to Nick Higgs with instructions to get contractors on site on 2nd Jan 2015! if you win tonights lottery, i'll do the celebratory barbeque for 1m, all inclusive  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 21, 2014 11:39:07 GMT
If you win tonights Lotto, I'll marry you and have your babies !
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 21, 2014 12:02:01 GMT
Either way, it is potentially a milestone is this saga. To me, it doesn't matter how big Sainsburys are, if it is a legally binding contract and these extra clauses are met, I don't see how they can get out of it. Exactly right. They will be legally bound by it's term's. |
|
|
|
Post by aghast on Oct 21, 2014 13:01:27 GMT
If they say they're not legally bound by the terms, then the club will have to sue them to get the money, or a part of it. Enter long and expensive court case. It doesn't matter how legaly-binding we, Nick Higgs or anyone else thinks it is. If Sainsbury's don't want to pay £30M for the land for a supermarket they don't want to build, then from their point of view it may well be worthwhile sitting back and waiting for Rovers to sue them.
Companies default on loans, pull out of binding contracts, and change agreed prices at the 11th hour. It happens all the time.
|
|
|
|
Post by Topper Gas on Oct 21, 2014 13:29:28 GMT
If we do have a fully binding contract then it will be difficult for Sainsbury's to just walk away, plus if we lose the UWE Stadium because of Sainsbury's failure to pay they could potentially face a loss of profits etc claimed which could even outweigh the £30m for the Mem.
If we get the extended delivery hours then the balls back in our court w/o them the game's over.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 21, 2014 13:39:16 GMT
I think if a decent amount of councillors want Bristol (and UWE) to finally have a proper sports venue they'll make it hard for Sainsburys to walk away. Charlotte Leslie has already piled pressure on them.
|
|
|
|
Post by RD on Oct 21, 2014 14:03:04 GMT
If they say they're not legally bound by the terms, then the club will have to sue them to get the money, or a part of it. Enter long and expensive court case. It doesn't matter how legaly-binding we, Nick Higgs or anyone else thinks it is. If Sainsbury's don't want to pay £30M for the land for a supermarket they don't want to build, then from their point of view it may well be worthwhile sitting back and waiting for Rovers to sue them. Companies default on loans, pull out of binding contracts, and change agreed prices at the 11th hour. It happens all the time. Sainsbury's can of course refuse to pay, but they'll end up paying even more than £30m. £30m is a drop in the ocean for them anyway. Even if they don't want the store, if the delivery hours get approved, they'll pay up the £30m and then either: 1) Keep the land but build nothing (so as to stop competitors getting their hands on it) 2) Sale the land for housing to at least cut some of their losses The point is that without the delivery hours, Sainsbury's have a loophole that basically means we haven't fulfilled our obligations for the contract and therefore the contract is void. However, if the delivery hour conditions are met, they have no other option but to honour the contract. As above, that doesn't mean they have to, but either way we'll realistically get at least £30m realistically and possibly more. As I say, £30m is a drop in the ocean to them and they won't want to tarnish their name further - they'll grudgingly accept it and pay up. |
|
|
|
Post by BishopstonBRFC on Oct 21, 2014 16:22:23 GMT
So what? My understanding is that if this "formality" gets agreed, they HAVE to honor the contract. Might take a little while to get the money, but one way or another, we will get £40m (or whatever the agreed amount was). My understanding is that they don't have to honour the contract (their view) and it might take a lot of time and money resolving the differences of legal advice being offered to both parties. Your understanding or assumption? |
|
|
|
Post by Topper Gas on Oct 21, 2014 17:34:05 GMT
Until Sainsbury's refer our legal advisors to some more small print they've overlooked?
Unless this is all a ploy by Sainsbury's to force though the extended delivery hours?
|
|
|
|
Post by yattongas on Oct 21, 2014 17:34:52 GMT
If things go our way it'll be good news but I think they'll still be a long road ahead of us
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 21, 2014 19:16:02 GMT
Why are people so sure the extended hours will go through ?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 21, 2014 19:33:32 GMT
Why are people so sure the extended hours will go through ? because the extended hours not going through is not an option. |
|
|
|
Post by peterparker on Oct 21, 2014 19:42:59 GMT
It's a formality, the problem is Sainsbury's still aren't going to proceed. So what? My understanding is that if this "formality" gets agreed, they HAVE to honor the contract. Might take a little while to get the money, but one way or another, we will get £40m (or whatever the agreed amount was). That depends on how good the contract really is. Somehow if it goes are way, i dont see it being that simple |
|
