|
Post by Blue Mist on Dec 9, 2014 0:14:49 GMT
can someone remind me of how long ago it was that I watched the webcam view of a council meeting where the gashead with the blond pudding bowl made the excellent speech and we won the vote - it seems years? I remember watching that and actually believing a stadium would be built. What a sucker!
|
|
|
Post by a more piratey game on Dec 9, 2014 0:23:59 GMT
can someone remind me of how long ago it was that I watched the webcam view of a council meeting where the gashead with the blond pudding bowl made the excellent speech and we won the vote - it seems years? I remember watching that and actually believing a stadium would be built. What a sucker! Yup, me too PS thanks Gasmacc
|
|
kingswood Polak
Without music life would be a mistake
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 10,278
|
Post by kingswood Polak on Dec 9, 2014 0:42:43 GMT
Such a shame we have people name calling and attempting to point score on spelling. I thought we we all Rovers fans but, like Orwell wrote, some fans are more equal than others. Bloody sad indictment to read such venom over an innocent question.
|
|
|
Post by gasshole on Dec 9, 2014 5:10:23 GMT
They're trying to decide where to put the fruit and veg they are hoping near to the chocolate but until a judicial review into that decision happens we are no nearer to finding out. with idiots like you as a fan know wonder the club is in s*** street I'm president of the idiots club. Our mantra is "There's no I in idiot"...( team thing) currently recruiting
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 9, 2014 7:12:41 GMT
I think the fun starts when the high court Writ starts to bite as it covers all our current and on going costs including lost revenue from the new stadium for both BRFC & UWE, so i'm told by people that know about these things.......
|
|
lockleazer
Tarki Micalleff
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 411
|
Post by lockleazer on Dec 9, 2014 8:30:56 GMT
I think the fun starts when the high court Writ starts to bite as it covers all our current and on going costs including lost revenue from the new stadium for both BRFC & UWE, so i'm told by people that know about these things....... Surely there has been no lost revenue yet ? TRASH and the JR wasnt JS fault or carstairs sad attempts to derail or the appeal on opening hours , its only going to be from jan 2015 that Sainsburys are going to be totally to blame for any further delays, even then wont it only be 6/months to a year off field revenue as with the build time inc we wouldnt be able to be 'in ' till 2016/17 season anyway now? Dont get me wrong im on our side but Sainsburys are only going to be at fault from Jan onwards? and i assume we cant sue TRASH/Cairstairs ect? Im sure we can claim back Lawyers fess and the wages off the 2 security blokes sat up at the UWE site maybe even the guard dogs food and vets bills but in the grand scheme of things i cant see it being much help if sainsburys dont want to but the mem. The intresting bit is when Rovers Reveal their plan B (no laughing at the back please) , The board have had plenty of time to prepare for this now, they have known Sainsburys wanted out and hopefully have spoke to other interested parties and liased with the council about what could or could not go on the site of the mem. one things for sure... i cant see any of us minnions knowing much for a month or so longer
|
|
|
Post by Topper Gas on Dec 9, 2014 8:36:53 GMT
The club can clearly sue for loss of future profits, if the staduim was going to generate say just a £1m extra profit a year that soon builds up to a tidy sum? Although if we have reached that stage I assume that means Sainsbury's have now finally indicated they won't be paying up, if so, this saga could run of for years. Meanwhile we can revert to Plan B until we know how much compo, if any, Sainsbury's will be forced to pay.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 9, 2014 8:51:17 GMT
The club can clearly sue for loss of future profits, if the staduim was going to generate say just a £1m extra profit a year that soon builds up to a tidy sum? Although if we have reached that stage I assume that means Sainsbury's have now finally indicated they won't be paying up, if so, this saga could run of for years. Meanwhile we can revert to Plan B until we know how much compo, if any, Sainsbury's will be forced to pay. If they did, sue for loss of profits, that would be an interesting one. They cannot claim a track record of running a successful commercial enterprise to date can they, so the basis would have to be a credible business plan. Does anyone actually believe they have one?
|
|
faggotygas
Byron Anthony
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 1,862
|
Post by faggotygas on Dec 9, 2014 9:01:43 GMT
They're trying to decide where to put the fruit and veg they are hoping near to the chocolate but until a judicial review into that decision happens we are no nearer to finding out. with idiots like you as a fan know wonder the club is in s*** street I wouldn't say that following Rovers is idiotic, but you would have thought that a sense of humour would be a requirement at least. Cheer up grumps, its just a joke.
|
|
|
Post by PeterHooper57 on Dec 9, 2014 10:20:10 GMT
Thought box 1 said if the project was going to proceed they would be on site March 2015; therefore, I would imagine Higgs is currently trying to sort out a satisfactory level of compensation with Sainsburys, as they have said their business strategy is not to build any more large stores. I personally think the UWE project will fall on its **** and Higgs may you use the compensation to refurbish the shabby old MEM. Utg
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 9, 2014 10:52:27 GMT
Thought box 1 said if the project was going to proceed they would be on site March 2015; therefore, I would imagine Higgs is currently trying to sort out a satisfactory level of compensation with Sainsburys, as they have said their business strategy is not to build any more large stores. I personally think the UWE project will fall on its **** and Higgs may you use the compensation to refurbish the shabby old MEM. Utg or take the money and run and who would blame him after abuse he gets on here
|
|
|
Post by Antonio Fargas on Dec 9, 2014 10:56:34 GMT
Thought box 1 said if the project was going to proceed they would be on site March 2015; therefore, I would imagine Higgs is currently trying to sort out a satisfactory level of compensation with Sainsburys, as they have said their business strategy is not to build any more large stores. I personally think the UWE project will fall on its **** and Higgs may you use the compensation to refurbish the shabby old MEM. Utg or take the money and run and who would blame him after abuse he gets on here Yes, of course, because getting abuse for not running the club properly means you should not run the club properly. (If you're 5 years old, maybe.)
|
|
|
Post by daniel300380 on Dec 9, 2014 11:16:29 GMT
Thought box 1 said if the project was going to proceed they would be on site March 2015; therefore, I would imagine Higgs is currently trying to sort out a satisfactory level of compensation with Sainsburys, as they have said their business strategy is not to build any more large stores. I personally think the UWE project will fall on its **** and Higgs may you use the compensation to refurbish the shabby old MEM. Utg When did Sainsburys say that? I thought they said they were going to build LESS large stores, not no large stores. Now that the delivery times suit them, they might decide to go ahead with this store, it would be as good as any other for them. They would get money back for the mixed use areas, ie the housing as part of the scheme. Think we have to wait and see what happens, but I wouldn't be suprised if Sainsburys go ahead with the store and if they don't they have already said they have millions to write of projects that they are commuted too. Either way hopefully they will pay up early next year. If our contract is tight now, why would we accept compensation? If they are contracted to buy the site??
|
|
brizzle
Lindsay Parsons
No Buy . . . No Sell!
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 4,293
|
Post by brizzle on Dec 9, 2014 11:54:00 GMT
Thought box 1 said if the project was going to proceed they would be on site March 2015; therefore, I would imagine Higgs is currently trying to sort out a satisfactory level of compensation with Sainsburys, as they have said their business strategy is not to build any more large stores. I personally think the UWE project will fall on its **** and Higgs may you use the compensation to refurbish the shabby old MEM. Utg When did Sainsburys say that? I thought they said they were going to build LESS large stores, not no large stores. Now that the delivery times suit them, they might decide to go ahead with this store, it would be as good as any other for them. They would get money back for the mixed use areas, ie the housing as part of the scheme. Think we have to wait and see what happens, but I wouldn't be suprised if Sainsburys go ahead with the store and if they don't they have already said they have millions to write of projects that they are commuted too. Either way hopefully they will pay up early next year. If our contract is tight now, why would we accept compensation? If they are contracted to buy the site?? . . . and that is the nub of the matter, the proverbial $1m Dollar Question so to speak.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 9, 2014 11:58:36 GMT
When did Sainsburys say that? I thought they said they were going to build LESS large stores, not no large stores. Now that the delivery times suit them, they might decide to go ahead with this store, it would be as good as any other for them. They would get money back for the mixed use areas, ie the housing as part of the scheme. Think we have to wait and see what happens, but I wouldn't be suprised if Sainsburys go ahead with the store and if they don't they have already said they have millions to write of projects that they are commuted too. Either way hopefully they will pay up early next year. If our contract is tight now, why would we accept compensation? If they are contracted to buy the site?? . . . and that is the nub of the matter, the proverbial $1m Dollar Question so to speak. Is there any doubt that they are? I think not. Its the "subject to" clauses that will allow them an exit, if they are not satisfied.
That's probably coming down to a legal interpretation in the courts, unless one party blinks first.
|
|
|
Post by Topper Gas on Dec 9, 2014 12:00:19 GMT
The club can clearly sue for loss of future profits, if the staduim was going to generate say just a £1m extra profit a year that soon builds up to a tidy sum? Although if we have reached that stage I assume that means Sainsbury's have now finally indicated they won't be paying up, if so, this saga could run of for years. Meanwhile we can revert to Plan B until we know how much compo, if any, Sainsbury's will be forced to pay. If they did, sue for loss of profits, that would be an interesting one. They cannot claim a track record of running a successful commercial enterprise to date can they, so the basis would have to be a credible business plan. Does anyone actually believe they have one? Even if they haven't no doubt they can get somebody to draw one up, the problem is if Sainsbury's don't want to play ball how long could a legal case take to be heard, a couple of years, then there's always the chance of an appeal delaying the decision another year. if we do isseu a writ you can see that being the end of the UWE any chance of a new ground/Mem re-development taking place for years.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 9, 2014 12:12:29 GMT
If they did, sue for loss of profits, that would be an interesting one. They cannot claim a track record of running a successful commercial enterprise to date can they, so the basis would have to be a credible business plan. Does anyone actually believe they have one? Even if they haven't no doubt they can get somebody to draw one up, the problem is if Sainsbury's don't want to play ball how long could a legal case take to be heard, a couple of years, then there's always the chance of an appeal delaying the decision another year. if we do isseu a writ you can see that being the end of the UWE any chance of a new ground/Mem re-development taking place for years. Sorry But that made me laugh Would you be happy that your board of directors went into a major £30M+ development without a business plan? That's what your first line suggests
|
|
|
Post by daniel300380 on Dec 9, 2014 12:16:05 GMT
If they were not in a contract that was tight, they would have pulled out already. They can't delay it for years because of the writ. It would cost them millions more if they delayed it. They will take that into consideration when deciding what stores to build.
|
|
brizzle
Lindsay Parsons
No Buy . . . No Sell!
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 4,293
|
Post by brizzle on Dec 9, 2014 12:19:28 GMT
. . . and that is the nub of the matter, the proverbial $1m Dollar Question so to speak. Is there any doubt that they are? I think not. Its the "subject to" clauses that will allow them an exit, if they are not satisfied.
That's probably coming down to a legal interpretation in the courts, unless one party blinks first.
So to clarify, is the answer to the question . . . ''yes they are?'' But then again, and depending on how you read the contract, if it were possible for you to read the contract of course (and whoever you might be employed by would also have a bearing on your opinion), the answer might well be . . . ''maybe not.''It's a bit of a tangled web, this one.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 9, 2014 12:36:30 GMT
Is there any doubt that they are? I think not. Its the "subject to" clauses that will allow them an exit, if they are not satisfied.
That's probably coming down to a legal interpretation in the courts, unless one party blinks first.
So to clarify, is the answer to the question . . . ''yes they are?'' But then again, and depending on how you read the contract, if it were possible for you to read the contract of course (and whoever you might be employed by would also have a bearing on your opinion), the answer might well be . . . ''maybe not.''It's a bit of a tangled web, this one. Yes they are. Subject to onerous conditions. That was the wording I believe. If the conditions are satisfied, which I think they have been, then its down to the QC's to find a wrinkle. Is there one? My personal opinion is that if there was it would already be out in the open. I suspect that Sainsburys are negotiating the terms of the cancellation of the contract, hence the silence. On that basis the UWE is dead unless alternative funding is found, I believe. Where does that leave the business plan....no impact, because there wasn't one.
|
|