|
Post by Rod1883 on May 20, 2015 16:11:38 GMT
Finish early today and appeared to go well. However, I have a feeling that there is more than a 50/50 chance we can lose this case. Not sure the Contract is as watertight as has been suggested. More to follow as it is difficult to type on a mobile phone on a rocking train Would be very interested to hear your thoughts in which areas, or on what specific points, the 50/50 chance rests.
|
|
|
Post by Antonio Fargas on May 20, 2015 16:18:13 GMT
One other thing to emerge is if we win the case and Sainsbury are bloody minded and kick us out of The Mem instead of allowing us to play there whist we build UWE, we may have to play somewhere else!!!!! How would that work? It's written in the contract that we are under no obligation to leave the Mem until we've played a competitive game at the UWE.
|
|
|
Post by peterparker on May 20, 2015 16:24:27 GMT
One other thing to emerge is if we win the case and Sainsbury are bloody minded and kick us out of The Mem instead of allowing us to play there whist we build UWE, we may have to play somewhere else!!!!! How would that work? It's written in the contract that we are under no obligation to leave the Mem until we've played a competitive game at the UWE. maybe their is an issue of time frame their as well, As in theory Sainsbury's will have wanted to have built the store sooner rather than later.
If everything went to plan then it wouldn't have been an issue, but perhaps their was clause that Sainsburys have to take control of the site by X date
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 20, 2015 16:25:32 GMT
One other thing to emerge is if we win the case and Sainsbury are bloody minded and kick us out of The Mem instead of allowing us to play there whist we build UWE, we may have to play somewhere else!!!!! How would that work? It's written in the contract that we are under no obligation to leave the Mem until we've played a competitive game at the UWE.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 20, 2015 16:26:56 GMT
I sense a size 12 boot making its way to our collective groin area.
|
|
|
Post by Jon the Stripe on May 20, 2015 16:28:36 GMT
Personally i'd happily watch us play on the downs next season if it meant we get UWE!
|
|
|
Post by hollyhillgas on May 20, 2015 17:16:54 GMT
Finish early today and appeared to go well. However, I have a feeling that there is more than a 50/50 chance we can lose this case. Not sure the Contract is as watertight as has been suggested. More to follow as it is difficult to type on a mobile phone on a rocking train Would be very interested to hear your thoughts in which areas, or on what specific points, the 50/50 chance rests. 50/50, if it's that tight there will be a replay via appeal whoever wins.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 20, 2015 17:33:44 GMT
Of course we can lose. Sainsbury wouldn't have gone to court to hand over 30 mil that they don't want to. If they didn't think they had a chance, Nick would be in Italy by now with a healthy bank account.
|
|
|
Post by Topper Gas on May 20, 2015 17:55:20 GMT
More than 50/50 chance doesn't sound promising as that means at least 60/40 against and no doubt, like the rest of us would be, sevencider is biased in our favour.
It will be interesting to see severncider's report tonight as how did we have a good day but our odds of winning seem to be worsening?
|
|
|
Post by Centenary Gas on May 20, 2015 18:03:56 GMT
It will be interesting to see severncider's report tonight as how did we have a good day but our odds of winning seem to be worsening? That's strange, because I remember Toni Watola standing up in front of the supporters and assuring them the contract is water tight. He would't lie to us, would he?
|
|
|
Post by gasoline on May 20, 2015 18:09:57 GMT
One of the conditions for acceptance into the league is security of tenure. If you are unable to show you have permission to play at your own ground for a minimum of 10 years then you will be refused entry to the league, you cannot be accepted if you ground share elsewhere. I'm only watching from a distance but I would say it is important that any change that affects your right to play at the mem happens after the Football league AGM in 2 weeks time so it doesn't affect your promotion. I'm sure your owners will be aware of this and will ensure isn't a problem but I thought you should know the situation with regards to promotion from the conference to the league. I do wish people would stop the scaremongering. IF we won the case and Sainsbury's booted us out, any local club (apart from one) would gladly allow us as tenants with a 10 year lease to provide certainty. We would then have a break clause after 2 years to allow us the certainty, but then provide us with our route to the UWE.
|
|
|
Post by spiess1 on May 20, 2015 18:12:33 GMT
Twerton not up to standard. Cheltnam already share Newport already share. ?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 20, 2015 18:13:34 GMT
Don't know why we are worrying about it.
UWE wont happen.
|
|
|
Post by newmarketgas on May 20, 2015 18:24:04 GMT
Best pack up and give our league spot to Grimsby ? Why the hell the board bother I will never know, we have some of the best supporters and some of the most miserable sods going . Cheer up and wait and see, it might not be water tight ( nothing ever is ) but it's bloody close, or this would have been over long ago ! Come on guys, last push. UTG.
|
|
|
Post by lulworthgas on May 20, 2015 18:30:18 GMT
Best pack up and give our league spot to Grimsby ? Why the hell the board bother I will never know, we have some of the best supporters and some of the most miserable sods going . Cheer up and wait and see, it might not be water tight ( nothing ever is ) but it's bloody close, or this would have been over long ago ! Come on guys, last push. UTG. A lot of people hoping for this to go against us as well in my opinion. I have no idea about the legalities of the case. I just hope we get the money and build uwe, regardless of who's been upset along the way.
|
|
|
Post by yatetown85 on May 20, 2015 18:52:49 GMT
From t'other forum - a more piratey game 2 hours ago oxongas, Bath Gas and 2 more like this. Quote likePost Options I was in there for an hour or so this afternoon. I didn't see billyocean, but thank him very much for the directions on this thread which made it tons easier to find there were 2 of us in gas tops, plus severncider. Its not a very grand courtroom, and far from a barrel of laughs, but business was getting done. Apologies for any incorrect terminology in the below - I'm not used to courtrooms (honest m'lud) and their jargon and procedures I didn't see Toni the Till being cross-examined, but was told he did well and that when asked about arcane points of planning he explained that he was the Finance Director, so he wasn't really the right person to ask, which seemed to be a very sensible and appropriate answer I was told Toni the Till nodded at me in acknowledgement of the display of support (wearing the shirt), and seemed relaxed. Both he and Nick Higgs spoke with people there including us, and seemed both open and honest in what they were saying Sainsbury's brief, Mr Wonnacott I think, spent his time pointing out to the judge some very detailed points about planning law, how processes work, and I think 4 major points of disagreement between himself and his learned colleague Rovers' brief (ie between Sainsbury's and Rovers). One of the points referred to a 'cut-off date' (aka drop dead date) in the contract, I think. I think he said it was something of a 'whistle-stop tour' of them, or similar, but blinking flip it didn't feel like one he judge patiently listened and offered to read up about some of the more obscure points and procedures. I imagine that she won't be enjoying some of these more byzantine elements, but that its part of her job Mr Wonnacott said something about there having been talk of this being a 'watertight contract, but in fact its a colander'. He made the point after seeming to stumble and make errors with some of the detailed planning stuff mentioned above, and I thought it was a gauche point gauchely made - his client had signed this 'colander' of a contract, after all, which doesn't reflect well on them in my view. He repeated the 'colander' comment a few minutes later court rose at the suggestion of Rovers' brief, who said that he has 2 witnesses to call tomorrow at 10.30 I think I was told while I was there that Sainsbury's 'do a lot of this' (which makes sense given what I have read elsewhere about their land purchases, development court cases, input when others are planning to compete with them etc) and are very good at it. It was also mentioned that they will 'use every trick in the book', and my take on things and I think that of the majority of readers on here is that is what they have done here. I'm not sure how much that will matter, and our opinions won't really count - its the one of Mrs Justice Proudman that will matter it was very interesting for an hour, but I think Severncider should earn a medal or other form of recognition for sitting through 6 days of it Read more: gasheads.org/thread/3191/high-court-proceedings?page=10#ixzz3ahr454jQ
|
|
|
Post by curlywurly on May 20, 2015 19:10:12 GMT
It will be interesting to see severncider's report tonight as how did we have a good day but our odds of winning seem to be worsening? That's strange, because I remember Toni Watola standing up in front of the supporters and assuring them the contract is water tight. He would't lie to us, would he? I don't know about Toni , but I know one thing for sure #sainsburysliedtothegas
|
|
|
Post by Finnish Gas on May 20, 2015 19:20:12 GMT
Sainsbury's tells judge they could have pulled out of contract with Rovers to buy Memorial StadiumBy The Bristol Post | Posted: May 20, 2015 A judge was told that Sainsbury's would have set an "awful trap" for Bristol Rovers if it had withdrawn a planning application for a new store at the Memorial Stadium. Mark Wonnacott QC argued that if the supermarket chain had pulled out of its bid to change Bristol City Council's restrictions on the proposed store's delivery hours, it would have been able to end its agreement with the club at that point. He added that as it was, Sainsbury's did not end the contract until after the council refused to alter the delivery times - which he said released them from the agreement. The club has previously argued that the supermarket chain should have withdrawn the application and tried again at a later date, when it became apparent the council would not alter the delivery hours - amid intense local pressure and while a judicial review by TRASHorfield was ongoing. The council eventually agreed to the hours originally asked for by Sainsbury's after the club took it upon itself to make its own application. Mr Wonnacott said: "We say that, if the application - which we agreed to make - had been withdrawn, that would have exhausted that appeal. "The effect of that appeal being exhausted would have been that the cut-off date had occurred, and we would have had a right to serve the termination notice (on the club). "That is why I said previously that withdrawing the application would have been an awful trap. "It would have been the most self-interested thing we could have done." Mr Wonnacott also said he had been made aware of a discussion in an online forum between Rovers' supporters who were following the case, in which one fan had asked: "When is a cut-off date not a cut-off date?"The barrister added: "That, in a nutshell, is our position. "If there is a planning refusal at the end of the process, then the cut-off date occurs and we have a right to terminate the agreement." Earlier, the court was told that Steve Gosling, a sound expert hired by Bristol Rovers, prepared a report offering suggestions to reduce noise from the proposed store following the council's refusal to change delivery times. Mr Wonnacott suggested there was 'little difference' between the measures in his report and those in Sainsbury's application - the latter of which he said had been approved by both Rovers and their planning consultants. The barrister said: "I am going to suggest to you that your measures were little more than a figleaf to give the council an excuse to allow an application it had previously refused." Mr Gosling replied: "No, that is not what happened." The hearing continues. Read more: www.bristolpost.co.uk/Sainsbury-s-tells-judge-pulled-contract-Rovers/story-26542581-detail/story.html
|
|
|
Post by curlywurly on May 20, 2015 19:23:00 GMT
#sainsburysliedtothegas
#readthatwonnacott
|
|
|
Post by tumshie on May 20, 2015 19:24:24 GMT
Worrying.
|
|