sainsburys

In the press today in the Times paper... http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/business/industries/retailing/article4436201.ece

 

The above link only shows some of it. Here is all of it. I like the 2nd from last paragraph "the supermarket chain could be ordered to press ahead with the scheme or pay as much as £30 million in damages".

please log in to view this image

 

Interesting because that would pay for the new ground...

 

And still sell the mem and be quids in. Surely they got that wrong?

 

They can redefine all they like but if they have signed an agreement to say they will purchase something then they should have to honour it, if they get away with it any company that supplies Sainsbury's should think twice about supplying them as they probably wouldn't get paid if they changed their minds about goods recieved

 

Hope not!

 

Hope not what

 

reply was to me old timer

 

With my pessimist's hat on, I don't like Edward Ware's 'it puts us in a perilous financial position' statement one bit.

There's a lot riding on that judge's decision next week. If we win we could progress UWE, if we lose....

 

Bluebaldee please don't think about that

 

Instead of making £1 million a week, Sainsburys were "only" going to make just over £800k a week... that's pretty much why they're trying to pull out...they'll "only" make about £40 million a year instead of about £50 million a year before the loading restrictions. Poor old Sainsburys...

 

Shocking!

 

If they lose they will appeal and then appeal again.. I would guess you would end up with approx 10% of the agreed sum for the sale, thats the normal amount in property buyer disputes where contracts have been exchanged .. I know, its happened to me.

 

From what I have read elsewhere, I dont think they can appeal. That could be wrong but this is what I read elsewhere.....

"My Understanding is that they can only appeal a point of law not the actual judgement"

"The thing to keep in mind with an appeal is that it will only go ahead if there may be an error in law, in which case it will go to the CoA with the facts being as stated in court, so it would essentially be a case of our barristers and their barristers debating the finer points of the law in front of a law lord or very senior judge."

"The decision could be appealed to the Court of Appeal with leave, but only on a point of law or a very serious mis-intepretation of the facts. The Appellant would first have to apply for leave to appeal from the High Court judge and if that is refused apply to the Court of Appeal (which may be refused). If the Appeal is heard that decision can be appealed to the Supreme Court, but that would only occur on the points of law of national significance. At any stage the judges can refer matters to the Court of Justice of the European Union for 'guidance', but I doubt that would occur in a contract/property case of this type. The CJEU would not decide the case just answer questions referred to it. Some bits of law of more 'European' than others, and I doubt this is one of those."

However Banksy, I havent got my hopes up on this. I am preparing for the worst so if the worst happens, then fine

 

http://www.bristolrovers.co.uk/news...e-high-court-2463464.aspx#WFDYBtjLorJbjtOk.99


Rovers' Finance Director has said it will be a 'catastrophe' for the club if Sainsbury's does not go through with its development of the Memorial Stadium site.

In his statement to the High Court, Toni Watola said the only outcome that would put the club in the position envisaged by the original agreement with the supermarket chain is if the deal goes ahead at the agreed contract price 'without further delay'.

Mr Watola's comments came as he gave evidence at the hearing being held in London to determine whether Sainsbury's was entitled to pull out of its deal to buy the site for £30m and build a new superstore - which would allow the club to go ahead with plans for a new stadium at the UWE's Frenchay campus.

He said the UWE development was 'highly time critical' and that, if it did not go ahead, the financial consequences could be dire for the club.

Mr Watola said: "In the long term, I do not think it is an exaggeration to state that losing the UWE site could be catastrophic to the financial wellbeing of the club.

"Therefore, completing the existing deal with Sainsbury's as soon as possible is of paramount importance.

He added: "Damages are unlikely to be an adequate remedy for the club, which would be left with nothing to show for four years hard work and effort to get this deal across the line.

"This would be nothing short of a catastrophe for the directors, staff and supporters of the club, not to mention the wider North Bristol and South Gloucestershire communities which also stand to benefit from the wider stadium scheme."

He also said the sale of the site, which Sainsbury's agreed to pay over the odds to secure amid stiff competition from rival supermarkets, may be 'crucial' to the club's future.

"This deal stood to generate more money for the development of the new stadium than would otherwise be achieved and allowed the club to plan a fantastic new facility without having to take on significant external debt," he said.

"In short, this was - and is - the key to the club's long-term financial success and ultimately may be crucial to its survival.”

The finance director's statement was read into evidence as the hearing's third day drew to a close.

It described how the Memorial Stadium was 'increasingly dated and out of step with the requirements of a 21st century sports club and its supporters', and said the proposed new facility would provide the club with much-needed extra revenue and a 'first-class focal point for sport' in the south west.

Mr Watola also said the club was 'disappointed' with Sainsbury's response in July 2013, after the supermarket was given planning permission by Bristol City Council - but only with restricted delivery hours.

He said: "We had anticipated that Sainsbury's might need to jump through some hoops to get exactly the planning permission it needed.

"However, we were undoubtedly disappointed that, rather than committing to the purchase and then ironing out the remaining issues in the permission, Sainsbury's had served a notice which could be a pre-condition to termination (of the agreement).

"This indicated a lack of willingness on the part of Sainsbury's to work with the club to get this deal across the line.”

Beginning his cross-examination of Mr Watola, Sainsbury's counsel, Mark Wonnacott QC, asked about the contract between the parties.

The barrister raised the issue of the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL), or planning charge, imposed by Bristol City Council, which ended up being more than the £500,000 maximum Sainsbury's had agreed to pay and which resulted in Rovers having to reduce the sale price of the Mem site by £1.6m.

Mr Wonnacott asked why the club's Chairman, Nick Higgs, was 'so upset' when Sainsbury's said Rovers would have to pay the extra.

Mr Watola responded: "Well the Chairman was upset because our position was that, over the previous 12 to 18 months, Sainsbury's had not moved as fast as they could have done and that they were partly to blame for that increase in the CIL."

The barrister then asked: "When you asked Sainsbury's to pay more than £500,000, who was trying to change the terms of the contract - was it Sainsbury's, or was it Bristol Rovers?"

Mr Watola initially replied that he didn't see it as changing the contract and said the club was in a position where, if it had to stand the extra cost, it would 'not have helped' the viability of the new stadium project.

However, when asked again if Rovers was asking Sainsbury's to change the terms of the contract in respect of Rovers having to absorb the increased CIL, he replied: "Yes".

The hearing continues.

 

The above was from the club. This though was from a gashead who was there watching.....


The day started with Ben Litman. Sainsbury gave an assurance that the Contract was still on but no more speed at Sainsbury until after the JR had been finalised, but they would not waive the “onerous condition” (delivery hours)

When BRFC suggested that Sainsbury were not committed, the negotiations changed to negotiations between the legal teams as relations between Watola and Litman had decreased (Nov 13). One thing I noticed was that Litman never looked at BRFC barrister during his questioning. Sainsbury did not consult or advise BRFC about the likely refusal of the Section 73 (appeal against delivery hours). Litman could not recall why he did not warn BRFC. The Contract did stipulate that Sainsbury must advise BRFC of all material facts arising.

Section 73 was refused by BCC. Litman had to tell BRFC Sainsbury were not prepared to waive the onerous delivery hours condition. It was alleged that BRFC (TW) expressed their anger and upset. The JR was turned down on 20/03/2014 leaving only the delivery times outstanding.

Sainsbury explained they were due to spend £750k on a covered yard and ramp, which they did not want to spend.

BRFC suggested that the Section 73 be resubmitted, Sainsbury refused. The Contract had not formally been terminated at this stage. Sainsbury would only carry on if unrestricted delivery hours agreed. Sainsbury refused BRFC permission to approach BCC for a revised Section 73, on legal advice. All angels BRFC wanted to pursue were refused by Sainsbury. After 04/14 Sainsbury did nothing further to implement scheme. Dentons (Sainsbury’s solicitors) just wanted to “run down the clock”. This apparently was the last time Ben Litman was involved in the negotiations.

BRFC were prepared to appeal the section 73 at their own cost – Sainsbury would be bound by Contract if Section 73 appeal succeeded. Dentons refused to allow BRFC to appeal the Section 73!!!!!!! This was the end of Ben Litmans evidence - this surprised me it ended there as we all know that BRFC DID appeal the Section 73 and got approval for deliveries between 05.00 24.00 instead of 06.00 to 23.00

Tristan Hunt and Nigel Mann of WYG – Sainsbury’s planning consultants were called up. Hunt covered the Section 73 saying Trash were well organised. He said Sainsbury had a weak technical case regarding some of the conditions but they were prepared to live with a noise level condition. Hutton advised Sainsbury to submit the Section 73 at a later date not just after the planning approval had been granted by BCC. Hutton ended his evidence.

Mann’s evidence was all about the Noise Level Assessment and to be honest I not being a legal brain did not understand why this pursued. His evidence lasted lasted one hour and thirty minutes and it was very technical and I did not take full notes!!!!!!

It was now 15.56 and the judge said she had a meeting to go to at 16.15 and asked Sainsbury barrister if he wanted to start questioning Toni Watola or leave it to the morning. He said he like to start and from what happened in the next 15 minutes, I can see why.

He started by asking TW who he was, what position he held in BRFC and was he involved in Contracts. After setting the background of who he was and what responsibilities he had – all amiable at this stage, his whole questioning changed. He referred to the Contract with reference to the CIL condition. Now this surprised me as I thought that in 2010 there were no CIL payments and these were only used by Councils about the time planning permission was granted. Sainsbury barrister said the Contract said that a maximum payment of £500k would be paid by Sainsbury and if this was exceed BRFC would have to pay or the Contract could be avoided. He really pressed TW to confirm this was true, to which he agreed. He also pressed TW to confirm that Sainsbury kept to the time limit, TW indicated that Sainsbury were delaying matters. He kept plugging away at TW that BRFC were the ones trying to change the conditions of the Contract and asked TW on behalf of BRFC to offer an apology to Sainsbury for BRFC’s barrister suggesting it was all Sainsbury’s fault!!!!!! No apology was offered. He also asked TW to confirm that no complaint was made against Sainsbury before 2013.

The judge called it a day at 16.15 warning TW that he was not to discuss the case before tomorrow morning. You could see why their barrister wanted to get into TW, giving him an uncomfortable nights sleep..

Clearly tomorrow is going to be a really big day and “blood may be spilled”. It is a big day for TW and to be honest I would not like to face this questioning from this Grand Inquisitor!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

http://gasheads.org/thread/3191/high-court-proceedings?page=7#ixzz3acYqx3Fg

 

Don't like the sound of "a catastrophe".

You get the feeling that for Sainsburys this is a well worn path and the best we can hope for is compensation.

At the end of the day Sainsburys are miffed that they will only make a shed load of money instead of an even bigger shed load of money. What an absolute shower...

 

Thats being exaggerated for effect too.. its game playing between them, if you hadn't got back in the league maybe so, but now your back up you'll be ok!

 

From someone at the courts today....

"Broken up for lunch and Watola has finished his evidence.

He did brilliantly and the Judge knocked back some of the legal questions as TW could not be expected to know the answer.

One other thing to emerge is if we win the case and Sainsbury are bloody minded and kick us out of The Mem instead of allowing us to play there whist we build UWE, we may have to play somewhere else!!!!!

It looks like case may not run into Friday. Full report later.
"

 

This was from the most recent report in The Post:

"Mr Wonnacott also said he had been made aware of a discussion in an online

please log in to view this image

forum between Rovers' supporters who were following the case, in which one fan had asked: "When is a cut-off date not a cut-off date?"

The barrister added: "That, in a nutshell, is our position."

Interesting...