|
Post by Topper Gas on Feb 15, 2015 21:41:00 GMT
Bl@@dy hell, now an update from the Kid with a bit more info: It surprised me too and the more I hear about the contract, the more I wonder which amateur Sainsbury's had on board when this "deal" was done. The reason for the term, as I understand, is that understandably UWE would not agree to anything which could potentially leave them with a half built stadium on their campus with no-one to play in it.
No wonder Sainsbury's are doing everything they can to wriggle out of the contract, as NH managed to pull off a master stroke? It seems the Mem site may have been seen as a goldmine a few years ago but not now!
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 15, 2015 21:49:41 GMT
Posted by the kid on the s***e forum. #12796 Non League Bristol Rovers: post #12796 Kid in the Riot Members 4731 posts Posted Today, 06:34 PM 29AR, on 14 Feb 2015 - 12:26 PM, said: As I understand it the disputed contract actually states that if NLBR cannot fund the completion of the UWE Stadium, then it would be Sainsbury's who would have to make up the shortfall. That would be why Higgs has been begging for new investment then. Also, if Sainsbury's had to cover them, why would Higgs have even bothered talking about increasing build costs a few months ago?
|
|
Bridgeman
Alfie Biggs
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 3,549
|
Post by Bridgeman on Feb 15, 2015 22:57:21 GMT
Posted by the kid on the s***e forum. #12796 Non League Bristol Rovers: post #12796 Kid in the Riot Members 4731 posts Posted Today, 06:34 PM 29AR, on 14 Feb 2015 - 12:26 PM, said: As I understand it the disputed contract actually states that if NLBR cannot fund the completion of the UWE Stadium, then it would be Sainsbury's who would have to make up the shortfall. That's what I would describe as being 'far fetched' in the extreme.....lol !
|
|
Captain Jayho
Andy Tillson
Straight outta burrington...
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 472
|
Post by Captain Jayho on Feb 16, 2015 2:33:23 GMT
Sounds implausible in the extreme to be honest. But by god there would be some supersized humble pie being eaten by some on this thread if that was in the contract and was subsequently enforced by the judge...
|
|
|
Post by otleygas on Feb 16, 2015 4:58:58 GMT
Posted by the kid on the s***e forum. #12796 Non League Bristol Rovers: post #12796 Kid in the Riot Members 4731 posts Posted Today, 06:34 PM 29AR, on 14 Feb 2015 - 12:26 PM, said: As I understand it the disputed contract actually states that if NLBR cannot fund the completion of the UWE Stadium, then it would be Sainsbury's who would have to make up the shortfall. That's what I would describe as being 'far fetched' in the extreme.....lol ! Agree...but if true...who would own the stadium then?
|
|
Peter Parker
Global Moderator
Richard Walker
You have been sentenced to DELETION!
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 4,920
|
Post by Peter Parker on Feb 16, 2015 6:47:32 GMT
Cant see that tbh, but if true would be superb. Doesnt tie in to other comments by Nick Higgs though
Of course of true, we still have to win the court case
|
|
|
Post by frenchgashead on Feb 16, 2015 6:55:39 GMT
I can't believe this. If such a clause existed it would be an open-ended commitment on Sainsbury's that could cost them millions. It seems more likely that BRFC have to provide evidence that they have sufficient funds to complete the UWE and leave the Mem within a reasonable time. Sainsbury's wouldn't be prepared to give us the money and then wait for ages to get at the Mem to start building. This seems a better explanation of why NH is hawking himself around trying to find extra finance.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 16, 2015 7:43:25 GMT
I reckon Kid In The Riot is having a bit of fun with the fact some of us are hanging on his every word.
|
|
LJG
Peter Beadle
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 969
|
Post by LJG on Feb 16, 2015 9:50:36 GMT
How convinced are we that Rovers going bust would spell the end of the UWE? Anybody know of any precedents that say the right to sue is an asset for bankruptcy/administration purposes? In which case, Sainos holding out until we ran out of money would be pointless for them because the administrator could just assess the liklihood of success and either enter negotiations or take up the mantel and see litigation through.
I'd look myself but I'm not in work and off to Kingsbridge for a few nights.
|
|
womble
Arthur Cartlidge
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 300
|
Post by womble on Feb 16, 2015 10:19:56 GMT
Posted by the kid on the s***e forum. #12796 Non League Bristol Rovers: post #12796 Kid in the Riot Members 4731 posts Posted Today, 06:34 PM 29AR, on 14 Feb 2015 - 12:26 PM, said: As I understand it the disputed contract actually states that if NLBR cannot fund the completion of the UWE Stadium, then it would be Sainsbury's who would have to make up the shortfall. That would be why Higgs has been begging for new investment then. Also, if Sainsbury's had to cover them, why would Higgs have even bothered talking about increasing build costs a few months ago? It does seem a most unlikely clause. On the other hand, the UWE scheme as originally touted was supposed to leave us debt free. The delays have meant this is no longer the case, so the Sainsbury's money may be sufficient to get the stadium built, but make no impact on our then £5-6m debt. Either way, more investment is required.
|
|
|
Post by Topper Gas on Feb 16, 2015 11:22:13 GMT
Posted by the kid on the s***e forum. #12796 Non League Bristol Rovers: post #12796 Kid in the Riot Members 4731 posts Posted Today, 06:34 PM 29AR, on 14 Feb 2015 - 12:26 PM, said: As I understand it the disputed contract actually states that if NLBR cannot fund the completion of the UWE Stadium, then it would be Sainsbury's who would have to make up the shortfall. That would be why Higgs has been begging for new investment then. Also, if Sainsbury's had to cover them, why would Higgs have even bothered talking about increasing build costs a few months ago? Perhaps the extra finance he's seeking is to build the car park or just clear his own debts? As the explantion given by "kid" seems plausible and given the money Sainsbury's were throwing at the scheme suggests they might have been daft enough to agree to it at the time!
|
|
faggotygas
Byron Anthony
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 1,862
|
Post by faggotygas on Feb 16, 2015 12:28:58 GMT
Or after a few drinks? Ie fancy a fick? (Whatever that is) Tut tut surely one is science the other Biology ! You must be a physicist
|
|
|
Post by michaelb on Feb 16, 2015 13:43:56 GMT
Tut tut surely one is science the other Biology ! You must be a physicist More Mystic as in Mystic Mike
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 16, 2015 15:07:11 GMT
the UWE scheme as originally touted was supposed to leave us debt free. The delays have meant this is no longer the case, No, the fact that the numbers didn't add up from day 1 is the reason, delays may have increased the funding gap, but they didn't cause it.
|
|
|
Post by timothyq on Feb 16, 2015 15:12:39 GMT
the UWE scheme as originally touted was supposed to leave us debt free. The delays have meant this is no longer the case, No, the fact that the numbers didn't add up from day 1 is the reason, delays may have increased the funding gap, but they didn't cause it. Pah! Next you're going to tell me we aren't going to pocket £50 x 25,000 for a major concert every Sunday night like all the other naysayers.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 16, 2015 15:13:39 GMT
Perhaps the extra finance he's seeking is to build the car park or just clear his own debts? As the explantion given by "kid" seems plausible and given the money Sainsbury's were throwing at the scheme suggests they might have been daft enough to agree to it at the time! Plausible, seriously? One of us has lost touch with reality, I don't think it's me? As for clearing his debts, he caused them, and squandered the golden legacy he inherited, he should do the right thing for the club, accept that he (and his board) lost the money, apologise to us all and take his losses on the chin.
|
|
Cheshiregas
Global Moderator
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 2,166
|
Post by Cheshiregas on Feb 16, 2015 15:15:45 GMT
No, the fact that the numbers didn't add up from day 1 is the reason, delays may have increased the funding gap, but they didn't cause it. Pah! Next you're going to tell me we aren't going to pocket £50 x 25,000 for a major concert every Sunday night like all the other naysayers. I believe the number of concerts to be held each year will be limited. (Oh damn does that make me a naysayer!?)
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 16, 2015 15:20:32 GMT
Pah! Next you're going to tell me we aren't going to pocket £50 x 25,000 for a major concert every Sunday night like all the other naysayers. I believe the number of concerts to be held each year will be limited. (Oh damn does that make me a naysayer!?) Shame there won't be a car park for the concerts, or a stadium for that matter. Apart from that it's a great plan.
|
|
|
Post by timothyq on Feb 16, 2015 15:20:59 GMT
Pah! Next you're going to tell me we aren't going to pocket £50 x 25,000 for a major concert every Sunday night like all the other naysayers. I believe the number of concerts to be held each year will be limited. (Oh damn does that make me a naysayer!?) You're kidding? I had a detailed business plan relying on £65,000,000 + all the t shirts and pies scribbled on an old programme from Northampton.
|
|
c4h10
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 476
|
Post by c4h10 on Feb 16, 2015 15:40:18 GMT
I may be the only person not in the know, but can someone clarify a couple of points for me. 1/ Did Sainsbury originally approach Rovers with an offer to purchase the Mem, or did Rovers put it out to tender? If the latter, do we know if there were other bids, who from, and for how much less than Sainsbury's bid? Lastly, will these things be considered by the court when deciding the outcome, or will the judge be guided purely by the wording of the contract(s)?
2/ At what level of compensation do folks here consider that Sainsbury would say "We might as well honour the contract to buy". i.e. if Rovers were awarded ten million quid to keep the Mem, the purchase would "only" be another twenty million and might be considered the better deal. There must be a cut-off point.
|
|