Lovely company that is Sainsburys! Our club went to bed with them and im sure severly regrets it the following morning!! Here is some news stories about Ssainsburys just in the month of May - Not including our situation! 6th May: 800 jobs to be cut... http://www.andoveradvertiser.co.uk/news/regional/basingstoke/12931374._/ 14th May: Sainsburys announce they have pulled out of a deal to build a new shop in Edenbridge... http://www.courier.co.uk/BREAKING-Sainsbury-s-pull-Edenbridge/story-26502191-detail/story.html 16th May: Sainsburys predicted to go bust... http://www.bmmagazine.co.uk/news/sainsburys-predicted-as-next-big-company-to-go-bust/ 18th May: Sainsburys nearly finished building new store in Middlehaven but admits they may not move into it... http://www.gazettelive.co.uk/news/teesside-news/sainsburys-still-unable-say-theyll-9272610 18th May: Sainsburys announce that they may pull out of the Tewkesbury deal meaning loss to promised jobs... http://www.gloucestershireecho.co.u...re-Ashchurch/story-26524310-detail/story.html 20th May: Sainsburys issue warning they will terminate contract for Whittlesey store... http://www.cambstimes.co.uk/news/sa..._off_before_june_30_warns_developer_1_4081973 21st May: Sainsburys announce they are pulling out of the Llangollen store after saying in April they were still going ahead. 130 promised jobs lost. They intend to find a new occupier... http://www.dailypost.co.uk/business...urys-pulls-out-llangollen-supermarket-9303021 22nd May: Night shift workers jobs to be axed to save money... http://www.huntspost.co.uk/news/nig...tingdon_s_sainsbury_s_face_jobs_axe_1_4083748 25th May: Sainsburys thinking of pulling out of a new store in Carmarthen meaning will end a multi-million pound development which includes 250 houses, petrol station and new health centre... http://www.southwalesguardian.co.uk/news/12969988._/ 27th May: Sainsburys announce likely to pull out of the Great Barr store deal which will loss 620 promised jobs that included construction workers... http://www.expressandstar.com/news/2015/05/27/great-barr-sainsburys-store-thrown-into-doubt/ 28th May: Sainsburys confirm walking away from Wadesbridge deal and looking for a buyer for the land... http://www.cornishguardian.co.uk/Sa...s-Wadebridge/story-26590431-detail/story.html 29th May - from DC's best friend - the Grimsby Telegraph 600 jobs could be axed as Youngs Seafood battles to keep £100m contract with Sainsburys. http://www.grimsbytelegraph.co.uk/6...battles-100m/story-26591947-detail/story.html
What I have learned from this is that they are doing this all over the country and no one seems to be fighting back apart from us. Where they have been doing is and getting away with it, it must feel strange to them that we are challenging them! I hope the judge dont look at it that if she gives Rovers the victory that it will open up a can of worms on Sainsburys for all the other deals they are pulling out on, so then decides to give Sainsburys the win to save a lot of hassle. Looking at each individual case above, some they had purchased the land so are looking for new buyers and some they are terminated contracts like in our case and sp they wont pay a penny and we are the only ones at the moment fighting them. The 25th May case in Carmarthen is very similar to ours where other projects are relying on them. They certainly are not a company to be going into partnership with!
If judgement goes against us and they do go bust we will never sell the stadium to another super market as there will be lots of empty stores in the surrounding area for them to purchase. Stoke Gifford, Ashton as well as one of their corner shop type stores on Gloucester road. The green party will most certainly have scuppered our future after councillor Radiche led her campaign against us
It is, but if the JS deal is now dead as it most likely looks it will all depend on how the economy fairs over the next twelve to twenty four months to see if it would be an attractive proposition to another prospective purchaser.
Gastro would it still be worth £30 Million and we would have to find another site and with the greens so prominent on the council my guess would be that they campaign against expansion of the MEM and making it all seater
I'm beginning to wonder if the Judge IS looking at all of the other PLANNING INCIDENTS which Sainsburys are involved in. There would appear to be a pattern of possibly broken agreements which are similar to the Mem situation. I find it difficult to believe that if they were forced to honour all of the contracts in dispute that it would force such a large company into bankruptcy. She can only rule on the Mem situation, but her decision will obviously affect how others may react to the result of her ruling.
Pretty much my point in comment 2 I can see giving us the favour will cause a lot of hassle in the long run so it may swing her decision to go with Sainsburys. Unless though she feels that enough is enough and Sainsburys need to stop what they are doing. I am guessing the contracts set up with the other developments around the UK by Sainsburys legal team will be worded similar to our contract with Sainsburys. So how Higgs thought it was water tight when other developments (where money hasnt been passed over yet - like ours) is being terminated. Sainsburys have got away with it until now so im guessing they will be pretty confident over the outcome. However we seem to be challenging them over the wording of the contract on what is good faith and did they do all they could to make the deal happen and accusing Sainsburys of sabotaging the deal on purpose. Its come out in court that the contract allows Sainsburys to walk away if the extended hours application gets rejected. It got rejected at 1st and thats where Sainsburys believe they can walk away. The fact that Sainsbury didnt show good faith and didnt do enough and may have sabotaged the deal on purpose is down to the judge but how this was suppose to be a "water tight contract" as Higgs said is unreal!
Higgs was quoted after the last day at court had finished that he hoped a result will be in place in 2-4 weeks. The court case finished 2 weeks ago today! And looking at todays list in court, the judge is on another case https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/court-lists/list-chancery-judges
The delivery hours were extended, they can now deliver 19 hours per day, the only time they can't deliver is between 12 midnight and 5am
Yes it was extended via an appeal. But as Sainsburys no longer want the site and they believe they have the right to terminate the contract from when it was 1st rejected. Its like playing a game of pool - Sainsburys Vs Rovers. A contract was set up saying whoever wins the 1st game is the champion. Sainsburys end up winning the game! (Extended hours rejected so they think thats it they can end the deal). Rovers say there was a foul on the winning shot! (Rovers claim Sainsburys did all they could to lose the extended hours application). Rovers want the game replayed! (Rovers took out a Writ to get Sainsburys to appeal against the rejected extended hours application). Sainsburys agreed to the game to be replayed! (Sainsburys thought the appeal will be rejected so just humoured Rovers to do the appeal). Rovers win the replay! (Extended hours accepted) Sainsburys claim they didnt foul in the 1st game and the replay should be void! (Sainsburys believe the wording in the contract allows them to end the deal after the 1st extended hours application was rejected). It then goes to court where a judge has to decide if Sainsburys are right to end the deal or if Rovers are right that Sainsburys didnt play fair. Sainsburys evidence is just the wording in the contract. Rovers evidence is what Sainsburys failed to do to get the extended hours application right in the 1st application and how they dragged their heels wasting time. Good luck to the judge!
Without copying all of your comment CJS, I think that is pretty much what this is all about. Not in question is that Sainsbury do not want to fulfil the contract. With any planning application it is not unusual for a minor point to be rejected or be subject to alteration. The council planning bods would feel that they were not doing their job properly if it were otherwise. Any honest individual without a devious intention would then submit an appeal to attempt to persuade the planning office to make things more favourable to the applicants requirements. That would be all part of the total process under normal circumstances. I do not agree however that Higgs was wrong to consider the contract watertight. Higgs had every right to assume that as the normal planning process had not been fully completed AND Sainsburys were, on appeal, given pretty much exactly what they were asking for in the original application, THAT the contract was watertight. It reverts to the big question for the legal decision HAVE SAINSBURYS FOUND A GET OUT CLAUSE IN A CONTRACT TO WHICH BOTH PARTIES AGREED WHICH ENABLES THEM TO LEGALLY TERMINATE THE CONTRACT - BEFORE ITS FAIR COMPLETION - OR NOT. PPS. Bear in mind that this contract was raised before the change in shopper's habits which so adversely affected the large stores..
I still think that looking at the top of this page if I supplied Sainsbury's with goods I would still ask for payment up front in case they changed their minds
Here is what has been in the press so far in June about our so-called "partners" http://bristolroverssc.co.uk/2015/06/11/sainsburys-june-news/
