womble
Arthur Cartlidge
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 300
|
Post by womble on Feb 16, 2015 15:41:31 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. That rather depends on what the construction cost for the stadium actually is/was. Like the rest of us you are only guessing.
|
|
womble
Arthur Cartlidge
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 300
|
Post by womble on Feb 16, 2015 15:48:16 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. There were other bids. No idea from which supermarkets or for how much. I imagine the judge will only be interested in the contract that actually exists and its level of enforceability, rather than any hypothetical deals.
|
|
|
Post by sw18gas on Feb 16, 2015 17:16:00 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. There were other bids. No idea from which supermarkets or for how much. I imagine the judge will only be interested in the contract that actually exists and its level of enforceability, rather than any hypothetical deals. Question 2 is the interesting one though. I've been wondering that for a while. It's not like if they lose they have to pay us 30m for no benefit. They get a very valuable piece of real estate that has had planning permission on it at various times for flats, a hotel, a supermarket... This could be a reason for Sainsbury's to see it through regardless now as their two outcomes are either lose, say, 10m (if the site is worth 20m) or lose zero if they get to walk away. The stakes aren't actually that high for them. And if you follow this logic, there is no way they would ever offer us more compensation than 10m. They'd be economically better off just buying it anyway. At the risk of stating the obvious, the stakes for Rovers are absolutely enormous. And if we have decided that we would not accept a compensation offer of 10m, given it leaves the UWE dead in the water, then this must go all the way to the end. Interesting analysis of the 'game theory' at play here I think. There probably is no compensation amount acceptable to both parties.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 16, 2015 17:20:11 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. That rather depends on what the construction cost for the stadium actually is/was. Like the rest of us you are only guessing. Based on what other clubs have spent building grounds, allowing for this not being just a basic stadium, the figure for building the thing that has been quoted consistantly by the local media looks about right to me.
|
|
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 17:28:15 GMT
There were other bids. No idea from which supermarkets or for how much. I imagine the judge will only be interested in the contract that actually exists and its level of enforceability, rather than any hypothetical deals. Question 2 is the interesting one though. I've been wondering that for a while. It's not like if they lose they have to pay us 30m for no benefit. They get a very valuable piece of real estate that has had planning permission on it at various times for flats, a hotel, a supermarket... This could be a reason for Sainsbury's to see it through regardless now as their two outcomes are either lose, say, 10m (if the site is worth 20m) or lose zero if they get to walk away. The stakes aren't actually that high for them. And if you follow this logic, there is no way they would ever offer us more compensation than 10m. They'd be economically better off just buying it anyway. At the risk of stating the obvious, the stakes for Rovers are absolutely enormous. And if we have decided that we would not accept a compensation offer of 10m, given it leaves the UWE dead in the water, then this must go all the way to the end. Interesting analysis of the 'game theory' at play here I think. There probably is no compensation amount acceptable to both parties. To an extent there are various different 'wins' (or minimised losses) available for Sainsburys (some more desirable than others)
Rovers only have one .
If we were offered a decent compo package (that amount is open to debate) in a case where we could lose, I can't see how we can go all in, when their is an option to get something tangible out of it even if not the desired result.
of course that all depend s on what if anything has been offered
|
|
womble
Arthur Cartlidge
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 300
|
Post by womble on Feb 16, 2015 17:48:41 GMT
That rather depends on what the construction cost for the stadium actually is/was. Like the rest of us you are only guessing. Based on what other clubs have spent building grounds, allowing for this not being just a basic stadium, the figure for building the thing that has been quoted consistantly by the local media looks about right to me. When the student flat version of the Mem redevelopment was planned, the council wanted costs for the construction so that it could ascertain if the enabling development was excessive or appropriate. The figures given were 5,500 main stand seats at £1000 and the remaining 12,500 at £600 each, giving a total of £13,000,000.
The figures were checked by an independent valuer and if anything the enabling development was a little on the low side, given the building costs.
It is difficult to do comparisons because the UWE bowl design means there is no steel work required to prop up the seating, as it is already resting on the ground, thereby saving money.
Those figures are from January 2007, but if we allowed £1,300 per seat, with a capacity of 21,700 that gives us a build cost of £28,210,000.
I would be surprised if the build was not achievable given a complete payout from Sainsbury's but it won't reduce our debt as was originally planned.
|
|
|
Post by Topper Gas on Feb 16, 2015 17:48:38 GMT
There were other bids. No idea from which supermarkets or for how much. I imagine the judge will only be interested in the contract that actually exists and its level of enforceability, rather than any hypothetical deals. Question 2 is the interesting one though. I've been wondering that for a while. It's not like if they lose they have to pay us 30m for no benefit. They get a very valuable piece of real estate that has had planning permission on it at various times for flats, a hotel, a supermarket... This could be a reason for Sainsbury's to see it through regardless now as their two outcomes are either lose, say, 10m (if the site is worth 20m) or lose zero if they get to walk away. The stakes aren't actually that high for them. And if you follow this logic, there is no way they would ever offer us more compensation than 10m. They'd be economically better off just buying it anyway. At the risk of stating the obvious, the stakes for Rovers are absolutely enormous. And if we have decided that we would not accept a compensation offer of 10m, given it leaves the UWE dead in the water, then this must go all the way to the end. Interesting analysis of the 'game theory' at play here I think. There probably is no compensation amount acceptable to both parties. As real estate w/o pp I haven't seen anybody suggest the land is worth more than around £10m, so Sainsbury could potentially lose £20m plus costs, interest & any punitive damges etc the Judge might award thay are probably looking at the best part of £25m? Whether the club accepts an offer or holds out for the full amount is surely down to how good a case our legal advisors feel we have, it coudl be Sainsbury's have an hopeless case and just wanted to delay paying us, or they have a cracking case and we've no chance. it's the great unknown.
|
|
womble
Arthur Cartlidge
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 300
|
Post by womble on Feb 16, 2015 18:08:04 GMT
Question 2 is the interesting one though. I've been wondering that for a while. It's not like if they lose they have to pay us 30m for no benefit. They get a very valuable piece of real estate that has had planning permission on it at various times for flats, a hotel, a supermarket... This could be a reason for Sainsbury's to see it through regardless now as their two outcomes are either lose, say, 10m (if the site is worth 20m) or lose zero if they get to walk away. The stakes aren't actually that high for them. And if you follow this logic, there is no way they would ever offer us more compensation than 10m. They'd be economically better off just buying it anyway. At the risk of stating the obvious, the stakes for Rovers are absolutely enormous. And if we have decided that we would not accept a compensation offer of 10m, given it leaves the UWE dead in the water, then this must go all the way to the end. Interesting analysis of the 'game theory' at play here I think. There probably is no compensation amount acceptable to both parties. As real estate w/o pp I haven't seen anybody suggest the land is worth more than around £10m, so Sainsbury could potentially lose £20m plus costs, interest & any punitive damges etc the Judge might award thay are probably looking at the best part of £25m? Whether the club accepts an offer or holds out for the full amount is surely down to how good a case our legal advisors feel we have, it coudl be Sainsbury's have an hopeless case and just wanted to delay paying us, or they have a cracking case and we've no chance. it's the great unknown. If they had a cracking case and we had no chance, I doubt they would have tried to delay the hearing until 2016. Instead they would be keen to get on with it and impress the shareholders, by returning the £30m to their accounts that they seem to have written off last November.
|
|
|
Post by sw18gas on Feb 16, 2015 18:08:59 GMT
Question 2 is the interesting one though. I've been wondering that for a while. It's not like if they lose they have to pay us 30m for no benefit. They get a very valuable piece of real estate that has had planning permission on it at various times for flats, a hotel, a supermarket... This could be a reason for Sainsbury's to see it through regardless now as their two outcomes are either lose, say, 10m (if the site is worth 20m) or lose zero if they get to walk away. The stakes aren't actually that high for them. And if you follow this logic, there is no way they would ever offer us more compensation than 10m. They'd be economically better off just buying it anyway. At the risk of stating the obvious, the stakes for Rovers are absolutely enormous. And if we have decided that we would not accept a compensation offer of 10m, given it leaves the UWE dead in the water, then this must go all the way to the end. Interesting analysis of the 'game theory' at play here I think. There probably is no compensation amount acceptable to both parties. As real estate w/o pp I haven't seen anybody suggest the land is worth more than around £10m, so Sainsbury could potentially lose £20m plus costs, interest & any punitive damges etc the Judge might award thay are probably looking at the best part of £25m? Whether the club accepts an offer or holds out for the full amount is surely down to how good a case our legal advisors feel we have, it coudl be Sainsbury's have an hopeless case and just wanted to delay paying us, or they have a cracking case and we've no chance. it's the great unknown. Agreed in general. The land does have planning permission though. What is the site worth to Sainsbury's if they have to press on? Even if it's worth a third less as a supermarket (a massive decline) it's still worth 20m to them if they build one (assuming they had their sums right in the first place). If they don't, what's it worth? Who knows. But the precedents for planning permission must improve the 'on the books' value a lot. All of this is interesting but the primary concern is what the contract says, as you say. Oh to get a look!
|
|
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 18:44:40 GMT
Based on what other clubs have spent building grounds, allowing for this not being just a basic stadium, the figure for building the thing that has been quoted consistantly by the local media looks about right to me. When the student flat version of the Mem redevelopment was planned, the council wanted costs for the construction so that it could ascertain if the enabling development was excessive or appropriate. The figures given were 5,500 main stand seats at £1000 and the remaining 12,500 at £600 each, giving a total of £13,000,000.
The figures were checked by an independent valuer and if anything the enabling development was a little on the low side, given the building costs.
It is difficult to do comparisons because the UWE bowl design means there is no steel work required to prop up the seating, as it is already resting on the ground, thereby saving money.
Those figures are from January 2007, but if we allowed £1,300 per seat, with a capacity of 21,700 that gives us a build cost of £28,210,000.
I would be surprised if the build was not achievable given a complete payout from Sainsbury's but it won't reduce our debt as was originally planned.
Maybe i am being thick and admittesly i cant remeber the UWE plans,but how can the seats be resting on the ground when there are buildings and facilities under the stans, or are you rwfering to the lowest seating levels?
|
|
Cheshiregas
Global Moderator
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 2,166
|
Post by Cheshiregas on Feb 16, 2015 18:54:09 GMT
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. At least your plan was on a programme unlike Mr Watola's for this season which had to be written on the back of a postage stamp after someone told him we were relegated.... (I'll go to hell for that comments!)
|
|
womble
Arthur Cartlidge
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 300
|
Post by womble on Feb 16, 2015 19:03:59 GMT
When the student flat version of the Mem redevelopment was planned, the council wanted costs for the construction so that it could ascertain if the enabling development was excessive or appropriate. The figures given were 5,500 main stand seats at £1000 and the remaining 12,500 at £600 each, giving a total of £13,000,000.
The figures were checked by an independent valuer and if anything the enabling development was a little on the low side, given the building costs.
It is difficult to do comparisons because the UWE bowl design means there is no steel work required to prop up the seating, as it is already resting on the ground, thereby saving money.
Those figures are from January 2007, but if we allowed £1,300 per seat, with a capacity of 21,700 that gives us a build cost of £28,210,000.
I would be surprised if the build was not achievable given a complete payout from Sainsbury's but it won't reduce our debt as was originally planned.
Maybe i am being thick and admittesly i cant remeber the UWE plans,but how can the seats be resting on the ground when there are buildings and facilities under the stans, or are you rwfering to the lowest seating levels? The concourse is at ground level, the pitch itself is below average ground level at the base of the bowl and you have to go down from the concourse to the seating. Virtually all the spectator facilities are above the seating.
www.uwestadium.com/index.php
|
|
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 19:16:58 GMT
Maybe i am being thick and admittesly i cant remeber the UWE plans,but how can the seats be resting on the ground when there are buildings and facilities under the stans, or are you rwfering to the lowest seating levels? The concourse is at ground level, the pitch itself is below average ground level at the base of the bowl and you have to go down from the concourse to the seating. Virtually all the spectator facilities are above the seating.
www.uwestadium.com/index.php
I get it. Long time since i looked at the plans. I remember Huddersfield where you enter at the top of the stand and go down to the seating
|
|
|
Post by michaelb on Feb 16, 2015 20:00:19 GMT
There were other bids. No idea from which supermarkets or for how much. I imagine the judge will only be interested in the contract that actually exists and its level of enforceability, rather than any hypothetical deals. Question 2 is the interesting one though. I've been wondering that for a while. It's not like if they lose they have to pay us 30m for no benefit. They get a very valuable piece of real estate that has had planning permission on it at various times for flats, a hotel, a supermarket... This could be a reason for Sainsbury's to see it through regardless now as their two outcomes are either lose, say, 10m (if the site is worth 20m) or lose zero if they get to walk away. The stakes aren't actually that high for them. And if you follow this logic, there is no way they would ever offer us more compensation than 10m. They'd be economically better off just buying it anyway. At the risk of stating the obvious, the stakes for Rovers are absolutely enormous. And if we have decided that we would not accept a compensation offer of 10m, given it leaves the UWE dead in the water, then this must go all the way to the end. Interesting analysis of the 'game theory' at play here I think. There probably is no compensation amount acceptable to both parties. Hypothetically, if we were awarded 10M comp and sainsbury's consider it better economics to pay up 30M ,Mr Higgs might say stuff you we will take the 10M and keep the real estate, esp if the 30M no longer covers the costs of the UWE.
|
|
|
Post by Topper Gas on Feb 16, 2015 21:05:09 GMT
As real estate w/o pp I haven't seen anybody suggest the land is worth more than around £10m, so Sainsbury could potentially lose £20m plus costs, interest & any punitive damges etc the Judge might award thay are probably looking at the best part of £25m? Whether the club accepts an offer or holds out for the full amount is surely down to how good a case our legal advisors feel we have, it coudl be Sainsbury's have an hopeless case and just wanted to delay paying us, or they have a cracking case and we've no chance. it's the great unknown. Agreed in general. The land does have planning permission though. What is the site worth to Sainsbury's if they have to press on? Even if it's worth a third less as a supermarket (a massive decline) it's still worth 20m to them if they build one (assuming they had their sums right in the first place). If they don't, what's it worth? Who knows. But the precedents for planning permission must improve the 'on the books' value a lot. All of this is interesting but the primary concern is what the contract says, as you say. Oh to get a look! Why would Sainsbury's spend £20m on top of the purchase price to build a supermarket they no longer seem to want to build? Spending upwards of £50m on a new store just for the sake of it seems a big ask.
|
|
|
Post by 1883hanhamgas on Feb 16, 2015 21:30:36 GMT
i still think 7 days before it goes to court this will be settled.....either way the added on court costs will be huge and neither side will want that !!
|
|
|
Post by sw18gas on Feb 16, 2015 21:57:08 GMT
i still think 7 days before it goes to court this will be settled.....either way the added on court costs will be huge and neither side will want that !! You may be right. My point is that they were once willing to spend 30m over the build cost. Things have taken a downturn for them but how bad would 20m over the build cost be? We don't know.
|
|
bs5
Joined: June 2014
Posts: 456
|
Post by bs5 on Feb 16, 2015 22:03:17 GMT
i still think 7 days before it goes to court this will be settled.....either way the added on court costs will be huge and neither side will want that !! I might disagree with there mate unless I'm missing something, I don't see how this will be settled 7 days before because that would mean Sainsburys would have to have accepted liability which would technically would be an admittion that they were in breach of contract and if they haven't done it now why would they then change their mind , they must think they have a case and any deviation away from this wouldn't bode well with the judge and thus he would I'd have thought award the full amount . Again I'm no legal expert as most on here seem to be ?
|
|
|
Post by CountyGroundHotel on Feb 17, 2015 2:17:38 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. 1. It has always been rumoured (but never confirmed as far as I'm aware) that Waitrose were another interested party, whether they still would be I don't know as they have been doing work to improve their site at Henleaze. 2. Compensation would be at Sainsburys discretion to settle the case before court. If it goes to court I believe (others on here recently have demonstrated great legal knowledge so perhaps can confirm or correct) that the judge can decide that Sainsburys can legally exit the contract or could find in our favour and order performance of the contract. If it's the latter then if Sainsburys really, really don't want the land they could make a cash offer to rovers off total costs less the market value of the land with rovers retaining ownership of the site. If we are serious about the UWE not sure we would accept that unless another buyer had been lined up willing to buy it immediately without planning permission (unless they also want to build a supermarket).
|
|
Bridgeman
Alfie Biggs
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 3,549
|
Post by Bridgeman on Feb 17, 2015 3:25:52 GMT
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. At least your plan was on a programme unlike Mr Watola's for this season which had to be written on the back of a postage stamp after someone told him we were relegated.... (I'll go to hell for that comments!) .......
|
|