Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 10, 2015 17:01:38 GMT
I assume that the fact we had to threaten them with a writ to make them appeal the extended hours,and that they left it to the last day to appeal,would be good evidence that they were deliberately delaying the process,or at least not making a genuine attempt to get the necessary planning approval
|
|
|
Post by Quartermaster on Feb 10, 2015 17:04:41 GMT
I assume that the fact we had to threaten them with a writ to make them appeal the extended hours,and that they left it to the last day to appeal,would be good evidence that they were deliberately delaying the process,or at least not making a genuine attempt to get the necessary planning approval I was about to make the very same point. I would imagine their lack of action on the appeal to the planning hours would be very good evidence that they dragged their heels.
|
|
|
Post by stapletongas on Feb 10, 2015 17:13:44 GMT
I understood Rovers appealed the planning decision re hours not Sainsburys?
Either way, NH has been confident all the way that we have got Sainsburys check mate with this contract and the club statement today is nothing short of confident
|
|
|
Post by Russgas on Feb 10, 2015 17:22:50 GMT
I assume that the fact we had to threaten them with a writ to make them appeal the extended hours,and that they left it to the last day to appeal,would be good evidence that they were deliberately delaying the process,or at least not making a genuine attempt to get the necessary planning approval This was their hidden agenda all along.What a weak and feeble case they have that hopefully the judge can see right through.... Pathetic.
|
|
|
Post by peterparker on Feb 10, 2015 17:32:02 GMT
I assume that the fact we had to threaten them with a writ to make them appeal the extended hours,and that they left it to the last day to appeal,would be good evidence that they were deliberately delaying the process,or at least not making a genuine attempt to get the necessary planning approval but.....
Sainsbury's applied for change in the delivery hours (remember an onerous condition in the contract) and it was rejected
Who says they have/had to appeal the decision?
Rovers obviously tried forcing their hand and went it alone with their own application
I think Sainsbury's are playing silly buggers but they told us they didn't want to proceed at that point.
Now what was in the conversations between the parties and were any cut-off dates brough up in those discussions
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 10, 2015 18:57:40 GMT
I assume that the fact we had to threaten them with a writ to make them appeal the extended hours,and that they left it to the last day to appeal,would be good evidence that they were deliberately delaying the process,or at least not making a genuine attempt to get the necessary planning approval but.....
Sainsbury's applied for change in the delivery hours (remember an onerous condition in the contract) and it was rejected
Who says they have/had to appeal the decision?
Rovers obviously tried forcing their hand and went it alone with their own application
I think Sainsbury's are playing silly buggers but they told us they didn't want to proceed at that point.
Now what was in the conversations between the parties and were any cut-off dates brough up in those discussions
I believe the extened hours were their get out,thats why they applied for them knowing they would be knocked back,who thought they would get the hours they wanted not Sainsbury's that's for sure,they tell us that's it, it's over, phew we got out of that one. We tell them you have to appeal,they call our bluff and we threaten them with legal action,they then tell us we will not appeal but you can on our behalf because they know they have to,or they wouldn't have let us appeal for them. Now if there was a cut off date and it had elapsed then it was their fault. Pure guess work on my part,but I think this is what we will be trying to prove,and I think we have a good case if this is what transpired
|
|
|
Post by dragonfly on Feb 10, 2015 19:57:26 GMT
Perhaps Sainsbury did not want to build a store all along, just prevent their competitors from having the land. I have stopped from shopping at their stores since last August (never to return) to the tune of £1300 pa - bunch of C--ts.
|
|
|
Post by Quartermaster on Feb 10, 2015 20:00:31 GMT
Assuming we're barking up the right tree with this extended hours business, I guess it depends whether the watertight contracts says they have to try all options (ie appeals) to get any changes agreed or whether one refusal to a change in conditions counts as sufficient.
Personally I thinks it's generous that the contract permits changes to the original agreement which could serve as a get out if they are not passed. Surely it's a generous contract which allows changes which could allow a get out?
|
|
|
Post by Quartermaster on Feb 10, 2015 20:02:39 GMT
Perhaps Sainsbury did not want to build a store all along, just prevent their competitors from having the land. I have stopped from shopping at their stores since last August (never to return) to the tune of £1300 pa - bunch of C--ts. I've as good as stopped shopping there too. I know it makes no difference in the grand scheme of things but it makes me feel better! Last I heard the manager of my closest store (Frome) was an 82er so all the more reason!
|
|
|
Post by asparagas on Feb 10, 2015 20:39:06 GMT
I found it a little depressing when I looked at this timeline as it didn't seem so long ago. m.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-bristol-265443268 years has passed since that initial joyous evening when planning was agreed to develop the mem. I've experienced at least 5 life changing events since then! Interesting to note that Opal that originally were going to go in with us at the mem went bust not so long ago.
|
|
|
Post by Topper Gas on Feb 10, 2015 21:37:40 GMT
Assuming we're barking up the right tree with this extended hours business, I guess it depends whether the watertight contracts says they have to try all options (ie appeals) to get any changes agreed or whether one refusal to a change in conditions counts as sufficient. Personally I thinks it's generous that the contract permits changes to the original agreement which could serve as a get out if they are not passed. Surely it's a generous contract which allows changes which could allow a get out? Perhaps that's a question we should be asking our legal advisors, basically it seems we've potentially lost £30m because somebody allowed Sainsbury's to include the extended hours clause in the contract. Given no other supermarket in Bristol as such extended hours was that only included so Sainsbury's always had a get out clause if they wanted one? As under normal circumstances BCC would never agree them. Perhaps with hindsight our legal advisors should have said "sorry we can't proceed with that onerous condition but you're welcome to seek EH if you want them".
|
|
|
Post by aghast on Feb 10, 2015 23:02:49 GMT
I assume that the fact we had to threaten them with a writ to make them appeal the extended hours,and that they left it to the last day to appeal,would be good evidence that they were deliberately delaying the process,or at least not making a genuine attempt to get the necessary planning approval I was about to make the very same point. I would imagine their lack of action on the appeal to the planning hours would be very good evidence that they dragged their heels. I think this is the key point in the matter. The cut-off point in the contract (that none of us knew about, although some suggested it might actually exist) was passed, and therefore our favourite grocer felt entitled to pull out of the deal. The issues around whether they did anything to fight the TRASH JR or progress the extended hours appeal will be highlighted. It seems to me to very grey. Either side could win - the old boy on the bench will have to decide if they were clearly delaying a contract with the aim of making it fail, or if "events" outside their control made the contract pass beyond the cut-off date and therefore they were free of it. Maybe we should just reject their derisory offer of £500k in legal fees compensation (I know, I'm making it up), and progress the claim until the day before the hearing, at which point we settle in the Costa Coffee over the road for something better, rather than risk losing and having to pay their massive legal costs? Which is of course just what they want. Can't see this ending well, regardless of whether we have the moral right on our side or not.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 11, 2015 4:32:34 GMT
Or if we win then uwe pull out...
|
|
|
Post by RD on Feb 11, 2015 6:29:22 GMT
I was about to make the very same point. I would imagine their lack of action on the appeal to the planning hours would be very good evidence that they dragged their heels. I think this is the key point in the matter. The cut-off point in the contract (that none of us knew about, although some suggested it might actually exist) was passed, and therefore our favourite grocer felt entitled to pull out of the deal. The issues around whether they did anything to fight the TRASH JR or progress the extended hours appeal will be highlighted. It seems to me to very grey. Either side could win - the old boy on the bench will have to decide if they were clearly delaying a contract with the aim of making it fail, or if "events" outside their control made the contract pass beyond the cut-off date and therefore they were free of it. Maybe we should just reject their derisory offer of £500k in legal fees compensation (I know, I'm making it up), and progress the claim until the day before the hearing, at which point we settle in the Costa Coffee over the road for something better, rather than risk losing and having to pay their massive legal costs? Which is of course just what they want. Can't see this ending well, regardless of whether we have the moral right on our side or not. Have to disagree. No walking away now. We fight them to the death. I'm feeling a hell of a lot more confident now if I'm honest. Sainsburys have clearly tried to bully us IMO and I have a feeling one of the countries top judges will see that. See you all in the UWE shortly.
|
|
|
Post by peterparker on Feb 11, 2015 7:57:57 GMT
I think this is the key point in the matter. The cut-off point in the contract (that none of us knew about, although some suggested it might actually exist) was passed, and therefore our favourite grocer felt entitled to pull out of the deal. The issues around whether they did anything to fight the TRASH JR or progress the extended hours appeal will be highlighted. It seems to me to very grey. Either side could win - the old boy on the bench will have to decide if they were clearly delaying a contract with the aim of making it fail, or if "events" outside their control made the contract pass beyond the cut-off date and therefore they were free of it. Maybe we should just reject their derisory offer of £500k in legal fees compensation (I know, I'm making it up), and progress the claim until the day before the hearing, at which point we settle in the Costa Coffee over the road for something better, rather than risk losing and having to pay their massive legal costs? Which is of course just what they want. Can't see this ending well, regardless of whether we have the moral right on our side or not. Have to disagree. No walking away now. We fight them to the death. I'm feeling a hell of a lot more confident now if I'm honest. Sainsburys have clearly tried to bully us IMO and I have a feeling one of the countries top judges will see that. See you all in the UWE shortly. Google sainsburys and keywords for similar situations.
Our case may be good, but when you see what Sainsbury's get up to on various projects, it doesn't fill me with confidence. They obviously know their way around and what they can generally get away with
|
|
|
Post by Topper Gas on Feb 11, 2015 8:51:28 GMT
I think this is the key point in the matter. The cut-off point in the contract (that none of us knew about, although some suggested it might actually exist) was passed, and therefore our favourite grocer felt entitled to pull out of the deal. The issues around whether they did anything to fight the TRASH JR or progress the extended hours appeal will be highlighted. It seems to me to very grey. Either side could win - the old boy on the bench will have to decide if they were clearly delaying a contract with the aim of making it fail, or if "events" outside their control made the contract pass beyond the cut-off date and therefore they were free of it. Maybe we should just reject their derisory offer of £500k in legal fees compensation (I know, I'm making it up), and progress the claim until the day before the hearing, at which point we settle in the Costa Coffee over the road for something better, rather than risk losing and having to pay their massive legal costs? Which is of course just what they want. Can't see this ending well, regardless of whether we have the moral right on our side or not. Have to disagree. No walking away now. We fight them to the death. I'm feeling a hell of a lot more confident now if I'm honest. Sainsburys have clearly tried to bully us IMO and I have a feeling one of the countries top judges will see that. See you all in the UWE shortly. I just hope NH isn't of a similar view as personally I'd sooner watch Rovers at the Mem than become next season's Hereford Utd,
|
|
|
Post by Mark Ash on Feb 11, 2015 9:52:56 GMT
Have to disagree. No walking away now. We fight them to the death. I'm feeling a hell of a lot more confident now if I'm honest. Sainsburys have clearly tried to bully us IMO and I have a feeling one of the countries top judges will see that. See you all in the UWE shortly. I just hope NH isn't of a similar view as personally I'd sooner watch Rovers at the Mem than become next season's Hereford Utd, I too would be happy with a redeveloped Mem, partly because I'm not keen on all-seaters.(All that bobbing up and down while we try to see what's going on without obscuring the view of angry people behind.) But what about the now obligatory "revenue streams?" Would the Mem make us the necessary income? But I'll still be excited if the UWE goes ahead.
|
|
|
Post by supergas on Feb 11, 2015 10:00:55 GMT
I was about to make the very same point. I would imagine their lack of action on the appeal to the planning hours would be very good evidence that they dragged their heels. I think this is the key point in the matter. The cut-off point in the contract (that none of us knew about, although some suggested it might actually exist) was passed, and therefore our favourite grocer felt entitled to pull out of the deal. The issues around whether they did anything to fight the TRASH JR or progress the extended hours appeal will be highlighted. It seems to me to very grey. Either side could win - the old boy on the bench will have to decide if they were clearly delaying a contract with the aim of making it fail, or if "events" outside their control made the contract pass beyond the cut-off date and therefore they were free of it. Maybe we should just reject their derisory offer of £500k in legal fees compensation (I know, I'm making it up), and progress the claim until the day before the hearing, at which point we settle in the Costa Coffee over the road for something better, rather than risk losing and having to pay their massive legal costs? Which is of course just what they want. Can't see this ending well, regardless of whether we have the moral right on our side or not. For once I feel confident. Rovers can (and I hope will) take advantage of the overall economic climate and the specific supermarket economic climate. It seems obvious that Rovers and Sainsbury's agreed a deal at a time they planned to open a large supermarket on the site, and it seems that various legal delays mean they no longer want to build it. Forget whether Sainsbury's want to build it or not, that's not important at all. The only important point is if Rovers didn't meet any planning deadlines or there it anything about both sides not being ready to complete by any deadline. Also remember Sainsbury's never planned to start building until this summer...it's not like the delays stopped them making £1m profit by now.
|
|
|
Post by Henbury Gas on Feb 11, 2015 11:31:58 GMT
I just hope NH isn't of a similar view as personally I'd sooner watch Rovers at the Mem than become next season's Hereford Utd, I too would be happy with a redeveloped Mem, partly because I'm not keen on all-seaters.(All that bobbing up and down while we try to see what's going on without obscuring the view of angry people behind.) But what about the now obligatory "revenue streams?" Would the Mem make us the necessary income? But I'll still be excited if the UWE goes ahead. I'm pretty sure BCC will not allow that because of access issues etc
|
|
|
Post by supergas on Feb 11, 2015 11:43:16 GMT
I too would be happy with a redeveloped Mem, partly because I'm not keen on all-seaters.(All that bobbing up and down while we try to see what's going on without obscuring the view of angry people behind.) But what about the now obligatory "revenue streams?" Would the Mem make us the necessary income? But I'll still be excited if the UWE goes ahead. I'm pretty sure BCC will not allow that because of access issues etc They approved a massive redevelopment a few years back. Can they now justify not approving a couple of new stands without being open to a (swift) legal challenge?
|
|