|
|
Post by banjoflyer on Aug 4, 2014 19:28:47 GMT
Sorry I do not agree. Can you seriously tell me Sainsbury's would be less willing to take on a skint 4th division club rather than a skint 5th division club. With their resources, i think not.
If they are trying to pull out/renogotiate as appears more likely by the day, I think it goes back longer than our relegation. Remember they were not represented at the JR and their strategy, generally, has been changing for a few years.
Being cynical, maybe this is the reason they tried to modify the terms of the s106 before the JR was even concluded maybe to reinforce their case about about unacceptable planning consent (just my speculation).
Beside all the above, I still fail to see how the UWE debacle cost us our league position (for me that was the players and management) or how Sainsbury's losing interest is the fault of the BOD. Maybe the lawyers if they can get out of it, but not the BOD. If true, they are doing what is right commercially for them regardless of what division we may be in.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 4, 2014 19:53:21 GMT
Sorry I do not agree. Can you seriously tell me Sainsbury's would be less willing to take on a skint 4th division club rather than a skint 5th division club. With their resources, i think not. If they are trying to pull out/renogotiate as appears more likely by the day, I think it goes back longer than our relegation. Remember they were not represented at the JR and their strategy, generally, has been changing for a few years. Being cynical, maybe this is the reason they tried to modify the terms of the s106 before the JR was even concluded maybe to reinforce their case about about unacceptable planning consent (just my speculation). Beside all the above, I still fail to see how the UWE debacle cost us our league position (for me that was the players and management) or how Sainsbury's losing interest is the fault of the BOD. Maybe the lawyers if they can get out of it, but not the BOD. If true, they are doing what is right commercially for them regardless of what division we may be in. I was thinking exactly this earlier. It was them messing about with the 106 agreement thing that I wondered about. (Not at the time, but in hindsight were they deliberately dicking about to f**k up the planning) |
|
|
|
Post by Cantankerous Gas on Aug 26, 2014 15:38:42 GMT
Very worrying "exclusive" piece by Graham Rusell in today's local Sunday paper, gist is; • Sainsburys want to pull the plug as they no longer see it commercially viable. • Rovers are prepared to take Sainsburys to court and believe they have water tight contract. • Lawyers on both sides already involved and there has been two legal skirmishes so far that have gone unreported. I think a few Gas might owe Graham Russell an apology. |
|
|
|
Post by Hugo Admin on Aug 26, 2014 15:39:43 GMT
Very worrying "exclusive" piece by Graham Rusell in today's local Sunday paper, gist is; • Sainsburys want to pull the plug as they no longer see it commercially viable. • Rovers are prepared to take Sainsburys to court and believe they have water tight contract. • Lawyers on both sides already involved and there has been two legal skirmishes so far that have gone unreported. I think a few Gas might owe Graham Russell an apology. I'm not apologising to that shart monkey. |
|
|
|
Post by Cantankerous Gas on Aug 26, 2014 15:43:03 GMT
I think a few Gas might owe Graham Russell an apology. I'm not apologising to that shart monkey. Ok. But you acknowledge that the story was 100% correct. |
|
|
|
Post by RD on Aug 26, 2014 15:47:08 GMT
Sorry I do not agree. Can you seriously tell me Sainsbury's would be less willing to take on a skint 4th division club rather than a skint 5th division club. With their resources, i think not. If they are trying to pull out/renogotiate as appears more likely by the day, I think it goes back longer than our relegation. Remember they were not represented at the JR and their strategy, generally, has been changing for a few years. Being cynical, maybe this is the reason they tried to modify the terms of the s106 before the JR was even concluded maybe to reinforce their case about about unacceptable planning consent (just my speculation). Beside all the above, I still fail to see how the UWE debacle cost us our league position (for me that was the players and management) or how Sainsbury's losing interest is the fault of the BOD. Maybe the lawyers if they can get out of it, but not the BOD. If true, they are doing what is right commercially for them regardless of what division we may be in. Geoff; that you?! For a first post you were bang on the money it would seem.... Any chance of passing on this week's lottery numbers  |
|
|
|
Post by Hugo Admin on Aug 26, 2014 15:56:22 GMT
I'm not apologising to that shart monkey. Ok. But you acknowledge that the story was 100% correct. Yes. |
|
|
|
Post by Topper Gas on Aug 26, 2014 17:28:39 GMT
So who's the BoD mole and what are they trying to achieve?
This story is clearly now spot on so GR must of had a good source , and how has the writ been brought to the B Post attention?
Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 26, 2014 17:58:17 GMT
Very worrying "exclusive" piece by Graham Rusell in today's local Sunday paper, gist is; • Sainsburys want to pull the plug as they no longer see it commercially viable. • Rovers are prepared to take Sainsburys to court and believe they have water tight contract. • Lawyers on both sides already involved and there has been two legal skirmishes so far that have gone unreported. I think a few Gas might owe Graham Russell an apology. Agreed mate. |
|
|
|
Post by pirate49 on Aug 27, 2014 15:03:26 GMT
Strange how when Graham Russell's article appeared NH was on the OS within hours....though
reading what he said again I see he didn't say that the story was untrue.
Yet now not a word about the Bristol Post story!
Perhaps they feel they've done their bit regarding keeping fans informed!
|
|
|
|
Post by buckrippers on Aug 27, 2014 15:33:20 GMT
Very worrying "exclusive" piece by Graham Rusell in today's local Sunday paper, gist is; • Sainsburys want to pull the plug as they no longer see it commercially viable. • Rovers are prepared to take Sainsburys to court and believe they have water tight contract. • Lawyers on both sides already involved and there has been two legal skirmishes so far that have gone unreported. I think a few Gas might owe Graham Russell an apology. Just what I was thinking. I knew Graham would not have taken a punt on that if he wasn't pretty sure of his facts. Someone told him whether it was at Rovers, Bristol City Council or UWE. I'd put my money on a boardroom source. |
|
|
|
Post by curlywurly on Aug 27, 2014 16:01:05 GMT
Very worrying "exclusive" piece by Graham Rusell in today's local Sunday paper, gist is; • Sainsburys want to pull the plug as they no longer see it commercially viable. • Rovers are prepared to take Sainsburys to court and believe they have water tight contract. • Lawyers on both sides already involved and there has been two legal skirmishes so far that have gone unreported. I think a few Gas might owe Graham Russell an apology. Bu&&er him! No one likes a smartypants |
|
