|
Post by blackthorngas on Jan 19, 2016 8:52:13 GMT
Ever the optimist,I've got a feeling in my waters that good things are going to happen.
|
|
|
Post by pirate49 on Jan 19, 2016 9:01:10 GMT
Ever the optimist,I've got a feeling in my waters that good things are going to happen. My waters are frozen...............................
|
|
|
Post by dave on Jan 19, 2016 9:26:49 GMT
No good feeling at all. If we lost the court case before, why would the appeal be successful? This was one persons decision based upon the facts as she saw them and she admitted that it was a tough call. The appeal will be 3 people and the rovers team have the advantage now in knowing which part of the argument let them down. The 3 judges are likely to be specialists in this area too and so the decision could be different. On a serious note we cannot be sure of the outcome but if we were to win then almost certainly sainsburys will negotiate harder to pull out and a deal will be done. I don't think hat the Mem will ever be a sainsburys I may not fully understand the appeals process but my belief is that by there being an appeal against the orignal decision this results in a group of 3 judges considering the 'original' evidence and basing there decision on that. I dont believe there is any further exchanges between the opposing barristers giving new and / or improved evidence or arguments for either side. Therefore it doesnt seem to matter whether we know what part of the argument let the rovers team down and its just as likely to let them down again as it will be unchanged. With regards to the judges being specialists, what evidence is there for this? Did they not use a specialist in the first place. I thought all judges were specialists. I think finally, we all need to understand (if we dont already) that the Sainsburys £30m deal will NEVER happen as they have pulled out of the deal all we are trying to get is compansation for them pulling out of the deal in an illegal way. If we lose we still get nothing AND incurr more court costs. If we win we MAY get awarded compensation (after counter appeals i'm sure).
|
|
|
Post by Henbury Gas on Jan 19, 2016 9:51:17 GMT
Court case is just a side line now, the main show is about to start Come on then H. You can't leave that one hanging in the air. What do you know, has you planning mole let something slip? Nothing new on the planning front other than what i put on previously But more work is being done in the planning dept re the whole site so something is going on We know about the ice rink at cribbs but he thinks that's a no go plan due to the flooding in that area but words have been talked about relocating it to the UWE site somewhere...
|
|
|
Post by axegas on Jan 19, 2016 10:00:51 GMT
Come on then H. You can't leave that one hanging in the air. What do you know, has you planning mole let something slip? Nothing new on the planning front other than what i put on previously But more work is being done in the planning dept re the whole site so something is going on We know about the ice rink at cribbs but he thinks that's a no go plan due to the flooding in that area but words have been talked about relocating it to the UWE site somewhere... is that why you called it sports complex?
|
|
|
Post by Henbury Gas on Jan 19, 2016 10:07:34 GMT
Nothing new on the planning front other than what i put on previously But more work is being done in the planning dept re the whole site so something is going on We know about the ice rink at cribbs but he thinks that's a no go plan due to the flooding in that area but words have been talked about relocating it to the UWE site somewhere... is that why you called it sports complex? That's what they call it in the planning office because its a very "Complex" design...
|
|
stuart1974
Proper Gas
Posts: 11,632
Member is Online
|
Post by stuart1974 on Jan 19, 2016 10:31:06 GMT
is that why you called it sports complex? That's what they call it in the planning office because its a very "Complex" design... Are these mutually exclusive or are they dependant on all plans being passed? It would be typical that the UWE ends up becoming too big a project and one thing not receiving permission ends up derailing the whole thing. More raising of expectations then dashing them :-(
|
|
|
Post by nerdgas on Jan 19, 2016 13:01:02 GMT
Nah, its a good thread with a cool title. I think I'll leave it alone. Trololol Its avery good thread with a decent title, but in the wrong section.MOVE IT. NOW SACK THE MODERATORS....
|
|
|
Post by lpgas on Jan 19, 2016 17:15:29 GMT
This was one persons decision based upon the facts as she saw them and she admitted that it was a tough call. The appeal will be 3 people and the rovers team have the advantage now in knowing which part of the argument let them down. The 3 judges are likely to be specialists in this area too and so the decision could be different. On a serious note we cannot be sure of the outcome but if we were to win then almost certainly sainsburys will negotiate harder to pull out and a deal will be done. I don't think hat the Mem will ever be a sainsburysI don't think Sainsburys ever intended it to be. If you think about it, why would a company agree to pay twice what most believe to be the market value for the Mem? Especially (and correct me if I'm wrong) as they have a store just down the road, and another a stones' throw away at Abbey Wood. They don't and have never needed a store there. This was a tactic to stop any competition getting a foothold in the area. Nothing more than a ploy to prevent an Aldi or Asda opening up and tempting customers away from their nearby stores. It is a tactic I'm led to believe they've employed several times up and down the country, and BRFC have been used as a pawn in their game. Well - UWE aside - Sainsbury damn well deserve this to come back and bite them on the butt - and I for one hope it does! Waitrose had put a bid in for £22 million
|
|
|
Post by lpgas on Jan 19, 2016 17:16:09 GMT
Ever the optimist,I've got a feeling in my waters that good things are going to happen. My waters are frozen............................... Mine aren't but it is difficult to find the stop cock
|
|
|
Post by gregsy on Jan 19, 2016 17:27:46 GMT
No think this thread should be kept here because if there is positive good news soon and stadium is back on track in which ever way or shape it turns it would be good to see all those eat their words and try and backtrack. Nothing better than a good outing !! I personally have my doubts now a don't believe it will happen....
however, if it does happen, please feel free to make me eat my words.... nothing would make me happier....
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 19, 2016 17:27:50 GMT
I have a feeling that some positive news is due soon on the UWE stadium. Whether it's plan A, the fabled plan B, or outside investement/buyers - we are close to knowing what path this is taking. I might be stating the obvious, and I'm certainly not "In The Know" - but I just feel the best thing that has happened to this club for years is about to happen. UTG! Who do we think garystash is? Think I have a good idea...
|
|
|
Post by gregsy on Jan 19, 2016 17:33:18 GMT
I have a feeling that some positive news is due soon on the UWE stadium. Whether it's plan A, the fabled plan B, or outside investement/buyers - we are close to knowing what path this is taking. I might be stating the obvious, and I'm certainly not "In The Know" - but I just feel the best thing that has happened to this club for years is about to happen. UTG! Who do we think garystash is? Think I have a good idea... gary penrice innit.....
|
|
|
Post by lpgas on Jan 19, 2016 17:33:19 GMT
This was one persons decision based upon the facts as she saw them and she admitted that it was a tough call. The appeal will be 3 people and the rovers team have the advantage now in knowing which part of the argument let them down. The 3 judges are likely to be specialists in this area too and so the decision could be different. On a serious note we cannot be sure of the outcome but if we were to win then almost certainly sainsburys will negotiate harder to pull out and a deal will be done. I don't think hat the Mem will ever be a sainsburys I may not fully understand the appeals process but my belief is that by there being an appeal against the orignal decision this results in a group of 3 judges considering the 'original' evidence and basing there decision on that. I dont believe there is any further exchanges between the opposing barristers giving new and / or improved evidence or arguments for either side. Therefore it doesnt seem to matter whether we know what part of the argument let the rovers team down and its just as likely to let them down again as it will be unchanged. With regards to the judges being specialists, what evidence is there for this? Did they not use a specialist in the first place. I thought all judges were specialists. I think finally, we all need to understand (if we dont already) that the Sainsburys £30m deal will NEVER happen as they have pulled out of the deal all we are trying to get is compansation for them pulling out of the deal in an illegal way. If we lose we still get nothing AND incurr more court costs. If we win we MAY get awarded compensation (after counter appeals i'm sure). The decision is going to be looked at by the 3 appeal judges. Sainsbury's argument is that the time limit had ran out and so the contract was dead. Rovers argued that Sainsburys had deliberately "ran the clock down" with their delaying tactics. One of these was not to appeal against the decision of delivery hours. The first decision went against them because they put in an application which was doomed to failure because it contained errors and had stuff missing. Rovers believe that they did this on purpose, and that they should appeal, Sainsburys just said no. contract is over. So Rovers appealed on the behalf of Sainsburys and won. This appeal is not about compensation. This is whether the first judgement was correct or not. If it is found to be wrong then Sainsbury will have to cough up the full amount. To get compensation Rovers will have to take Sainsburys to court. Remember we haven't taken them to court, they took us to court to try and get the contract declared as dead/ finished/ over/ ended. In my opinion both parties believe they can win and so there will be no compensation. I suspect behind the scenes Sainsburys have been making noises to anyone who will listen because should we win the appeal there are lost of other businesses and councils who have been royally shafted by this bunch of tossers and they are all awaiting to outcome. I hope we win, not only for us, but for all the others too. And before anyone claims about Sainsbury being a "British Store". The largest share holders are is in fact the investment group (or Royal Family) of Quatar. You know the country where every one is welcome
|
|
|
Post by socrates on Jan 19, 2016 20:40:56 GMT
No think this thread should be kept here because if there is positive good news soon and stadium is back on track in which ever way or shape it turns it would be good to see all those eat their words and try and backtrack. Nothing better than a good outing !! I personally have my doubts now a don't believe it will happen....
however, if it does happen, please feel free to make me eat my words.... nothing would make me happier....
Yeah strange post that. Seems more interested in proving people wrong than getting a new stadium for Rovers. I don't think it will happen either but if it does I won't be doing any backtracking and I won't be eating any words. We'll have a stadium sainsburys will have some land and everyone will move on. We're all entitled to our opinions on here and we can't all be right all the time in predicting what's going to happen in the future. If I could I'd be a very rich man.
|
|
|
Post by garystash on Jan 19, 2016 20:45:41 GMT
Who do we think garystash is? Think I have a good idea... gary penrice innit..... Rumbled! :-)
|
|
|
Post by Topper Gas on Jan 19, 2016 21:36:52 GMT
I may not fully understand the appeals process but my belief is that by there being an appeal against the orignal decision this results in a group of 3 judges considering the 'original' evidence and basing there decision on that. I dont believe there is any further exchanges between the opposing barristers giving new and / or improved evidence or arguments for either side. Therefore it doesnt seem to matter whether we know what part of the argument let the rovers team down and its just as likely to let them down again as it will be unchanged. With regards to the judges being specialists, what evidence is there for this? Did they not use a specialist in the first place. I thought all judges were specialists. I think finally, we all need to understand (if we dont already) that the Sainsburys £30m deal will NEVER happen as they have pulled out of the deal all we are trying to get is compansation for them pulling out of the deal in an illegal way. If we lose we still get nothing AND incurr more court costs. If we win we MAY get awarded compensation (after counter appeals i'm sure). The decision is going to be looked at by the 3 appeal judges. Sainsbury's argument is that the time limit had ran out and so the contract was dead. Rovers argued that Sainsburys had deliberately "ran the clock down" with their delaying tactics. One of these was not to appeal against the decision of delivery hours. The first decision went against them because they put in an application which was doomed to failure because it contained errors and had stuff missing. Rovers believe that they did this on purpose, and that they should appeal, Sainsburys just said no. contract is over. So Rovers appealed on the behalf of Sainsburys and won. This appeal is not about compensation. This is whether the first judgement was correct or not. If it is found to be wrong then Sainsbury will have to cough up the full amount. To get compensation Rovers will have to take Sainsburys to court. Remember we haven't taken them to court, they took us to court to try and get the contract declared as dead/ finished/ over/ ended. In my opinion both parties believe they can win and so there will be no compensation. I suspect behind the scenes Sainsburys have been making noises to anyone who will listen because should we win the appeal there are lost of other businesses and councils who have been royally shafted by this bunch of tossers and they are all awaiting to outcome. I hope we win, not only for us, but for all the others too. And before anyone claims about Sainsbury being a "British Store". The largest share holders are is in fact the investment group (or Royal Family) of Quatar. You know the country where every one is welcome Think your summary is wrong as Sainsburys claim they were under no obligation to Appeal only to submit the Application, also saying that the original Application was poor is a bit like saying JJOT played poorly to get us relegated, possibly true but virtually impossible to prove in a court room. Not really sure we will have to take Sainsbury's to court to get compensation if we win as it will simply mean the contract is valid and in Sainsburys legal teams own words they will then be stuck with having to buy the Mem. As matters stand I understand nobody as ever won a similar case so it'll be some achievement by our legal team if they win the Appeal.
|
|
|
Post by lulworthgas on Jan 19, 2016 22:03:05 GMT
The decision is going to be looked at by the 3 appeal judges. Sainsbury's argument is that the time limit had ran out and so the contract was dead. Rovers argued that Sainsburys had deliberately "ran the clock down" with their delaying tactics. One of these was not to appeal against the decision of delivery hours. The first decision went against them because they put in an application which was doomed to failure because it contained errors and had stuff missing. Rovers believe that they did this on purpose, and that they should appeal, Sainsburys just said no. contract is over. So Rovers appealed on the behalf of Sainsburys and won. This appeal is not about compensation. This is whether the first judgement was correct or not. If it is found to be wrong then Sainsbury will have to cough up the full amount. To get compensation Rovers will have to take Sainsburys to court. Remember we haven't taken them to court, they took us to court to try and get the contract declared as dead/ finished/ over/ ended. In my opinion both parties believe they can win and so there will be no compensation. I suspect behind the scenes Sainsburys have been making noises to anyone who will listen because should we win the appeal there are lost of other businesses and councils who have been royally shafted by this bunch of tossers and they are all awaiting to outcome. I hope we win, not only for us, but for all the others too. And before anyone claims about Sainsbury being a "British Store". The largest share holders are is in fact the investment group (or Royal Family) of Quatar. You know the country where every one is welcome Think your summary is wrong as Sainsburys claim they were under no obligation to Appeal only to submit the Application, also saying that the original Application was poor is a bit like saying JJOT played poorly to get us relegated, possibly true but virtually impossible to prove in a court room. Not really sure we will have to take Sainsbury's to court to get compensation if we win as it will simply mean the contract is valid and in Sainsburys legal teams own words they will then be stuck with having to buy the Mem. As matters stand I understand nobody as ever won a similar case so it'll be some achievement by our legal team if they win the Appeal. I think we might just be better of losing the appeal. Leaves us free to move on. Win, and we will be stuck in courts for years more.
|
|
|
Post by aghast on Jan 19, 2016 22:12:50 GMT
If we win the appeal (unlikely), I can't see how Sainsbury's have any chance of being granted an appeal to the Supreme Court. It isn't about a fundamental element of property or contract law. It's about whether they deliberately made the contract fail through lack of action or deliberate bad intent.
|
|
|
Post by lulworthgas on Jan 19, 2016 22:22:28 GMT
If we win the appeal (unlikely), I can't see how Sainsbury's have any chance of being granted an appeal to the Supreme Court. It isn't about a fundamental element of property or contract law. It's about whether they deliberately made the contract fail through lack of action or deliberate bad intent. Yep, but they are w multi national that could potentially hit trouble if us winning opens a massive fan of worms for them and other supermarkets that have used similar tactics. Better to p off half a city than push sainsburys to the brink.
|
|