|
Post by onedaytheuwe on Feb 9, 2015 21:04:17 GMT
TOPPER You make a good point about Sainsbury's consulting people about so - called 'cut off dates' . This to me will be the main crux of deciding the issue. However: are you suggesting we knew about this 'cut off date' and signed up to it. If so then we are stuffed. Where are you getting this info from
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 9, 2015 21:22:58 GMT
I don't doubt we'll get something, probably a seven figure sum but not more than has already been offered by Sainsburys...I expect us to retain ownership of the Mem, debts will be repaid, the ground will be sold for something, we'll ground share at Twerton, there will not be a UWE Stadium as we won't have enough money to finance it and no one will lend us the money to fund the balance because a 22000 seat stadium makes no commercial sense. Anyone getting their hopes up over this development is naive...do the sums, even £30 million isn't enough.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 9, 2015 21:28:23 GMT
I don't doubt we'll get something, probably a seven figure sum but not more than has already been offered by Sainsburys...I expect us to retain ownership of the Mem, debts will be repaid, the ground will be sold for something, we'll ground share at Twerton, there will not be a UWE Stadium as we won't have enough money to finance it and no one will lend us the money to fund the balance because a 22000 seat stadium makes no commercial sense. Anyone getting their hopes up over this development is naive...do the sums, even £30 million isn't enough. What makes you think we will get compensation? If it goes through the courts it will be all or nothing won't it or are you suggesting that Higgs will try to negotiate an out of court pay off?
|
|
|
Post by Topper Gas on Feb 9, 2015 21:28:37 GMT
I assume this date must be in the contract which our legal advisors would have checked before we signed it? If not how can Sainsbury's say now we've missed the cut off date, if nobody told Rovers there was one?
You do wonder if we have any chance as surely a date is black & white and proving Sainsbury's deliberately dragged their feet won't be easy? Perhaps the best we can hope for is £5m/£10m compo to buy of the litigation risk, unless Sainsbury's are so confident they don't even feel there is a risk of losing.
|
|
toteend
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 305
|
Post by toteend on Feb 9, 2015 21:33:39 GMT
To summarise my take is as follows;-
There must have been a cut off date or else Sainsburys will have committed perjury.
We must believe we have the required evidence to say it's their fault through lack of best endeavour to complete within the required timescale. Therefore they have broken the contract.
They won't have offered any compo as that is an admission of guilt.
The judge has not told anyone they have a case because he hasn't heard everything yet, so that is just made up.
This can be resolved outside the courtroom up to the last minute.
Rovers have borrowed £1.5 million over and above repaying the mortgage and part repaying GD, so it maybe to fund the hearing. The club accounts say it is to fund the club for the rest of this season and next.
Monster monster is clueless
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 9, 2015 21:33:45 GMT
I don't doubt we'll get something, probably a seven figure sum but not more than has already been offered by Sainsburys...I expect us to retain ownership of the Mem, debts will be repaid, the ground will be sold for something, we'll ground share at Twerton, there will not be a UWE Stadium as we won't have enough money to finance it and no one will lend us the money to fund the balance because a 22000 seat stadium makes no commercial sense. Anyone getting their hopes up over this development is naive...do the sums, even £30 million isn't enough. What makes you think we will get compensation? If it goes through the courts it will be all or nothing won't it or are you suggesting that Higgs will try to negotiate an out of court pay off? Look at my previous posts on this and the old forum...I'm always right.
|
|
|
Post by Mr Pond on Feb 9, 2015 21:38:38 GMT
If the cut off date was last year why is it all hush hush? why didn't Sainsburys say that's it all over we are walking away and splash it all over the news??
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 9, 2015 21:40:45 GMT
What makes you think we will get compensation? If it goes through the courts it will be all or nothing won't it or are you suggesting that Higgs will try to negotiate an out of court pay off? Look at my previous posts on this and the old forum...I'm always right. Oh, there are several of you on these forums.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 9, 2015 21:41:05 GMT
To summarise my take is as follows;- There must have been a cut off date or else Sainsburys will have committed perjury. We must believe we have the required evidence to say it's their fault through lack of best endeavour to complete within the required timescale. Therefore they have broken the contract. They won't have offered any compo as that is an admission of guilt. The judge has not told anyone they have a case because he hasn't heard everything yet, so that is just made up. Monster monster is clueless You really are a total dunce, firstly don't use a semi colon with a dash and then start the next sentence with a capital letter, secondly perjury is an offence under oath, thirdly as you don't know what the contract says you're shooting in the dark-which I'm sure you're very experienced at-fourthly offering a compromise is no admission of anything and lastly who mentioned the judge...not I. By the by its monstermonster, no space.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 9, 2015 21:43:14 GMT
Look at my previous posts on this and the old forum...I'm always right. Oh, there are several of you on these forums. Correct, and as there's still no breaking of the turf at the UWE we appear more in tune with events than the optimists.
|
|
|
Post by onedaytheuwe on Feb 9, 2015 22:09:38 GMT
There may of been a 'cut off date' which was set by Sainsbury's not communicated to us and certainly not agreed by us. It may of been the case that when Sainsbury's started axing 40-50 stores . They imposed a silly rule of exchanging within 1 year or else. The truth is no-one knows.
However: why would we sign up to a 'cut off date' of say 2 years from planning and spend a six figure sum in fighting this. Knowing full well we signed it and will be the laughing stock of Europe. If that is the case then we all need an extended holiday away from June.
It will be the biggest 'own goal' ever and kill off even the most pro - board defenders...
|
|
intheknow
Archie Stephens
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 232
|
Post by intheknow on Feb 9, 2015 22:13:39 GMT
I don't doubt we'll get something, probably a seven figure sum but not more than has already been offered by Sainsburys...I expect us to retain ownership of the Mem, debts will be repaid, the ground will be sold for something, we'll ground share at Twerton, there will not be a UWE Stadium as we won't have enough money to finance it and no one will lend us the money to fund the balance because a 22000 seat stadium makes no commercial sense. Anyone getting their hopes up over this development is naive...do the sums, even £30 million isn't enough. What's been offered by Sainsburys ?
|
|
|
Post by swissgas on Feb 9, 2015 22:15:27 GMT
To summarise my take is as follows;- There must have been a cut off date or else Sainsburys will have committed perjury. We must believe we have the required evidence to say it's their fault through lack of best endeavour to complete within the required timescale. Therefore they have broken the contract. They won't have offered any compo as that is an admission of guilt. The judge has not told anyone they have a case because he hasn't heard everything yet, so that is just made up. This can be resolved outside the courtroom up to the last minute. Rovers have borrowed £1.5 million over and above repaying the mortgage and part repaying GD, so it maybe to fund the hearing. The club accounts say it is to fund the club for the rest of this season and next.
Monster monster is cluelessThe MSP Capital loans were taken recently so are they mentioned in the Chairman's report (and the amounts specified) as an event which happened after 30/6/14 ?
|
|
|
Post by onedaytheuwe on Feb 9, 2015 22:22:59 GMT
So planning permission was granted in January 2013 and all legal challenges ended in October 2014. Are we saying Sainsbury's expected us to move out so they could start work within 18 months of planning or else and we agreed to this ?.
If so that is totally unreasonable and suggest a hidden agenda that they don't want to build anymore stores...
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 9, 2015 22:36:13 GMT
To summarise my take is as follows;- Rovers have borrowed £1.5 million over and above repaying the mortgage and part repaying GD, so it maybe to fund the hearing. The club accounts say it is to fund the club for the rest of this season and next. Monster monster is cluelessSo the loan must be in the region of £3m?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 9, 2015 22:40:40 GMT
I don't doubt we'll get something, probably a seven figure sum but not more than has already been offered by Sainsburys...I expect us to retain ownership of the Mem, debts will be repaid, the ground will be sold for something, we'll ground share at Twerton, there will not be a UWE Stadium as we won't have enough money to finance it and no one will lend us the money to fund the balance because a 22000 seat stadium makes no commercial sense. Anyone getting their hopes up over this development is naive...do the sums, even £30 million isn't enough. What's been offered by Sainsburys ? I made reference to the debate and numbers involved in December, nothing has changed. The interesting issue here is why has it ended up in court and who has the least to lose and the most to gain?
|
|
|
Post by Topper Gas on Feb 9, 2015 22:44:07 GMT
Surely it's the time period from the dates the contracts were signed until full pp was obtained? If the date has passed it seems a reasonable defence.
Searching the Internet suggests it's common practice to have an "end stop" date inserted and developers will use it to end contracts they want to walk away from. Our only hope is to convince the judge Sainsbury's we're unreasonable when assisting in the club obtaining full pp, which internet articles suggest is notoriously difficult to prove.
|
|
|
Post by onedaytheuwe on Feb 9, 2015 23:02:28 GMT
The real 'hidden agenda' is Sainsbury's don't want to build anymore stores. It is only 2 years ago they received planning permission and so called last year inserted an 'end date'. The only real answer is for the judge to bang heads together and insist ' Sainsbury's can have the site in 60 days ' and ' we must move out by July'.
We take the £30 million and move to Bath and they get the long awaited site..
|
|
dido
Predictions League
Peter Aitken
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 1,883
|
Post by dido on Feb 9, 2015 23:11:39 GMT
Twerton nowhere near suitable for league football. (!)
|
|
toteend
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 305
|
Post by toteend on Feb 10, 2015 0:26:20 GMT
There is an addendum in this years accounts which states that £1.5 million of borrowing is to fund our ongoing costs in running the club for the rest of this season and next.
The mortgage of about £950k has also been cleared and GD has had £200k of his Deltavon loan repaid. All the above covered by the loan from Shylock and Co.
We lost over half a million again over last season.
|
|