Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 25, 2015 15:30:51 GMT
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.I yeah, no bickering
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 25, 2015 16:38:34 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 BoDReally ? Sounds like that old chestnut "the Hidden Agenda" to me
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 25, 2015 16:39:57 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. So why are Tesco also closing 45 "Express" stores this year including 3 in Bristol ?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 25, 2015 16:43:09 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 BoDReally ? Sounds like that old chestnut "the Hidden Agenda" to me Keep up
|
|
|
Post by swissgas on Jan 25, 2015 16:48:26 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 BoDReally ? Sounds like that old chestnut "the Hidden Agenda" to me If members of the board were feeling particularly frail might they take repayment of their own unsecured loans and arrange for the company to replace that cash with secured loans from MSP Capital ? And if they did so would they try to keep that information hidden ?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 25, 2015 16:53:16 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. So why are Tesco also closing 45 "Express" stores this year including 3 in Bristol ? Because, just like Sainsbury's, they are already over-commited with retail outlets. The Sainsbury's report was copied on here, along with a surprisingly candid analysis from Mike Coupe in December, sorry if the facts don't sit with your agenda.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 25, 2015 16:56:01 GMT
Really ? Sounds like that old chestnut "the Hidden Agenda" to me If members of the board were feeling particularly frail might they take repayment of their own unsecured loans and arrange for the company to replace that cash with secured loans from MSP Capital ? And if they did so would they try to keep that information hidden ? Yeah Trym
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 25, 2015 16:58:23 GMT
So why are Tesco also closing 45 "Express" stores this year including 3 in Bristol ? Because, just like Sainsbury's, they are already over-commited with retail outlets. The Sainsbury's report was copied on here, along with a surprisingly candid analysis from Mike Coupe in December, sorry if the facts don't sit with your agenda. Its hidden I tell you, hidden
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 25, 2015 17:23:36 GMT
So why are Tesco also closing 45 "Express" stores this year including 3 in Bristol ? Because, just like Sainsbury's, they are already over-commited with retail outlets. The Sainsbury's report was copied on here, along with a surprisingly candid analysis from Mike Coupe in December, sorry if the facts don't sit with your agenda. I was referring to your comment about small shops propping up there profits, if they are why shut them ?? I think they are losing money had of fist on all there operations down to price I went in the ASDA Hyper market at Cribbs the other day and it was packed out - all down to price !
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 25, 2015 17:36:14 GMT
Because, just like Sainsbury's, they are already over-commited with retail outlets. The Sainsbury's report was copied on here, along with a surprisingly candid analysis from Mike Coupe in December, sorry if the facts don't sit with your agenda. I was referring to your comment about small shops propping up their profits, if they are why shut them? I think they are losing money hand-over-fist on all their operations down to price. I went in the ASDA Hypermarket at Cribbs the other day and it was packed out - all down to price! Then why not put a bit of effort in and read what Coupe said for yourself? All I'm doing is telling you what Sainsbury's CEO stated their trading figures were. Ref Adsa being busy, again, had you read what Coupe said at the start of this month you would know that large stores are serving more customers, are selling more items but are still making smaller profits.
|
|
|
Post by swissgas on Jan 25, 2015 18:47:11 GMT
If members of the board were feeling particularly frail might they take repayment of their own unsecured loans and arrange for the company to replace that cash with secured loans from MSP Capital ? And if they did so would they try to keep that information hidden ? Yeah Trym My question is an unpopular one on both forums. I don't know whether it's because fans are frightened of what the answer might be ? The majority of fans are not interested in speculation about how the court case will go and say we can't influence it either way so they prefer to forget about it and concentrate on the football. But IMO the minority who find it interesting in speculating are getting bogged down in arguments about Sainsburys intentions. What might yield something more useful is debate about the boards intentions and trying to interpret the signals they are giving. If it was confirmed that the MSP Capital money has only been used to pay off Geoff and the Bank and that no other directors unsecured loans have been paid off I think it would send a very positive signal that the board are united and up for the fight and, win or lose the court case, they are putting the interests of the club first.
|
|
womble
Arthur Cartlidge
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 300
|
Post by womble on Jan 25, 2015 19:25:27 GMT
My question is an unpopular one on both forums. I don't know whether it's because fans are frightened of what the answer might be ? The majority of fans are not interested in speculation about how the court case will go and say we can't influence it either way so they prefer to forget about it and concentrate on the football. But IMO the minority who find it interesting in speculating are getting bogged down in arguments about Sainsburys intentions. What might yield something more useful is debate about the boards intentions and trying to interpret the signals they are giving. If it was confirmed that the MSP Capital money has only been used to pay off Geoff and the Bank and that no other directors unsecured loans have been paid off I think it would send a very positive signal that the board are united and up for the fight and, win or lose the court case, they are putting the interests of the club first. An interesting point Swiss. One that may well not be resolved until the next set of accounts appear.
|
|
|
Post by swissgas on Jan 25, 2015 20:08:18 GMT
My question is an unpopular one on both forums. I don't know whether it's because fans are frightened of what the answer might be ? The majority of fans are not interested in speculation about how the court case will go and say we can't influence it either way so they prefer to forget about it and concentrate on the football. But IMO the minority who find it interesting in speculating are getting bogged down in arguments about Sainsburys intentions. What might yield something more useful is debate about the boards intentions and trying to interpret the signals they are giving. If it was confirmed that the MSP Capital money has only been used to pay off Geoff and the Bank and that no other directors unsecured loans have been paid off I think it would send a very positive signal that the board are united and up for the fight and, win or lose the court case, they are putting the interests of the club first. An interesting point Swiss. One that may well not be resolved until the next set of accounts appear. Thanks for responding womble. You are right that on past form we won't know until the next accounts are published and some might even say "we should not be questioning the board now because we must all stand together and fight Sainsburys " Which would be similar to those responses we used to get when mid-season protests were suggested and the line was "now is not the time for questioning we should all stand together and leave that till the season is over" (and everyone is on holiday) If Rovers fans are being asked to "keep the faith" then it only seems right that the board also show they too are "keeping the faith". If we knew their loans were still there and still unsecured I think it would give us all a lot more confidence in the future.
|
|
The Gas
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 484
|
Post by The Gas on Jan 25, 2015 20:26:18 GMT
The next set of accounts will only be up to the end of June 2014 and most recent changes - loans paid off, new loans and Directors shareholdings etc will not appear in these accounts.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 25, 2015 20:33:22 GMT
An interesting point Swiss. One that may well not be resolved until the next set of accounts appear. Thanks for responding womble. You are right that on past form we won't know until the next accounts are published and some might even say "we should not be questioning the board now because we must all stand together and fight Sainsburys " Which would be similar to those responses we used to get when mid-season protests were suggested and the line was "now is not the time for questioning we should all stand together and leave that till the season is over" (and everyone is on holiday) If Rovers fans are being asked to "keep the faith" then it only seems right that the board also show they too are "keeping the faith". If we knew their loans were still there and still unsecured I think it would give us all a lot more confidence in the future. Swiss If directors loans are secured wont this be registered at companies house
|
|
|
Post by Mr Pond on Jan 25, 2015 20:49:07 GMT
Do you think GD shares have also been bought ? If the UWE goes through the share value would increase quite considerably wouldn't they?
|
|
|
Post by swissgas on Jan 25, 2015 20:52:20 GMT
Thanks for responding womble. You are right that on past form we won't know until the next accounts are published and some might even say "we should not be questioning the board now because we must all stand together and fight Sainsburys " Which would be similar to those responses we used to get when mid-season protests were suggested and the line was "now is not the time for questioning we should all stand together and leave that till the season is over" (and everyone is on holiday) If Rovers fans are being asked to "keep the faith" then it only seems right that the board also show they too are "keeping the faith". If we knew their loans were still there and still unsecured I think it would give us all a lot more confidence in the future. Swiss If directors loans are secured wont this be registered at companies house Yes they would Oldie. And, as The Gas says, the recent transactions will not show up until the June 2015 accounts which we shall see in 2016 I think it was only Geoff's Deltavon loan which was actually secured by a charge on the Mem. If any of the directors loans have been replaced by MSP Capital loans IMO it is a bad sign. Equally if their current loans have suddenly become secured then I think it is a bad sign. But if the directors loans remain and are still unsecured then I think it is a positive sign which we can take some comfort from. Perhaps Brian could answer the question ?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 25, 2015 21:06:37 GMT
Swiss If directors loans are secured wont this be registered at companies house Yes they would Oldie. And, as The Gas says, the recent transactions will not show up until the June 2015 accounts which we shall see in 2016 I think it was only Geoff's Deltavon loan which was actually secured by a charge on the Mem. If any of the directors loans have been replaced by MSP Capital loans IMO it is a bad sign. Equally if their current loans have suddenly become secured then I think it is a bad sign. But if the directors loans remain and are still unsecured then I think it is a positive sign which we can take some comfort from. Perhaps Brian could answer the question ? Completely agree. But if loans have been discharged that would show up on any search now I think. But in any event your example reconfirms the point about communication and transparency.
|
|
|
Post by Topper Gas on Jan 25, 2015 21:40:43 GMT
Even though they don't show in the accounts won't it be mentioned by the accountants when they produce the report for the annual shareholders meeting?
|
|
|
Post by swissgas on Jan 25, 2015 22:18:28 GMT
Even though they don't show in the accounts won't it be mentioned by the accountants when they produce the report for the annual shareholders meeting? I think the accounts are usually signed off in February / March and so the recent transaction with MSP Capital could be mentioned in the Chairman's statement but I don't believe it is a requirement. It would be nice to know for sure that the loans from Geoff and the bank have been repaid with a replacement loan from MSP Capital but that the directors unsecured loans remain in place and the directors continue to fund the day to day running of the club.
|
|