faggotygas
Byron Anthony
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 1,862
|
Post by faggotygas on Dec 9, 2014 12:41:02 GMT
If they were not in a contract that was tight, they would have pulled out already. They can't delay it for years Jeez man, this is a family forum
|
|
brizzle
Lindsay Parsons
No Buy . . . No Sell!
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 4,293
|
Post by brizzle on Dec 9, 2014 13:04:04 GMT
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.
Right, that's that sorted out then. Never mind the fine contractual detail, that'll sort itself out one way or the other given time. Perhaps the next item on the agenda should now be Inward Investment (The Lack Of). I do wonder if the Chairman is still vetting the interested parties as was reported recently? I fully accept that one of my failings is being a little on the impatient side, but there always seems to be something to be impatient about at BRFC.
|
|
Peter Parker
Global Moderator
Richard Walker
You have been sentenced to DELETION!
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 4,920
|
Post by Peter Parker on Dec 9, 2014 13:20:34 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. and if it was full steam ahead, surely we would have had the news trumpeted from the hill tops by now
Who knows what the legal position is, but I would think it is clear that there are protracted discussions on this
|
|
Peter Parker
Global Moderator
Richard Walker
You have been sentenced to DELETION!
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 4,920
|
Post by Peter Parker on Dec 9, 2014 13:21:17 GMT
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.
Right, that's that sorted out then. Never mind the fine contractual detail, that'll sort itself out one way or the other given time. Perhaps the next item on the agenda should now be Inward Investment (The Lack Of). I do wonder if the Chairman is still vetting the interested parties as was reported recently? I fully accept that one of my failings is being a little on the impatient side, but there always seems to be something to be impatient about at BRFC. Have we identified an I.T specialist yet?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 9, 2014 13:28:16 GMT
Right, that's that sorted out then. Never mind the fine contractual detail, that'll sort itself out one way or the other given time. Perhaps the next item on the agenda should now be Inward Investment (The Lack Of). I do wonder if the Chairman is still vetting the interested parties as was reported recently? I fully accept that one of my failings is being a little on the impatient side, but there always seems to be something to be impatient about at BRFC. Have we identified an I.T specialist yet? Ha ha These modern epos systems are a bugger, especially those that you can buy off the shelf Sure Henbury would cut a deal for Nick
|
|
brizzle
Lindsay Parsons
No Buy . . . No Sell!
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 4,293
|
Post by brizzle on Dec 9, 2014 13:35:24 GMT
Right, that's that sorted out then. Never mind the fine contractual detail, that'll sort itself out one way or the other given time. Perhaps the next item on the agenda should now be Inward Investment (The Lack Of). I do wonder if the Chairman is still vetting the interested parties as was reported recently? I fully accept that one of my failings is being a little on the impatient side, but there always seems to be something to be impatient about at BRFC. Have we identified an I.T specialist yet? . . . and if this IT specialist had a few spare bob, so much the better. It might cut down on the interviews at the very least.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 9, 2014 13:48:00 GMT
Have we identified an I.T specialist yet? Ha ha These modern epos systems are a bugger, especially those that you can buy off the shelf Sure Henbury would cut a deal for Nick
Done and dusted Mate !
|
|
|
Post by mehewmagic on Dec 9, 2014 13:48:13 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? easy for me to remember as it was the day my son was born! 16th Jan 2013 Thank god it wasn't the wedding anniversary
|
|
|
Post by Topper Gas on Dec 9, 2014 13:57:46 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. and if it was full steam ahead, surely we would have had the news trumpeted from the hill tops by now
Who knows what the legal position is, but I would think it is clear that there are protracted discussions on this
Then again Sainsbury's could simply be refusing to negotiate? HG's referred to a Writ being issued earlier on in this thread, if that's going to be issued it doesn't sound promising that negotiations are on still on going?
|
|
|
Post by Curly Wurly on Dec 9, 2014 14:25:13 GMT
Then again Sainsbury's could simply be refusing to negotiate? HG's referred to a Writ being issued earlier on in this thread, if that's going to be issued it doesn't sound promising that negotiations are on still on going? Unless I misunderstand you Topper, I think you are out of date. A claim was issued on 17th July 2014 by Rovers against Sainsbury's for breach of contract. The basis of the claim being that Sainsbury's refused to appeal the Council's original decision not to grant extended delivery hours, despite Rovers offering to fund the appeal and a new Noise impact assessment. I thought that as the appeal had gone ahead (and was successful) the claim had been dropped. Possibly I had assumed this, but would welcome confirmation that there are no current legal proceedings between Rovers and Sainsbury's.
|
|
faggotygas
Byron Anthony
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 1,862
|
Post by faggotygas on Dec 9, 2014 15:34:10 GMT
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.
If there is no wrinkle, then why would UWE be dead? Surely the only outcome would be enforcement of the contract, or compensation of equal overall value?
|
|
LPGas
Stuart Taylor
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 1,240
|
Post by LPGas on Dec 9, 2014 17:07:17 GMT
I thought Higgs said there would be good news in November (note it is December the 9th)
|
|
LPGas
Stuart Taylor
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 1,240
|
Post by LPGas on Dec 9, 2014 17:08:37 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?? They said that they would build less "out of town " developments"
|
|
LPGas
Stuart Taylor
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 1,240
|
Post by LPGas on Dec 9, 2014 17:10:11 GMT
So, 5 to 10 million in compo, or 31 million and have a big addition to their land bank. I think the second makes most sense, after all the price of land never goes down
|
|
brizzle
Lindsay Parsons
No Buy . . . No Sell!
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 4,293
|
Post by brizzle on Dec 9, 2014 17:21:13 GMT
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.
If there is no wrinkle, then why would UWE be dead? Surely the only outcome would be enforcement of the contract, or compensation of equal overall value?I like the sound of that one, it must be the only logical way forward. Having said that I don't like the use of the word ''enforcement,'' I much prefer the ''natural fruition'' of the contract.
|
|
|
Post by Topper Gas on Dec 9, 2014 19:14:08 GMT
So, 5 to 10 million in compo, or 31 million and have a big addition to their land bank. I think the second makes most sense, after all the price of land never goes down The price will go down if you pay over the odds for it, if the land is not suitable for a supermarket etc then it's only value is for housing? That could well be Sainsbury's argument, whether that stands up in court is anybodies guess. But if we take say £10m in compo, then pay off the debts/loans it doesn't leave a lot for the Mem Development?
|
|
|
Post by tauntongas on Dec 9, 2014 19:48:51 GMT
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.
How are we able to confirm that Sainsburys are contractually obligated to buy the land?
|
|
|
Post by onedaytheuwe on Dec 9, 2014 20:10:49 GMT
The first step is to 'sign off' the extended hours without any legal challenge. This is due in mid January and until this have avoided some eco anti - supermarket group . It is meaningless debating things further. I say this because anything can happen on the last day.
The question whether 'they got anything on us' or 'we got um' is a bit like a boxing match. Of course we will say " The five areas have been addressed". They may argue " Give us time to re-evaluate".
Talking to some people in the know. No-one can give me a 'cast iron' nod it will 100% go our way. They are confident and once mid jan is up. The focus and spotlight will be on Sainsbury's to justify their delay. That's all we can do!. We need to Wait to mid January and then NH to give us updates in spring 2015.
But I do feel it is all or nothing. Either 'we got um ' and we force them to purchase the land or ' they got us' and we just dunno...
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 9, 2014 20:14:42 GMT
It would be interesting to know what Chris Jelf's immediate to short term (2/3 years) plans are in terms of being a board member.
40% increase on profits this year up to 6.5m for 2014, and dividends raised to set incentives for a takeover bid.
Seem to recall loose forum talk a while ago about him, not sure if it was talk of him challenging the hot seat or distancing himself from the board.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 9, 2014 21:15:44 GMT
It would be interesting to know what Chris Jelf's immediate to short term (2/3 years) plans are in terms of being a board member. 40% increase on profits this year up to 6.5m for 2014, and dividends raised to set incentives for a takeover bid. Seem to recall loose forum talk a while ago about him, not sure if it was talk of him challenging the hot seat or distancing himself from the board. Profits of what? His own business?
|
|