|
Post by Strange Gas on Mar 8, 2015 10:40:56 GMT
See thread about cynical time wasting. Sainsburys were also happy to deploy this tactic very early on and officials didn't really help us much Every application and appeal was lodged within the required time. Doesn't this go back to what Swiss was talking about yesterday, managing the relationship with our customer? Maybe. In my view they lost interest pretty soon after 1st application was filed. They could have requested modifications during application process rather than waiting for it to be granted then saying it didn't meet their needs. Then not attending the JR hearing . . .
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 8, 2015 10:46:14 GMT
Every application and appeal was lodged within the required time. Doesn't this go back to what Swiss was talking about yesterday, managing the relationship with our customer? Maybe. In my view they lost interest pretty soon after 1st application was filed. They could have requested modifications during application process rather than waiting for it to be granted then saying it didn't meet their needs. Then not attending the JR hearing . . . Maybe by then they had already calculated that it wouldn't be possible to obtain all of the permissions to fulfill the terms of the contract before it expired? For all we know, they may have told Rovers this before the JR hearing?
|
|
|
Post by Strange Gas on Mar 8, 2015 11:07:57 GMT
July 10, 2013: Sainsbury's informs the club that the planning permission is not acceptable because it breaches three conditions. The club waives two of them but the condition about deliveries remains outstanding. 1-0 to Sainsburys and they parked the bus, breathing a sigh of relief. They have an option on a site in the bank if they choose to use it.
To switch analogies for a second we tried hard to get the lady in the taxi as Swiss describes, but she was having none of it thank you very much. But rather than go home alone, we stay out and keep drinking hoping she will change her mind. . .
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 8, 2015 11:19:13 GMT
July 10, 2013: Sainsbury's informs the club that the planning permission is not acceptable because it breaches three conditions. The club waives two of them but the condition about deliveries remains outstanding. 1-0 to Sainsburys and they parked the bus, breathing a sigh of relief. They have an option on a site in the bank if they choose to use it. To switch analogies for a second we tried hard to get the lady in the taxi as Swiss describes, but she was having none of it thank you very much. But rather than go home alone, we stay out and keep drinking hoping she will change her mind. . . Totally agree, of course things could have been 'hurried along', but if Sainsbury's case is that the contract has expired, it's hard to see how we can claim against them if they haven't missed any deadlines? But as mentioned above, Rovers would need to demonstrate that the whole UWE project was funded, wouldn't they? Do we think that they can do that?
|
|
|
Post by Strange Gas on Mar 8, 2015 11:37:33 GMT
The lady won't be hurried.
But it's an interesting question that's hard to answer without seeing the contract. I would hope that the board won't allow the deal to fall through due to a small shortfall. And maybe that is why they went MSP route, to ensure they still have cash at hand for this should the need arise
|
|
|
Post by swissgas on Mar 8, 2015 18:14:52 GMT
The OP asks whether the Board have made the best of difficulties which were not of their making. And the background question to that could be “why do so many things happen unexpectedly at Rovers ?” Opal pulled out of the Mem project unexpectedly, Buckle, McGhee and Ward all failed unexpectedly, we were relegated unexpectedly (twice), Barclays called in their loan unexpectedly and Sainsburys want to pull out of the deal unexpectedly ? Are these events all down to chance and bad luck or is there an underlying reason which is linked to poor communication ? If you communicate properly you can find out which way the wind is blowing, sense what other people are thinking and anticipate what is likely to happen. Once you make yourself aware of a situation you can take action to prevent unwanted things happening, minimize the damage if they are inevitable or, at the very least, you discover a plan B is necessary and can put it into operation at an early stage to increase it’s chance of success. If you don’t communicate you don’t know and if you don’t know then things do happen unexpectedly and you are left with the response “we never saw that coming”. Two years ago Rovers fans viewed Sainsburys as the partners which gave our stadium project credibility and we were proud to be associated with such a reputable company. Those opposed to the scheme were told they should not stand in the way of progress and must live in the real world where powerful corporations (and their partners) got things done. Today Sainsburys are viewed as the worst example of a bullying corporate mammon which cruelly reneges on a deal with a small private company and if we try to fight back they will “starve us into submission”. It’s typical of Rovers over the last few years that we swing from one extreme to the other but leaving that aside what is the true status of Sainsburys ? My view is that Sainsburys, from the perpective of Rovers and the Mem sale, are a group of executives doing their jobs and reporting to their shareholders. They are people with likes and dislikes, aims and ambitions and just like anyone else they are open to persuasion. Despite the market changes Sainsburys are still building large supermarkets across the country but between March 2011 and June 2013 they decided the Mem project was one which they would withdraw from if they could. What were Rovers doing between March 2011 and June 2013 other than helping the fight to obtain planning permission ? Is it possible they were not communicating properly with Sainsburys or their advisors because they could not see the need or benefits of establishing close contact and a good rapport with those executives ? The Rovers opinion may have been “we have the contract and as long as we get planning permission everything will be fine”. In fact the same stance that has been taken with the football side of the business “ we appointed a manager and we gave him a budget so everything will be fine”. But, as the football experience shows, that attitude is simply not good enough because even with contracts in place you still have work to do to make sure the terms are fulfilled and the spirit of the agreement is upheld so success may be achieved and that work involves communication. There was a deal and a written contract but IMO it is quite possible more could have been done to make sure the key Sainsburys executives WANTED to do our deal more than other deals they had on the table. It meant persuading those key executives that the Rovers deal was good for them and for Sainsburys shareholders because of the wider benefits which would come through association with the UWE Stadium project. We don’t know if Rovers tried to communicate and build a good relationship with Sainsburys executives and their advisers and we don’t know if it would have made any difference even if they had but IMO it could well have done. My suspicion is that the Board didn’t see the necessity of it and that is based upon evidence which is highly visible. The example of the football side illustrates how a contract and a budget for the manager has been deemed all that is necessary and once those are in place planning and communication are well down the list of priorities. We see how poorly the club communicates with fans so how likely is it that communications with partners are better ? The statement from the UWE which confirmed they would not be putting money into the project and it would not proceed if Rovers couldn’t finance it was IMO a cold one and not what you would expect from a partner with whom Rovers had cordial relations. But the main evidence comes from the language of the writ itself and in particular the quote from the start of the meeting on 9th April 2014 when Nick opened up with “are you still intending to walk away from this site”. Now we all know Nick’s style, and he was understandably frustrated by then, but was this an isolated incident or was it symptomatic of the way he had talked to Sainsburys key executives since he thought he had the contract “in the bag” ? And if it was would that approach have endeared him to them and made them WANT to push our project forward instead of others ? Even the Board’s harshest critics tend to say “you can’t fault them when it comes to the Sainsburys issue” but have they considered all the possibilities ? I don’t know if they did make the best of the difficulties which were not of their making but I’ve tried to explain why I believe they may not have done everything possible to prevent Sainsburys executives deciding to withdraw from the project. And that is because they may have not have recognized the importance of establishing a good and close working relationship with them in the period March 2011 to June 2013. The purpose of writing all this is to present an answer AMPG’s question and put forward an alternative point of view to the conventional wisdom about the Sainsburys issue. Because in Rovers recent history conventional wisdom has found to be mistaken. Let us pray
|
|
LPGas
Stuart Taylor
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 1,240
|
Post by LPGas on Mar 8, 2015 19:25:56 GMT
I don't think it makes a bit of difference if you are matey with the people you are doing business with or not especially if it is a huge corporation. Sainsburys give the impression that they are a likeable family owned business, they are not. Sainsburys were slowing everything down in order to get out of the contract or make it too expensive for Rovers to continue. They couldn't say "we no longer want to go through with this" because simply they would have broken the contract. Personally I think they will buy it (the Mem) and here is why. If Rovers went down the compensation road they would want 10 mill. Small change for Sainsburys, but it is small change for nothing. Add a bit more change (£29 mill) and you have a large piece of land in a good location, and you don't have to pay court fees or suffer any bad publicity. Keep the Mem for 6 years and they will make a profit on the land.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 8, 2015 19:30:48 GMT
I don't think it makes a bit of difference if you are matey with the people you are doing business with or not especially if it is a huge corporation. Sainsburys give the impression that they are a likeable family owned business, they are not. Sainsburys were slowing everything down in order to get out of the contract or make it too expensive for Rovers to continue. They couldn't say "we no longer want to go through with this" because simply they would have broken the contract. Personally I think they will buy it (the Mem) and here is why. If Rovers went down the compensation road they would want 10 mill. Small change for Sainsburys, but it is small change for nothing. Add a bit more change (£29 mill) and you have a large piece of land in a good location, and you don't have to pay court fees or suffer any bad publicity. Keep the Mem for 6 years and they will make a profit on the land. Compensation for what? If the contract is void then it's exactly that and as such the terms are unenforcable. If it's a valid contract then Higgs will want his £30 million (probably costs also).
|
|
|
Post by a more piratey game on Mar 8, 2015 19:32:03 GMT
The OP asks whether the Board have made the best of difficulties which were not of their making. And the background question to that could be “why do so many things happen unexpectedly at Rovers ?” Opal pulled out of the Mem project unexpectedly, Buckle, McGhee and Ward all failed unexpectedly, we were relegated unexpectedly (twice), Barclays called in their loan unexpectedly and Sainsburys want to pull out of the deal unexpectedly ? Are these events all down to chance and bad luck or is there an underlying reason which is linked to poor communication ? If you communicate properly you can find out which way the wind is blowing, sense what other people are thinking and anticipate what is likely to happen. Once you make yourself aware of a situation you can take action to prevent unwanted things happening, minimize the damage if they are inevitable or, at the very least, you discover a plan B is necessary and can put it into operation at an early stage to increase it’s chance of success. If you don’t communicate you don’t know and if you don’t know then things do happen unexpectedly and you are left with the response “we never saw that coming”. Two years ago Rovers fans viewed Sainsburys as the partners which gave our stadium project credibility and we were proud to be associated with such a reputable company. Those opposed to the scheme were told they should not stand in the way of progress and must live in the real world where powerful corporations (and their partners) got things done. Today Sainsburys are viewed as the worst example of a bullying corporate mammon which cruelly reneges on a deal with a small private company and if we try to fight back they will “starve us into submission”. It’s typical of Rovers over the last few years that we swing from one extreme to the other but leaving that aside what is the true status of Sainsburys ? My view is that Sainsburys, from the perpective of Rovers and the Mem sale, are a group of executives doing their jobs and reporting to their shareholders. They are people with likes and dislikes, aims and ambitions and just like anyone else they are open to persuasion. Despite the market changes Sainsburys are still building large supermarkets across the country but between March 2011 and June 2013 they decided the Mem project was one which they would withdraw from if they could. What were Rovers doing between March 2011 and June 2013 other than helping the fight to obtain planning permission ? Is it possible they were not communicating properly with Sainsburys or their advisors because they could not see the need or benefits of establishing close contact and a good rapport with those executives ? The Rovers opinion may have been “we have the contract and as long as we get planning permission everything will be fine”. In fact the same stance that has been taken with the football side of the business “ we appointed a manager and we gave him a budget so everything will be fine”. But, as the football experience shows, that attitude is simply not good enough because even with contracts in place you still have work to do to make sure the terms are fulfilled and the spirit of the agreement is upheld so success may be achieved and that work involves communication. There was a deal and a written contract but IMO it is quite possible more could have been done to make sure the key Sainsburys executives WANTED to do our deal more than other deals they had on the table. It meant persuading those key executives that the Rovers deal was good for them and for Sainsburys shareholders because of the wider benefits which would come through association with the UWE Stadium project. We don’t know if Rovers tried to communicate and build a good relationship with Sainsburys executives and their advisers and we don’t know if it would have made any difference even if they had but IMO it could well have done. My suspicion is that the Board didn’t see the necessity of it and that is based upon evidence which is highly visible. The example of the football side illustrates how a contract and a budget for the manager has been deemed all that is necessary and once those are in place planning and communication are well down the list of priorities. We see how poorly the club communicates with fans so how likely is it that communications with partners are better ? The statement from the UWE which confirmed they would not be putting money into the project and it would not proceed if Rovers couldn’t finance it was IMO a cold one and not what you would expect from a partner with whom Rovers had cordial relations. But the main evidence comes from the language of the writ itself and in particular the quote from the start of the meeting on 9th April 2014 when Nick opened up with “are you still intending to walk away from this site”. Now we all know Nick’s style, and he was understandably frustrated by then, but was this an isolated incident or was it symptomatic of the way he had talked to Sainsburys key executives since he thought he had the contract “in the bag” ? And if it was would that approach have endeared him to them and made them WANT to push our project forward instead of others ? Even the Board’s harshest critics tend to say “you can’t fault them when it comes to the Sainsburys issue” but have they considered all the possibilities ? I don’t know if they did make the best of the difficulties which were not of their making but I’ve tried to explain why I believe they may not have done everything possible to prevent Sainsburys executives deciding to withdraw from the project. And that is because they may have not have recognized the importance of establishing a good and close working relationship with them in the period March 2011 to June 2013. The purpose of writing all this is to present an answer AMPG’s question and put forward an alternative point of view to the conventional wisdom about the Sainsburys issue. Because in Rovers recent history conventional wisdom has found to be mistaken. Let us pray tis a worthy and interesting answer IMO. On balance I don't agree with it, mainly because i) Rovers banged on for so long about 'our partners Sainsbury's, at least in public and ii) I don't think big company executives are generally empowered to be swayed by 'communications', but who knows. It is at least a coherent and interesting perpective
thanks swiss
|
|
|
Post by Strange Gas on Mar 8, 2015 20:17:44 GMT
Very good perspective Swiss. I agree with much of it in that Sainsburys is run by human beings who have hopes and fears and fundamentally want to do the right thing for themselves and others. With hindsight it is quite clear to me that relations had soured by time permission was granted else the issue if the inadequate permission would have been known and discussed before it got to planning committee. Doesn't matter in my view how big the deal is, people are busy and will put effort in to deals where they can work with the people and avoid those where they can't. I bet it's what we all do in our work and personal lives. This just became a difficult deal, exacerbated by TRASH. Here we are today and it still is. Hardball has become our only tool left and we should expect Sainsburys to give as good as they get. I just hope it's watertight for all our sakes.
|
|
|
Post by stevek192 on Mar 9, 2015 10:32:39 GMT
Strange Gas, Take out the "for others" and you probably have the situation perfectly. Sainsburys like the other big chains want to do it right for THEMSELVES and that is ALL they are interested in and always have been. Don't try to put them in the bracket of caring about others because it is absolute rubbish. A contract is a contract and if you go into a group and bid for something and win it then you are expected to go through with it. It is no different to E bay except with much bigger fish!! Do the big chains think of the "smaller" shops when they build their big stores- No they think of themselves and it is no different here. Its easy to put all the blame on the Board but don't start talking about Sainsburys caring about themselves AND OTHERS. They are no different than any other big business they care about themselves and nobody else and 99% of the time the big fish with the money behind them roller the others. Let's hope this is the time when Sainsburys get there comeuppance. I would describe it at the moment as unlikely but possible.
|
|
|
Post by Curly Wurly on Mar 9, 2015 11:46:41 GMT
Much as I respect the argument put forward by swissgas and I bow to his personal knowledge of the individuals involved, I find the analysis full of the benefit of hindsight.
If swiss or others were saying in 2007, don't do a deal with Opal, even though they have successfully completed 18 other major student accommodation projects, there is a credit crunch on the way and Opal, which will lead to them pulling out and they will eventually go out of business - event though there is still an increasing demand for student accommodation - well credit to them.
If swiss or others had said before we appointed Paul Buckle -ignore the fact that this guy got Torquay promoted, he hasn't got a clue how to put together a team, is tactically naive and is prone to sulking - well credit to them.
If swiss or others had said before appointing McGhee - ignore the promotions with Wolves and Leicester, ignore the apprenticeship under Alex Fergusson, ignore the contacts this guy has got, he'll do daft things like playing Adam Virgo as a centre forward and try to bring in all his Scottish cronies - well credit to them.
If swiss or others had said before appointing Ward - ignore the feel good factor that will come with this guy and the fact that he'll turn a failing team around with the best form in the league to escape relegation, only to become over cautious in the following season and allow an unhealthy culture to develop within the playing group that will flop the following season - well credit to them.
If swiss or others had said; don't go with the highest bidder in the tendering exercise to develop the Mem, there is a change in retail shopping patterns coming round the corner that will change the outlook of the major supermarkets in how they develop and Sainsburys in particular will change CEO from the expansive Justin King, to the bean counter Mike Coupe - well credit to them
If swiss or others had said; don't go with Sainsbury's because despite best efforts to get planning permission, a group of Green Party inspired NIMBY's will manage to string out the planning and judicial process for all it is worth, long enough for the changes in retail development we warned you about to take effect - well credit to them.
If swiss or others had said; ignore the fact that this club has been searching for a decent home of its own since 1939 and has had at least four major knock backs over the last 35 years in trying to develop a stadium worthy of a club of this size - well credit to them.
Even though several will be able to find evidence before the fact to say, I told you so on one or more of the above points, I don't believe that anyone could tick them all off.
Now. Where I do agree is that the current board remain abysmal at bringing fans along with them as was done in adversity at the time we moved to Twerton. Where I do agree is that there is a defensive tendency, which has led to poor or even misleading communication. Where I do agree is that there is an apparent stubborness, which exacerbates the communication issue and creates adversaries along the way.
What I do believe is that all of the episodes mentioned above have been a genuine attempt to take Bristol Rovers forward.
Hindsight is a wonderful thing.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 9, 2015 11:58:28 GMT
Strange Gas, Take out the "for others" and you probably have the situation perfectly. Sainsburys like the other big chains want to do it right for THEMSELVES and that is ALL they are interested in and always have been. Don't try to put them in the bracket of caring about others because it is absolute rubbish. A contract is a contract and if you go into a group and bid for something and win it then you are expected to go through with it. It is no different to E bay except with much bigger fish!! Do the big chains think of the "smaller" shops when they build their big stores- No they think of themselves and it is no different here. Its easy to put all the blame on the Board but don't start talking about Sainsburys caring about themselves AND OTHERS. They are no different than any other big business they care about themselves and nobody else and 99% of the time the big fish with the money behind them roller the others. Let's hope this is the time when Sainsburys get there comeuppance. I would describe it at the moment as unlikely but possible. Of course you're right. That's the way of the world. That's what we have to accommodate. In the general sense of the thread, I think the board was absolutely right to go for this scheme. I agree that the communication channells that Swiss describes seems problematically lacking at the club. Nick Rippington makes a related point in another thread. Communication involves listening, interpreting, and checking your understanding of where we are and what's best to do there. Where I think the board went in a direction I struggle with is their response, roughly 18 months ago and since, when Sainsbury's disengaged. How soon did we spot it and how did we respond? We could have stroked and coaxed them (maybe we did, but Swiss cites examples of how it sounds like we didn't); we could have sought the best possible disengagement (ditto); what we did (seemingly) was declare ourselves in the right, put all faith in the contract, and determine to hold their feet to the fire rather than seek the mutually best outcome. Given all the above, with Sainsbury's working to their interest, how might we manage that to our advantage rather than assume they'd respond well to a kicking? We've set the course, we're right, we discount the ways of the world and plough on indignantly. See also 'relegation is not an option'. it's a shame that Sainsbury's (and TRASH) (and UWE, actually) look to their best interests ahead of ours, but that shouldn't come as a surprise or even be viewed as bad luck. The thing is how we monitor manage and tack the best course through that. That's where I think the board have misjudged. Then again, I haven't seen the contract or correspondence. Maybe I'd endorse them fully if I had. I'm just extrapolating based on what we've heard and how they respond in other circumstances.
|
|
|
Post by Topper Gas on Mar 9, 2015 12:29:28 GMT
July 10, 2013: Sainsbury's informs the club that the planning permission is not acceptable because it breaches three conditions. The club waives two of them but the condition about deliveries remains outstanding. 1-0 to Sainsburys and they parked the bus, breathing a sigh of relief. They have an option on a site in the bank if they choose to use it. To switch analogies for a second we tried hard to get the lady in the taxi as Swiss describes, but she was having none of it thank you very much. But rather than go home alone, we stay out and keep drinking hoping she will change her mind. . . Totally agree, of course things could have been 'hurried along', but if Sainsbury's case is that the contract has expired, it's hard to see how we can claim against them if they haven't missed any deadlines? But as mentioned above, Rovers would need to demonstrate that the whole UWE project was funded, wouldn't they? Do we think that they can do that? Surely you are overlooking the fact the threat of a writ forced Sainsbury's to assist us with the delivery hours pp, the contract couldn't have expired at that point of Sainbury's would have just let that writ be served, that's assuming it wasn't and we have issued seperate proceedings. As far as funding I'm not sure what the shortfall is but seeing as we've manged to borrow £2m recently I guess borrowing more to build the UWE may not have been a major hurdle to overcome? If it was wouldn't NH just have walked away now with a convinent excuse that Sainsbury's didn't want to proceed?
|
|
LPGas
Stuart Taylor
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 1,240
|
Post by LPGas on Mar 9, 2015 12:36:59 GMT
Errrr I was one of those that appointing Buckle was a bad idea, Everyone shouted me down on the old forum, but at the end of the day I was well f**king right
|
|
Peter Parker
Global Moderator
Richard Walker
You have been sentenced to DELETION!
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 4,920
|
Post by Peter Parker on Mar 9, 2015 12:45:45 GMT
Strange Gas, Take out the "for others" and you probably have the situation perfectly. Sainsburys like the other big chains want to do it right for THEMSELVES and that is ALL they are interested in and always have been. Don't try to put them in the bracket of caring about others because it is absolute rubbish. A contract is a contract and if you go into a group and bid for something and win it then you are expected to go through with it. It is no different to E bay except with much bigger fish!! Do the big chains think of the "smaller" shops when they build their big stores- No they think of themselves and it is no different here. Its easy to put all the blame on the Board but don't start talking about Sainsburys caring about themselves AND OTHERS. They are no different than any other big business they care about themselves and nobody else and 99% of the time the big fish with the money behind them roller the others. Let's hope this is the time when Sainsburys get there comeuppance. I would describe it at the moment as unlikely but possible. Of course you're right. That's the way of the world. That's what we have to accommodate. In the general sense of the thread, I think the board was absolutely right to go for this scheme. I agree that the communication channells that Swiss describes seems problematically lacking at the club. Nick Rippington makes a related point in another thread. Communication involves listening, interpreting, and checking your understanding of where we are and what's best to do there. Where I think the board went in a direction I struggle with is their response, roughly 18 months ago and since, when Sainsbury's disengaged. How soon did we spot it and how did we respond? We could have stroked and coaxed them (maybe we did, but Swiss cites examples of how it sounds like we didn't); we could have sought the best possible disengagement (ditto); what we did (seemingly) was declare ourselves in the right, put all faith in the contract, and determine to hold their feet to the fire rather than seek the mutually best outcome. Given all the above, with Sainsbury's working to their interest, how might we manage that to our advantage rather than assume they'd respond well to a kicking? We've set the course, we're right, we discount the ways of the world and plough on indignantly. See also 'relegation is not an option'. it's a shame that Sainsbury's (and TRASH) (and UWE, actually) look to their best interests ahead of ours, but that shouldn't come as a surprise or even be viewed as bad luck. The thing is how we monitor manage and tack the best course through that. That's where I think the board have misjudged. Then again, I haven't seen the contract or correspondence. Maybe I'd endorse them fully if I had. I'm just extrapolating based on what we've heard and how they respond in other circumstances. football clubs are hardly blessed with pure intentions when it comes to contracts if it doesn’t suit them How often do football clubs deliberately not play someone to avoid paying them or giving a player or a new deal, or simply trying to off load them because they can’t afford to pay what they agreed anymore. We have a board made up of businessman. Are there any deals they have ever tried to pull out of in their business careers? Sainsbury’s may not have done all they could and they may well be trying to get out of a contract that is watertight (To be determined) but they are only doing what they think is best for their business and shareholders. Something Rovers and football clubs will do and have done if it benefits them
|
|
|
Post by fanatical on Mar 9, 2015 13:13:56 GMT
Strange Gas, Take out the "for others" and you probably have the situation perfectly. Sainsburys like the other big chains want to do it right for THEMSELVES and that is ALL they are interested in and always have been. Don't try to put them in the bracket of caring about others because it is absolute rubbish. A contract is a contract and if you go into a group and bid for something and win it then you are expected to go through with it. It is no different to E bay except with much bigger fish!! Do the big chains think of the "smaller" shops when they build their big stores- No they think of themselves and it is no different here. Its easy to put all the blame on the Board but don't start talking about Sainsburys caring about themselves AND OTHERS. They are no different than any other big business they care about themselves and nobody else and 99% of the time the big fish with the money behind them roller the others. Let's hope this is the time when Sainsburys get there comeuppance. I would describe it at the moment as unlikely but possible. Of course you're right. That's the way of the world. That's what we have to accommodate. In the general sense of the thread, I think the board was absolutely right to go for this scheme. I agree that the communication channells that Swiss describes seems problematically lacking at the club. Nick Rippington makes a related point in another thread. Communication involves listening, interpreting, and checking your understanding of where we are and what's best to do there. Where I think the board went in a direction I struggle with is their response, roughly 18 months ago and since, when Sainsbury's disengaged. How soon did we spot it and how did we respond? We could have stroked and coaxed them (maybe we did, but Swiss cites examples of how it sounds like we didn't); we could have sought the best possible disengagement (ditto); what we did (seemingly) was declare ourselves in the right, put all faith in the contract, and determine to hold their feet to the fire rather than seek the mutually best outcome. Given all the above, with Sainsbury's working to their interest, how might we manage that to our advantage rather than assume they'd respond well to a kicking? We've set the course, we're right, we discount the ways of the world and plough on indignantly. See also 'relegation is not an option'. it's a shame that Sainsbury's (and TRASH) (and UWE, actually) look to their best interests ahead of ours, but that shouldn't come as a surprise or even be viewed as bad luck. The thing is how we monitor manage and tack the best course through that. That's where I think the board have misjudged. Then again, I haven't seen the contract or correspondence. Maybe I'd endorse them fully if I had. I'm just extrapolating based on what we've heard and how they respond in other circumstances. do you mean guessing? - like everyone else then!
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 9, 2015 13:14:46 GMT
Totally agree, of course things could have been 'hurried along', but if Sainsbury's case is that the contract has expired, it's hard to see how we can claim against them if they haven't missed any deadlines? But as mentioned above, Rovers would need to demonstrate that the whole UWE project was funded, wouldn't they? Do we think that they can do that? Surely you are overlooking the fact the threat of a writ forced Sainsbury's to assist us with the delivery hours pp, the contract couldn't have expired at that point of Sainbury's would have just let that writ be served, that's assuming it wasn't and we have issued seperate proceedings. As far as funding I'm not sure what the shortfall is but seeing as we've manged to borrow £2m recently I guess borrowing more to build the UWE may not have been a major hurdle to overcome? If it was wouldn't NH just have walked away now with a convinent excuse that Sainsbury's didn't want to proceed? This is what was stated in the local press, Let's just try to imagine how the conversation between Higgs, Watola and Ben Littman, Sainsbury's area rep went. Higgs, Littman, I still think, based on media reports and timing, that Sainsbury's knew that it wasn't possible to get all of the permissions (as laid out in the agreed contract) before the contract expired, they didn't want to extend the dates in the contract, they weren't oblidged to, end of story. Can you imagine if positions were reversed, what would Higgs have done? We'll just have to wait and see what the specific reasons were and if indeed there were no other options but to go to Wonga.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 9, 2015 13:39:14 GMT
Of course you're right. That's the way of the world. That's what we have to accommodate. In the general sense of the thread, I think the board was absolutely right to go for this scheme. I agree that the communication channells that Swiss describes seems problematically lacking at the club. Nick Rippington makes a related point in another thread. Communication involves listening, interpreting, and checking your understanding of where we are and what's best to do there. Where I think the board went in a direction I struggle with is their response, roughly 18 months ago and since, when Sainsbury's disengaged. How soon did we spot it and how did we respond? We could have stroked and coaxed them (maybe we did, but Swiss cites examples of how it sounds like we didn't); we could have sought the best possible disengagement (ditto); what we did (seemingly) was declare ourselves in the right, put all faith in the contract, and determine to hold their feet to the fire rather than seek the mutually best outcome. Given all the above, with Sainsbury's working to their interest, how might we manage that to our advantage rather than assume they'd respond well to a kicking? We've set the course, we're right, we discount the ways of the world and plough on indignantly. See also 'relegation is not an option'. it's a shame that Sainsbury's (and TRASH) (and UWE, actually) look to their best interests ahead of ours, but that shouldn't come as a surprise or even be viewed as bad luck. The thing is how we monitor manage and tack the best course through that. That's where I think the board have misjudged. Then again, I haven't seen the contract or correspondence. Maybe I'd endorse them fully if I had. I'm just extrapolating based on what we've heard and how they respond in other circumstances. do you mean guessing? - like everyone else then! No. 1, 4, 9, 16, 25, 36, 49, 64, 81, 100. What's next? You guess '42' and hope, if you like; I extrapolate '121'. Of course, the answer might be '42', but that answer's come as a disappointment before, and I'm happier with my method.
|
|
|
Post by Curly Wurly on Mar 9, 2015 13:54:21 GMT
Errrr I was one of those that appointing Buckle was a bad idea, Everyone shouted me down on the old forum, but at the end of the day I was well f******g right Well done LP, that's one out of seven. But that return wouldn't get you much on the Lotto.
|
|