|
Post by Severncider on May 19, 2015 12:49:33 GMT
I was told by security guy here that someone set fire to Sainsbury's warehouse in Charlton last night.
No idea if this is true
|
|
|
Post by yatetown85 on May 19, 2015 12:58:41 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 19, 2015 13:01:42 GMT
So we've thought all along we were suing Sainsbury's to teach them a lesson but in fact they are suing us! It could only happen at Rovers! Yes the deceit at boardroom level knows no boundaries at all, some supporters were shocked about the Cheltenham bare faced lies, just goes to show doesn't it just how much contempt there is for the fans, void of anger these days towards that lot, and feeling sick with every statement the chairman makes indicating he is going absolutely nowhere. Every statement, decision seems to be based on a whim, which is why I have said before just how big a deal Darrell and the team achieving what they had done up until March has been nothing short of a miracle really, this latest news certainly explains why he was so mute on the subject of the court case yesterday. Steady on. We know nothing at the moment and the hush hush was because it would have been illegal to discuss the case.
|
|
|
Post by Henbury Gas on May 19, 2015 13:07:33 GMT
So we've thought all along we were suing Sainsbury's to teach them a lesson but in fact they are suing us! It could only happen at Rovers! What i can't get my head round is if we are being sued by Sainsbury, Why are Sainsbury being cross examined first.....
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 19, 2015 13:08:44 GMT
So we've thought all along we were suing Sainsbury's to teach them a lesson but in fact they are suing us! It could only happen at Rovers! Yes the deceit at boardroom level knows no boundaries at all, some supporters were shocked about the Cheltenham bare faced lies, just goes to show doesn't it just how much contempt there is for the fans, void of anger these days towards that lot, and feeling sick with every statement the chairman makes indicating he is going absolutely nowhere. Every statement, decision seems to be based on a whim, which is why I have said before just how big a deal Darrell and the team achieving what they had done up until March has been nothing short of a miracle really, this latest news certainly explains why he was so mute on the subject of the court case yesterday. Talk about jumping on the bandwagon, to call our board members deceitful with out having any actual evidence is astonishing. Can you show me where Sainsbury are suing BRFC?
|
|
|
Post by Strange Gas on May 19, 2015 13:10:40 GMT
I may be missing something but if they are suing us, surely we have nothing to gain and everything to lose. No upside. So can't be right, can it?
|
|
|
Post by Henbury Gas on May 19, 2015 13:14:16 GMT
So we've thought all along we were suing Sainsbury's to teach them a lesson but in fact they are suing us! It could only happen at Rovers! Yes the deceit at boardroom level knows no boundaries at all, some supporters were shocked about the Cheltenham bare faced lies, just goes to show doesn't it just how much contempt there is for the fans, void of anger these days towards that lot, and feeling sick with every statement the chairman makes indicating he is going absolutely nowhere. Every statement, decision seems to be based on a whim, which is why I have said before just how big a deal Darrell and the team achieving what they had done up until March has been nothing short of a miracle really, this latest news certainly explains why he was so mute on the subject of the court case yesterday. thats post sounds very Ted like 1986, are you on the turn..
|
|
|
Post by Topper Gas on May 19, 2015 13:15:08 GMT
Last night B Post confirmed Sainsbury's had sued as they were looking for confirmation the contract had lapsed, plus the case is listed as Sainsbury's v BRFC not BRFC suing Sainsbury's, it's all a bit odd!
|
|
|
Post by Henbury Gas on May 19, 2015 13:17:09 GMT
Last night B Post confirmed Sainsbury's had sued as they were looking for confirmation the contract had lapsed, plus the case is listed as Sainsbury's v BRFC not BRFC suing Sainsbury's, it's all a bit odd! Do you "sue" somebody to prove something, i thought you Sued somebody for doing something wrong to you ?
|
|
|
Post by seanclevedongas on May 19, 2015 13:19:04 GMT
Just ignorance and pot stirring
|
|
|
Post by phillistine on May 19, 2015 14:02:31 GMT
I may be missing something but if they are suing us, surely we have nothing to gain and everything to lose. No upside. So can't be right, can it? It seems to me that until such time as Sainsburys are in breach of contract then Rovers cannot sue them as they have done nothing wrong. In fact if Rovers did sue them then this would suggest that Rovers consider the contract has been breached when in fact it is our argument that the terms have been fulfilled and consequently the contract still exists. It is Sainsbury who are saying that the contract is broken and that they are entitled to walk away from it and for this reason it has to be Sainsburys who instigate the action as the plaintiffs. Regardless of whose action this is the outcome will determine whether Sainsburys have to purchase the Mem .
|
|
|
Post by bluebeard on May 19, 2015 14:05:51 GMT
It's semantics. Sainsburys have initiated proceedings to get confirmation that the contract is void. It amounts to the same thing as Rovers initiating proceedings to get confirmation that it isn't. We were always going to end up in court and perhaps Sainsburys saw this as a better route PR wise? I noticed that someone said at the outset that if we win, we would need to sue separately for damages and additional costs. Seemed strange at the time but this probably explains why. Apart from a rather loose interpretation of the word "watertight"' no lies. No deceit. Keep calm.
|
|
|
Post by phillistine on May 19, 2015 14:09:56 GMT
I may be missing something but if they are suing us, surely we have nothing to gain and everything to lose. No upside. So can't be right, can it? It seems to me that until such time as Sainsburys are in breach of contract then Rovers cannot sue them as they have done nothing wrong. In fact if Rovers did sue them then this would suggest that Rovers consider the contract has been breached when in fact it is our argument that the terms have been fulfilled and consequently the contract still exists. It is Sainsbury who are saying that the contract is broken and that they are entitled to walk away from it and for this reason it has to be Sainsburys who instigate the action as the plaintiffs. Regardless of whose action this is the outcome will determine whether Sainsburys have to purchase the Mem . it is also relevant that Sainsburys will have to make allowance for outstanding legal disputes. They are probably having to tie up £32million or whatever in reserve until such time as the decision is made - hence they are pushing for a decision - so that they know if they can spend this money elsewhere
|
|
|
Post by brfclee on May 19, 2015 14:16:09 GMT
It seems to me that until such time as Sainsburys are in breach of contract then Rovers cannot sue them as they have done nothing wrong. In fact if Rovers did sue them then this would suggest that Rovers consider the contract has been breached when in fact it is our argument that the terms have been fulfilled and consequently the contract still exists. It is Sainsbury who are saying that the contract is broken and that they are entitled to walk away from it and for this reason it has to be Sainsburys who instigate the action as the plaintiffs. Regardless of whose action this is the outcome will determine whether Sainsburys have to purchase the Mem . it is also relevant that Sainsburys will have to make allowance for outstanding legal disputes. They are probably having to tie up £32million or whatever in reserve until such time as the decision is made - hence they are pushing for a decision - so that they know if they can spend this money elsewhere Except for the fact that initially they didn't want to have the case until much later, but after the judge agreed with BRFC that the case need to be heard quickly when they suddenly agreed it needed to be settled as soon as possible.
|
|
|
Post by mehewmagic on May 19, 2015 14:24:43 GMT
Its Bristol Rovers v Sainsbury. Rovers are the first name so they are the people who have brought the case home game innit given our record breaking 21 game away run without a defeat, I'd almost prefer an away game
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 19, 2015 14:26:49 GMT
Maybe we are suing and they are countersuing or vice versa, Cheese knows! who understands legal crap
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 19, 2015 14:31:59 GMT
It's semantics. Sainsburys have initiated proceedings to get confirmation that the contract is void. It amounts to the same thing as Rovers initiating proceedings to get confirmation that it isn't. We were always going to end up in court and perhaps Sainsburys saw this as a better route PR wise? I noticed that someone said at the outset that if we win, we would need to sue separately for damages and additional costs. Seemed strange at the time but this probably explains why. Apart from a rather loose interpretation of the word "watertight"' no lies. No deceit. Keep calm. Stop talking sense.
|
|
|
Post by Severncider on May 19, 2015 14:33:40 GMT
During a lull in the proceedings I'd like to clear up a misunderstanding amongst some Gasheads about this Court action.
This action is being brought by Sainsbury against Bristol Rovers as they are seeking a Court ruling that they do not have to proceed with this contract and Bristol Rovers are counter suing them.
If their is a misunderstanding, that is nothing to do with BRFC but clearly by those Gasheads who do not understand the reason for this Court action.
Toni Watola has not yet started his evidence and to be honest at the moment the questioning of a director of WYG revolves around various noise assessment reports and I'm sure may be relevant to the case but in my opinion is very boring and cannot understand the relevance.
I'll post todays report by about 8pm
Roll on Toni to enliven this afternoons session.
|
|
|
Post by Topper Gas on May 19, 2015 14:34:46 GMT
Last night B Post confirmed Sainsbury's had sued as they were looking for confirmation the contract had lapsed, plus the case is listed as Sainsbury's v BRFC not BRFC suing Sainsbury's, it's all a bit odd! Do you "sue" somebody to prove something, i thought you Sued somebody for doing something wrong to you ? Perhaps issued a writ is the better term, still seems a bit odd to me we're all been led to believe BRFC are taking on the mighty Sainsbury's via the court room, only to find the shoe's on the other foot and BRFC are being sued. I assume if we lose then we will have to pay both sets of costs as we've defended the action being brought.
|
|
|
Post by bluebeard on May 19, 2015 14:35:59 GMT
Top man that sever cider.
|
|