|
Post by Curly Wurly on Feb 10, 2015 10:39:28 GMT
Thing is, we shouldn't have to mortgage the crown jewels to keep the lights on. We spent decades not owning our own ground, and to GD's credit we now do. .....and your point is?
|
|
|
Post by stevek192 on Feb 10, 2015 11:01:05 GMT
Let us just look at this at the grass root level. B Sainsburys want a Supermarket in a ideal location and WIN the contract to build this for 30m from A BRFC KNOWING that it has a long legal process to go through both with the Council and the Protest groups. It (B) plays Ball and turns up for the Council Meeting saying it will do this and that and ACCEPTS the delivery hours. After long delays due to the Protest Groups which it takes little ,if any interest in the Battle is won BUT Sainsburys have changed their mind and no longer want to go ahead and use the Hours as an excuse at the last minute when they THINK they can get out DESPITE the huge financial costs that have been gone through! They didn't bank on Rovers taking the case forward on the Hours and the Council agreeing to them which THEY should have been doing. Their case is almost certainly based on a get out based on the time which it appears very likely they failed to do their part to get through. Hopefully the Judge will see that CLEARLY there was a contract some maybe based on good will (but I hope not) but anyway see that it has long since been a case of Sainsburys doing everything to get out of. Surely we will have the total backing of the Council on this and that the only reason it got past the Get out clause date was entirely down to Sainsburys and their wanting to get out of a contract which they entered into and was really a straightforward THEY PAY 30m AND THEY THEN OWN THE LAND. It is a very simple contract and hopefully the Judge will see it that way.
|
|
|
Post by belmontman on Feb 10, 2015 11:12:10 GMT
From toteend's post: "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."
According to the Shorter Oxford English Dictionary: 'Shylock/... A moneylender, especially an extortionate or hard-hearted one...considered racially offensive... A Jew...'
There is no excuse for antisemitism yet this post reeks of it What's next a dose of race hate?
|
|
|
Post by droitwichgas on Feb 10, 2015 11:14:07 GMT
No the real reason is down to Trash taking it to a JR & also BCC for originally refusing the delivery hours, then suddenly having a change of heart and agreeing them once it seems it was too late. Whilst we like to paint Sainsbury's as the villians in all this if, & I know it's a big if, they had a cut off date which we've missed they seem to have a perfect get out clause.
As I've already posted what's annoying is NH saying the contract were "watertight" when surely he must have known we would miss the cut off date so Sainsbury's would have a get out of jail card
|
|
|
Post by frenchgashead on Feb 10, 2015 11:20:00 GMT
What seems to have happened is this. There was, as many of us having been saying for months, a date in the contract by which the Mem had to be sold to Sainsbury's. This seems only sense from Sainsbury's point of view. We don't know when it was but we are long past it mainly due to TRASH and the EH review. Sainsbury's not only don't want the project anymore but the 'sell by date' has gone - therefore in their view the contract is dead. BRFC put through the revised delivery hours in a desperate attempt to validate the contract. Sainsbury's have obviously said that makes no difference. We are now going to court to try and enforce the contract and it seems likely that we are arguing that all the delays (not of BRFC's making) + Sainsbury's refusal to appeal the delivery hours mean that the contract ought to be regarded as still valid. Seems a weak case to me and if Sainsbury's are correct then we will get no compensation. UWE may scupper the whole thing anyway but will probably wait till the court case but not if there is an appeal. If we get nothing how do the BoD intend to repay the Wonga-style loans? These are we believe secured on the Mem. This could be the end game - a club in big debts and the ground owned by a hedge fund that will want to sell it - (for housing?) and take the profit.
|
|
intheknow
Archie Stephens
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 232
|
Post by intheknow on Feb 10, 2015 11:26:54 GMT
No the real reason is down to Trash taking it to a JR & also BCC for originally refusing the delivery hours, then suddenly having a change of heart and agreeing them once it seems it was too late. Whilst we like to paint Sainsbury's as the villians in all this if, & I know it's a big if, they had a cut off date which we've missed they seem to have a perfect get out clause. As I've already posted what's annoying is NH saying the contract were "watertight" when surely he must have known we would miss the cut off date so Sainsbury's would have a get out of jail card We'll only know if the contract is/was watertight after the court case. Time will tell
|
|
|
Post by Curly Wurly on Feb 10, 2015 11:30:42 GMT
From toteend's post: "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." According to the Shorter Oxford English Dictionary: 'Shylock/... A moneylender, especially an extortionate or hard-hearted one...considered racially offensive... A Jew...' There is no excuse for antisemitism yet this post reeks of it What's next a dose of race hate? Read your Shakespeare. If there is any anti-semitism in this, then it is over 400 years old. Please don't try to destroy the language out of ignorance.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 10, 2015 11:31:37 GMT
What seems to have happened is this. There was, as many of us having been saying for months, a date in the contract by which the Mem had to be sold to Sainsbury's. This seems only sense from Sainsbury's point of view. We don't know when it was but we are long past it mainly due to TRASH and the EH review. Sainsbury's not only don't want the project anymore but the 'sell by date' has gone - therefore in their view the contract is dead. BRFC put through the revised delivery hours in a desperate attempt to validate the contract. Sainsbury's have obviously said that makes no difference. We are now going to court to try and enforce the contract and it seems likely that we are arguing that all the delays (not of BRFC's making) + Sainsbury's refusal to appeal the delivery hours mean that the contract ought to be regarded as still valid. Seems a weak case to me and if Sainsbury's are correct then we will get no compensation. UWE may scupper the whole thing anyway but will probably wait till the court case but not if there is an appeal. If we get nothing how do the BoD intend to repay the Wonga-style loans? These are we believe secured on the Mem. This could be the end game - a club in big debts and the ground owned by a hedge fund that will want to sell it - (for housing?) and take the profit. nice positive post well done
|
|
eppinggas
Administrator
Ian Alexander
Don't care
Joined: June 2014
Posts: 8,131
|
Post by eppinggas on Feb 10, 2015 11:40:21 GMT
It is not watertight and we will not get £30mil out of Sainsbury's. There will be a compromise and hopefully settled before we get to Court. If it's anything over £10mil then I take back everything I've said negative about the Board and Higgs in particular. If it's less than £5mil then we're up a certain creek without a certain paddle.
|
|
|
Post by Antonio Fargas on Feb 10, 2015 11:40:30 GMT
From toteend's post: "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." According to the Shorter Oxford English Dictionary: 'Shylock/... A moneylender, especially an extortionate or hard-hearted one...considered racially offensive... A Jew...' There is no excuse for antisemitism yet this post reeks of it What's next a dose of race hate? Read your Shakespeare. If there is any anti-semitism in this, then it is over 400 years old. Please don't try to destroy the language out of ignorance. Yeah, istm if you use Shylock to refer to Jews then it's a pejorative against Jews. If you use it to refer to money-lenders, then it's a pejorative against money-lenders.
|
|
|
Post by onedaytheuwe on Feb 10, 2015 11:45:47 GMT
If Sainsbury's did implement a 'sale date' . Then the judge will decide from the post 106 section agreement ( June 2013) until all legal challenges ended ( June 2014). The extended hours issues is a 'hidden agenda' and is after this period. But how could we sell the land if it was undergoing legal challenges . And if Sainsbury's did want the land : Why did they back out in September 2014 and insist on 'extended hours'. Why didn't they purchase the ground and apply for EH after which is common practice. Also I have been writing to TRASH throughout this period as a Labour supporter backing these plans. The information I have back supports Sainsbury's willingness to proceed. Even the protest groups state " Sainsbury's will only proceed if they get extended hours" in September 2014. The reason Trash didn't appeal the recent EH agreement is because Sainsbury's finally backed out.. So I ask for the 6th time : Why didn't Sainsbury's start work last summer if they are so concerned about starting?. And if they inserted a 'sale date' in less than 10 months after the 106 agreement knowing a legal challenge could happen. How could this be ?. You can't have it both ways ( see above). Clearly when the legal process ended they conviently brought in the extended hours cards. The fact is Sainsbury's very late in the day decide to pull out of 40-40 stores nationally. I don't usually feel positive about Rovers related issues but I think the reports from the council : Trash and UWE will be additional evidence....
|
|
|
Post by droitwichgas on Feb 10, 2015 12:02:13 GMT
How could Sainsbury's start work on the Mem development last summer, when we were still playing there?
You keep on suggesting Sainsbury's have inserted a "sale date" late in the day but how do you know what wasn't in from day 1?Even if it wasn't Rovers must have agreed to it's insertion? Internet articles suggest it's is common practice to inc it in contracts as it gives developers a get out clause, did our legal advisors/NH miss it, or just assumed Sainsbury's would never enforce it?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 10, 2015 12:08:30 GMT
If Sainsbury's did implement a 'sale date' . Then the judge will decide from the post 106 section agreement ( June 2013) until all legal challenges ended ( June 2014). The extended hours issues is a 'hidden agenda' and is after this period. But how could we sell the land if it was undergoing legal challenges . And if Sainsbury's did want the land : Why did they back out in September 2014 and insist on 'extended hours'. Why didn't they purchase the ground and apply for EH after which is common practice. Also I have been writing to TRASH throughout this period as a Labour supporter backing these plans. The information I have back supports Sainsbury's willingness to proceed. Even the protest groups state " Sainsbury's will only proceed if they get extended hours" in September 2014. The reason Trash didn't appeal the recent EH agreement is because Sainsbury's finally backed out.. So I ask for the 6th time : Why didn't Sainsbury's start work last summer if they are so concerned about starting?. And if they inserted a 'sale date' in less than 10 months after the 106 agreement knowing a legal challenge could happen. How could this be ?. You can't have it both ways ( see above). Clearly when the legal process ended they conviently brought in the extended hours cards. The fact is Sainsbury's very late in the day decide to pull out of 40-40 stores nationally. I don't usually feel positive about Rovers related issues but I think the reports from the council : Trash and UWE will be additional evidence.... I thought that the longer delivery hours were one of the conditions of the original contract? If so then the contract isn't complete without them. If you are aware that it's not possible to get those delivery hours altered before the contract expires then it would be foolish to waste time and money continuing with the process. Hope Higgs doesn't end up paying both our costs and Sainsbury's. I agree, give the case to Judge Rinder, it'll be sorted in 5 minutes and we'll all have a laugh, but he won't pull any punches if Higgs turns up in a creased shirt taken straight out of the packet.
|
|
|
Post by michaelb on Feb 10, 2015 12:12:33 GMT
Why are we going to the High Court? Judge Rinder should be dealing with this! Quicker, cheaper and far more entertaining. On a more serious note. I don't think the case is necessarily "all or nothing". We should end up with some compensation - it's been a question of 'how much' for some time now. In an ideal world if that is around £10mil (plucking that figure out of the air) then that clears our debts and the Board can have their money back. And then they can then go forth and multiply. If the figure is significantly less than £10mil then you have to fear the worse - as we would remain in a deadly embrace with the Board still 'running' the Club and unable to get their cash back and walk away. If sainsbury's are right and the cotract is terminated because time expired, why would they have to pay any compensation?
|
|
|
Post by onedaytheuwe on Feb 10, 2015 12:16:41 GMT
It can't be from day 1 that is impossible. You can only enforce a 'sale date' after PP is agreed and 106 is signed off. Sainsbury's still have the right to question if the 106 conditions are too costly. So we are looking at June 2013 at the earliest. However: Trash started legal action 3 months later which dragged into May 2014.
All conditions were reached by the end of the summer 2014 and work was due to start at the UWE in September 2014. Meaning Sainsbury's in theory can exchange contracts with a view to moving in soon after. According to my emails with protest groups Sainsbury's then asked for extended hours around this period as a condition. So you can't have it both ways..
Either Sainsbury's used extended hours hoping it will fail or they didn't want to proceed at that point . Even a CITY fan who I work with in construction is laughing his head off about these mixed msgs by Sainsbury's ..
|
|
|
Post by onedaytheuwe on Feb 10, 2015 12:19:23 GMT
If Sainsbury's did implement a 'sale date' . Then the judge will decide from the post 106 section agreement ( June 2013) until all legal challenges ended ( June 2014). The extended hours issues is a 'hidden agenda' and is after this period. But how could we sell the land if it was undergoing legal challenges . And if Sainsbury's did want the land : Why did they back out in September 2014 and insist on 'extended hours'. Why didn't they purchase the ground and apply for EH after which is common practice. Also I have been writing to TRASH throughout this period as a Labour supporter backing these plans. The information I have back supports Sainsbury's willingness to proceed. Even the protest groups state " Sainsbury's will only proceed if they get extended hours" in September 2014. The reason Trash didn't appeal the recent EH agreement is because Sainsbury's finally backed out.. So I ask for the 6th time : Why didn't Sainsbury's start work last summer if they are so concerned about starting?. And if they inserted a 'sale date' in less than 10 months after the 106 agreement knowing a legal challenge could happen. How could this be ?. You can't have it both ways ( see above). Clearly when the legal process ended they conviently brought in the extended hours cards. The fact is Sainsbury's very late in the day decide to pull out of 40-40 stores nationally. I don't usually feel positive about Rovers related issues but I think the reports from the council : Trash and UWE will be additional evidence.... I thought that the longer delivery hours were one of the conditions of the original contract? If so then the contract isn't complete without them. If you are aware that it's not possible to get those delivery hours altered before the contract expires then it would be foolish to waste time and money continuing with the process. Hope Higgs doesn't end up paying both our costs and Sainsbury's. I agree, give the case to Judge Rinder, it'll be sorted in 5 minutes and we'll all have a laugh, but he won't pull any punches if Higgs turns up in a creased shirt taken straight out of the packet.
|
|
|
Post by onedaytheuwe on Feb 10, 2015 12:24:45 GMT
I am saying Sainsbury's cant have it both ways. If they insisted on Extended hours as a condition. Then it wasn;t in the alpha contract : yes it were rejected but then reversed . Others are saying Sainsbury's just set a 'sale date' regardless of Extended hours and it wasn't meet.. What is it
|
|
eppinggas
Administrator
Ian Alexander
Don't care
Joined: June 2014
Posts: 8,131
|
Post by eppinggas on Feb 10, 2015 12:31:37 GMT
Why are we going to the High Court? Judge Rinder should be dealing with this! Quicker, cheaper and far more entertaining. On a more serious note. I don't think the case is necessarily "all or nothing". We should end up with some compensation - it's been a question of 'how much' for some time now. In an ideal world if that is around £10mil (plucking that figure out of the air) then that clears our debts and the Board can have their money back. And then they can then go forth and multiply. If the figure is significantly less than £10mil then you have to fear the worse - as we would remain in a deadly embrace with the Board still 'running' the Club and unable to get their cash back and walk away. If sainsbury's are right and the cotract is terminated because time expired, why would they have to pay any compensation? That is the worst case scenario. Hopefully the High Court will find that it's a 'grey area' and give us some compensation (or we could negotiate an out of Court settlement ).
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 10, 2015 12:33:33 GMT
I am saying Sainsbury's cant have it both ways. If they insisted on Extended hours as a condition. Then it wasn;t in the alpha contract : yes it were rejected but then reversed . Others are saying Sainsbury's just set a 'sale date' regardless of Extended hours and it wasn't meet.. What is it Weren't the extended hours one of the 'onerous conditions' that needed to be met? It looks like some and maybe all Sainsbury's contracts do have expiry dates in them and they are willing to stand firm if all conditions aren't fulfilled by that date. Not exactly the same situation, but maybe indicitive of how Sainsbury's view these dates, have a read of this; www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/local-news/stewarton-businesses-left-out-pocket-2476032
|
|
Cheshiregas
Global Moderator
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 2,155
|
Post by Cheshiregas on Feb 10, 2015 12:51:24 GMT
So external borrowings is now at its highest ever level. That may be true, but as the debt to asset ratio is still less than 1:1, it's nothing to lose sleep over...even if we ran up against repayment issues refinancing shouldn't be a problem with the Mem as security. Lenders work on more than one ratio. It also depends on how you value the Mem as an asset, it certainly won't be valued by a lender at the same level as the directors will like to think its worth or what they have been offered. Further the business has provisioned a massive amount of expenses it hopes to capitalise if and when the UWE comes to fruition. holmes rightly mentions that "external borrowings is now at its highest ever level" ~ that does not include the directors debt. Are they happy to leave that in the company.Perhaps they can afford to lose the debt or convert to shares. However if they want it back then we could have some serious issues if the UWE doesn't go ahead and we can't sell the Mem to cover the gross debt. Without the directors support BRFC and BRFC 1883 Ltd are not going concerns. If it all falls apart it won't matter what we think the Mem is worth, it will be worth what someone wants to pay in a "fire sale" and that won't be £30m. I certainly hope we never get to that stage.
|
|