Jump to content
IGNORED

Bristol R*vers dustbin thread

42nite

By 42nite
in Football Chat

 Share

Recommended Posts

Red-Robbo

Red-Robbo

Posted
Posted

Haven't seen today's arguments but from the original judgement I wouldn't read too much into the Gas claiming they'd won the majority of the argument first time around. Yes, Sainsbury's hadn't formally issued papers to annul the contract, but as the judge enquired of their QC had they been unrestrained in being able to do so by Higgs intervention that indeed is what they would have done.

It appeared the main grounds for appeal lay with the interpretation of the extent to which, in good faith, Sainsbury's sought removal of the 'onerous consent'. It was clear both sides were of the opinion that the first appeal was likely to fail (due wholly to the politics involved in Horfield ahead of the election.) The judge, however, made clear whatever the interpretation of the cut-off Sainsbury's obligation extended beyond that date. But:

  • Had Sainsbury's not appealed until the election had passed then the cut off ,too, would have passed and they could have annulled, albeit with counterclaim they'd failed to act in good faith by not appealing;
  • Critically, in appealing, Sainsbury's shared detail of the application with The Gas who endorsed its submission in the terms explicit;
  • That being the case Sainsbury's were said to have discharged their obligation to appeal and with no clear prospect of a secondary appeal lifting the onerous condition, according to the planning advice sought, they might not be expected to further pursue;
Whilst the judge implied had Sainsbury's really, really wanted to see the deal through then seeing out the political gerrymandering would have seen the constraint lifted (which of course transpired when The Gas appealed the consent,) she pointed out it was immaterial as the cut off would have passed, hence the contract terms had not been complied with and they could break.

A second tack might be to argue that the constraining consent was never material to Sainsbury's operations, that it was always a backdoor ruse to allow them to 'wriggle out' should they cool on the deal. Sainsbury's made clear The Gas had no objections to the condition being made a material point in construction of the deal, neither did they complain when they supported the appeal against said constraint. Presumably and for consistency, The Gas wouldn't have been able to support the appeal given the 'constrained delivery times' were considered insignificant, of little merit. Now if Sainsbury's say it is material and 'we best know how we run supermarkets' I struggle to see how The Gas or judge might argue otherwise.

Indeed.

"We won the majority of the argument" is about as useful as saying 99.9% of my boat doesn't have a hole in it.

  • Like 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest I am the mole

Guest I am the mole

Posted
Posted

Correction. 0.2 not 0.3 to WBA

i like to laugh at the gas as much as the next person but losing a friendly is really taking it to far and something that's not important in arsenal of ammunition to throw at them!!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Aizoon

Aizoon

Posted
Posted

People shouldn't take the pi$$. I heard they have received a very nice sponsorship package with this deal. Free chips and sausages for the players (extra if they bring the away team back to the pub) and a promotion bonus of 2 free goes on the pool tables and a quid on the juke box.

And pizza, mind. Very good at the Sportsman :)

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
pongo88

pongo88

Posted
Posted

Indeed.

"We won the majority of the argument" is about as useful as saying 99.9% of my boat doesn't have a hole in it.

During the whole of the 2013-14 season, Rovers were only in a relegation position for 20 minutes.
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
bert tann

bert tann

Posted
Posted (edited)

Here we go !  

 

All debts are paid, Nicholas gets his money back and Rovers are tenants again.

 

Don't worry about those revenue streams they are all water under the bridge now.  

 

 

UWE Seek Permission To Build 15,000 Stadium

 

 

Vital Gas understand that UWE have spoken to South Gloucestershire Council about building their own Stadium on their land.

Its understood that UWE have spoken about downsizing the plans to make it a 15,000 all seater stadium instead of the 21,700 that Rovers hoped to build, but they will have scope to expand the stadium at a later date. Its not clear if UWE have spoken to Rovers yet, but its a possibility that Rovers will be asked to become tenants if the Council approve.

Just yesterday Rovers were give permission to appeal the High Court ruling that allowed Sainsbury's to pull out of a deal to buy the club's Memorial Stadium.

Edited by bert tann
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Aizoon

Aizoon

Posted
Posted (edited)

Here we go !  

 

All debts are paid, Nicholas gets his money back and Rovers are tenants again.

 

Don't worry about those revenue streams they are all water under the bridge now.  

 

 

UWE Seek Permission To Build 15,000 Stadium

 

 

Vital Gas understand that UWE have spoken to South Gloucestershire Council about building their own Stadium on their land.

Its understood that UWE have spoken about downsizing the plans to make it a 15,000 all seater stadium instead of the 21,700 that Rovers hoped to build, but they will have scope to expand the stadium at a later date. Its not clear if UWE have spoken to Rovers yet, but its a possibility that Rovers will be asked to become tenants if the Council approve.

Just yesterday Rovers were give permission to appeal the High Court ruling that allowed Sainsbury's to pull out of a deal to buy the club's Memorial Stadium.

 

Hands up all those who didn't see that coming...

 

PS UWE had better be very sure that the Gas don't steal their stadium, mind :nono:

Edited by Aizoon
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Kid in the Riot

Kid in the Riot

Posted
Posted

To think, they were gonna do up the Mem to 15k how many years ago?

Surely it would be preferable to revisit those plans than to literally lose the one peice of security the club has?

 

Unfortunately most of their usually intellectually challenged fans on 'Gas Shat' seem to have realised this...

 

If this happened Basement Rovers would effectively be renting off a charity. They will have finally found their level...

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Numero Uno

Numero Uno

Posted
Posted

If Gas fans put up with that proposal they are more stupid than we give them credit for.

They have a stadium asset (regardless of how they got it) and to trade that in for housing and then a rental agreement? Even they aren't stupid enough to take that without a fight.

Don't panic - spin doctor Nicky Piggs is all over it. By the time he's finished rental will be the new ownership.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest Zletin Ibrahemovitch

Guest Zletin Ibrahemovitch

Posted
Posted

I'm new here and the first thing I see is a 57 page long thread about the g*s. Bit obsessive don't you think. sigh.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest

Guest

Posted
Posted

Sell and then rent it back makes sense if (and only if) they get a lump sum now and only pay rent when using the ground.

That was they avoid routine maintenance and associated costs.

Really? It seems incredibly risky to me. If they sell their ground and commit to a rent they are it seems to me wholly dependent upon running a surplus or finding their benefactor in future otherwise rents will catch up with them.

Also what would the rent be? From afar looking in could UWE do anything but full market value? I'm not sure how I'd feel paying or having paid tuition fees to directly or indirectly subsidise a football club's rent? I could see the NUS all over that. There may be restrictions on how UWE are allowed to use their funding too that might stop less than market value.

If I was a sag and that was the plan I'd be very worried until the detail followed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Southstandoriginal

Southstandoriginal

Posted
Posted

I'm new here and the first thing I see is a 57 page long thread about the g*s. Bit obsessive don't you think. sigh.

You should try reading some of it!  The sags themselves are the driving force here. This thread wouldn't exist if the sags weren't providing us with a constant almost unbelievable stream of incompetence and deluded self regard.  It would be rude not to comment really.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   1 member

×
×
  • Create New...