|
Post by Hugo Admin on Aug 26, 2014 15:27:53 GMT
Christ almighty now we are pushing for administration? Dam mental. That will be the end as if we aren't close enough already. Fans indeed.
|
|
|
Post by Congas on Aug 26, 2014 15:28:58 GMT
I thought the appeal was to the Sec. of State, not BCC.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 26, 2014 15:30:19 GMT
Christ almighty now we are pushing for administration? ***g mental. That will be the end as if we aren't close enough already. Fans indeed. Confused.com ??
|
|
|
Post by Hugo Admin on Aug 26, 2014 15:33:56 GMT
Christ almighty now we are pushing for administration? ***g mental. That will be the end as if we aren't close enough already. Fans indeed. Confused.com ?? not half! How can fans want administration? If Higgs walked from pressure and that's what ended up happening you only have yourselves to blame. And someone goes well it cant be any worse derp. Yes it bloody well can and it will. You cant just do that. You have to have a viable alternative ready to go. Jesus good grief. I think I need a lie down.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 26, 2014 15:48:55 GMT
By the way Ras you and Roverdrive have been quoted on the bbc website
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 26, 2014 15:50:15 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Strange Gas on Aug 26, 2014 15:51:35 GMT
We all need a lie down, a fiddle under the mattress and hope we find a big pile of cash. We certainly can't afford a big legal bill. We are on skid row as it is
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
|
|
|
Post by neogas on Aug 26, 2014 15:55:17 GMT
I have just read the writ and it seems clear to me that Sainsbury's want out and have for some time. They have tried to bully there way out of it by submitting a sub-standard acoustic report to ensure a "store onerous condition" prevails. Rovers to their credit have seen this and had their own report done that a respected planning expert believes has a greater than 60% chance of succeeding in getting Sainsbury's the hours they want.
Rovers have offered to pay for the appeal, report and the extra £40,000 needed to carry out acoustic modifications to the site to ensure the project goes ahead. Sainsbury's have delayed and tried to force the store onerous condition. Rovers claim hinges on the clause relating to Sainsbury's acting in good faith and that their behaviour over the appeals process is a breach of that clause.
This only the beginning as the claim is only for damages and costs to date. It doesn't cover the cost to Rovers of a full Sainsbury's withdrawal. This is a threat from Rovers to try and force Sainsbury's to stay in. If they pull out, which seems likely and Rovers are successful with the initial writ then a much larger breach of contract case will surely follow?
|
|
|
Post by Lambert's Right Boot on Aug 26, 2014 16:01:52 GMT
Alistair Durden @alidurdenbbc 1m According to Bristol Rovers' High Court claim, Sainsbury's solicitors confirmed their intention to pull out of Memorial Stadium deal in Feb.
|
|
|
Post by Hugo Admin on Aug 26, 2014 16:03:08 GMT
|
|
|
Post by BishopstonBRFC on Aug 26, 2014 16:10:46 GMT
|
|
|
Post by stigofthegas on Aug 26, 2014 16:21:20 GMT
I have just read the writ and it seems clear to me that Sainsbury's want out and have for some time. They have tried to bully there way out of it by submitting a sub-standard acoustic report to ensure a "store onerous condition" prevails. Rovers to their credit have seen this and had their own report done that a respected planning expert believes has a greater than 60% chance of succeeding in getting Sainsbury's the hours they want. Rovers have offered to pay for the appeal, report and the extra £40,000 needed to carry out acoustic modifications to the site to ensure the project goes ahead. Sainsbury's have delayed and tried to force the store onerous condition. Rovers claim hinges on the clause relating to Sainsbury's acting in good faith and that their behaviour over the appeals process is a breach of that clause. This only the beginning as the claim is only for damages and costs to date. It doesn't cover the cost to Rovers of a full Sainsbury's withdrawal. This is a threat from Rovers to try and force Sainsbury's to stay in. If they pull out, which seems likely and Rovers are successful with the initial writ then a much larger breach of contract case will surely follow? At last some sanity and an intelligent analysis of where we are. Sainsburys want out that's clear. They can only pull out if they don't get acceptable planning permission. They are therefore not trying to get it which is in clear breach of the reasonable endeavours clause. This is just a shot across Sainsburys bows to say you aren't going to bully us. If we win this Sainsburys will still not want to proceed but it's puts us in a very much stronger legal position. We have to follow due legal process. Those suggesting Higgs should step aside now are INSANE, who is going to fight the fight if he goes. We may as well rollover and let Sainsburys shaft us from behind
|
|
|
Post by dragonfly on Aug 26, 2014 16:21:38 GMT
Higgs only realistic option may be to steer for the highest compensation possible. A scaled down UWE with the facility to expand may be possible aswell as redevelopment of the MEM in phases. All is not lost yet I would hope.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 26, 2014 16:22:26 GMT
So, it was never the BOD or Mr Higgs trying to wriggle out of it it was Sainsbury ! Well done Bristol Rovers FC for taking the slippery sods to court if needs be. This explains the lack of cash, with every bastard trying to mug us, this really is Bristol Rovers against the world now, lets get behind the BOD and the club and fight all the way ! You can never MAKE anyone buy something they no longer want. IMO the board have been remiss in trying to do so and in misrepresenting the reality of the situation. They knew of this at the time we we fighting TRASH by the way and it explains why Sainsbury were not in attendance on that case. Fact is that, like an house sale, people pull out often. Instead of putting more money into this they could have worked out an out of court settlement and been honest about it. Now we have a frankly bizarre situation where the club is taking the buyer/benefactor, to court. There is not even the possibility of Pyrrhic victory here as Sainsbury have the funds to drag this out into infinity while the football club die. It's an appalling state of affairs and makes our chairman out to be a stubborn fool as I see it. Why give supposed start dates when he knew them not to be even close ? He did that to keep fans onside as he has failed in his attempt of a new home while the club got relegated out of the FL. In summary, if Sainsbury don't want to buy then no one can make them, not even the high court. The best we can look for is a compensation package and now that will be in jeopardy by taking legal action. We also have to think k that UWE will not want to wait when they have others who want to use the land. I don't know how anyone in Higgs position could say their position was tenable. What a right royal balls up. I actually have a copy of the writ. None of us could make this 5H1T up. What angers me most is that IF we had been told the truth from the outset then many of us would not have stopped going because we knew how very bad the situation was. I am so angry over this. It's bloody appalling.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 26, 2014 16:23:38 GMT
Whatever happens now there is no chance that building will start for at least a year. If Sainsburys lose they will probably appeal. Sainsbury can only make one appeal from the high court But they can carry on with technicalities into infinity......... And beyond.
|
|
|
Post by lulworthgas on Aug 26, 2014 16:35:31 GMT
Sainsbury can only make one appeal from the high court But they can carry on with technicalities into infinity......... And beyond. How can they do this KP? Surely once it's been to the high court they only get 1 appeal after then both sides have to live with the outcome?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 26, 2014 16:38:44 GMT
Am I the only one who is a little confused by a couple of things?
If Sainsbury's have the ability to pull out, why haven't they already (given they indicated their desire to pull out in Feb)? To further this, why do they seem to be hiding behind the 'delivery hours' excuse? Part of me thinks Higgs may - contrary to popular belief - have a leg or two to stand on here. If the contract is 'watertight', I have no idea where this takes BRFC or Sainsbury's in any legal case.
Secondly, I wonder if there is a quicker alternative. Aldi and Lidl are still building in the Bristol and Bath areas, how long would it take to push any new sale of the Mem forward? I'm sure plenty of chains would want the land - it already has planning permission. Allowing Sainsbury's to walk away and re-selling the Mem vs lengthy legal battles...
The main problem here is time, both for UWE and (more importantly) Rovers.
|
|
|
Post by Jon the Stripe on Aug 26, 2014 16:42:26 GMT
Society is corrupt - Fact!
Who the f**k did we think we were getting into bed with?
Oh yes, little Miss Leslie rallied for the Sainsbury cause and got us to do the bloody donkey work, woohoo help Sainsburys build a better Bristol, can't believe people fell for all that sh**, they are Corporate giants ffs, they care about one thing - MONEY!!!! And they'll USE us,everybody and everything to make their money using the POWER it buys them. The Big supermarket worm has turned and the big boys have lost their bollocks and don't want to gamble, that's cause they only gamble when they KNOW they will win.
Shisters the lot of 'em, there's only one big loser here, the little non-league outfit who got swept along by a snakes promises throwing their morals out of the window as they went.
As i said before, You hold hands with the Devil, You end up in Hell!
Sorry, i'm gutted and fing angry.
UTG
|
|
|
Post by Jon the Stripe on Aug 26, 2014 16:45:21 GMT
But they can carry on with technicalities into infinity......... And beyond. How can they do this KP? Surely once it's been to the high court they only get 1 appeal after then both sides have to live with the outcome? The High Court are part of the Establishment, it's all corrupt my friend, a little word in someones ear and its a done deal.
|
|
|
Post by Topper Gas on Aug 26, 2014 16:48:42 GMT
Just how many court cases can BRFC afford to run at once? We've the delivery times Appeal, the Sainsbury's writ, claims against the FA/Wycombe plus possible further action against Sainsbury's should they pull out of the deal.
Meanwhile on the playing side we seem to have become nothing more than a mid table Conference club.
Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk
|
|