|
Post by peterparker on Jan 29, 2016 14:23:41 GMT
I thought Rovers were telling Sainsbury's not to Appeal as the "climate" at BCC wasn't right, if so, how did we actually "authorise" the Appeal? Regardless it's a bit like Sainsbury's asking us about footballing matters, if Sainsbury's experts said it was a correct Appeal then how would we know any different w/o obtaining our own experts report? Surely the fact the Appeal eventually succeeded brings into question their counsel's Advice? Although it all comes down to whether "good faith" is stronger than contract law in the 3 Appeal court judges view. It is/was a multi-million pound scheme. Surely we would have paid someone to at least cursory glance at Sainsburys appeal before letting them submit it
|
|
|
Post by simon1883 on Jan 29, 2016 14:45:04 GMT
I'm se I have read somewhere that TW agreed to bring forward the completion date, therefore playing straight into Sainsburys hands (As they requested it). Had this been declined then all would have happened within the contract dates and we would have won....
|
|
|
Post by peterparker on Jan 29, 2016 14:47:22 GMT
I'm se I have read somewhere that TW agreed to bring forward the completion date, therefore playing straight into Sainsburys hands (As they requested it). Had this been declined then all would have happened within the contract dates and we would have won.... yes that was in the original case in his evidence
|
|
|
Post by Severncider on Jan 29, 2016 15:02:16 GMT
I'm se I have read somewhere that TW agreed to bring forward the completion date, therefore playing straight into Sainsburys hands (As they requested it). Had this been declined then all would have happened within the contract dates and we would have won.... I asked TW recently about this and he said that the change of date did not affect the contract and he gave an explanation which went above my head. It had something to do with this condition brought the Contract in line with other parts of the Contract.
I can only suggest that someone asks NH or TW why this was agreed to.
|
|
|
Post by peterparker on Jan 29, 2016 15:40:14 GMT
I'm se I have read somewhere that TW agreed to bring forward the completion date, therefore playing straight into Sainsburys hands (As they requested it). Had this been declined then all would have happened within the contract dates and we would have won.... I asked TW recently about this and he said that the change of date did not affect the contract and he gave an explanation which went above my head. It had something to do with this condition brought the Contract in line with other parts of the Contract.
I can only suggest that someone asks NH or TW why this was agreed to.
sounds like a typical TW answer to me for the summary of the case says
(3) The “Long Stop Date” (the last date when the “Cut Off Date” could occur) was brought forward from 31 May 2015 to 14 December 2014.
that sounds like it affects the contract
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 29, 2016 15:49:17 GMT
That depends on if there were any riders added to it
|
|
|
Post by garystash on Jan 29, 2016 16:00:02 GMT
I'm se I have read somewhere that TW agreed to bring forward the completion date, therefore playing straight into Sainsburys hands (As they requested it). Had this been declined then all would have happened within the contract dates and we would have won.... I asked TW recently about this and he said that the change of date did not affect the contract and he gave an explanation which went above my head. It had something to do with this condition brought the Contract in line with other parts of the Contract.
I can only suggest that someone asks NH or TW why this was agreed to.
What is the saying? If you can't explain it simply enough you don't understand it well enough...
|
|
|
Post by Topper Gas on Jan 29, 2016 16:23:03 GMT
I asked TW recently about this and he said that the change of date did not affect the contract and he gave an explanation which went above my head. It had something to do with this condition brought the Contract in line with other parts of the Contract.
I can only suggest that someone asks NH or TW why this was agreed to.
sounds like a typical TW answer to me for the summary of the case says
(3) The “Long Stop Date” (the last date when the “Cut Off Date” could occur) was brought forward from 31 May 2015 to 14 December 2014.
that sounds like it affects the contract
I'm pretty sure TW gave a reason at the original trial, regardless hindsight is a wonderful thing as no doubt when he agreed the change he had no idea what Sainsbury's would use it as a got out clause, byt what's betting it it had been left at May 2015 some other excuse would have cropped up to delay matters further, even now the AVC is delaying the sale by another 6 months. Not really sure why posters on here who i assume are Rovers fans are looking for reasons to blame NH/TW why it's clear where the blame lies.
|
|
|
Post by peterparker on Jan 29, 2016 17:09:11 GMT
sounds like a typical TW answer to me for the summary of the case says
(3) The “Long Stop Date” (the last date when the “Cut Off Date” could occur) was brought forward from 31 May 2015 to 14 December 2014.
that sounds like it affects the contract
I'm pretty sure TW gave a reason at the original trial, regardless hindsight is a wonderful thing as no doubt when he agreed the change he had no idea what Sainsbury's would use it as a got out clause, byt what's betting it it had been left at May 2015 some other excuse would have cropped up to delay matters further, even now the AVC is delaying the sale by another 6 months. Not really sure why posters on here who i assume are Rovers fans are looking for reasons to blame NH/TW why it's clear where the blame lies. Is it clear? Legal views seem to think we have shot ourselves in the foot regarding signing off on Sainsburys one required appeal that ultimatley failed and gave them an out As for TW, the bloke as always talked a lot of tosh when questioned at Q and As and the like, so unfortunatley he gives me zero confidence if involved in things such as this
|
|
|
Post by Finnish Gas on Jan 29, 2016 17:18:04 GMT
sounds like a typical TW answer to me for the summary of the case says
(3) The “Long Stop Date” (the last date when the “Cut Off Date” could occur) was brought forward from 31 May 2015 to 14 December 2014.
that sounds like it affects the contract
I'm pretty sure TW gave a reason at the original trial, regardless hindsight is a wonderful thing as no doubt when he agreed the change he had no idea what Sainsbury's would use it as a got out clause, byt what's betting it it had been left at May 2015 some other excuse would have cropped up to delay matters further, even now the AVC is delaying the sale by another 6 months. Not really sure why posters on here who i assume are Rovers fans are looking for reasons to blame NH/TW why it's clear where the blame lies. I think Paras. 128 and 129 are the relevant ones: PARA. 129. ..........Mr Watola did indeed concede that he would not have resubmitted a s.73 application before the local elections which took place on 22 May 2014 and that the earliest date for resubmission would have been in June 2014. ............. www.judiciary.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/sainsbury-v-bristol-rovers-judgment.pdf
|
|
|
Post by knowall on Jan 29, 2016 17:29:17 GMT
I'm pretty sure TW gave a reason at the original trial, regardless hindsight is a wonderful thing as no doubt when he agreed the change he had no idea what Sainsbury's would use it as a got out clause, byt what's betting it it had been left at May 2015 some other excuse would have cropped up to delay matters further, even now the AVC is delaying the sale by another 6 months. Not really sure why posters on here who i assume are Rovers fans are looking for reasons to blame NH/TW why it's clear where the blame lies. Is it clear? Legal views seem to think we have shot ourselves in the foot regarding signing off on Sainsburys one required appeal that ultimatley failed and gave them an out As for TW, the bloke as always talked a lot of tosh when questioned at Q and As and the like, so unfortunatley he gives me zero confidence if involved in things such as this on all matters - which is why we are where we are
|
|
|
Post by bluebeard on Jan 29, 2016 18:01:30 GMT
I'm pretty sure TW gave a reason at the original trial, regardless hindsight is a wonderful thing as no doubt when he agreed the change he had no idea what Sainsbury's would use it as a got out clause, byt what's betting it it had been left at May 2015 some other excuse would have cropped up to delay matters further, even now the AVC is delaying the sale by another 6 months. Not really sure why posters on here who i assume are Rovers fans are looking for reasons to blame NH/TW why it's clear where the blame lies. Is it clear? Legal views seem to think we have shot ourselves in the foot regarding signing off on Sainsburys one required appeal that ultimatley failed and gave them an out As for TW, the bloke as always talked a lot of tosh when questioned at Q and As and the like, so unfortunatley he gives me zero confidence if involved in things such as this Where do you get this from? They were obliged to "reasonably endeavour" to obtain an acceptable planning consent which is why we coerced them into submitting a second appeal.
|
|
|
Post by Topper Gas on Jan 29, 2016 18:11:46 GMT
I'm pretty sure TW gave a reason at the original trial, regardless hindsight is a wonderful thing as no doubt when he agreed the change he had no idea what Sainsbury's would use it as a got out clause, byt what's betting it it had been left at May 2015 some other excuse would have cropped up to delay matters further, even now the AVC is delaying the sale by another 6 months. Not really sure why posters on here who i assume are Rovers fans are looking for reasons to blame NH/TW why it's clear where the blame lies. Is it clear? Legal views seem to think we have shot ourselves in the foot regarding signing off on Sainsburys one required appeal that ultimatley failed and gave them an out As for TW, the bloke as always talked a lot of tosh when questioned at Q and As and the like, so unfortunatley he gives me zero confidence if involved in things such as this No, Legal views suggest "good faith" maybe meaningless and Sainsbury's dragging matters out as long as they could is supported by present UK contract law. Although it could be that 3 Appeal Court Judges, who are imagine are far more experienced in these matters than solicitors writing legal articles, may have a differing view.
|
|
|
Post by peterparker on Jan 29, 2016 18:49:48 GMT
Is it clear? Legal views seem to think we have shot ourselves in the foot regarding signing off on Sainsburys one required appeal that ultimatley failed and gave them an out As for TW, the bloke as always talked a lot of tosh when questioned at Q and As and the like, so unfortunatley he gives me zero confidence if involved in things such as this Where do you get this from? They were obliged to "reasonably endeavour" to obtain an acceptable planning consent which is why we coerced them into submitting a second appeal. I may be mistaken but I am sure it was in the documents and reported in the original case.
|
|
|
Post by dinsdale on Jan 29, 2016 20:09:20 GMT
sounds like a typical TW answer to me for the summary of the case says
(3) The “Long Stop Date” (the last date when the “Cut Off Date” could occur) was brought forward from 31 May 2015 to 14 December 2014.
that sounds like it affects the contract
I'm pretty sure TW gave a reason at the original trial, regardless hindsight is a wonderful thing as no doubt when he agreed the change he had no idea what Sainsbury's would use it as a got out clause, byt what's betting it it had been left at May 2015 some other excuse would have cropped up to delay matters further, even now the AVC is delaying the sale by another 6 months. Not really sure why posters on here who i assume are Rovers fans are looking for reasons to blame NH/TW why it's clear where the blame lies. The problem lies with the people who drew up the contract and consequenly the people who hired them. The contract was about as tight as Hartcliffe Girls chuff
|
|
|
Post by Topper Gas on Jan 29, 2016 20:34:31 GMT
I'm pretty sure TW gave a reason at the original trial, regardless hindsight is a wonderful thing as no doubt when he agreed the change he had no idea what Sainsbury's would use it as a got out clause, byt what's betting it it had been left at May 2015 some other excuse would have cropped up to delay matters further, even now the AVC is delaying the sale by another 6 months. Not really sure why posters on here who i assume are Rovers fans are looking for reasons to blame NH/TW why it's clear where the blame lies. The problem lies with the people who drew up the contract and consequenly the people who hired them. The contract was about as tight as Hartcliffe Girls chuff Surely it was a standard Sainsbury's contract?
|
|
|
Post by simon1883 on Jan 30, 2016 15:59:22 GMT
sounds like a typical TW answer to me for the summary of the case says
(3) The “Long Stop Date” (the last date when the “Cut Off Date” could occur) was brought forward from 31 May 2015 to 14 December 2014.
that sounds like it affects the contract
I'm pretty sure TW gave a reason at the original trial, regardless hindsight is a wonderful thing as no doubt when he agreed the change he had no idea what Sainsbury's would use it as a got out clause, byt what's betting it it had been left at May 2015 some other excuse would have cropped up to delay matters further, even now the AVC is delaying the sale by another 6 months. Not really sure why posters on here who i assume are Rovers fans are looking for reasons to blame NH/TW why it's clear where the blame lies. Not sure hindsight plays a part here.. Why would you import risk into something? By reducing the available time for something to happen, you increase the risk. Basic project management.
|
|
|
Post by curlywurly on Feb 3, 2016 16:19:51 GMT
I'm pretty sure TW gave a reason at the original trial, regardless hindsight is a wonderful thing as no doubt when he agreed the change he had no idea what Sainsbury's would use it as a got out clause, byt what's betting it it had been left at May 2015 some other excuse would have cropped up to delay matters further, even now the AVC is delaying the sale by another 6 months. Not really sure why posters on here who i assume are Rovers fans are looking for reasons to blame NH/TW why it's clear where the blame lies. Not sure hindsight plays a part here.. Why would you import risk into something? By reducing the available time for something to happen, you increase the risk. Basic project management. Before anyone gets too excited about this, the judgement confirms that the alteration of the Long Stop Date was agreed on 6th December 2011, i.e. 5 months before Sainsbury's submitted their original planning application to BCC. Whilst it is a concession by the club, it accompanies a concession by Sainsbury's. It should not be presented as if TW had knowledge of TRASH, JR or the council imposing the "Store Onerous Condition" of restricted delivery hours.
|
|
|
Post by banjoflyer on Feb 3, 2016 18:35:16 GMT
Not sure hindsight plays a part here.. Why would you import risk into something? By reducing the available time for something to happen, you increase the risk. Basic project management. Before anyone gets too excited about this, the judgement confirms that the alteration of the Long Stop Date was agreed on 6th December 2011, i.e. 5 months before Sainsbury's submitted their original planning application to BCC. Whilst it is a concession by the club, it accompanies a concession by Sainsbury's. It should not be presented as if TW had knowledge of TRASH, JR or the council imposing the "Store Onerous Condition" of restricted delivery hours. Thanks for the info Curly, can you advise what the Shamesbury concession was at the time?
|
|
|
Post by curlywurly on Feb 5, 2016 21:57:46 GMT
Before anyone gets too excited about this, the judgement confirms that the alteration of the Long Stop Date was agreed on 6th December 2011, i.e. 5 months before Sainsbury's submitted their original planning application to BCC. Whilst it is a concession by the club, it accompanies a concession by Sainsbury's. It should not be presented as if TW had knowledge of TRASH, JR or the council imposing the "Store Onerous Condition" of restricted delivery hours. Thanks for the info Curly, can you advise what the Shamesbury concession was at the time? I'd take 5(2) as a concession from the judgement: 5. On 6 December 2011, the Club entered into a conditional agreement for the development of the stadium at Frenchay with UWE. On the same day, the Club entered into a supplemental agreement with Sainsbury’s, varying the original contract between them. There were three important provisions: (1) Another Condition was added to the Agreement (the Retention Condition) the broad effect of which was that the Club had to show that the cost of building the new stadium at Frenchay would not exceed money being made available from the purchase for that purpose. (2) Sainsbury’s confirmed that it “is reasonably satisfied that the Funding Condition is reasonably likely to be satisfied”, and that Clause 3.2 of the Agreement (which gave Sainsbury’s the right to terminate the agreement if it was not likely that the Funding Condition would be satisfied) was to be deleted. (3) The “Long Stop Date” (the last date when the “Cut Off Date” could occur) was brought forward from 31 May 2015 to 14 December 2014.
|
|