|
Post by gasincider on May 15, 2015 12:50:57 GMT
Just spoke with our roving reporter.
Sainsburys decision to call it off hinged on them getting a 12% return on their £30m investment.
When they realised it would only be 7% return they had three choices.
Walk away and endure the bad publicity.
Build a smaller store and additional housing (which would achieve the 12% return)
Sell to a competitor.
They chose the first option.
Rovers asked for confidential documentation of internal Sainsburys meetings to be disclosed to the court but the judge refused the application.
Sainsburys insist that the contract date expired and they could walk away. However, apparently it is not so cut and dried as that, as apparently these contracts have a further time delay incorporated implicitly in them.
With regard to the lawyers on this list, the judge admitted to the court that she has still not fully read the papers as she only picked them up a couple of days ago.
In attendance are NH and Toni Watola. No Eddie Ware or his good lady.
Severncider has just completed an interview with Points West.
Court resumes at 2 pm
|
|
|
Post by RD on May 15, 2015 12:58:34 GMT
I guess it reflects badly on them that they had several options to pick from and picked the one that would cause us the most issues/mean the least amount of effort on their behalf.
A shame the judge turned our application for the meeting minutes down; is there any understanding in respect of how much of a blow that is? I.e. did we expect that and were trying it on (and it makes no difference in the grand scheme of things that she's rejected our attempts) or will it potentially have large implications on our chances of success?
Disappointing the preparation work has not been completed on a case of this importance. Just our luck.
|
|
|
Post by curlywurly on May 15, 2015 12:59:37 GMT
........ the judge admitted to the court that she has still not fully read the papers as she only picked them up a couple of days ago. FFS!
|
|
|
Post by Henbury Gas on May 15, 2015 13:00:53 GMT
........ the judge admitted to the court that she has still not fully read the papers as she only picked them up a couple of days ago. FFS! Grounds for appeal....
|
|
|
Post by gasincider on May 15, 2015 13:01:10 GMT
No real expectation of court allowing disclosure of private documentation.
|
|
|
Post by RD on May 15, 2015 13:03:49 GMT
No real expectation of court allowing disclosure of private documentation. I did assume that would be the case. Just glad to hear we weren't pinning our hopes on something that unlikely!
|
|
|
Post by Centenary Gas on May 15, 2015 13:04:13 GMT
How nice of them, they could of built a smaller store and still got the return, but they decided to be absolute ****'s anyway.
|
|
|
Post by Henbury Gas on May 15, 2015 13:05:59 GMT
No real expectation of court allowing disclosure of private documentation. I did assume that would be the case. Just glad to hear we weren't pinning our hopes on something that unlikely! I wonder what they wanted to see... Any alleged involvement with TrashHorfield maybe (can't see it myself)
|
|
|
Post by Rod1883 on May 15, 2015 13:06:22 GMT
No real expectation of court allowing disclosure of private documentation. Would/could this sort of thing be subject to Freedom of Information legislation?
|
|
|
Post by Rod1883 on May 15, 2015 13:07:33 GMT
I did assume that would be the case. Just glad to hear we weren't pinning our hopes on something that unlikely! I wonder what they wanted to see... Any alleged involvement with TrashHorfield maybe (can't see it myself) Evidence that they knew they were breaching the contract but did it anyway perhaps
|
|
|
Post by curlywurly on May 15, 2015 13:26:06 GMT
No real expectation of court allowing disclosure of private documentation. Would/could this sort of thing be subject to Freedom of Information legislation? No.
|
|
|
Post by gashead1991 on May 15, 2015 13:27:10 GMT
No, freedom for information is for public organisations only
|
|
|
Post by Topper Gas on May 15, 2015 13:30:25 GMT
The Judge has all weekend to now get up to speed so this shoudln't really be an issue, it's just a pity we didn't retain Roth as the Judge. Sainsbury's don't seem to have a brilliant defence at the moment?
|
|
|
Post by peterparker on May 15, 2015 13:34:18 GMT
How nice of them, they could of built a smaller store and still got the return, but they decided to be absolute ****'s anyway. but, they already have a smaller store down the road. I imagine that was part of the decision
|
|
|
Post by gasincider on May 15, 2015 15:08:51 GMT
Hopefully get an update shortly. Either severncider or I will update the forum
|
|
|
Post by lulworthgas on May 15, 2015 15:13:47 GMT
Hopefully get an update shortly. Either severncider or I will update the forum Still have battery power then mate? Not got du enough to spend the afternoon on candy crush!!
|
|
|
Post by aghast on May 15, 2015 15:50:23 GMT
Just spoke with our roving reporter. Sainsburys decision to call it off hinged on them getting a 12% return on their £30m investment.
When they realised it would only be 7% return they had three choices.
Walk away and endure the bad publicity.
Build a smaller store and additional housing (which would achieve the 12% return)
Sell to a competitor.
They chose the first option. Rovers asked for confidential documentation of internal Sainsburys meetings to be disclosed to the court but the judge refused the application. Sainsburys insist that the contract date expired and they could walk away. However, apparently it is not so cut and dried as that, as apparently these contracts have a further time delay incorporated implicitly in them. This seems a very strange thing for Sainsbury's to admit. It suggests they were looking for a way out, and found one through making sure the contract expired. It reads more to me like something our side were alleging, not something the supermarket owned up to. Did they really say that or did we just claim it to be true?
|
|
|
Post by gasincider on May 15, 2015 16:21:22 GMT
Just spoke with Severncider. Some of the things he had to say are gobsmacking. Watch this space he will post a full version as soon as possible.
He did say that being polite the words disingenuous bar stewards comes to mind. He has left the courtroom with a smile on his face.
|
|
|
Post by Topper Gas on May 15, 2015 17:13:50 GMT
The "inciders" certainly know how to build the suspense!
|
|
|
Post by Dr Gas on May 15, 2015 19:02:01 GMT
The "inciders" certainly know how to build the suspense! AKA, The Grumpy Old Men
|
|