Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 21, 2015 13:09:42 GMT
Is today the final day of the hearing?
|
|
|
Post by mehewmagic on May 21, 2015 13:11:50 GMT
Yeah as after all the millions spent on lawyers spending hours analysing every detail of a contract, the case came down to a fan asking a rhetorical question on a football forum. It's about as relevant as the sainsburys qc getting a guest slot on match of the day! Not long to wait to see if it is relevant or not but it appears to have been allowed to be used in Sainsbury's evidence against Rovers. Perhaps our barrister will come back with a quote of his own, I wonder which one? a comment on a forum is not evidence. a contract is. and so are relevant exchanges between the interest parties. and so are the actions of those interested parties, and others involved in the PP. the rest is frankly worthless.
|
|
|
Post by ThisCharmingMan on May 21, 2015 13:12:41 GMT
Is today the final day of the hearing? Tomorrow
|
|
|
Post by Topper Gas on May 21, 2015 13:17:55 GMT
Hopefully the contact included a "reasonable endeavours" clause in it's colander of clauses.
|
|
|
Post by lulworthgas on May 21, 2015 13:34:15 GMT
Not long to wait to see if it is relevant or not but it appears to have been allowed to be used in Sainsbury's evidence against Rovers. Perhaps our barrister will come back with a quote of his own, I wonder which one? a comment on a forum is not evidence. a contract is. and so are relevant exchanges between the interest parties. and so are the actions of those interested parties, and others involved in the PP. the rest is frankly worthless. Sarcasm so easily lost!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 21, 2015 14:11:10 GMT
Further info from A More Piratey Game, who was there earlier today:-
"Jim Tarzy (as I now know him to be called) was asked whether Sainsbury's initial S73 application was a good job. He said something like it was a good job, but some of the technical details were amended for the second submission (the one done by Rovers I think), because they weren't right the first time. As in so much of this case, the devil seemed to me to be in the detail. I think the Sainsburys QC was trying to get him to say either that Sainsburys had done a poor job (which he could then disprove), or that they had done a perfectly good job, so that there was no reason why a later one should be approved when the first one wasn't. As I wrote above, I though Mr Tarzy was very credible
Mr Curtis of BCC planning had a slightly rougher ride, I thought - I thought it might have felt like he was having a very tough job appraisal. There were 46 lever arch files of documents supporting the case, and the Sainsburys QC asked him about two specific sections of different documents. The first was the response to the initial application, which was done by someone he managed, but retained responsibility. The QC pointed to a bit where the council response seemed to state that they wanted more on Delivery Management, or something similar, rather than noise, whereas the response to the later version emphasized noise and not delivery management - so suggesting that BCC had moved the goalposts, or else provided incoherent responses which could hardly be Sainsburys fault. Mr Curtis, whose position I didn't envy (you try having every tiny detail of your work poured over in public!), said that he saw Delivery Management as being part of noise management, though he did recognize the different emphases (seemed to me a bit surprised by it to be honest)
There was talk of the elections around that time, and how the make-up of the council and the 'changed political climate' locally might have influenced the BCC response (implying, for me, that the civil servants were making decisions as dictated by their political masters, rather than on a consistent basis). Mr Curtis refuted this convincingly, I thought
The Sainsburys QC then started on summarising his overall argument I think. There seemed to be two possible drop-dead dates, one in mid-October and one around the end of the year. The contract stated that it would end 20 days after a drop-dead date, and Sainsburys were suggesting it could be 20 days after whichever one the judge thought appropriate. They then suggested that there are 7 supplemental questions that the judge might answer (eg if the date was X, were Sainsburys under an obligation to do Y within a certain timeframe to comply with the contract
They seemed to me to be pursuing the colandar argument of yesterday - that the contract is so full of get-outs and holes that loads must apply, and that in any case the onus is on Rovers to demonstrate that Sainsburys didn't comply with minimum obligations under the contract, which they say that they did
The QC had previously asked Toni the Till, apparently, if he thought Sainsburys were using 'every trick in the book', and Toni responsded something like that wouldn't be his phrase but was about the right general direction of things
I still think that doesn't make them look good - both for having such a contract, and for trying to establish the maximum amount of 'get-outs' with the judge (which to the layman does look like 'every trick in the book')
Court rose for what at school would have been called 'playtime' and Toni and Nick seemed relaxed and happy to talk. I asked Toni how its going and he responded, appropriately and in good spirits I thought, 'you tell me!'
Nick Higgs mentioned that he doesn't read the forums, but that at least one of his kids does, and that they are sometimes upset by it. I think it would be helpful if we all remember that when posting
I still think that, whatever the outcome of this case and however things have gone generally, the management team at the club haven't done much wrong on this. Up close it was easier to imagine the strain that must have come with the job, and I think they deserve our support on this."
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 21, 2015 14:31:44 GMT
Nick Higgs mentioned that he doesn't read the forums, but that at least one of his kids does, and that they are sometimes upset by it. I think it would be helpful if we all remember that when posting I still think that, whatever the outcome of this case and however things have gone generally, the management team at the club haven't done much wrong on this. Up close it was easier to imagine the strain that must have come with the job, and I think they deserve our support on this." Unpopular opinion: I often think this. Higgs may be a minted construction mogul, not a football expert and depending on who you ask a mild to terminal bumbler but he's still a human being and a Gashead and we know word gets around this fanbase.
Regardless of the past, I think it's pretty obvious that Higgs had put his all into this stadium and if it goes up in flames it will be because of Sainsbury's lawyers unscrupulousness and determination to find some loophole to exploit, not to mention TRASH and BCC. Give him a break just this once.
|
|
|
Post by Parrot on May 21, 2015 15:00:33 GMT
Nick Higgs mentioned that he doesn't read the forums, but that at least one of his kids does, and that they are sometimes upset by it. I think it would be helpful if we all remember that when posting I still think that, whatever the outcome of this case and however things have gone generally, the management team at the club haven't done much wrong on this. Up close it was easier to imagine the strain that must have come with the job, and I think they deserve our support on this." Unpopular opinion: I often think this. Higgs may be a minted construction mogul, not a football expert and depending on who you ask a mild to terminal bumbler but he's still a human being and a Gashead and we know word gets around this fanbase.
Regardless of the past, I think it's pretty obvious that Higgs had put his all into this stadium and if it goes up in flames it will be because of Sainsbury's lawyers unscrupulousness and determination to find some loophole to exploit, not to mention TRASH and BCC. Give him a break just this once.
^ Well said
|
|
|
Post by newmarketgas on May 21, 2015 15:21:22 GMT
Spot on, Mr Higgs is doing his very best and that is all he asks of us, so lets all pull together.
|
|
|
Post by Topper Gas on May 21, 2015 15:24:20 GMT
"There seemed to be two possible drop-dead dates, one in mid-October and one around the end of the year. The contract stated that it would end 20 days after a drop-dead date"
it will be interesting to see our barrester response to that suggestion as whilst we all feel Sainsbury's appear the villians here that appears quite clear cut to me and it hardly seems a loophole hidden away in the contract?
|
|
|
Post by tumshie on May 21, 2015 15:29:17 GMT
Let's just hope we win!
The ramifications are massive.
|
|
|
Post by onion on May 21, 2015 16:40:28 GMT
Last time I was in Sainsbury's I bought 2 Krispy Kreme doughnuts but scanned them at the self serve as the poxy own brand rubbish. Saving me the grand total of around £1.40. See you in court. Below is my fundraiser link for a banner supporting me in court. www.gofundme.org/onions-big-onions-hard-onion-cant-run-100-yards The own brand doughnuts are actually better than Krispy Kreme IMO. Krispy Kreme are one of the most overrated brand's in the world. Not sure I belong here anymore. How can I share a forum with doughnut bolsheviks like yourself?
|
|
nsgas
Reserve Team
Posts: 212
|
Post by nsgas on May 21, 2015 17:15:48 GMT
Lawyers for Bristol Rovers today made their closing arguments in the club's court battle with Sainsbury's over the future of the Memorial Stadium site. David Matthias QC, for the club, told Mrs Justice Proudman that the supermarket giant had been in 'continuing and flagrant breach' of its commitment to Rovers to buy the site for £30m and redevelop it as a supermarket once the club moved to its planned new home. He said the firm was wrong to treat its application to Bristol City Council, to vary the delivery hours the local authority had imposed when green-lighting plans for the superstore, as an 'appeal'. The barrister also argued Sainsbury's was 'obliged' - under its agreement with Rovers - to challenge the council's refusal to change the hours. Mr Matthias told the judge: "In our submission, the most we have to do is establish that, by the cut-off date, if they had complied with their obligations and not been in continuing and flagrant breach of those obligations, the conditions would have been satisfied." He also said the supermarket chain should have paid attention to the concerns of the council's environmental health officer regarding the noise-reduction measures, and heeded the advice to wait until after the TRASHorfield judicial review of the plans was finished. Had they done so, he said, they would have got the delivery hours they wanted before the agreement's cut-off date in November last year. Mr Matthias added: "We say, in this case, to withdraw and re-submit when the political climate had cooled post the completion of the judicial review is what should have happened - taking into account all of the perceived problems with the acoustic report that had been identified by the environmental health officer." Earlier in the penultimate day of the hearing, the court heard evidence from Jim Tarzey, of Pegasus Group, who were consulted by Bristol Rovers when the club made its successful application to vary the delivery times. Mr Tarzey, who said he has 27 years experience of advising clients on planning issues, said he had looked in detail at Sainsbury's application and felt it was not completely clear. He said the firm had included 'extensive noise mitigation measures', but added: "However, it was notable that their application lacked clarity as to what noise mitigation measures Sainsbury's had already committed to and what they would offer in terms of further mitigation in support of the change being sought." The judge also heard from Mark Curtis, Bristol City Council's chief environmental health officer, that the extra measures needed to get council approval were acoustic fences, to protect nearby residents from the noise generated by lorries. Mr Matthias and Sainsbury's lawyers will continue with their legal submissions tomorrow. Read more at www.bristolrovers.co.uk/news/article/update-rovers-in-the-high-court-2466521.aspx#aRZm0qr2CZTobtOT.99
|
|
|
Post by mjhgas on May 21, 2015 18:21:11 GMT
Day 5 Close of Play
Sainsburys 212 all out Rovers 235/9 dec Sainsburys 115 all out Rovers 89/0
If we don't win this, there is something wrong with the system!!!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 21, 2015 18:51:48 GMT
The own brand doughnuts are actually better than Krispy Kreme IMO. Krispy Kreme are one of the most overrated brand's in the world. doughnut bolsheviks
|
|
|
Post by fanboy on May 21, 2015 19:12:29 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 21, 2015 19:15:07 GMT
I thought he didn't attend today.
|
|
|
Post by seanclevedongas on May 21, 2015 19:15:27 GMT
Think he said yesterday he was not attending today? there is a post on official site
|
|
|
Post by stokegiffordgas on May 21, 2015 19:15:39 GMT
I was reading latest page of this review including the latest 'scores' and was feeling quietly confident until I read if we don't win there is something wrong with the system - hell there is a shed load wrong with out legal system eg the laws an ass, now I am nervous again !
|
|
|
Post by fanboy on May 21, 2015 19:26:59 GMT
Think he said yesterday he was not attending today? there is a post on official site Thanks
|
|