|
|
Post by Raj Gas on Aug 26, 2014 19:48:03 GMT
Is it really fit for purpose? I'd rather have Forest Green's ground than the ramshackle hole we currently reside in. It's only that way because it has been allowed to decay on the promise of the new ground. There is a lot that just paint would sort out. The Mem is not the tip many make it to be. It's the same as your own house, leave it and it rots. KP I never knew why we didn't do down the piecemeal route and upgraded as we could, starting with that awful stand.I know that sounds like hindsight but for me coming from where we had, Eastville and Twerton we didn't need to get completely carried away after all we were in the lower divisions of the league. |
|
|
|
Post by neogas on Aug 26, 2014 19:48:13 GMT
Good question HG. I certainly think Nick should make a statement, unfortunately it will be like David saying he thinks he may be able to beat Goliath. I know confidentiality is paramount, but i do feel he could have given us a little more honesty, the line has always been "Everything will be ok" when clearly it is not, i won't attack him for that, i think he knows he's stuck between a rock and a hard place. Well, if this is now out i think we can guarantee one thing - Sainsburys will have done their homework, their team will be the best, even they won't enter a battle they can't win. I think if we all had a guess we would say we may get an amount but it certainly won't fund our dream home. Gutted. I think Jon this is all about compensation, the stadium is dead that's for sure. It's now all about whether Rovers have a strong breach of contract case. This is about compensation and whether it is enough to make the UWE possible. I think it would be safe to assume that the only certainty is Sainsbury's Horfield is dead. The UWE is on life support. Read more: gasheads.org/thread/1123/rovers-sue-sainsburys?page=7&scrollTo=27718#ixzz3BWsJKc5S |
|
|
|
Post by Feeling The Blues on Aug 26, 2014 19:49:52 GMT
We'll I've now read the "writ" from cover to cover.
In a nutshell;
If BCC don't extend the delivery hours by an hour at each end of the day to 5am to Midnight Sainsburys can walk away from the deal as this would meet the pre agreed definition of a store onerous condition.
Sainsburys were not going to appeal the restricted delivery times before the 28th July deadline hence the court activity which in the first instance gave Rovers a consent order to appeal.
Everything now rests on BCC. They agree to the extra 2 hours there will be no store onerous conditions and Sainsburys will be obliged to buy and we will be obliged to sell for the pre agreed price. If they don't approve Sainsburys simply walk away.
In the meantime we are sueing them for our extra costs ( legal and UWE build)
Happy Days
|
|
|
|
Post by Parrot on Aug 26, 2014 20:02:27 GMT
So can pressure be put on BCC to accept this ??
|
|
|
|
Post by BishopstonBRFC on Aug 26, 2014 20:11:31 GMT
We'll I've now read the "writ" from cover to cover. In a nutshell; If BCC don't extend the delivery hours by an hour at each end of the day to 5am to Midnight Sainsburys can walk away from the deal as this would meet the pre agreed definition of a store onerous condition. Sainsburys were not going to appeal the restricted delivery times before the 28th July deadline hence the court activity which in the first instance gave Rovers a consent order to appeal. Everything now rests on BCC. They agree to the extra 2 hours there will be no store onerous conditions and Sainsburys will be obliged to buy and we will be obliged to sell for the pre agreed price. If they don't approve Sainsburys simply walk away. In the meantime we are sueing them for our extra costs ( legal and UWE build) Happy Days Happy days? To me that sounds like we are in a hole we can't get out of. |
|
|
|
Post by BishopstonBRFC on Aug 26, 2014 20:13:30 GMT
So can pressure be put on BCC to accept this ?? Not sure a petition saying that we want Sainsburys to have longer delivery hours will fool them. BCC could really do us a favour here. However they may decide that they don't want the neighbouring council having a shiny new stadium. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 26, 2014 20:25:26 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 Agreed. Thank you Stig and Neo for such clear and intelligent posts. Worth reading again for anyone who missed these earlier. |
|
|
|
Post by Gas-Ed on Aug 26, 2014 20:30:20 GMT
We'll I've now read the "writ" from cover to cover. In a nutshell; If BCC don't extend the delivery hours by an hour at each end of the day to 5am to Midnight Sainsburys can walk away from the deal as this would meet the pre agreed definition of a store onerous condition. Sainsburys were not going to appeal the restricted delivery times before the 28th July deadline hence the court activity which in the first instance gave Rovers a consent order to appeal. Everything now rests on BCC. They agree to the extra 2 hours there will be no store onerous conditions and Sainsburys will be obliged to buy and we will be obliged to sell for the pre agreed price. If they don't approve Sainsburys simply walk away. In the meantime we are sueing them for our extra costs ( legal and UWE build) Happy Days It sounds like game over to me. Do the board really think it is a watertight contract that Sainsburys cannot get out of, or were we being fed porkies to appease us? I have no idea the amount of compensation we are likely to receive, if any, but I very much doubt it will be any more than peanuts. The situation makes the board's decision to put all their attention towards the new stadium while gambling with our league survival by not investing in a goalscorer, look incredibly poor. |
|
|
|
Post by nurseratched on Aug 26, 2014 21:18:50 GMT
We'll I've now read the "writ" from cover to cover. In a nutshell; If BCC don't extend the delivery hours by an hour at each end of the day to 5am to Midnight Sainsburys can walk away from the deal as this would meet the pre agreed definition of a store onerous condition. Sainsburys were not going to appeal the restricted delivery times before the 28th July deadline hence the court activity which in the first instance gave Rovers a consent order to appeal. Everything now rests on BCC. They agree to the extra 2 hours there will be no store onerous conditions and Sainsburys will be obliged to buy and we will be obliged to sell for the pre agreed price. If they don't approve Sainsburys simply walk away.In the meantime we are sueing them for our extra costs ( legal and UWE build) Happy Days Well maybe this is good news as it seems Sainsbury's ARE appealing re delivery times and the Deadline for representations to the Planning Inspectorate: 11th September 2014
Get writing in support of this proposal - we only have two weeks!
The following is from the TRASH website:-
Sainsbury’s (or Bristol Rovers?) submit appeal against Bristol City Council.
Sainsbury’s have applied to the Secretary of State to challenge Bristol City Council’s refusal to extend the delivery times of their proposed store on the Memorial Ground.
Sainsbury’s want to supply the store using 44 ton lorries from 5am until midnight, seven days a week. They claim this is necessary to make a store of this size viable. Residents say the viability of the store is not their problem – they have always said it is too big for the site and will blight their lives if there are only 5 delivery free hours each day.
The Council refused the original application on 28th January 2014 stating that these hours of delivery ‘would have a detrimental impact on the amenity of local residents’. Indeed Sainsbury’s own noise assessment showed that 20 properties around the site would suffer sleep disturbing levels of noise for 19 hours every day.
The appeal relies on raising the threshold for what is considered a sleep disturbing level of noise: previous applications relied on BS 8233 and the World Health Organisation recommendations but the appeal cites 25 year old research from Germany to justify a much higher noise level as reasonable. The new noise assessment on instruction from Bristol Rovers, criticises the noise assessment of the previous application for containing erroneous data and lacking clarity.
Sainsbury’s were granted planning permission in January 2013 with the permitted delivery hours of 6am until 11pm Monday to Saturday and 9am until 8pm on Sundays. These are extensive delivery hours when compared to other local supermarkets (especially considering the more confined and intensely residential location) :
Tesco Golden Hill 7am – 9pm Mon-Sun
Co-op Glos Road 8am – 6pm Mon-Sun
Local residents ask how 5 hours of undisturbed sleep could be enough for anyone. Many of the houses around the site have young familes with gardens and bedroom windows facing the delivery route. A resident of Trubshaw close said ‘The previous assessments told us that the noise would wake us up. A new assessment won’t make it any quieter – they have just changed the targets and raised the fences’.
The appeal also suggests the construction of 2.7 – 3.6 metre high fences around the gardens of local residents to prevent sleep being disrupted. ‘I don’t want a 9 foot fence towering over me in the garden – it would be like a prison’ a resident on Filton Avenue said.
Tom Kennedy said ‘Sainsbury’s have waited until the last day of the sixth month period to appeal the decision. Perhaps they are hoping the recent political pressure created by the open letter from Charlotte Leslie and Stephen Williams will force the Council into permitting the extension. Stephen Williams should be acting to safeguard his constituents’ right to a decent night’s sleep’.
Local residents hope that the Inspector will be immune from the political pressure that has allowed this monster development to get to where it is now and throw out this appeal for the harm an extension to delivery hours will cause.
WHAT YOU CAN DO:
This appeal will be determined by an inspector following the submission of written statements.
Deadline for representations to the Planning Inspectorate: 11th September 2014
Case Office: Michael Joyce Case Officer Email: teamp16@pins.gsi.gov.uk
Always quote reference number A/14/2222880
Planning Inspectorate Customer Support Line Tel: 0303 444 5000
The Planning Inspectorate will not acknowledge representations but will ensure that letters received by the deadline are passed to the Inspector. Such views will be conveyed to both parties to the appeal.
If you wrote to BCC giving your views at the application stage, a copy of your letter should have been supplied to the inspector. If you would like to write now or modify or elaborate on any earlier views please write to:
The Planning Inspectorate,
Temple Quay House,
2 The Square,
Temple Quay,
Bristol BS1 6PN
Quoting reference number A/14/2222880 PLEASE SEND 3 COPIES !
You can also submit your views on-line and check the information and progress using the Planning Casework Service at:
www.pcs.planningportal.gov.uk/pcsportal/casesearch.asp.
Please use the last seven characters of the Appeal Ref above to search for this case (2222880).
Application 13/05462/X Extension of delivery hours
Sainsbury’s have requested permission to have the previously agreed limit on delivery hours extended to 5am – midnight 7 days a week creating what is likely to become an intolerable and significant noise disturbance for local residents for all but 5 hours in any 24 hour period.
trashorfield.wordpress.com/
|
|
|
|
Post by aghast on Aug 26, 2014 21:26:20 GMT
Is it really fit for purpose? I'd rather have Forest Green's ground than the ramshackle hole we currently reside in. It's only that way because it has been allowed to decay on the promise of the new ground. There is a lot that just paint would sort out. The Mem is not the tip many make it to be. It's the same as your own house, leave it and it rots. Bit harsh on Bishopston's house there KP. It looks a bit tatty to me, but not really rotting yet. |
|
|
|
Post by Topper Gas on Aug 26, 2014 21:35:47 GMT
You have to wonder how Rovers allowed Sainsbury's to include the extra delivery hours in the contract, was it a clever ploy so they always had a get out cause (from the supposedly watertight contract) as I can't see such extended hours ever being allowed, surely 6am to 11pm is already sufficient for a town store?
Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk
|
|
|
|
Post by aghast on Aug 26, 2014 21:36:20 GMT
So using your argument Jon, why should Nick Hicks go public about progress ?? Good question HG. I certainly think Nick should make a statement, unfortunately it will be like David saying he thinks he may be able to beat Goliath. I know confidentiality is paramount, but i do feel he could have given us a little more honesty, the line has always been "Everything will be ok" when clearly it is not, i won't attack him for that, i think he knows he's stuck between a rock and a hard place. Well, if this is now out i think we can guarantee one thing - Sainsburys will have done their homework, their team will be the best, even they won't enter a battle they can't win. I think if we all had a guess we would say we may get an amount but it certainly won't fund our dream home. Gutted. I agree completely Jon. Their huge team of corporate lawyers will have assessed all the risks and costs. They know that we will be limited to (plucks figure out of thin air) £250K in legal fees, and rather than pursue the case to the bitter end, we'll settle for a crappy amount of compensation and let them pull out of the deal, rather than risk bankrupting the club. I see this as the only outcome. We have been well and truly shafted and are powerless to do anything about it. |
|
|
|
Post by Topper Gas on Aug 26, 2014 22:05:37 GMT
Well we've won the first battle by forcing Sainsbury's to enter the Appeal, so it shows they are not undeafeatable. As far as a limit on our costs surely it's down to what NH wants to incur against Sainsbury's justifying the expenditure. Plus there's always no win, no fee insurance if a Solicitor/Barrister feels we have a good case, which we could well have.
Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk
|
|
|
|
Post by Gastroenteritis on Aug 26, 2014 22:34:53 GMT
From now on it's merely a task of trying to get compo from Sainsburys if we are clever. Il be the first to admit it, but like most of us on here I know nothing about the formalities of this situation. The way I see it though is, forget about the UWE it's done, completely finished. Sainsburys do not want to build which means they don't want the land, so now they will use all they're might to get out of the contract. Failing that they will go down the payoff route however this will need to be financially viable. Let's say they were going to pay 30 mil for the mem site, they are not going to want to spend 10 to 12m on a payoff, it would be more viable to purchase the land and bank it. This would be awesome for us, however it ain't gonna happen. All Higgs and co are gonna get out of this if they are lucky is they're legal expenses, any losses since start of planning and I would say an extra 1 mil on top of that at a push. Just because it's Sainsburys they still know the value of money, 1 million English pounds pence is something they wouldn't turn they're nose up at. So when we start throwing around figures like Sainsburys paying 12 mil compo for fresh air, I think we are way off the mark. But I'm no expert.
|
|
|
|
Post by nurseratched on Aug 26, 2014 22:36:05 GMT
Well we've won the first battle by forcing Sainsbury's to enter the Appeal, so it shows they are not undeafeatable. As far as a limit on our costs surely it's down to what NH wants to incur against Sainsbury's justifying the expenditure. Plus there's always no win, no fee insurance if a Solicitor/Barrister feels we have a good case, which we could well have. Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk Do you get the feeling that today's stumbled on/leaked news that everyone is reacting too is actually old and the situation may well have moved on? - remember, NH can never tell us of these things because of the confidentiality clause. |
|
|
|
Post by Gas-Ed on Aug 26, 2014 22:50:15 GMT
Anyone hazard a guess on who leaked the information?
|
|
|
|
Post by ganymede on Aug 26, 2014 23:10:24 GMT
Well we've won the first battle by forcing Sainsbury's to enter the Appeal, so it shows they are not undeafeatable. As far as a limit on our costs surely it's down to what NH wants to incur against Sainsbury's justifying the expenditure. Plus there's always no win, no fee insurance if a Solicitor/Barrister feels we have a good case, which we could well have. Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk Do you get the feeling that today's stumbled on/leaked news that everyone is reacting too is actually old and the situation may well have move on? - remember, NH can never tell us of these things because of the confidentiality clause. Good point .... wishful thinking! ... but good point. Do you happen to know the date of the writ? Edit: 17th July |
|
|
|
Post by davehuddscousin on Aug 26, 2014 23:27:24 GMT
Gas-Ed:
We'll all have our suspicions on who leaked it. Its unusual for the Post to get anything exclusive these days (usually BBC Bristol are onto it first). So it must be someone who has historic links with the paper. My suspicion is that this week'ss news is not unrelated to last week's big off-field news story at Rovers............
|
|
|
|
Post by nurseratched on Aug 26, 2014 23:36:55 GMT
Do you get the feeling that today's stumbled on/leaked news that everyone is reacting too is actually old and the situation may well have move on? - remember, NH can never tell us of these things because of the confidentiality clause. Good point .... wishful thinking! ... but good point. Do you happen to know the date of the writ? Edit: 17th July It seems that the Writ was received on 17th July (as you say) pending action to start on 1st of August. Seems that Sainsbury's submitted their planning appeal to BCC on the very last day it could (last day of July?) "Tom Kennedy said ‘Sainsbury’s have waited until the last day of the sixth month period to appeal the decision." So I take it now that the writ is not acted upon and the next hurdle is BCC to give the planning changes the nod and then all parties are 'contracted' to get on with it!  |
|
|
|
Post by toteendtony on Aug 26, 2014 23:48:33 GMT
This is the best news we could have hoped for. I was like most, looking forward to a nice new stadium. Then I realised the person whos responsable for our demise was never going to leave the board whilst he thought he would have a nice little nest egg in the new stadium!! ie Swansea. Selling bits off here and there, new sponsers etc. Leaving the club with no ownership, AGAIN. Funny aint it all of a sudden higgs is offering to stand down?? Wonder why that is? |
|
