|
Post by Curly Wurly on Mar 9, 2015 14:02:14 GMT
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. =IF(n<11,n^2,(n^2-79))
|
|
|
Post by Topper Gas on Mar 9, 2015 14:07:51 GMT
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. If it was the "end of storey" would NH really be wasting ££'s fighting the case in the RJC?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 9, 2015 14:10:32 GMT
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. =IF(n<11,n^2,(n^2-79)) That would do it. So it could be that, so it must be that, so that's me convinced!
|
|
|
Post by swissgas on Mar 9, 2015 14:16:00 GMT
Thanks for the responses to my post yesterday, particularly Curly Wurly's, and for taking the time to think about this issue. We hear a lot from managers about "managing the game" and I'm sure we all nod at that and think to ourselves how appropriate it is. But when it comes to the business side of football most fans seem content to accept that things will happen come what may, people will look after their own interests and we have no control over events so we just go with the flow and see what happens. When it comes to Curly Wurly's points about hindsight and our managers I think I can sit back smugly and reap the rewards of my "managing the manager" theory which I've bored people on this forum with for years. But, as Seth Starkadder says, the same managing a situation principle applies in all other aspects of the business and you need to "monitor, manage and tack the best course" to achieve your objectives. It's a bit like when you teach your kids to drive and over and over again you find yourself repeating the word ANTICIPATE. Teenagers are quick to argue back "but it's his/her fault", I've got right of way" "he/she wasn't looking". And I'm sure most of us respond like I did by saying yes, you are right, but it's better to steer clear of a damaging situation because we might get hurt, we will have the hassle of an insurance claim and an accident does no one any good so no matter who is right or wrong it's much better to avoid it if you can. The Opal situation is an excellent example of the strategy I am trying to put forward. If I remember correctly the sequence of events which the board gave us was "we thought everything was all right, suddenly we got a letter out of the blue telling us they were pulling out, don't worry there are other student accommodation providers who would love to join us in this project, oh, the market has changed no one wants to come in, if someone had not "spilled the beans" and given the game away we could have found another firm to replace Opal, so the blame lies with the market and whoever "spilled the beans". This was at a time when student accommodation deals were still being done as was pointed out many times on the forums. If the board had been in close communication with the key executives at Opal and had established a good rapport with them they may well have found out which way the wind was blowing. They may well have been able to enter negotiations with those other providers at an early stage and put together an alternative deal. By doing this Rovers would have found themselves in the driving seat with two acceptable deals on the table and with the executives of the two accommodation providers fighting it out to see which one would win the race for the Rovers' business. That is how the market works. There are no special arrangements made just because we are Bristol Rovers. Better add the rider that these are just my opinions and I'm not claiming my theories are always right. In the same way as buckrippers, mehewmagic and stevek put together their pieces I sometimes get a bit of fun by going to town on a subject. But I do think it can be beneficial to occasionally think a bit deeper about what goes on at Rovers because it does lead to a better understanding of events and through discussion we might possibly help stimulate the Board to make better decisions in the future.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 9, 2015 14:18:37 GMT
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. If it was the "end of storey" would NH really be wasting ££'s fighting the case in the RJC? In poker terms it's called 'playing on tilt'. Or maybe he's just calculating and playing the odds. Not real figures, just for example's sake. Contract value, £30m Residual value of stadium £10m Cost of bringing action £1m Payout, if the case is won, 20/1.
|
|
|
Post by Topper Gas on Mar 9, 2015 20:00:18 GMT
Nobody is surely going to gamble £1m just in the hope the Judge has a bad day in the office and decides that Sainsbury's case is flawed when it isn't, if he did no doubt Sainsbury's would soon appeal. There must be some substance to our case as it's not a raffle we're entering with a guaranteed 1 in 20 chance of winning.
|
|
Cheshiregas
Global Moderator
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 2,165
|
Post by Cheshiregas on Mar 9, 2015 20:25:53 GMT
The Opal situation is an excellent example of the strategy I am trying to put forward. If I remember correctly the sequence of events which the board gave us was "we thought everything was all right, suddenly we got a letter out of the blue telling us they were pulling out, don't worry there are other student accommodation providers who would love to join us in this project, oh, the market has changed no one wants to come in, if someone had not "spilled the beans" and given the game away we could have found another firm to replace Opal, so the blame lies with the market and whoever "spilled the beans". This was at a time when student accommodation deals were still being done as was pointed out many times on the forums. If the board had been in close communication with the key executives at Opal and had established a good rapport with them they may well have found out which way the wind was blowing. They may well have been able to enter negotiations with those other providers at an early stage and put together an alternative deal. By doing this Rovers would have found themselves in the driving seat with two acceptable deals on the table and with the executives of the two accommodation providers fighting it out to see which one would win the race for the Rovers' business. That is how the market works. There are no special arrangements made just because we are Bristol Rovers. Better add the rider that these are just my opinions and I'm not claiming my theories are always right. In the same way as buckrippers, mehewmagic and stevek put together their pieces I sometimes get a bit of fun by going to town on a subject. But I do think it can be beneficial to occasionally think a bit deeper about what goes on at Rovers because it does lead to a better understanding of events and through discussion we might possibly help stimulate the Board to make better decisions in the future. The Opal exit was a strange one. There were all sorts of noises and excuses coming out of the club at the time about it being impossible without Opal. Yet I was working with 2 existing players in Manchester and Leeds (other than Opal) and a new Australian entrant who were all looking to do student accommodation deals UK wide. Steel prices had fallen, labour costs were static and construction companies were looking for new deals as work dried up. A rebuild/modification of the Mem could have been done for a reasonable price and relatively quickly. Yet I also remember being shot down on the OF at the time and being told that such a thing was not possible. But then I suppose I was in the North of England not in the microcosm that is BS7....
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 9, 2015 20:40:42 GMT
Nobody is surely going to gamble £1m just in the hope the Judge has a bad day in the office and decides that Sainsbury's case is flawed when it isn't, if he did no doubt Sainsbury's would soon appeal. There must be some substance to our case as it's not a raffle we're entering with a guaranteed 1 in 20 chance of winning. I didn't say that the chance of winning was 20/1, I said that the potential return would be £20 back for each £1 staked.
|
|
|
Post by Topper Gas on Mar 9, 2015 21:25:59 GMT
Whatever, running a court case is never going to be an investment chance when the outcome is a big unknown.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 9, 2015 22:06:59 GMT
Whatever, running a court case is never going to be an investment chance when the outcome is a big unknown. It's not a big unknown though is it. There can only be one of two decisions. (Higgs has already stated that he won't discuss any pre-hearing settlement, or at least I think that's what was reported back from last week's AGM?) Sainsbury's employ people who do this stuff all day every day. Rovers have had the help of a planning expert. Both sides will have been continually assessing the odds of getting the desired outcome, and will weigh that against the risks involved.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 10, 2015 14:11:03 GMT
The Opal situation is an excellent example of the strategy I am trying to put forward. If I remember correctly the sequence of events which the board gave us was "we thought everything was all right, suddenly we got a letter out of the blue telling us they were pulling out, don't worry there are other student accommodation providers who would love to join us in this project, oh, the market has changed no one wants to come in, if someone had not "spilled the beans" and given the game away we could have found another firm to replace Opal, so the blame lies with the market and whoever "spilled the beans". This was at a time when student accommodation deals were still being done as was pointed out many times on the forums. If the board had been in close communication with the key executives at Opal and had established a good rapport with them they may well have found out which way the wind was blowing. They may well have been able to enter negotiations with those other providers at an early stage and put together an alternative deal. By doing this Rovers would have found themselves in the driving seat with two acceptable deals on the table and with the executives of the two accommodation providers fighting it out to see which one would win the race for the Rovers' business. That is how the market works. There are no special arrangements made just because we are Bristol Rovers. Better add the rider that these are just my opinions and I'm not claiming my theories are always right. In the same way as buckrippers, mehewmagic and stevek put together their pieces I sometimes get a bit of fun by going to town on a subject. But I do think it can be beneficial to occasionally think a bit deeper about what goes on at Rovers because it does lead to a better understanding of events and through discussion we might possibly help stimulate the Board to make better decisions in the future. The Opal exit was a strange one. There were all sorts of noises and excuses coming out of the club at the time about it being impossible without Opal. Yet I was working with 2 existing players in Manchester and Leeds (other than Opal) and a new Australian entrant who were all looking to do student accommodation deals UK wide. Steel prices had fallen, labour costs were static and construction companies were looking for new deals as work dried up. A rebuild/modification of the Mem could have been done for a reasonable price and relatively quickly. Yet I also remember being shot down on the OF at the time and being told that such a thing was not possible. But then I suppose I was in the North of England not in the microcosm that is BS7.... That's an interesting post that deserves acknowledgement. The wider picture is less strange when you factor in that we'd been approached by UWE and there was a whole different scheme in germination behind all the 'it's Opal's fault' and 'it's the credit crunch - bad timing, I'm afraid'. Of course there was still a demand for student accommodation (I never saw the merit in the site for a hotel) and the amount that's gone up since bears that out, all despite Opal's wobbles and the recession. Nevertheless, I think I'd have gone for the UWE option instead. On the one hand, I'd have thought 'we've got this far, let's re-partner and keep going' and 'do we really need a 20,000 seater?'; on the other 'this is more ambitious, with a better outcome', 'UWE and South Glos are keen', and (apparently) 'the financials are better'. But that's history, bang goes another decade and £x million, but there you go. I guess it raises the question, though, whether a similar scheme might be possible now, either with a football pitch in the middle, or funding a stadium at UWE.
|
|
|
Post by badbloodash on Mar 10, 2015 16:59:37 GMT
The Opal exit was a strange one. There were all sorts of noises and excuses coming out of the club at the time about it being impossible without Opal. Yet I was working with 2 existing players in Manchester and Leeds (other than Opal) and a new Australian entrant who were all looking to do student accommodation deals UK wide. Steel prices had fallen, labour costs were static and construction companies were looking for new deals as work dried up. A rebuild/modification of the Mem could have been done for a reasonable price and relatively quickly. Yet I also remember being shot down on the OF at the time and being told that such a thing was not possible. But then I suppose I was in the North of England not in the microcosm that is BS7.... That's an interesting post that deserves acknowledgement. The wider picture is less strange when you factor in that we'd been approached by UWE and there was a whole different scheme in germination behind all the 'it's Opal's fault' and 'it's the credit crunch - bad timing, I'm afraid'. Of course there was still a demand for student accommodation (I never saw the merit in the site for a hotel) and the amount that's gone up since bears that out, all despite Opal's wobbles and the recession. Nevertheless, I think I'd have gone for the UWE option instead. On the one hand, I'd have thought 'we've got this far, let's re-partner and keep going' and 'do we really need a 20,000 seater?'; on the other 'this is more ambitious, with a better outcome', 'UWE and South Glos are keen', and (apparently) 'the financials are better'. But that's history, bang goes another decade and £x million, but there you go. I guess it raises the question, though, whether a similar scheme might be possible now, either with a football pitch in the middle, or funding a stadium at UWE. I've always wondered why the uwe stadium wasn't designed to incorporate student accommodation as a purpose built design would make the project more affordable and solve the accommodation problem as well . my daughter is a student there and has told me that some of her felllow students are struggling to find digs and pay inflated prices for those near the campus I'm sure that even at this late stage we could amend the planning maybe this could be plan b
|
|
|
Post by onedaytheuwe on Mar 10, 2015 19:11:58 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 onedaytheuwe on Mar 10, 2015 19:20:36 GMT
Bamber Are we 100% sure it is that black and white - either we win or lose . The legal system is very complex and the judge might decide one of many verdicts. He could find evidence of faults on both side and offer us a healthy sum ( £15 mil). Or he might decide we failed in one area but not enough to enforce but offer big ( £20 mil plus) Or he might say ' we have a weak case' but collect your monies back on the way out ( £1 mil plus ). Who knows I don't. However: is that the general view it is £35 million or £0.00 ?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 10, 2015 19:48:13 GMT
Bamber Are we 100% sure it is that black and white - either we win or lose . The legal system is very complex and the judge might decide one of many verdicts. He could find evidence of faults on both side and offer us a healthy sum ( £15 mil). Or he might decide we failed in one area but not enough to enforce but offer big ( £20 mil plus) Or he might say ' we have a weak case' but collect your monies back on the way out ( £1 mil plus ). Who knows I don't. However: is that the general view it is £35 million or £0.00 ? You are spot on, the legal system can be unpredictable, but would be very interested in an explanation as to how the contract would be partially enforcable? So, in the scenario you mention above, £15m to represent what? Sainsbury's seem very confident of their position, they may be going in to this thinking that's it's a shoe-in and they will get costs awarded in their favour? Not long to go now and we will know the answers. Unless of course a settlement is reached which is subject to a confidentiality agreement
|
|
|
Post by Topper Gas on Mar 10, 2015 20:06:08 GMT
There's plenty of cases reported on the internet where the claimant has only recovered part of their losses in similar contract disputes. Civil law, unlike criminal law, is not simply a case of "guilty" or "not guilty" there's a grey area in the middle. Hence, why both BRFC & Sainsbury's apparently feel they are in the right, TBH honest if we accept a settlement which means we survive as a club at least it better than the Hereford Utd/Salisbury City scenarios!
|
|
|
Post by onedaytheuwe on Mar 10, 2015 20:34:07 GMT
Totally agree Topper but I was just asking the question is it that black and white ?. No-one knows including me and there could be many many complex issues. The judge might decide that Sainsbury's have found one area of debate and legally can't enforce . However: Sainsbury's haven't acted 'in spirit' to resolve this area of debate. So the judge can't legally ask Sainsbury's to honour and pay out in full. But may decide they are putting up 'stumbling blocks' and using one issue too broadly. So the question could be : What did Sainsbury's do to work alongside and find a resolution What I do know is when it goes ahead it will be like PM'S question time - lots of mind-games and manipulation...
|
|
|
Post by onedaytheuwe on Mar 10, 2015 20:57:54 GMT
Bamber The judge may well identify 'one area' we failed in. However : he may ask the question to Sainsbury's ' What did you do to resolve it ?'. So on such a macro project were a little flexibility is expected by all parties . He may decide that Sainsbury's didn't work within the 'spirit ' expected . So instead of using legalism as a way out - what did Sainsbury's do to address this flaw and work towards a quick outcome ? If I receive notification of my TV licence on March 5th . Do that give me exemption from paying on february 28th ??. A silly point I know but Sainsbury's will need to demonstrate they are not using things to get out of a contract. So what happens then ??. They identify a weakness in us. But we identify a big get out weakness in them. Not enough to enforce but enough to prove Sainsbury's had an hidden agenda and didn't really want to build . Maybe 50 -50 on the retail sale of £35 million could be demanded ?
|
|
|
Post by Topper Gas on Mar 10, 2015 21:25:01 GMT
Problem is we've no idea of the contract expiry date was it last month or 6 months ago? Also is Sainsbury's defence solely based on the contract expiry date or are they going to introduce unknowns like the fact they had concerns we couldn't finance the deal, worried the UWE would pull out on the deal as we hadn't agreed the deal on the car park building etc, etc?
It will be an interesting case come May and there's always the concern our BoD may have a lot of thier dirty washing brought out in public.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 10, 2015 21:34:54 GMT
We'll have to wait and see, but it would be prudent to take the maximum time to prepare for each stage of any planning process so that you can react to changing circumstances and ensure that you are best prepared to obtain permissions. The very best of luck trying to argue that as your trump card.
Likewise, we are told that Ben Littman told Higgs and Watola that Sainsbury's didn't intend to complete, I wonder what evidence there is to support that?
I hope that we don't go into it acting like the protagonists at PMQs, that's not manipulation and mind games, it's just shouting.
Was it Higgs or Jelf who was quoted last week as saying that there were plans B,C and D? The detail of those plans could have a bearing on the final losses that Rovers could ultimately sustain.
Topper.
There seems to be a feeling that compensation is due and it's just arguing the toss over how much. All I'm saying is that we could find the tables turned on us and Sainsbury's could attempt to not only shred the contract but also recover their costs from us.
|
|