|
Post by Gastafari on May 15, 2015 18:02:48 GMT
Not in doubt is the naming rights? Pretty sure it's in the contract with UWE that it has to remain the 'UWE Stadium' by name. The UWE has to have its name in there somewhere But I dont think there is any clause regarding any sponsorship i.e it could be called The UWE Sainsbury's stadium, or The Sainbury's Stadium at UWE
|
|
|
Post by lulworthgas on May 15, 2015 18:06:27 GMT
The teds write up is completely different to the clubs release. Wouldn't surprise me if he's just making it up. The naming rights doesn't make sense.
|
|
|
Post by Topper Gas on May 15, 2015 18:09:27 GMT
Unless NH pulled off a master stroke and having lost £1.6m to Sainsbury's regained that by passing the cost on by giving the naming rights to UWE in exchange for a reduction in the ground rent or something similar, given that the dispute over the council charge seems to have been right at the start of negotiations.
|
|
|
Post by Antonio Fargas on May 15, 2015 18:12:20 GMT
Our argument seems to be they wanted out in jan 14 and sainsburys did nothing to expedite planning issues and so are in breech of contract which null and voids any cut off date. Hopefully this can be proved as that seems pretty open and shut to me? Thanks for those reports, lulworthgas. Ironic that when Radice and her minions were talking about defending local businesses from multi-nationals, they were actually doing exactly what Sainsbury's wanted and Dam over a genuine local business.
|
|
|
Post by lulworthgas on May 15, 2015 18:14:18 GMT
Our argument seems to be they wanted out in jan 14 and sainsburys did nothing to expedite planning issues and so are in breech of contract which null and voids any cut off date. Hopefully this can be proved as that seems pretty open and shut to me? Thanks for those reports, lulworthgas. Ironic that when Radice and her minions were talking about defending local businesses from multi-nationals, they were actually doing exactly what Sainsbury's wanted and fecking over a genuine local business. Ouch! On a positive note I'm confident we will get something from this. Thank god nick didn't delete any of his emails!!!
|
|
|
Post by inee on May 15, 2015 18:15:36 GMT
At what point do we throw the Hail Mary? I'm becoming increasingly concerned......... Just spoke to mary on the corner, she said throw hail, tell that tumshie not to be so daft its too cold to throw hail but i will throw me knickers for him for a fiver
|
|
|
Post by lulworthgas on May 15, 2015 18:16:19 GMT
Just reading some of the fall out from day 1 I think NH deserves an apology from some as it's clear to see the underhand tactics being used by sainsburys on this deal. It must have been so difficult for him to remain tight lipped whilst absorbing the blame whilst the supermarket sat there and did f all
|
|
|
Post by Topper Gas on May 15, 2015 18:29:25 GMT
The teds write up is completely different to the clubs release. Wouldn't surprise me if he's just making it up. The naming rights doesn't make sense. Looked into this and the CIL charge is £120 per Sqm in Bristol it seems one of the strongest opponents of such a charge on supermarkets was....... Sainsbury's! As far as apologising to NH I guess we'd better wait until the Judgement is given as if he does put Rovers into administration if we lose I doubt many fans will be apologising?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 15, 2015 18:45:46 GMT
Match Report: Sainsbury's v NLBRHPFC* *Warning: read at own risk, might cause sudden sleepiness. Sainsbury's are seeking an order form the High Court to the effect that Sainsbury's termination of the contract was valid. R*vers are counter-claiming for an order that it was not and that as a result they want damages or that the contract survives and is to be completed. That is why the name of the case has changed from R*vers suing to the other way around but it doesn't really change anything. I only managed to pick up a copy of the legal arguments late in the day so I haven't had a chance to look at them properly yet but I will report back in full when I have had the time. What I will say that will no doubt be of interest to the OTIB community is that Sainsbury's on the first page of their argument state the following: 'The Memorial Stadium is an old-fashioned and rather dilapidated sports ground in a northern suburb of Bristol.' Today we mainly heard evidence from Sainsbury's head of Supermarket Development, Chris Templeman. He was mainly cross-examined by R*vers' barrister as to when Sainsbury's decided to pull out of the contract. It is agreed when this decision was communicated to R*vers. Therefore, any significant gap between Sainsbury's deciding and telling R*vers would suggest that Sainsbury's were not acting in good faith or with best endeavours to secure the completion of the project if they had decided not to continue but let R*vers incur further expense and so on. The effect of the questioning with Sainbury's chap doing well on some points but looking shaky on others. He didn't say as much but it very much seemed to me that Sainsbury's wanted out a long while ago (perhaps late 2012) because it would not make them enough money. It was openly stated that the scheme would be profitable but not to such an extent that it met Sainsbury's internal requirements so they wanted to do something else. However, he made it clear that whilst it wouldn't make them enough money as a store that wasn't an end of things, they were looking at changing the plans to make it more profitable and also at buying the land but selling it to someone else to develop. His evidence will continue on Monday but I spoke to R*vers' lawyers at the end and they seemed pleased with how it had gone as they managed to land a number of points, but that is always when you are the one cross-examining. What was of particular interest from our point of view is that R*vers are in a desperate situation financially. One of the sticking points between them and Sainsbury's was who would pay a fee levied by the Council to make the planning permission effective. This was the sum of £2.1m. It was part of what is called the Community Infrastructure Levy. Sainsbury's see this as a tax on developers so refused to pay and in the contract they agreed with R*vers only to pay £500k. They therefore wanted R*vers to pay the outstanding £1.6m. Higgs was not happy about this. One witness apparently said he was angry about it and aggressive in a meeting. That is contested though. What isn't doubted though is that R*vers offered Sainsbury's naming rights at the UWE ground if Sainsbury's paid. It was also suggested as a bit of posturing by Higgs to Sainsbury's that if he had to pay the money he would likely end up having to put the club into administration and withdraw his funding as it would not be viable. It was not clear to me from what was said, but it seemed that the eventual solution was R*vers lowered the asking price by £1.6m and got Sainsbury's to pay up. This means R*vers didn't have the cash to pay up immediately themselves and that they were so desperate to go ahead that they are prepared to take on that kind of loss. As soon as this was agreed and this way out of the contract (if the money wasn't paid there could be no supermarket) Sainsbury's mentioned that they weren't happy with the store delivery hours. That is what then led to the various other hearings when we first started to realise something had gone wrong for the R*vers. Sainsbury's seemed to be quite pleased when the original planning was Judicially Reviewed. Ironically, this was taken up by someone who had opposed them elsewhere but this time they seemed rather happy to see him as Sainsbury's wanted out by then. The case will be going on all of next week and concluding next Friday. We will not get judgment at that time though so we will have to keep a look for when that is announced. I will hopefully go along next week when I can, particularly Higgs giving his evidence if I can. Until then, I will post a synopsis of the legal arguments for those who are interested when I have had a chance to look at that. One R*vers fan there told me that he would rather they win in court than at Wembley so do not underestimate the significance of this trial. You wouldn't guess they just won a double would you?
|
|
|
Post by lulworthgas on May 15, 2015 18:46:02 GMT
The teds write up is completely different to the clubs release. Wouldn't surprise me if he's just making it up. The naming rights doesn't make sense. Looked into this and the CIL charge is £120 per Sqm in Bristol it seems one of the strongest opponents of such a charge on supermarkets was....... Sainsbury's! As far as apologising to NH I guess we'd better wait until the Judgement is given as if he does put Rovers into administration if we lose I doubt many fans will be apologising? So he should have walked from the deal at that point?
|
|
|
Post by olskooltoteender on May 15, 2015 20:00:06 GMT
As in that 'other place' being where you use multiple usernames to make it look as though there is more than one person who believes the current chairman is the right man for the job? Please finally post a link to the hidden agenda you refer to Henbury, a few of us have searched and searched and all we can find are people who are unhappy with the current BoD, where is this hidden agenda exactly? Only used multiple user name once when my e-mail account was hacked... if you look closely i'm back on with my correct name and details after following instructions from Admin. As regards the HA, it is my personal opinion and others that there is a group of "members" on the other forum who no matter what good the club do its the BOD's fault. We are all entitled to our opinion and unlike you i respect others people's opinion if you don't like what i post, well i'm sorry, you could always block me if you want [ "With regards to the HA . . ." What on earth has this got to do with the Hells Angels?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 15, 2015 20:07:53 GMT
As in that 'other place' being where you use multiple usernames to make it look as though there is more than one person who believes the current chairman is the right man for the job? Please finally post a link to the hidden agenda you refer to Henbury, a few of us have searched and searched and all we can find are people who are unhappy with the current BoD, where is this hidden agenda exactly? Only used multiple user name once when my e-mail account was hacked... if you look closely i'm back on with my correct name and details after following instructions from Admin. As regards the HA, it is my personal opinion and others that there is a group of "members" on the other forum who no matter what good the club do its the BOD's fault. We are all entitled to our opinion and unlike you i respect others people's opinion if you don't like what i post, well i'm sorry, you could always block me if you want I respect plenty of peoples opinions Henbury, just not of those who constantly defend the worst chairman in the history of the club. That said were both Gasheads with different opinions, so i will cut you a deal, when the current incumbents have departed and the club eventually ends up in capable hands who want to put real graft and effort into running the club properly I will buy you a dozen beers to celebrate. Looking forward to having a Chairman who sticks to statements and an accountant who can count and knows how to read a league table.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 15, 2015 20:24:09 GMT
Only used multiple user name once when my e-mail account was hacked... if you look closely i'm back on with my correct name and details after following instructions from Admin. As regards the HA, it is my personal opinion and others that there is a group of "members" on the other forum who no matter what good the club do its the BOD's fault. We are all entitled to our opinion and unlike you i respect others people's opinion if you don't like what i post, well i'm sorry, you could always block me if you want I respect plenty of peoples opinions Henbury, just not of those who constantly defend the worst chairman in the history of the club. That said were both Gasheads with different opinions, so i will cut you a deal, when the current incumbents have departed and the club eventually ends up in capable hands who want to put real graft and effort into running the club properly I will buy you a dozen beers to celebrate. Looking forward to having a Chairman who sticks to statements and an accountant who can count and knows how to read a league table. You're not hiding your agenda very well there mate.
|
|
|
Post by Topper Gas on May 15, 2015 20:45:34 GMT
Looked into this and the CIL charge is £120 per Sqm in Bristol it seems one of the strongest opponents of such a charge on supermarkets was....... Sainsbury's! As far as apologising to NH I guess we'd better wait until the Judgement is given as if he does put Rovers into administration if we lose I doubt many fans will be apologising? So he should have walked from the deal at that point? That's not the point it just seems a bit premature to start demanding posters apologise to NH on day 1 of a 4 day trial, none of us have a clue what evidence will come out next week, it could stay positive for Rovers/NH, or take a turn for the worse next week.
|
|
|
Post by lulworthgas on May 15, 2015 22:15:25 GMT
So he should have walked from the deal at that point? That's not the point it just seems a bit premature to start demanding posters apologise to NH on day 1 of a 4 day trial, none of us have a clue what evidence will come out next week, it could stay positive for Rovers/NH, or take a turn for the worse next week. Sorry, that's not what I was getting at. Just wondering if we paid this as that would account for some of the damages and why we had to take out such a big wings loan, despite the transfer fees received this season.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 16, 2015 8:14:19 GMT
I respect plenty of peoples opinions Henbury, just not of those who constantly defend the worst chairman in the history of the club. That said were both Gasheads with different opinions, so i will cut you a deal, when the current incumbents have departed and the club eventually ends up in capable hands who want to put real graft and effort into running the club properly I will buy you a dozen beers to celebrate. Looking forward to having a Chairman who sticks to statements and an accountant who can count and knows how to read a league table. You're not hiding your agenda very well there mate. Using the Roy Walker train of thought Hugo, "just say what you see".
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 16, 2015 8:46:33 GMT
Match Report: Sainsbury's v NLBRHPFC* *Warning: read at own risk, might cause sudden sleepiness. Sainsbury's are seeking an order form the High Court to the effect that Sainsbury's termination of the contract was valid. R*vers are counter-claiming for an order that it was not and that as a result they want damages or that the contract survives and is to be completed. That is why the name of the case has changed from R*vers suing to the other way around but it doesn't really change anything. I only managed to pick up a copy of the legal arguments late in the day so I haven't had a chance to look at them properly yet but I will report back in full when I have had the time. What I will say that will no doubt be of interest to the OTIB community is that Sainsbury's on the first page of their argument state the following: 'The Memorial Stadium is an old-fashioned and rather dilapidated sports ground in a northern suburb of Bristol.' Today we mainly heard evidence from Sainsbury's head of Supermarket Development, Chris Templeman. He was mainly cross-examined by R*vers' barrister as to when Sainsbury's decided to pull out of the contract. It is agreed when this decision was communicated to R*vers. Therefore, any significant gap between Sainsbury's deciding and telling R*vers would suggest that Sainsbury's were not acting in good faith or with best endeavours to secure the completion of the project if they had decided not to continue but let R*vers incur further expense and so on. The effect of the questioning with Sainbury's chap doing well on some points but looking shaky on others. He didn't say as much but it very much seemed to me that Sainsbury's wanted out a long while ago (perhaps late 2012) because it would not make them enough money. It was openly stated that the scheme would be profitable but not to such an extent that it met Sainsbury's internal requirements so they wanted to do something else. However, he made it clear that whilst it wouldn't make them enough money as a store that wasn't an end of things, they were looking at changing the plans to make it more profitable and also at buying the land but selling it to someone else to develop. His evidence will continue on Monday but I spoke to R*vers' lawyers at the end and they seemed pleased with how it had gone as they managed to land a number of points, but that is always when you are the one cross-examining. What was of particular interest from our point of view is that R*vers are in a desperate situation financially. One of the sticking points between them and Sainsbury's was who would pay a fee levied by the Council to make the planning permission effective. This was the sum of £2.1m. It was part of what is called the Community Infrastructure Levy. Sainsbury's see this as a tax on developers so refused to pay and in the contract they agreed with R*vers only to pay £500k. They therefore wanted R*vers to pay the outstanding £1.6m. Higgs was not happy about this. One witness apparently said he was angry about it and aggressive in a meeting. That is contested though. What isn't doubted though is that R*vers offered Sainsbury's naming rights at the UWE ground if Sainsbury's paid. It was also suggested as a bit of posturing by Higgs to Sainsbury's that if he had to pay the money he would likely end up having to put the club into administration and withdraw his funding as it would not be viable. It was not clear to me from what was said, but it seemed that the eventual solution was R*vers lowered the asking price by £1.6m and got Sainsbury's to pay up. This means R*vers didn't have the cash to pay up immediately themselves and that they were so desperate to go ahead that they are prepared to take on that kind of loss. As soon as this was agreed and this way out of the contract (if the money wasn't paid there could be no supermarket) Sainsbury's mentioned that they weren't happy with the store delivery hours. That is what then led to the various other hearings when we first started to realise something had gone wrong for the R*vers. Sainsbury's seemed to be quite pleased when the original planning was Judicially Reviewed. Ironically, this was taken up by someone who had opposed them elsewhere but this time they seemed rather happy to see him as Sainsbury's wanted out by then. The case will be going on all of next week and concluding next Friday. We will not get judgment at that time though so we will have to keep a look for when that is announced. I will hopefully go along next week when I can, particularly Higgs giving his evidence if I can. Until then, I will post a synopsis of the legal arguments for those who are interested when I have had a chance to look at that. One R*vers fan there told me that he would rather they win in court than at Wembley so do not underestimate the significance of this trial. Surely they aren't talking about us on OTIB. Borussia City have their own things to talk about. They are talking about us. But maybe not as much as we talked about the AV difficulties!
|
|
|
Post by peterparker on May 16, 2015 9:04:49 GMT
Lets be honest there are positives from day one, but we dont know what Sainsburys arguments will be and how their QC will try and pick Toni Watola apart. He hardly inspires me with confidence with the years of bullshit he has spouted.
Long way to go and even then we are in the hands of a judge who needs to review everything.
Right now i could see a score draw with cock ups on both sides and a cash award but not full contract amount
|
|
|
Post by kylegas on May 16, 2015 9:17:54 GMT
Lets be honest there are positives from day one, but we dont know what Sainsburys arguments will be and how their QC will try and pick Toni Watola apart. He hardly inspires me with confidence with the years of bullshit he has spouted. Long way to go and even then we are in the hands of a judge who needs to review everything. Right now i could see a score draw with main sail ups on both sides and a cash award but not full contract amount It has to be the full amount tho, the court can't decide a different price for the sale of our ground, the court will decide they have to buy the ground for the agreed amount or they don't have to buy it at all
|
|
|
Post by Topper Gas on May 16, 2015 9:23:03 GMT
That's not the point it just seems a bit premature to start demanding posters apologise to NH on day 1 of a 4 day trial, none of us have a clue what evidence will come out next week, it could stay positive for Rovers/NH, or take a turn for the worse next week. Sorry, that's not what I was getting at. Just wondering if we paid this as that would account for some of the damages and why we had to take out such a big wings loan, despite the transfer fees received this season. Surely the charge only becomes payable on either commencement of the work or completion? Surely the wonga loan was taken out to pay the legal fees not meet expenses already incurred.
|
|