|
Post by Topper Gas on Feb 9, 2015 20:33:26 GMT
Well we've got until May so plenty of time to discuss an out of court settlement but NH could well see anything but the UWE has failure?
|
|
|
Post by sanebolt on Feb 9, 2015 20:43:53 GMT
Sounds like good news and not bad news. Unless you are a Sainsbury's mole, a diehard Robin without a heart, an envious soul lacking in empathy, a person with burdensome baggage, a Trash adoring individual, a Rugger fanatic with a sense of historical betrayal, a poster with a private and covert agenda, a very green sympathiser, a troll, a person of exceptional intuition, an esteemed member of an old educational establishment that feels threatened, a naive and unwordly "bubble-dweller", a cynic of unimaginable depth, a comic of unrivalled quality, a down-trodden and weary supporter, a miserable old gas, a depressed and unhappy ex-fan, a "cannot see the woods for trees" lass, a "sack the board" believer, an "imagine the worst but" survivor, a "I'll believe it when" protectionist, a "nothing good ever" pessimist, a sarcastic WUM of questionable parentage, a normal human being, an ordinary woman-in-the-street. Disenfranchised, disenchanted, dispirited. Then again.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 9, 2015 20:54:04 GMT
Sounds like good news and not bad news. Unless you are a Sainsbury's mole, a diehard Robin without a heart, an envious soul lacking in empathy, a person with burdensome baggage, a Trash adoring individual, a Rugger fanatic with a sense of historical betrayal, a poster with a private and covert agenda, a very green sympathiser, a troll, a person of exceptional intuition, an esteemed member of an old educational establishment that feels threatened, a naive and unwordly "bubble-dweller", a cynic of unimaginable depth, a comic of unrivalled quality, a down-trodden and weary supporter, a miserable old gas, a depressed and unhappy ex-fan, a "cannot see the woods for trees" lass, a "sack the board" believer, an "imagine the worst but" survivor, a "I'll believe it when" protectionist, a "nothing good ever" pessimist, a sarcastic WUM of questionable parentage, a normal human being, an ordinary woman-in-the-street. Disenfranchised, disenchanted, dispirited. Then again. In an "imagine the worst survivor".
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 9, 2015 21:25:41 GMT
The only people who know what is likely to happen are those who have read the contract. At least we will have an answer
|
|
|
Post by fanboy on Feb 9, 2015 22:19:06 GMT
|
|
|
Post by aghast on Feb 9, 2015 22:46:05 GMT
I have consulted expert advice. My son is currently in his final year of a Law degree at Bristol University (true), and he tells me that he has no idea what the judge will decide, and will I please stop calling him when he's enjoying himself at the Clifton Triangle.
|
|
|
Post by supergas on Feb 9, 2015 23:07:56 GMT
Yes, lets tell everyone what is going on, that should give Sainsbury the heads up nice and early. Sometimes it's best to keep very quiet. We shouldn't tell the fans what Sainsbury's are doing/not doing/threatening to do/not do in case Sainsbury's find out? I understand about confidentiality clauses etc etc, but surely once we believe Sainsbury's are in breach we can say so and detail how and why because they breached the contract...? Well we've got until May so plenty of time to discuss an out of court settlement but NH could well see anything but the UWE has failure? Trouble with the timeline of May/June (and I'm sure NH et al know) is that it means yet another season's delay if we win and if we get the cash to build the UWE. So at best we're looking at opening the UWE for 2017/18. If I was a betting man I'd bet we end up with compensation (probably half the value, maybe slightly less) and a renovation of one or two stands at the Mem...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 10, 2015 6:43:17 GMT
I have consulted expert advice. My son is currently in his final year of a Law degree at Bristol University (true), and he tells me that he has no idea what the judge will decide, and will I please stop calling him when he's enjoying himself at the Clifton Triangle. My wife has been a solicitor advocate in crown court for years. She knows very little about football (although she did see the sammy igoe goal and can sing goodnight Irene) but told me that this could go either way and agrees that the judge will have no idea of the outcome.
|
|
|
Post by Topper Gas on Feb 10, 2015 8:47:08 GMT
I don't think you need to know anything about football to know this could go either way, particularly as the case as virtually nothing to do with what takes place on the pitch!!
|
|
|
Post by Cantankerous Gas on Feb 10, 2015 11:14:49 GMT
I have consulted expert advice. My son is currently in his final year of a Law degree at Bristol University (true), and he tells me that he has no idea what the judge will decide, and will I please stop calling him when he's enjoying himself at the Clifton Triangle. My wife has been a solicitor advocate in crown court for years. She knows very little about football (although she did see the sammy igoe goal and can sing goodnight Irene) but told me that this could go either way and agrees that the judge will have no idea of the outcome. Sounds like your better half needs some of your positivity juice. She seems too level-headed & sensible.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 10, 2015 11:38:11 GMT
My wife has been a solicitor advocate in crown court for years. She knows very little about football (although she did see the sammy igoe goal and can sing goodnight Irene) but told me that this could go either way and agrees that the judge will have no idea of the outcome. Sounds like your better half needs some of your positivity juice. She seems too level-headed & sensible. Picked her up in some pub in Somerset 30 years ago. She's not let me go since! She thinks I'm nuts and is far too sensible &'level-headed. She also thinks I can be annoying! Spoke to her again and she believes that a contract is a contract and can't really see how Sainsbury's can wriggle out of a contract unless it's not water tight. "There must be something in the contract that has made Sainsbury's believe they can squrm out if it." She reckons it more likely that the parties will agree to compromise. On that basis if Sainsbury's don't want to build it they will find a way out if it. Looks like Rovers might get the Quantifiable costs + pain and suffering (unspecified and difficult to quantify) if my wife is right. Unfortunately She ain't very ground breaking but that's the news from my other half. It does confirm that she is level-headed and sensible but her views don't help my positive and optimistic approach. No news is good news!
|
|
|
Post by Finnish Gas on Feb 10, 2015 12:51:02 GMT
Bristol Rovers is today one step closer to a prompt outcome in its dispute with Sainsbury’s over the sale of the Memorial Stadium, Bristol. The sale will fund the development of a new stadium at land next to the University of the West of England. The Club issued a claim against Sainsbury’s in December seeking court orders clearing the way for the sale of the stadium. This followed the Club’s successful planning application removing the final planning hurdles to the development of the stadium site by Sainsbury’s. Sainsbury’s is nevertheless refusing to complete the purchase, instead claiming that it is not bound by the planning permission and that this was not obtained in time under the terms of its contract with the Club. The Club sought an order from the court that the claims should be heard as soon as possible, given the importance of the new stadium scheme to the Club, UWE and to North Bristol. At a hearing in the High Court yesterday, Mr Justice Roth agreed with the club’s argument and found that the case was sufficiently urgent that it should be the subject of an accelerated trial. The Judge therefore ordered that the claims should be heard no later than 14 May 2015. The Club remains confident that its claim against Sainsbury’s will succeed and therefore anticipates that its stadium development and relocation plan should be back on track by July 2015. No further comment will be made by the club at this time. Read more at www.bristolrovers.co.uk/news/article/new-stadium-update-2260093.aspx#6U4MvKF1ozBfCj0h.99
|
|
|
Post by RD on Feb 10, 2015 13:02:30 GMT
Bristol Rovers is today one step closer to a prompt outcome in its dispute with Sainsbury’s over the sale of the Memorial Stadium, Bristol. The sale will fund the development of a new stadium at land next to the University of the West of England. The Club issued a claim against Sainsbury’s in December seeking court orders clearing the way for the sale of the stadium. This followed the Club’s successful planning application removing the final planning hurdles to the development of the stadium site by Sainsbury’s. Sainsbury’s is nevertheless refusing to complete the purchase, instead claiming that it is not bound by the planning permission and that this was not obtained in time under the terms of its contract with the Club. The Club sought an order from the court that the claims should be heard as soon as possible, given the importance of the new stadium scheme to the Club, UWE and to North Bristol. At a hearing in the High Court yesterday, Mr Justice Roth agreed with the club’s argument and found that the case was sufficiently urgent that it should be the subject of an accelerated trial. The Judge therefore ordered that the claims should be heard no later than 14 May 2015. The Club remains confident that its claim against Sainsbury’s will succeed and therefore anticipates that its stadium development and relocation plan should be back on track by July 2015. No further comment will be made by the club at this time. Read more at www.bristolrovers.co.uk/news/article/new-stadium-update-2260093.aspx#6U4MvKF1ozBfCj0h.99Was just about to post this. A very confident press release. I know that doesn't count for much but it has boosted my hopes nonetheless!
|
|
|
Post by peterparker on Feb 10, 2015 13:08:22 GMT
Bristol Rovers is today one step closer to a prompt outcome in its dispute with Sainsbury’s over the sale of the Memorial Stadium, Bristol. The sale will fund the development of a new stadium at land next to the University of the West of England. The Club issued a claim against Sainsbury’s in December seeking court orders clearing the way for the sale of the stadium. This followed the Club’s successful planning application removing the final planning hurdles to the development of the stadium site by Sainsbury’s. Sainsbury’s is nevertheless refusing to complete the purchase, instead claiming that it is not bound by the planning permission and that this was not obtained in time under the terms of its contract with the Club. The Club sought an order from the court that the claims should be heard as soon as possible, given the importance of the new stadium scheme to the Club, UWE and to North Bristol. At a hearing in the High Court yesterday, Mr Justice Roth agreed with the club’s argument and found that the case was sufficiently urgent that it should be the subject of an accelerated trial. The Judge therefore ordered that the claims should be heard no later than 14 May 2015. The Club remains confident that its claim against Sainsbury’s will succeed and therefore anticipates that its stadium development and relocation plan should be back on track by July 2015. No further comment will be made by the club at this time. Read more at www.bristolrovers.co.uk/news/article/new-stadium-update-2260093.aspx#6U4MvKF1ozBfCj0h.99Was just about to post this. A very confident press release. I know that doesn't count for much but it has boosted my hopes nonetheless!
Confident yes, but I guess that is using afew more words for Nick Higgs to shout Watertight
|
|
|
Post by BishopstonBRFC on Feb 10, 2015 13:14:24 GMT
Was just about to post this. A very confident press release. I know that doesn't count for much but it has boosted my hopes nonetheless!
Confident yes, but I guess that is using afew more words for Nick Higgs to shout Watertight
They would have had to think very carefully about the exact wording of that statement so it does give me a bit of confidence.
|
|
|
Post by peterparker on Feb 10, 2015 13:26:11 GMT
Confident yes, but I guess that is using afew more words for Nick Higgs to shout Watertight
They would have had to think very carefully about the exact wording of that statement so it does give me a bit of confidence. I agree, but it doesn't really say anything Rovers haven't said before in less words
That's not a criticism of Rovers, they obviously can't say much and the statement is welcome as an acknowledgment of what is happening, but just nothing new
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 10, 2015 14:25:56 GMT
"At a hearing in the High Court yesterday, Mr Justice Roth agreed with the club’s argument and found that the case was sufficiently urgent that it should be the subject of an accelerated trial."
I find this rather encouraging.
|
|
|
Post by daniel300380 on Feb 10, 2015 15:32:27 GMT
If there was a date, it might not be as simple as some on here are making out. The date might have passed, but it might have been Sainsburys fault that it past. They didn't put in for planning and we had to for them. Only guessing, but I think that could be what it's about, Saintsbury's causing delays to get out of the contract.
|
|
|
Post by Severncider on Feb 10, 2015 15:51:16 GMT
If there was a date, it might not be as simple as some on here are making out. The date might have passed, but it might have been Sainsburys fault that it past. They didn't put in for planning and we had to for them. Only guessing, but I think that could be what it's about, Saintsbury's causing delays to get out of the contract. I'm sure the club has all the necessary paper work to back up this argument, if this is what it is all about.
|
|
|
Post by BishopstonBRFC on Feb 10, 2015 16:27:49 GMT
If there was a date, it might not be as simple as some on here are making out. The date might have passed, but it might have been Sainsburys fault that it past. They didn't put in for planning and we had to for them. Only guessing, but I think that could be what it's about, Saintsbury's causing delays to get out of the contract. I'm sure the club has all the necessary paper work to back up this argument, if this is what it is all about.
So it could be a case that we think Sainsburys didn't try hard enough to obtain the necessary planning permission but they think they did. Could be hard to prove if that's the route they're taking.
|
|