|
|
Post by ganymede on Aug 27, 2014 10:13:50 GMT
Delivery times ... delivery times ... Does anyone know what are normal delivery times for other large Sainsbury stores e.g. the one at Filton/Fox Den Road or even nationally. In other words are Sainsbury asking for something which they do not ordinarily have at other locations? I believe these are unusually extended, according to Carstairs and his mob, the 2 nearest to this one have 7am till 9pm Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Thanks. There are two ways of looking at that ... firstly it is unlikely that extended hours of 5am to 12midnight would be given when competitors do not have extended times ... or Sainsbury are deliberately being unreasonable asking for the impossible with idea of being turned down. If Sainsbury can successfully operate other large stores with restrictions on delivery times (e.g. perhaps at Filton?) then surely they can do the same at the Mem. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 27, 2014 10:23:52 GMT
The Sainsbury store at Odd Down, Bath applied for their delivery hours to be extended an hour each way, which would have been 6 a.m. - 11 p.m. They were happy for this to be for a 6 month trial period, during which impact could be monitored. Permission was refused.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 27, 2014 10:47:54 GMT
I believe these are unusually extended, according to Carstairs and his mob, the 2 nearest to this one have 7am till 9pm Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Thanks. There are two ways of looking at that ... firstly it is unlikely that extended hours of 5am to 12midnight would be given when competitors do not have extended times ... or Sainsbury are deliberately being unreasonable asking for the impossible with idea of being turned down. If Sainsbury can successfully operate other large stores with restrictions on delivery times (e.g. perhaps at Filton?) then surely they can do the same at the Mem. Nail on the head. I still don't see how not having extended delivery hours would constitute 'inadequate planning permission', when LOADS of stores operate with the delivery hours they already have. They're a nasty bunch (aren't most big businesses?), the delivery hours stuff is all a big cover up I'm sure of it. Which makes me think we may have a case. |
|
|
|
Post by mumbles on Aug 27, 2014 10:56:52 GMT
I believe these are unusually extended, according to Carstairs and his mob, the 2 nearest to this one have 7am till 9pm Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Thanks. There are two ways of looking at that ... firstly it is unlikely that extended hours of 5am to 12midnight would be given when competitors do not have extended times ... or Sainsbury are deliberately being unreasonable asking for the impossible with idea of being turned down. If Sainsbury can successfully operate other large stores with restrictions on delivery times (e.g. perhaps at Filton?) then surely they can do the same at the Mem. From what I've read I don't think there is any doubt that this is Sainsbury's intention. |
|
|
|
Post by mumbles on Aug 27, 2014 11:07:08 GMT
Is it conceivable that Sainsbury's were the secret backer behind Trash? The timeline would fit.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 27, 2014 11:10:45 GMT
Now you're really twisting my melon man!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 27, 2014 11:11:28 GMT
The Mem is a complete tip KP! An utter dump! It is a stadium that comprises of a cricket pavilion, a rugby stand, a football terrace and a part time tennis stand! It is still much better than most of the others in L2 but I take your point. It could be improved though and I don't see it as the worst place to be. I recently went to Twerton and I shuddered at how we managed to cope there. It has been allowed to decay though with no cosmetic work undertaken due to the promise of a new stadium. Obviously a new place is what we need but we can manage to stay at the Mem in this moment in time. I think we have only filled it to capacity a couple of times. I do understand that our long term future is compromised at the Mem though |
|
|
|
Post by philbemmygas on Aug 27, 2014 11:27:58 GMT
The Mem is a complete tip KP! An utter dump! It is a stadium that comprises of a cricket pavilion, a rugby stand, a football terrace and a part time tennis stand! It is still much better than most of the others in L2 but I take your point. It could be improved though and I don't see it as the worst place to be. I recently went to Twerton and I shuddered at how we managed to cope there. It has been allowed to decay though with no cosmetic work undertaken due to the promise of a new stadium. Obviously a new place is what we need but we can manage to stay at the Mem in this moment in time. I think we have only filled it to capacity a couple of times. I do understand that our long term future is compromised at the Mem though Jools, many seem to favour a return to Trumpton as part of a package to "save" the club. Pure folly in my eyes! swallow your pride mate & join us for a drink after the game Saturday, Simon might even buy you one  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 27, 2014 11:35:09 GMT
I can't think of many teams in league 2 with a worse stadium than ours?
Honestly hate the place and was delighted at the prospect of leaving!
The place is quite clearly a rugby stadium and for that reason has never felt like home to me.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 27, 2014 11:35:51 GMT
I believe these are unusually extended, according to Carstairs and his mob, the 2 nearest to this one have 7am till 9pm Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Thanks. There are two ways of looking at that ... firstly it is unlikely that extended hours of 5am to 12midnight would be given when competitors do not have extended times ... or Sainsbury are deliberately being unreasonable asking for the impossible with idea of being turned down. If Sainsbury can successfully operate other large stores with restrictions on delivery times (e.g. perhaps at Filton?) then surely they can do the same at the Mem. This is the 30 million question I guess. Did Sainsbury put a caveat in the original PP to say they wanted these hours ? As I see it, would we have put forward a flawed PP knowing that the hours within it would need changing ?or was the original PP put forward correct ? This is the crux of it. It would seem that JS Sainsbury must have had this in the smallprint or I can't see that they would risk exposure to them being seen as a bullying corporation. As it stands, this PP in place ready gives them longer hours to operate than their competitors so I do not believe this would get a favourable response due to that as it would set a further precedent that could see them being seen to have an unfair advantage by Tesco and others in that sphere of business. I believe they are being unreasonable so as to be able to get out of this watertight contract. Hey, I am wrong often & maybe, just maybe BCC coukd grant the extra 2 hours, given the mitigation package but I somehow feel this unlikely. I just don't understand how we went about the original PP application if we were aware that it was insufficient to the purpose it was for. It stinks to high heaven and has me believing that it was something that must have either been overlooked or maybe it was thought that the hours could be redressed retrospectively. In anycase, it is clear that Mr Littman has told BRFC that they no longer want to fulfill their part of the bargain. Nothing I have read so far leads me to believe that these hours given now are unreasonable nor that BCC would grant them even more hours as it stands. What we have to cling to is that the bigger picture is seen by the decision maker in this case & that the MP's and prime minister have been seen to be behind it. As I see it right now what we are going through is a damage limitation exercise. Lord, wouldn't it be great if we could get an affirmative decision that would put the pressure onto the greedy bastards who are trying to shaft us. I knew it was never the easy option to support Rovers but I never believed it could possibly be this hard ffs. I've calmed down somewhat from yesterday but I am up for the fight now and have written to both BCC and my own S/Glos council. I hope others do the same. I know it's hard but we need to gird our lions and get stuck into another battle. I would ask you all do the same. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 27, 2014 11:42:33 GMT
It is still much better than most of the others in L2 but I take your point. It could be improved though and I don't see it as the worst place to be. I recently went to Twerton and I shuddered at how we managed to cope there. It has been allowed to decay though with no cosmetic work undertaken due to the promise of a new stadium. Obviously a new place is what we need but we can manage to stay at the Mem in this moment in time. I think we have only filled it to capacity a couple of times. I do understand that our long term future is compromised at the Mem though Jools, many seem to favour a return to Trumpton as part of a package to "save" the club. Pure folly in my eyes! swallow your pride mate & join us for a drink after the game Saturday, Simon might even buy you one Phil, This situation has changed my mind mate. I paid my money to rejoin the FFSC and will be there Satirday as long as I can stand by then. I have further damaged my back and am awaiting MRI before surgery but I am up for the fight now. Bugger who did what, this is about our very survival and I will not turn my back at the time we are needed. If only Higgs had opened this earlier, I would not have stayed away at all. I think many now see this in a totally different light and it's time to put our differences aside for now. UTFG. RTID. Bring it on MF Sainsbury |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 27, 2014 11:46:32 GMT
So now you see all of the facts you are more inclined to sympathize with Higgs ye?
Always helps to have all the facts available before running away with an assumption.
Not that I am having a pop mind.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 27, 2014 11:55:55 GMT
I like to think a lot more will sympathise with NH following this situation. It's quite evident he's been wrongfully shafted by Sainsbury's, to be honest I didn't really see it coming - I doubt many did. All along we thought TRASH were going to feck this up for us, turns out we were wrong...
As for the 'Higgs has lied to us since February' stuff, I'm not convinced that's true either. I think he's been trying to sort this out and/or come to an agreement with the buggers since February, hence why he's been rather tight lipped about it.
However, I will admit Saturday's comments were a bit odd, unless of course he's very confident about either BCC extending the delivery hours or BRFC winning in court.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 27, 2014 11:56:16 GMT
It is still much better than most of the others in L2 but I take your point. It could be improved though and I don't see it as the worst place to be. I recently went to Twerton and I shuddered at how we managed to cope there. It has been allowed to decay though with no cosmetic work undertaken due to the promise of a new stadium. Obviously a new place is what we need but we can manage to stay at the Mem in this moment in time. I think we have only filled it to capacity a couple of times. I do understand that our long term future is compromised at the Mem though Jools, many seem to favour a return to Trumpton as part of a package to "save" the club. Pure folly in my eyes! swallow your pride mate & join us for a drink after the game Saturday, Simon might even buy you one Maybe they should take a drive out to Twerton now. What they will see should thoroughly disabuse them of any such thoughts. Don't get me wrong, I will always be grateful that Bath helped us but I am even further in awe of the late & great Denis Dunford and how he managed to keep us alive in that place. It really does hit home when you go there. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 27, 2014 12:02:40 GMT
So now you see all of the facts you are more inclined to sympathize with Higgs ye? Always helps to have all the facts available before running away with an assumption. Not that I am having a pop mind. No mate, I am perfectly ok with you making this point. I am a creature of emotion, that has meant that I have never had a smooth ride through my own walk in life. I get angry and am reactive at times but at least now I am more than capable of saying sorry if I was wrong and I will always take steps to right any wrong on my part. Rest assured that my intentions are always good and I am an extremely loyal friend to those that have known me for a prolonged period. I just wish we had been privvy to this earlier, it would have made the world of difference for me. I still hold the same views over the board but there is a time & a place for that. Right now is not the time to look to fight with the club, we need to stick together and stand up for the fight. Please don't feel any need to say you're not having a pop. I can handle honesty mate, it's the lies I can't cope with. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 27, 2014 12:06:16 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by mumbles on Aug 27, 2014 12:10:07 GMT
Thanks. There are two ways of looking at that ... firstly it is unlikely that extended hours of 5am to 12midnight would be given when competitors do not have extended times ... or Sainsbury are deliberately being unreasonable asking for the impossible with idea of being turned down. If Sainsbury can successfully operate other large stores with restrictions on delivery times (e.g. perhaps at Filton?) then surely they can do the same at the Mem. This is the 30 million question I guess. Did Sainsbury put a caveat in the original PP to say they wanted these hours ? As I see it, would we have put forward a flawed PP knowing that the hours within it would need changing ?or was the original PP put forward correct ? This is the crux of it. It would seem that JS Sainsbury must have had this in the smallprint or I can't see that they would risk exposure to them being seen as a bullying corporation. As it stands, this PP in place ready gives them longer hours to operate than their competitors so I do not believe this would get a favourable response due to that as it would set a further precedent that could see them being seen to have an unfair advantage by Tesco and others in that sphere of business. I believe they are being unreasonable so as to be able to get out of this watertight contract. Hey, I am wrong often & maybe, just maybe BCC coukd grant the extra 2 hours, given the mitigation package but I somehow feel this unlikely. I just don't understand how we went about the original PP application if we were aware that it was insufficient to the purpose it was for. It stinks to high heaven and has me believing that it was something that must have either been overlooked or maybe it was thought that the hours could be redressed retrospectively. In anycase, it is clear that Mr Littman has told BRFC that they no longer want to fulfill their part of the bargain. Nothing I have read so far leads me to believe that these hours given now are unreasonable nor that BCC would grant them even more hours as it stands. What we have to cling to is that the bigger picture is seen by the decision maker in this case & that the MP's and prime minister have been seen to be behind it. As I see it right now what we are going through is a damage limitation exercise. Lord, wouldn't it be great if we could get an affirmative decision that would put the pressure onto the greedy bastards who are trying to shaft us. I knew it was never the easy option to support Rovers but I never believed it could possibly be this hard ffs. I've calmed down somewhat from yesterday but I am up for the fight now and have written to both BCC and my own S/Glos council. I hope others do the same. I know it's hard but we need to gird our lions and get stuck into another battle. I would ask you all do the same. Excellent post KP. I was also wondering what delivery hours were stated in the original submission and used for the noise and traffic assessments? Were the delivery restrictions added as a condition for planning consent? If these are the delivery hours in the original submission then Sainsbury's don't have a leg to stand on. BTW, i don't have any lions, is there anything else I can gird instead?  |
|
|
|
Post by peterparker on Aug 27, 2014 12:13:40 GMT
Thanks. There are two ways of looking at that ... firstly it is unlikely that extended hours of 5am to 12midnight would be given when competitors do not have extended times ... or Sainsbury are deliberately being unreasonable asking for the impossible with idea of being turned down. If Sainsbury can successfully operate other large stores with restrictions on delivery times (e.g. perhaps at Filton?) then surely they can do the same at the Mem. Nail on the head. I still don't see how not having extended delivery hours would constitute 'inadequate planning permission', when LOADS of stores operate with the delivery hours they already have. They're a nasty bunch (aren't most big businesses?), the delivery hours stuff is all a big cover up I'm sure of it. Which makes me think we may have a case. Thing is, it doesn't matter if anyone thinks the current delivery hours are good enough.
If the extended hours appeal is dismissed and that stipulation is in the watertight contract then they can get away with it. In which case who didn't do due diligence when negotiating the contract, or did Sainsburys say this is the only way we will enter into a deal
|
|
|
|
Post by Feeling The Blues on Aug 27, 2014 12:20:53 GMT
Thanks. There are two ways of looking at that ... firstly it is unlikely that extended hours of 5am to 12midnight would be given when competitors do not have extended times ... or Sainsbury are deliberately being unreasonable asking for the impossible with idea of being turned down. If Sainsbury can successfully operate other large stores with restrictions on delivery times (e.g. perhaps at Filton?) then surely they can do the same at the Mem. Nail on the head. I still don't see how not having extended delivery hours would constitute 'inadequate planning permission', when LOADS of stores operate with the delivery hours they already have.
They're a nasty bunch (aren't most big businesses?), the delivery hours stuff is all a big cover up I'm sure of it. Which makes me think we may have a case. I don't think some people are getting this. It constitutes an onerous store condition not because it is in reality an onerous store condition but because BRFC and Sainsburys agreed that it would constitute an onerous store condition when they signed the sale purchase agreement when everybody was happy and smiling. Sainsburys are now hoping that the city council will not give approval so they can walk away without paying a bean. |
|
|
|
Post by brovers90 on Aug 27, 2014 12:28:56 GMT
Not an awful lot but Sainsburys put in the initial application which is why they are appealing. We know that they will make a half assed attempt at it as they don't really want it but are contracted to undertake 'reasonable endeavours' so we are putting in our own application in case Sainsburys appeal is rejected Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk |
|
