|
Post by Topper Gas on Mar 11, 2015 21:29:53 GMT
It's odd Sainsbury's are so open about pulling out of these developments but not about ours, I guess this will be ammunition for our lawyers. Although if they can seemingly just walk away from these contracts why does NH think ours is so watertight?
|
|
Peter Parker
Global Moderator
Richard Walker
You have been sentenced to DELETION!
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 4,920
|
Post by Peter Parker on Mar 12, 2015 6:39:56 GMT
It's odd Sainsbury's are so open about pulling out of these developments but not about ours, I guess this will be ammunition for our lawyers. Although if they can seemingly just walk away from these contracts why does NH think ours is so watertight? Maybe they havent said anything due to the Rovers secrecy clause
|
|
|
Post by stevek192 on Mar 12, 2015 10:20:30 GMT
They are being taken to the cleaners by the general public everyday now and by some of the other big stores. This is probably the main reason behind them trying to get out of it.
|
|
Peter Parker
Global Moderator
Richard Walker
You have been sentenced to DELETION!
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 4,920
|
Post by Peter Parker on Mar 12, 2015 11:17:56 GMT
They are being taken to the cleaners by the general public everyday now and by some of the other big stores. This is probably the main reason behind them trying to get out of it. We know why they are trying to get out of it, it’s just how. Google Sainsbury’s and you can see how many development’s they have pulled out of, or are trying to stop. For me the question is what agreements have they signed in these cases and how do they get out of them so easily? Maybe because no one has the money to take them on perhaps. Rovers have borrowed to do so, bravely or foolishly I guess will depend on how the verdict goes.
|
|
|
Post by Nobbygas on Mar 12, 2015 15:04:41 GMT
Or maybe NH used a legal team that he knew from his past at Cowlin to draw up the contract, and with that previous experience they were aware of the type of 'clauses' that Sainsbury's would probably like to add to any contract that would enable them to walk away at any point. Maybe Sainsbury's have come up against a legal team that are experienced in these types of contracts, rather than a legal team from a local council would be?
Just a thought.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 12, 2015 15:20:39 GMT
Or maybe NH used a legal team that he knew from his past at Cowlin to draw up the contract, and with that previous experience they were aware of the type of 'clauses' that Sainsbury's would probably like to add to any contract that would enable them to walk away at any point. Maybe Sainsbury's have come up against a legal team that are experienced in these types of contracts, rather than a legal team from a local council would be? Just a thought. Think you hit the nail on the head Nobby
|
|
Peter Parker
Global Moderator
Richard Walker
You have been sentenced to DELETION!
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 4,920
|
Post by Peter Parker on Mar 12, 2015 15:44:14 GMT
Or maybe NH used a legal team that he knew from his past at Cowlin to draw up the contract, and with that previous experience they were aware of the type of 'clauses' that Sainsbury's would probably like to add to any contract that would enable them to walk away at any point. Maybe Sainsbury's have come up against a legal team that are experienced in these types of contracts, rather than a legal team from a local council would be? Just a thought. and what a wrote was, maybe nobody has had the money to take them on. Rovers have borrowed to do so. FACT and we will find out if it is a good move or not. Without that borrowing, could we afford to take them on however good our legal bods are?
Maybe Nick Higgs has a legal team that know what they are doing and have it sewn up. I mean we all hope he does.
Doesn’t say much for all the property dealers and legal experts that various councils etc. have employed over other projects
|
|
|
Post by Nobbygas on Mar 12, 2015 17:06:23 GMT
I'd imagine that the vast majority of contracts that Sainsbury's have are with local councils, and as they use public funds I think it's a pretty fair assumption that local councils don't use expensive legal teams to draw up the contracts. I don't wish to castigate people/legal teams that work for local councils, but the very fact they do probably means that they're not as 'streetwise' as the expensive mob. This probably makes it pretty easy for Sainsbury's to include their 'get out' clauses, which is why we see Sainsbury's pulling out of deals left right and centre.
I'm pretty sure that NH has used his experience with Cowlin and used a legal team that has probably worked for him in the past.
Keep the faith.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 12, 2015 17:14:20 GMT
They are being taken to the cleaners by the general public everyday now and by some of the other big stores. This is probably the main reason behind them trying to get out of it. We know why they are trying to get out of it, it’s just how. Google Sainsbury’s and you can see how many development’s they have pulled out of, or are trying to stop. For me the question is what agreements have they signed in these cases and how do they get out of them so easily? Maybe because no one has the money to take them on perhaps. Rovers have borrowed to do so, bravely or foolishly I guess will depend on how the verdict goes. Can you find any examples of them being forced to complete a deal they didn't want?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 12, 2015 17:21:18 GMT
I'd imagine that the vast majority of contracts that Sainsbury's have are with local councils, and as they use public funds I think it's a pretty fair assumption that local councils don't use expensive legal teams to draw up the contracts. I don't wish to castigate people/legal teams that work for local councils, but the very fact they do probably means that they're not as 'streetwise' as the expensive mob. This probably makes it pretty easy for Sainsbury's to include their 'get out' clauses, which is why we see Sainsbury's pulling out of deals left right and centre. I'm pretty sure that NH has used his experience with Cowlin and used a legal team that has probably worked for him in the past. Keep the faith. Someone mentioned Ed Ware's wife was working for us on the case didn't they? Did she work for Cowlin? But aside from that, did Cowlin deal with this type of legal stuff or did they just do the construction?
|
|
Peter Parker
Global Moderator
Richard Walker
You have been sentenced to DELETION!
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 4,920
|
Post by Peter Parker on Mar 12, 2015 17:23:08 GMT
We know why they are trying to get out of it, it’s just how. Google Sainsbury’s and you can see how many development’s they have pulled out of, or are trying to stop. For me the question is what agreements have they signed in these cases and how do they get out of them so easily? Maybe because no one has the money to take them on perhaps. Rovers have borrowed to do so, bravely or foolishly I guess will depend on how the verdict goes. Can you find any examples of them being forced to complete a deal they didn't want? Haven't come across anything, only that all the big supermarkets are already sitting on land they don't want to develop yet or at all
|
|
|
Post by Nobbygas on Mar 12, 2015 17:42:33 GMT
I'd imagine that the vast majority of contracts that Sainsbury's have are with local councils, and as they use public funds I think it's a pretty fair assumption that local councils don't use expensive legal teams to draw up the contracts. I don't wish to castigate people/legal teams that work for local councils, but the very fact they do probably means that they're not as 'streetwise' as the expensive mob. This probably makes it pretty easy for Sainsbury's to include their 'get out' clauses, which is why we see Sainsbury's pulling out of deals left right and centre. I'm pretty sure that NH has used his experience with Cowlin and used a legal team that has probably worked for him in the past. Keep the faith. Someone mentioned Ed Ware's wife was working for us on the case didn't they? Did she work for Cowlin? But aside from that, did Cowlin deal with this type of legal stuff or did they just do the construction? I think you'll find that even if you just 'do the construction' contracts will still need to be drawn up.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 12, 2015 18:11:39 GMT
Someone mentioned Ed Ware's wife was working for us on the case didn't they? Did she work for Cowlin? But aside from that, did Cowlin deal with this type of legal stuff or did they just do the construction? I think you'll find that even if you just 'do the construction' contracts will still need to be drawn up. I'm sure that Nick will get the tenders/build contract spot on with whoever builds UWE, what I'm asking is, did Cowlin deal with purchase/sale contracts for sites that were to be developed?
|
|
|
Post by Nobbygas on Mar 12, 2015 19:16:45 GMT
No idea. However, they probably are more savvy in what to include if at any stage you want to back out of a contract.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 12, 2015 19:46:21 GMT
No idea. However, they probably are more savvy in what to include if at any stage you want to back out of a contract. No pressure then Nick, it's just the entire future of the FC riding on you having got this spot on. Makes you wonder why Sainsbury's don't just pay up though, I mean, if they are tied to a watertight contract, why would they waste a fortune on their own expenses and still continue knowing that they will get saddled with our costs and damages?
|
|
|
Post by Curly Wurly on Mar 12, 2015 20:04:43 GMT
Or maybe NH used a legal team that he knew from his past at Cowlin to draw up the contract, and with that previous experience they were aware of the type of 'clauses' that Sainsbury's would probably like to add to any contract that would enable them to walk away at any point. Maybe Sainsbury's have come up against a legal team that are experienced in these types of contracts, rather than a legal team from a local council would be? Just a thought. and what a wrote was, maybe nobody has had the money to take them on. Rovers have borrowed to do so. FACT and we will find out if it is a good move or not. Without that borrowing, could we afford to take them on however good our legal bods are?
Maybe Nick Higgs has a legal team that know what they are doing and have it sewn up. I mean we all hope he does.
Doesn’t say much for all the property dealers and legal experts that various councils etc. have employed over other projects
Some time ago, myself and others looked at the details of the schemes that Sainsbury's pulled out of. In a nutshell, it seemed like none were quite similar to the Mem arrangement. By and large, the schemes seemed to fit into 3 different patterns: 1. Sainsbury's already owned the land, sometimes with an existing store in place, but chose not to develop (i.e. just keep in their "landbank"). 2. A separate developer was involved in the land purchase or already owned the land and Sainsbury's would only be leasing the land. 3. The plans were more speculative and contracts were not in place, planning permission was in doubt or had problems - some of these have similarities with the Horfield case. There seemed very few if any where there was a contract in place for purchase of land and Sainsbury's subsequently pulled out. From type 1: Wadebridge - already owned land, started groundworks, but halted. South Ruislip - already owned store and shelved plans for redevelopment Tonbridge - already owned store and pulled out of redevelopment Haverfordwest - - already owned land, but halted development. Narberth - smaller development already owned store. Type2: Prudhoe - development scheme on Duke of Northumberland land - pulled out of lease deal South End Green - small scheme to convert local shops - failed to agree on terms Type 3: Cardigan - permission granted, but there were significant stability problems with the land and Sains pulled out. Perth - time limit on a contract expired and pulled out due to a legal challenge from Tesco Ayr - still pending, but challenging non-food conditions imposed in planning permission Kingsmead Canterbury - pulled out before PP Hinkley - pulled out before PP Southampton - pulled out before PP Abingdon Chater - pulled out before PP Todmorden - PP refused and pulled out of appeal There don't seem to be any where a full contract is in place, pp granted, S106, JR, EH appeal and Onerous conditions removed. As others have said, the other difference is that Sainsburys were quite happy to publicly state their withdrawl from all of the above, but have not done so with the Mem. Well that's an hour I'll never get back
|
|
|
Post by Curly Wurly on Mar 12, 2015 20:32:54 GMT
We know why they are trying to get out of it, it’s just how. Google Sainsbury’s and you can see how many development’s they have pulled out of, or are trying to stop. For me the question is what agreements have they signed in these cases and how do they get out of them so easily? Maybe because no one has the money to take them on perhaps. Rovers have borrowed to do so, bravely or foolishly I guess will depend on how the verdict goes. Can you find any examples of them being forced to complete a deal they didn't want? Can't find a single one I'm afraid
|
|
Bridgeman
Alfie Biggs
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 3,549
|
Post by Bridgeman on Mar 12, 2015 21:14:04 GMT
and what a wrote was, maybe nobody has had the money to take them on. Rovers have borrowed to do so. FACT and we will find out if it is a good move or not. Without that borrowing, could we afford to take them on however good our legal bods are?
Maybe Nick Higgs has a legal team that know what they are doing and have it sewn up. I mean we all hope he does.
Doesn’t say much for all the property dealers and legal experts that various councils etc. have employed over other projects
Some time ago, myself and others looked at the details of the schemes that Sainsbury's pulled out of. In a nutshell, it seemed like none were quite similar to the Mem arrangement. By and large, the schemes seemed to fit into 3 different patterns: 1. Sainsbury's already owned the land, sometimes with an existing store in place, but chose not to develop (i.e. just keep in their "landbank"). 2. A separate developer was involved in the land purchase or already owned the land and Sainsbury's would only be leasing the land. 3. The plans were more speculative and contracts were not in place, planning permission was in doubt or had problems - some of these have similarities with the Horfield case. There seemed very few if any where there was a contract in place for purchase of land and Sainsbury's subsequently pulled out. From type 1: Wadebridge - already owned land, started groundworks, but halted. South Ruislip - already owned store and shelved plans for redevelopment Tonbridge - already owned store and pulled out of redevelopment Haverfordwest - - already owned land, but halted development. Narberth - smaller development already owned store. Type2: Prudhoe - development scheme on Duke of Northumberland land - pulled out of lease deal South End Green - small scheme to convert local shops - failed to agree on terms Type 3: Cardigan - permission granted, but there were significant stability problems with the land and Sains pulled out. Perth - time limit on a contract expired and pulled out due to a legal challenge from Tesco Ayr - still pending, but challenging non-food conditions imposed in planning permission Kingsmead Canterbury - pulled out before PP Hinkley - pulled out before PP Southampton - pulled out before PP Abingdon Chater - pulled out before PP Todmorden - PP refused and pulled out of appeal There don't seem to be any where a full contract is in place, pp granted, S106, JR, EH appeal and Onerous conditions removed. As others have said, the other difference is that Sainsburys were quite happy to publicly state their withdrawl from all of the above, but have not done so with the Mem. Well that's an hour I'll never get back Maybe so but you've identified some fascinating information from your research, thank you and well done.
|
|
intheknow
Archie Stephens
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 232
|
Post by intheknow on Mar 12, 2015 21:42:37 GMT
No idea. However, they probably are more savvy in what to include if at any stage you want to back out of a contract. No pressure then Nick, it's just the entire future of the FC riding on you having got this spot on. Makes you wonder why Sainsbury's don't just pay up though, I mean, if they are tied to a watertight contract, why would they waste a fortune on their own expenses and still continue knowing that they will get saddled with our costs and damages? £29,000000 pounds in their bank account for 12 months longer than it should of been at 3% interest? Pays a few legal bills plus a bit more
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 12, 2015 22:35:06 GMT
No pressure then Nick, it's just the entire future of the FC riding on you having got this spot on. Makes you wonder why Sainsbury's don't just pay up though, I mean, if they are tied to a watertight contract, why would they waste a fortune on their own expenses and still continue knowing that they will get saddled with our costs and damages? £29,000000 pounds in their bank account for 12 months longer than it should of been at 3% interest? Pays a few legal bills plus a bit more The legal costs from both sides will be more than £870,000. And I would imagine that Rovers will be claiming the interest they are paying on the Wonga funds that have been used fighting the case from Sainsbury's anyway.
|
|