|
Post by Curly Wurly on Jan 25, 2015 8:45:22 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 25, 2015 9:33:17 GMT
Dear oh dear You have an opinion, why the invective? Not sure what invective you mean? f******g is a cute way of checking people are actually reading what is written & not what they hope was written. And hypocrite is just my opinion (you've graciously / condescendingly confirmed we're allowed opinions) of people like you. Never did apologise for blaming Rovers over the Woking fiasco did you. Ha ha, really? Somethings never change
|
|
|
Post by michaelb on Jan 25, 2015 9:44:17 GMT
Once again, how do you know that they haven't already told Higgs that they are not only out but also the reasons why, within the terms of the contract, they believe that they are entitled to walk away? It could be that Higgs is just disputing their interpretation of the contract, in which case, he had better be employing Nick Freeman and not Nick Cotton or it could get very costly. Oh do read what is posted and keep up. As I have said all along it is my opinion / conjecture that Sainsburys have not legally exited the contract, based on some facts ie no confirmation to the markets. What you and all the others, who seem to want Rovers proven to be wrong, have failed is to provide any evidence that Sainsburys have legally exited the contract. But hey you have no evidence I have no evidence, you can carry on being a f******g hypocrite and present your opinion as fact as long as you want. Where we are at is both sides will now provide written evidence to the high court which will be put in front of a judge, he (I believe) can make one of two rulings either rovers don't have a leg to stand on (going against my view) or that there is a case to be heard (going against everyone else's view on here). I don't believe (but happy to be corrected) that he can judge against Sainsburys at that stage. Now if the judge goes the first way I'll unhappily come on here and admit I was barking up the wrong tree. But if he goes the second way none of the rest of you will come admitting your wrong, actually you'll probably all come back saying how you knew Sainsburys were on a sticky wicket, but hey that hypocrites for you. "either rovers don't have a leg to stand on (going against my view) or that there is a case to be heard (going against everyone else's view on here)." Not me Fella, I think you are right, I believe its more a case that Sainsbury's don't have a leg to stand on. However as I posted earlier I also think they haven't got anything to lose. The judge will either say pay up which they will and they have what they have wanted from day one,or they will beat the price down on the court steps ( which is what I believe they want) or the Judge will release them from what we believe are their obligations and they will re tender at a lower rate,possibly, but the third scenario is the unlikeliest IMO. One other point that I have not noticed anyone mention, but may of missed. Most seem to be assuming that Sainsbury's want to go to court,they have signed and entered into a contract of their own free will, no doubt after legal scrutiny, why would they want to go to court? and indeed they haven't yet ! I think this will be concluded on the court steps. Genuine questions to all, £30M for the Mem never seemed realistic to me, anybody have opinions on its value ? Is it possible that sainsbury's bid unrealistically high for this and other sites to see off competition.? Do they have a history of stalling on their builds or even potential builds they are currently involved in besides the Mem? I'm sure most will be aware of the supermarkets ploy of buying up a manufactures entire production line year after year until they are depending on, then they dictate the price he sells to them, I can't help but think there is a similar approach to this. But as always I am a married man and used to being wrong ! Read more: gasheads.org/thread/2160/sainsbury-7-215?page=13#ixzz3Pp85DduU
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 25, 2015 10:04:23 GMT
Oh do read what is posted and keep up. As I have said all along it is my opinion / conjecture that Sainsburys have not legally exited the contract, based on some facts ie no confirmation to the markets. What you and all the others, who seem to want Rovers proven to be wrong, have failed isBod provide any evidence that Sainsburys have legally exited the contract. But hey you have no evidence I have no evidence, you can carry on being a f******g hypocrite and present your opinion as fact as long as you want. Where we are at is both sides will now provide written evidence to the high court which will be put in front of a judge, he (I believe) can make one of two rulings either rovers don't have a leg to stand on (going against my view) or that there is a case to be heard (going against everyone else's view on here). I don't believe (but happy to be corrected) that he can judge against Sainsburys at that stage. Now if the judge goes the first way I'll unhappily come on here and admit I was barking up the wrong tree. But if he goes the second way none of the rest of you will come admitting your wrong, actually you'll probably all come back saying how you knew Sainsburys were on a sticky wicket, but hey that hypocrites for you. "either rovers don't have a leg to stand on (going against my view) or that there is a case to be heard (going against everyone else's view on here)." Not me Fella, I think you are right, I believe its more a case that Sainsbury's don't have a leg to stand on. However as I posted earlier I also think they haven't got anything to lose. The judge will either say pay up which they will and they have what they have wanted from day one,or they will beat the price down on the court steps ( which is what I believe they want) or the Judge will release them from what we believe are their obligations and they will re tender at a lower rate,possibly, but the third scenario is the unlikeliest IMO. One other point that I have not noticed anyone mention, but may of missed. Most seem to be assuming that Sainsbury's want to go to court,they have signed and entered into a contract of their own free will, no doubt after legal scrutiny, why would they want to go to court? and indeed they haven't yet ! I think this will be concluded on the court steps. Genuine questions to all, £30M for the Mem never seemed realistic to me, anybody have opinions on its value ? Is it possible that sainsbury's bid unrealistically high for this and other sites to see off competition.? Do they have a history of stalling on their builds or even potential builds they are currently involved in besides the Mem? I'm sure most will be aware of the supermarkets ploy of buying up a manufactures entire production line year after year until they are depending on, then they dictate the price he sells to them, I can't help but think there is a similar approach to this. But as always I am a married man and used to being wrong ! Read more: gasheads.org/thread/2160/sainsbury-7-215?page=13#ixzz3Pp85DduUYep on the price, but I guess beauty is in the eye of the beholder. I am sure they would have made the return on capital calculation, perhaps its that return which has evaporated in the current economic climate consuming supermarkets. Like everyone has said its down to the wording in the contract. My personal giew is that this episode exposes, once again, the frailties of the BoD
|
|
|
Post by michaelb on Jan 25, 2015 10:11:38 GMT
"either rovers don't have a leg to stand on (going against my view) or that there is a case to be heard (going against everyone else's view on here)." Not me Fella, I think you are right, I believe its more a case that Sainsbury's don't have a leg to stand on. However as I posted earlier I also think they haven't got anything to lose. The judge will either say pay up which they will and they have what they have wanted from day one,or they will beat the price down on the court steps ( which is what I believe they want) or the Judge will release them from what we believe are their obligations and they will re tender at a lower rate,possibly, but the third scenario is the unlikeliest IMO. One other point that I have not noticed anyone mention, but may of missed. Most seem to be assuming that Sainsbury's want to go to court,they have signed and entered into a contract of their own free will, no doubt after legal scrutiny, why would they want to go to court? and indeed they haven't yet ! I think this will be concluded on the court steps. Genuine questions to all, £30M for the Mem never seemed realistic to me, anybody have opinions on its value ? Is it possible that sainsbury's bid unrealistically high for this and other sites to see off competition.? Do they have a history of stalling on their builds or even potential builds they are currently involved in besides the Mem? I'm sure most will be aware of the supermarkets ploy of buying up a manufactures entire production line year after year until they are depending on, then they dictate the price he sells to them, I can't help but think there is a similar approach to this. But as always I am a married man and used to being wrong ! Read more: gasheads.org/thread/2160/sainsbury-7-215?page=13#ixzz3Pp85DduUYep on the price, but I guess beauty is in the eye of the beholder. I am sure they would have made the return on capital calculation, perhaps its that return which has evaporated in the current economic climate consuming supermarkets. Like everyone has said its down to the wording in the contract. My personal giew is that this episode exposes, once again, the frailties of the BoD Yes Oldie, I believe as you allude to that the Capital return has evaporated and thats why I also believe they would still like to acquire the site at a reduced price, in line with a recalculated Capital Return. We can all I'm sure concur with the past frailties of the BoD, but I am interested in what your opinion is of the frailties with regard to selling the Mem?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 25, 2015 10:44:53 GMT
Yep on the price, but I guess beauty is in the eye of the beholder. I am sure they would have made the return on capital calculation, perhaps its that return which has evaporated in the current economic climate consuming supermarkets. Like everyone has said its down to the wording in the contract. My personal giew is that this episode exposes, once again, the frailties of the BoD Yes Oldie, I believe as you allude to that the Capital return has evaporated and thats why I also believe they would still like to acquire the site at a reduced price, in line with a recalculated Capital Return. We can all I'm sure concur with the past frailties of the BoD, but I am interested in what your opinion is of the frailties with regard to selling the Mem? Hey Michael For me the key issues are those that are under the control of the BoD. They cannot control the market that affects the economics of the supermarket business, but they can control the way a key moment in the history of the club is communicated and managed. Their management of this issue in relation to their key stakeholders, the fan base, has been embarrasing and potentially disasterous.They give the impression that this has not been a logical process, based upon sound planning and comnercial discipline. You might agree that the messages eminating from the BoD has been misleading at best. This begs the question, is this deliberate or because they shoot from the hip due to the fact that they dont know what they are doing. A key question. Even if the full contract value is realised, the rumoured £30M, is that enough to build the stadium to its full specification and debt free as was the original proposition? If not, why have they not acted like Sainsburys, and made decisions to step off this path to nowhere? They could then re-evaluate a new plan for the club and communicate it, rather than blunder on regardless making themselves look increasingly foolish with each utterence.
|
|
|
Post by bluebeard on Jan 25, 2015 11:02:16 GMT
Yes Oldie, I believe as you allude to that the Capital return has evaporated and thats why I also believe they would still like to acquire the site at a reduced price, in line with a recalculated Capital Return. We can all I'm sure concur with the past frailties of the BoD, but I am interested in what your opinion is of the frailties with regard to selling the Mem? Hey Michael For me the key issues are those that are under the control of the BoD. They cannot control the market that affects the economics of the supermarket business, but they can control the way a key moment in the history of the club is communicated and managed. Their management of this issue in relation to their key stakeholders, the fan base, has been embarrasing and potentially disasterous.They give the impression that this has not been a logical process, based upon sound planning and comnercial discipline. You might agree that the messages eminating from the BoD has been misleading at best. This begs the question, is this deliberate or because they shoot from the hip due to the fact that they dont know what they are doing. A key question. Even if the full contract value is realised, the rumoured £30M, is that enough to build the stadium to its full specification and debt free as was the original proposition? If not, why have they not acted like Sainsburys, and made decisions to step off this path to nowhere? They could then re-evaluate a new plan for the club and communicate it, rather than blunder on regardless making themselves look increasingly foolish with each utterence. Your conclusion clearly is that they don't know what they're doing. Fair enough, there is plenty of historical evidence to support this. However, it could equally be true that statements made by the club have been deliberately aimed at Sainsburys and not intended as updates for supporters. Just like the Cheltenham fiasco, we may never know what was and is going on behind the scenes. If we come out of this with substantial legal bills and more debt than when we started the board will have failed. Under the circumstances, if we only come out of this with a positive bank balance, they will have succeeded.
|
|
|
Post by a more piratey game on Jan 25, 2015 11:27:57 GMT
argument in a phone box
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 25, 2015 11:40:54 GMT
Yep on the price, but I guess beauty is in the eye of the beholder. I am sure they would have made the return on capital calculation, perhaps it's that return which has evaporated in the current economic climate consuming supermarkets. Like everyone has said its down to the wording in the contract. My personal view is that this episode exposes, once again, the frailties of the BoD Yes Oldie, I believe as you allude to that the Capital return has evaporated and thats why I also believe they would still like to acquire the site at a reduced price, in line with a recalculated Capital Return. Don't they already own lots of large stores which are not giving them a RoI?
|
|
|
Post by michaelb on Jan 25, 2015 11:42:34 GMT
Yes Oldie, I believe as you allude to that the Capital return has evaporated and thats why I also believe they would still like to acquire the site at a reduced price, in line with a recalculated Capital Return. We can all I'm sure concur with the past frailties of the BoD, but I am interested in what your opinion is of the frailties with regard to selling the Mem? Hey Michael For me the key issues are those that are under the control of the BoD. They cannot control the market that affects the economics of the supermarket business, but they can control the way a key moment in the history of the club is communicated and managed. Their management of this issue in relation to their key stakeholders, the fan base, has been embarrasing and potentially disasterous.They give the impression that this has not been a logical process, based upon sound planning and comnercial discipline. You might agree that the messages eminating from the BoD has been misleading at best. This begs the question, is this deliberate or because they shoot from the hip due to the fact that they dont know what they are doing. A key question. Even if the full contract value is realised, the rumoured £30M, is that enough to build the stadium to its full specification and debt free as was the original proposition? If not, why have they not acted like Sainsburys, and made decisions to step off this path to nowhere? They could then re-evaluate a new plan for the club and communicate it, rather than blunder on regardless making themselves look increasingly foolish with each utterence. Thank you Oldie, I appreciate your comments,a variety of opinions in a healthy debate often changes viewpoints. I am of the opinion the points you make are fair and I think it all comes down to whether we believe or trust the word and actions of the individuals concerned.
|
|
|
Post by michaelb on Jan 25, 2015 11:43:59 GMT
Yes Oldie, I believe as you allude to that the Capital return has evaporated and thats why I also believe they would still like to acquire the site at a reduced price, in line with a recalculated Capital Return. Don't they already own lots of large stores which are not giving them a RoI? They may well do, I don't know. But I would of thought in a moving market they would close some and open others ?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 25, 2015 11:52:55 GMT
Don't they already own lots of large stores which are not giving them a RoI? They may well do, I don't know. But I would of thought in a moving market they would close some and open others ? Fair enough, but their latest report shows that the large stores are performing badly and that their 'Local' branches and internet/home delivery is propping up the overall trading figures. It didn't seem to be a question of physical location.
|
|
|
Post by Topper Gas on Jan 25, 2015 12:05:51 GMT
Yes Oldie, I believe as you allude to that the Capital return has evaporated and thats why I also believe they would still like to acquire the site at a reduced price, in line with a recalculated Capital Return. We can all I'm sure concur with the past frailties of the BoD, but I am interested in what your opinion is of the frailties with regard to selling the Mem? Hey Michael For me the key issues are those that are under the control of the BoD. They cannot control the market that affects the economics of the supermarket business, but they can control the way a key moment in the history of the club is communicated and managed. Their management of this issue in relation to their key stakeholders, the fan base, has been embarrasing and potentially disasterous.They give the impression that this has not been a logical process, based upon sound planning and comnercial discipline. You might agree that the messages eminating from the BoD has been misleading at best. This begs the question, is this deliberate or because they shoot from the hip due to the fact that they dont know what they are doing. A key question. Even if the full contract value is realised, the rumoured £30M, is that enough to build the stadium to its full specification and debt free as was the original proposition? If not, why have they not acted like Sainsburys, and made decisions to step off this path to nowhere? They could then re-evaluate a new plan for the club and communicate it, rather than blunder on regardless making themselves look increasingly foolish with each utterence. Out of interest as the £30m figure ever been confirmed officially, or even unofficially, by either party? Assuming it is this figure then the sums produced for the JR suggested the shop turnover was going to be around the £50m mark, so a £50/60m didn't seem to far off the mark assuming they were aiming for a ROI of 10%+? Sainsbury's etc do seem to have an history of trying to reduce the purchase price etc, they seem to have threatened to pull out of the Selly Oak store development in Birmingham until the council upped their contribution, although there's no indication Sainsbury's what to do anything but pull out of the Mem development. The big question is whether NH feels our case is good enough to run to a trial, if not what are Sainsbury's prepared to offer to buy of the litigation risk, assuming they are prepared to offer anything.
|
|
|
Post by CountyGroundHotel on Jan 25, 2015 12:11:51 GMT
They may well do, I don't know. But I would of thought in a moving market they would close some and open others ? Fair enough, but their latest report shows that the large stores are performing badly and that their 'Local' branches and internet/home delivery is propping up the overall trading figures. It didn't seem to be a question of physical location. That seems to be the picture being painted but how true is it. The internet is the growing ordering channel but that is delivered from the local superstore & won't work if delivered from the local convenience store as the range held there is to small. Location then does come into it as you won't be doing home delivery in Bristol from a store in Reading. You won't find out but I'd be really interested in how they 'measure' the costs of the internet business. Just an observation like!
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 25, 2015 12:26:39 GMT
Hey Michael For me the key issues are those that are under the control of the BoD. They cannot control the market that affects the economics of the supermarket business, but they can control the way a key moment in the history of the club is communicated and managed. Their management of this issue in relation to their key stakeholders, the fan base, has been embarrasing and potentially disasterous.They give the impression that this has not been a logical process, based upon sound planning and comnercial discipline. You might agree that the messages eminating from the BoD has been misleading at best. This begs the question, is this deliberate or because they shoot from the hip due to the fact that they dont know what they are doing. A key question. Even if the full contract value is realised, the rumoured £30M, is that enough to build the stadium to its full specification and debt free as was the original proposition? If not, why have they not acted like Sainsburys, and made decisions to step off this path to nowhere? They could then re-evaluate a new plan for the club and communicate it, rather than blunder on regardless making themselves look increasingly foolish with each utterence. Out of interest as the £30m figure ever been confirmed officially, or even unofficially, by either party? Assuming it is this figure then the sums produced for the JR suggested the shop turnover was going to be around the £50m mark, so a £50/60m didn't seem to far off the mark assuming they were aiming for a ROI of 10%+? Sainsbury's etc do seem to have an history of trying to reduce the purchase price etc, they seem to have threatened to pull out of the Selly Oak store development in Birmingham until the council upped their contribution, although there's no indication Sainsbury's what to do anything but pull out of the Mem development. The big question is whether NH feels our case is good enough to run to a trial, if not what are Sainsbury's prepared to offer to buy of the litigation risk, assuming they are prepared to offer anything. Topper The ROC is not calculated on turnover, but on profit, most likely EBITDA
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 25, 2015 12:32:27 GMT
Fair enough, but their latest report shows that the large stores are performing badly and that their 'Local' branches and internet/home delivery is propping up the overall trading figures. It didn't seem to be a question of physical location. That seems to be the picture being painted but how true is it. The internet is the growing ordering channel but that is delivered from the local superstore & won't work if delivered from the local convenience store as the range held there is to small. Location then does come into it as you won't be doing home delivery in Bristol from a store in Reading. You won't find out but I'd be really interested in how they 'measure' the costs of the internet business. Just an observation like! Good question, like most things to do with Sainsbury's, I have no idea, but they won't just be guessing, they will be applying some formula to understand what's actually happening and to make sure that one department isn't subsidising another. But either way, wouldn't you have to assume that they already have sufficient infrastructure to service local (north Bristol) home delivery orders? Their massive Abbey Wood store is less than 2 miles away, so they won't be sending home deliveries from Reading.
|
|
|
Post by michaelb on Jan 25, 2015 12:44:13 GMT
That seems to be the picture being painted but how true is it. The internet is the growing ordering channel but that is delivered from the local superstore & won't work if delivered from the local convenience store as the range held there is to small. Location then does come into it as you won't be doing home delivery in Bristol from a store in Reading. You won't find out but I'd be really interested in how they 'measure' the costs of the internet business. Just an observation like! Good question, like most things to do with Sainsbury's, I have no idea, but they won't just be guessing, they will be applying some formula to understand what's actually happening and to make sure that one department isn't subsidising another. But either way, wouldn't you have to assume that they already have sufficient infrastructure to service local (north Bristol) home delivery orders? Their massive Abbey Wood store is less than 2 miles away, so they won't be sending home deliveries from Reading. I'm inclined to agree they would not let another dept subsidise another, and personally I would apply that to stores, I don't think a poorly performing store would last too long. To raise another point, Supermarkets are bleating on about their financial performances, but they appear to still be making vast profits ,just not as much as they are used too, I suspect shareholders see that as a loss , but is it? I wouldn't mind taking a stab that the Abbeywood store has taken a substantial hit since Asda opened over the road, just by a lunchtime visit it is full of MoD employees that can get to Asda in their lunch break without extending it to visit Sainsbury's. No expert, but to me the location at the Mem is looking a more attractive one than Filton Abbeywood.
|
|
|
Post by Topper Gas on Jan 25, 2015 13:34:23 GMT
Out of interest as the £30m figure ever been confirmed officially, or even unofficially, by either party? Assuming it is this figure then the sums produced for the JR suggested the shop turnover was going to be around the £50m mark, so a £50/60m didn't seem to far off the mark assuming they were aiming for a ROI of 10%+? Sainsbury's etc do seem to have an history of trying to reduce the purchase price etc, they seem to have threatened to pull out of the Selly Oak store development in Birmingham until the council upped their contribution, although there's no indication Sainsbury's what to do anything but pull out of the Mem development. The big question is whether NH feels our case is good enough to run to a trial, if not what are Sainsbury's prepared to offer to buy of the litigation risk, assuming they are prepared to offer anything. Topper The ROC is not calculated on turnover, but on profit, most likely EBITDA I appreciate that but not certain what profit margins a supermarket works on, I'm guessing about 25% pre Aldi/Lidl, if so, a £10m+ return p.a. on a £50m/£ 60m seemed sound business sense when the contract was signed. Now post Aldi/Lidl I guess the figures don't stack up and we look like being the one's that suffer.
|
|
|
Post by CountyGroundHotel on Jan 25, 2015 13:49:23 GMT
That seems to be the picture being painted but how true is it. The internet is the growing ordering channel but that is delivered from the local superstore & won't work if delivered from the local convenience store as the range held there is to small. Location then does come into it as you won't be doing home delivery in Bristol from a store in Reading. You won't find out but I'd be really interested in how they 'measure' the costs of the internet business. Just an observation like! Good question, like most things to do with Sainsbury's, I have no idea, but they won't just be guessing, they will be applying some formula to understand what's actually happening and to make sure that one department isn't subsidising another. But either way, wouldn't you have to assume that they already have sufficient infrastructure to service local (north Bristol) home delivery orders? Their massive Abbey Wood store is less than 2 miles away, so they won't be sending home deliveries from Reading. Don't disagree. just a feeling that things go in circles, this year they are cutting back on big stores because of the internet, next year they want more large stores to meet the growing internet demand. Maybe? i had even wondered if the reason that Sainsburys have not legally pulled the plug on the contract is to keep the site as a possibility if things either improve in the retail sector or to ensure they can meet further internet demand, a sort of best of both worlds (of course the other reason maybe that as long as the contract is still in place no-one else can get their hands on the site if there is a 'someone' else). As to geographical coverage it's both a general point & a specific point. The general point being that there won't be a mass closing of stores as they need to ensure a reasonable coverage. The specific point is that I don't think that logic would save the Mem site on it's own because of the Filton store (as you say) would have to big a local geographic overlap.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 25, 2015 15:01:26 GMT
Good question, like most things to do with Sainsbury's, I have no idea, but they won't just be guessing, they will be applying some formula to understand what's actually happening and to make sure that one department isn't subsidising another. But either way, wouldn't you have to assume that they already have sufficient infrastructure to service local (north Bristol) home delivery orders? Their massive Abbey Wood store is less than 2 miles away, so they won't be sending home deliveries from Reading. Don't disagree. just a feeling that things go in circles, this year they are cutting back on big stores because of the internet, next year they want more large stores to meet the growing internet demand. Maybe? i had even wondered if the reason that Sainsburys have not legally pulled the plug on the contract is to keep the site as a possibility if things either improve in the retail sector or to ensure they can meet further internet demand, a sort of best of both worlds (of course the other reason maybe that as long as the contract is still in place no-one else can get their hands on the site if there is a 'someone' else). As to geographical coverage it's both a general point & a specific point. The general point being that there won't be a mass closing of stores as they need to ensure a reasonable coverage. The specific point is that I don't think that logic would save the Mem site on it's own because of the Filton store (as you say) would have to big a local geographic overlap. Unless Aldi and Lidl change their pricing or quality then they will both be here for the forseeable. I don't think that the internet will go away either. Those don't look like circular factors to me? I don't want to open up yesterday's bickering again, but only a small number of people really know what's going on, things aren't always what they appear to be. With Rovers, nothing would surprise me.
|
|