Would all depend on the sum £10 million and Rovers may turn there heads I hope the deal is water tight and sainsburys play ball and follow the contract out.
Its always a gamble to settle for less when you feel you could win the full amount. But if Sainsbury have little confidence in winning the case is there any further point in them picking up extra costs in court.
Chancery Court Listings for the Mem Dispute COURT 17 Before MRS JUSTICE PROUDMAN Friday, 15 May 2015 At half past 10 TRIAL LIST HC-2014-001796 Sainsbury's Supermarkets Ltd v Bristol Rovers (1883) Ltd
I have just been reading some of the comments about Mrs Justice Proudman. T'would appear that she don't take prisoners
A High Court judge has heard opening arguments in a week-long legal battle over the future of Bristol's Memorial Stadium site. The hearing is to settle an ongoing dispute between Bristol Rovers and Sainsbury’s over a land deal involving the club's current home in Horfield. Mrs. Justice Proudman, sitting in London, was told the football club agreed a deal with the supermarket chain in 2011, as part of its plans to move to a new ground on the Frenchay campus of the University of the West of England (UWE). The terms of the deal were that Sainsbury's would buy the Memorial Stadium for £30 million and lease it back to the club for a peppercorn rent until its move to the new ground was completed - at which time a new supermarket would be built on the site. The club would use the money towards financing the building of the new 21,700-seat stadium. At the time the deal was made, the court heard, there was no planning permission or infrastructure in place, the costs were uncertain and Bristol Rovers were still negotiating with UWE. Lawyers for both sides today outlined their cases to the judge, as a six-day hearing got underway. Mark Wonnacott QC, for Sainsbury's, said the supermarket giants believes it 'lawfully terminated' the contract when various conditions were not met. But the club's barrister, David Matthias QC, argued the contract is either still running, or has been terminated in breach of its terms. The hearing continues. http://www.bristolrovers.co.uk/news...e-high-court-2458054.aspx#LKITQPsbvXWAxjX0.99
Sainsbury's were looking for a 'silver bullet’ to kill off its agreement with Bristol Rovers over the development of the Memorial Stadium, the High Court has heard. The supermarket giant is locked in a legal battle with the football club over a contract to buy and redevelop the site of the 'old-fashioned and dilapidated’ stadium. The deal, finalised in March 2012, was for Sainsbury's to buy the stadium for £30m, lease it back to the club for a peppercorn rent until a new community stadium on the University of the West of England's (UWE) Frenchay campus was completed, and then build a superstore and 65 flats on the site. Sainsbury's contends that it had every right to terminate the agreement last year, as it had not secured an 'acceptable' planning permission for the site by the contract 'cut off' date. But lawyers for the club today claimed the supermarket giant had been looking for a way out of its commitment to the club - which was 'critical' to Rovers’ long-held aspiration for a new stadium - from as early as June 2013. David Matthias QC, for the club, said the proposed store had become ‘less financially viable' amid a difficult trading climate and as a result of a nearby site being earmarked for redevelopment by rival chain, ASDA. He said Sainsbury's saw restrictions placed on its delivery times as an opportunity to get out of the contract and 'did nothing' from January 2014 to challenge those restrictions and get suitable planning permission. The club went back to Bristol City Council without Sainsbury's and managed to get the restrictions lifted in December last year. Cross-examining Chris Templeman, head of supermarket planning for the chain, Mr Matthias asked him about email exchanges relating to the proposed store. He said: "All you were talking about, in these exchanges, was ways out of the contract, wasn't it?" Mr Templeman replied: "What we were talking about was understanding what these planning conditions were and to what extent there were any that we considered to be onerous." He said the conditions, which included a ban on deliveries between 5am and 6am, would have affected the store's ability to be up and running, with the shelves fully stacked, when it opened. Mr Matthias then said: "You used the phrase 'silver bullet' - was that a silver bullet to kill off the agreement", to which Mr Templeman replied: "I'm not sure I necessarily had that in mind when I wrote that". The barrister also asked him what he had meant when he wrote: "It's good news for the chairman of Bristol Rovers FC", in response to an email about the grant of planning permission, in June 2013. Mr Matthias said: "The clear implication is it was not good news for Sainsbury's." Mr Templeman responded: "The clear implication is that, from my knowledge, this was a very high-profle project at the time, to secure not only a new home for Bristol Rovers, but also a new stadium for UWE. "The chairman had invested a lot of his own time in making the scheme happen so clearly the granting of planning permission to Sainsbury's, which unlocks the funding to deliver what has been an incredibly high-profile project, was good news". He added: "The scheme that was underpinning that was one which was financially beyond our hurdle rate, so yes, the prospect of either building a store that would not hit our financial hurdles or purchasing a site we would then have to sell at a loss would not be good news." Mr Matthias told Mrs Justice Proudman, hearing the case, that the club believes Sainsbury's has been in breach of its agreement since November 2013 and therefore had no right to terminate it - meaning it is still in existence. He said the agreement came about following a 'competitive bidding process’ with various supermarkets, which Sainsbury's emerged from as the winner, adding: “The completion of the sale of the site to the claimant (Sainsbury's) is critical to the defendant's (the club's) ambitions to deliver the new stadium." Mr Matthias argued that the supermarket chain should have taken steps to address the concerns of councillors and the public regarding the restrictions on delivery times, and that its failure to do so was a 'clear breach' of the agreement. He also said Sainsbury's should have told Bristol Rovers about the difficulties it faced with this aspect of the planning permission. He added: "This would have been an obvious step to have taken because of the defendant's ability to bring elements of political pressure to bear on elected members and galvanise the support of local residents, many of whom are supporters of the football club and are passionate about its ambition to relocate to the UWE stadium." The barrister said: "The true position is that no endeavours to secure an acceptable store planning permission whatsoever were employed after January 2014. "All of the claimant's endeavours after this point, such as they were, were directed towards terminating the agreement and 'running down the clock'." The hearing continues. http://www.bristolrovers.co.uk/news...ilver-bullet-2459105.aspx#6yOFF8dSCrvFYtQU.99
I thought that Rovers had the delivery times extended for Sainsbury's through the planning channels which was Sainsbury's main complaint to try and get out of the agreement
Is it this simple?? Sainsburys agreed to purchase the Mem etc. subject to contract. Sainsbury's detected that the recession was changing shopper's preferences which was causing financial difficulties for their large stores. They decided that they would do their utmost to pull out of their contract to purchase the Mem. Their withdrawal required that it would appear to be justifiable in law. Their tactic was to delay the completion of the planning application. To do this they ended any pursuance of the minor changes to detail required to complete the contract. They then called 'time-out' on the agreement despite the fact that Rovers have obtained all of the requirements which fulfil the contract. So is there a time out clause or not?? Well it cannot be that simple because Mrs Proudfoot QC has stated that after she has listened to six days of lawyers arguing the toss and being paid large sums of money, she is going to go away and spend time considering her verdict. Meanwhile does she get paid by the hour as well???
When Sainsburys applied for the extended hours, they did a half job of it. They didnt give full details of what they wanted and was very vague. Basically deliberately trying to get the application for extended hours rejected and then didnt want to appeal it as they wanted out of the deal and thought that was their way out of it. They didnt tell Rovers this obviously, they just wanted to drag out the time and then use that as an excuse. Eventually Rovers figured out Sainsburys wasnt playing fair so got a high court writ forcing Sainsburys to make an appeal which they had to do and Rovers said they will do all the work on the appeal on behalf of Sainsburys to make sure it was done correct as Rovers knew Sainsburys would mess up again. As a result, the appeal was won but Sainsburys then said the appeal decision was past the cut off date to get the full go ahead of the extended hours. So although Sainsburys got exactly what they wanted with the extended hours, where they dragged out time for so long and Rovers took their time working out that Sainsburys wasnt interested, by the time the appeal was done and accepted the cut off time had passed and although Sainsburys got the extended times, they wasnt really interested anyway in going ahead so are using the cut off date as their excuse. If they wanted, they could have easily have not worried about the cut off date and been delighted that they got the extended hours won on appeal fully paid for by Rovers! Basically they let Rovers pay for a Writ and Pay for the appeal knowing full well they didnt want to go ahead regardless of the result of the appeal. Where is the fairness?
Seen this today on another forum.... "Just spoke with our roving reporter. Sainsburys decision to call it off hinged on them getting a 12% return on their £30m investment. When they realised it would only be 7% return they had three choices. 1) Walk away and endure the bad publicity. 2) Build a smaller store and additional housing (which would achieve the 12% return) 3) Sell to a competitor. They chose the first option." Im pretty cheesed off about this. The greedy gits! No offer has been made from Sainsburys for compensation. I am lead to believe that the outcombe of this court case will be either Sainsburys winning so can walk away without paying anything, not even compensation or Sainsburys losing meaning will have to pay the FULL £30million and then decide to either build what they planned or take up option 2 or 3 above. If Sainburys lose the case, there will be a seperate court hearing about compensation that Sainsburys will have to cough up too. Of course Sainsburys may appeal again and again etc etc!
Haven't UWE given us a cut of time. and is the judge aware of this because I believe she is going to consider the case rather than give a quick judgement
If the court case fails, then UWE will walk away. They wont be prepared to wait for us to sale the mem again to someone else.
