Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 13, 2015 16:20:32 GMT
I would say it was a victory for the council myself. The agreement paid for the new swimming pool with money left over and they keep the land. The article says the pay off contributed towards paying off the cost of the pool, £5.3 million, but it actually paid it off with money leftover.
That's not what the story says, sounds as if you know more than they wanted you to Do you have a link to what actually happened? Edit. How do you know who insisted on the gagging order? Word on the street is that Tescos paid through the nose to get out of the contract. And insisted on a gagging order on the amount as a condition of the deal. Also, Tesco paid all of the councils costs and the retention of the land was part of the deal.
Sainsburys beware!!
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 13, 2015 16:22:28 GMT
My info came from my usual contact in the planning office - Maybe they talk to their colleagues in other local planning offices ? So just gossip and hearsay then. It does help if one is in the construction industry....
|
|
Teigngas
Steve White
Joined: June 2014
Posts: 265
|
Post by Teigngas on Mar 13, 2015 16:23:13 GMT
In other, maybe slightly relevant news, Morrisons have announced that they are putting a stop on small local stores (closing a number) and concentrating on large ones only.
Actually it`s not relevant because Sainsburys didn`t say it but it`s interesting that another supermarket chain appears to have a completely different view on things.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 13, 2015 16:23:44 GMT
That's not what the story says, sounds as if you know more than they wanted you to Do you have a link to what actually happened? Edit. How do you know who insisted on the gagging order? My info came from my usual contact in the planning office - Maybe they talk to their colleagues in other local planning offices ? Your info is spot on.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 13, 2015 16:27:02 GMT
My info came from my usual contact in the planning office - Maybe they talk to their colleagues in other local planning offices ? Your info is spot on. So let's get this straight. A settlement is reached with a gagging order, but people are now in possesion of the detail of that settlement and are posting details of it on internet forums?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 13, 2015 16:36:53 GMT
So let's get this straight. A settlement is reached with a gagging order, but people are now in possesion of the detail of that settlement and are posting details of it on internet forums? To a certain extent. You have to read between lines sometimes and when a person in authority says `Tescos have paid through the nose to get out of a contract to buy land, which paid off a £5.3 million loan with money left over but the `exact` figure cant be disclosed and the land is retained by the council as part of the deal` you just have to believe it true. Its the `exact` final figure which wont get out.
|
|
Peter Parker
Global Moderator
Richard Walker
You have been sentenced to DELETION!
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 4,920
|
Post by Peter Parker on Mar 13, 2015 16:41:31 GMT
I believe a court date was set for this case but Tesco settled early with a gagging order in place Correct. I would say the compensation package was £6 million+ as the overall project was massive. Not just that land in the photo. Personally I think Rovers will win their case. Messing with a project which involves a University will be Sainsbury's undoing!! As well as a watertight contract of course!
Sorry, what are UWE doing in all this? Surely they are irrelevant to the court case and potential enforcement of said contract
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 13, 2015 16:42:53 GMT
So let's get this straight. A settlement is reached with a gagging order, but people are now in possesion of the detail of that settlement and are posting details of it on internet forums? To a certain extent. You have to read between lines sometimes and when a person in authority says `Tescos have paid through the nose to get out of a contract to buy land, which paid off a £5.3 million loan with money left over but the `exact` figure cant be disclosed and the land is retained by the council as part of the deal` you just have to believe it true. Its the `exact` final figure which wont get out.
So, they 'paid through the nose' but we don't know how much. It's reported incorrectly that the sum went towards paying off the cost of building a swimming pool. There's a gagging order, but staff members don't care and tell all and sundry. We don't know who insisted on the gagging order. Experience has told me that it's foolish to ''just believe that things are true''.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 13, 2015 16:54:48 GMT
Correct. I would say the compensation package was £6 million+ as the overall project was massive. Not just that land in the photo. Personally I think Rovers will win their case. Messing with a project which involves a University will be Sainsbury's undoing!! As well as a watertight contract of course!
Sorry, what are UWE doing in all this? Surely they are irrelevant to the court case and potential enforcement of said contract Just an `off the cuff` comment due to the fact education is an area which appears to get its fair share of support in parliament, local authorities etc, etc and gets favouritism whereas any other `business` or such like wouldn't. They are irrelevant but relevant in that respect to a certain extent as the UWE would progress with the Stadium. Just my way of thinking through past knowledge of planning applications etc.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 13, 2015 17:01:00 GMT
To a certain extent. You have to read between lines sometimes and when a person in authority says `Tescos have paid through the nose to get out of a contract to buy land, which paid off a £5.3 million loan with money left over but the `exact` figure cant be disclosed and the land is retained by the council as part of the deal` you just have to believe it true. Its the `exact` final figure which wont get out.
So, they 'paid through the nose' but we don't know how much. It's reported incorrectly that the sum went towards paying off the cost of building a swimming pool. There's a gagging order, but staff members don't care and tell all and sundry. We don't know who insisted on the gagging order. Experience has told me that it's foolish to ''just believe that things are true''. The loan was £5.3 million. That loan was paid off with money to spare. They paid all of Sedgemoors cost towards the project; the project being 4/5 times bigger than just that area shown in the link. Tesco's Insisted on the gagging order, I said that. Staff telling all and sunry? You mean the cleaner or tea lady? Its up to each of us to believe whats true or not. If you are sceptical that's fair enough, I usually am until I know the true facts.
|
|
|
Post by fanatical on Mar 13, 2015 17:11:21 GMT
Why apologise, Trym started talking about a local council sueing Tesco, unless I've missed something here, neither of them are involed in any way in the dispute between Rovers and Sainsbury's? This picture of a tiny pig running away with a carrot is also in today's news. looks like a Gloucester Old Spot
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 13, 2015 17:49:25 GMT
I'm sure someone posted here or on the other forum that Sainsburys did indeed back down when a council threatened to sue them for pulling out of a development that was an integral part of a town centre development. Just can't find it at the moment. ( Was it Hemel Hempstead?) What I don't understand is why our other partners in all this don't seem to be helping with the upfront costs of suing these nefarious people who believe big means the law is irrelevant to them. Perhaps this is where big companies start to get their comeuppance. After all, BCC must have spent a hell of a lot of taxpayers money doing their bit to resolve these issues, not to mention that UWE are desperate to get a stadium built. UWE aren't desperate to get a stadium built, are losing patience, and are close to knocking the whole scheme on the head. That's why the case got fast tracked. They've always said there are other uses for the land.
|
|
toteend
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 305
|
Post by toteend on Mar 13, 2015 18:08:15 GMT
You really need to chill out Bamber. If you can't see the reason it's similar that is your problem. Think it's pretty obvious myself.
Thanks Trym, it shows there is hope of beating a supermarket at its own game.
Seth, if you believe that, fair enough, I couldn't possibly comment.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 13, 2015 18:30:00 GMT
My info came from my usual contact in the planning office - Maybe they talk to their colleagues in other local planning offices ? So just gossip and hearsay then. Nope Clear Facts
|
|
Bridgeman
Alfie Biggs
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 3,549
|
Post by Bridgeman on Mar 13, 2015 18:30:53 GMT
That's not what the story says, sounds as if you know more than they wanted you to Do you have a link to what actually happened? Edit. How do you know who insisted on the gagging order? My info came from my usual contact in the planning office - Maybe they talk to their colleagues in other local planning offices ? Not in my experience they don't not directly anyway. Most have professional newsletters/magazines or web sites that they can access that outline how various projects are managed
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 13, 2015 18:36:55 GMT
I'm sure someone posted here or on the other forum that Sainsburys did indeed back down when a council threatened to sue them for pulling out of a development that was an integral part of a town centre development. Just can't find it at the moment. ( Was it Hemel Hempstead?) What I don't understand is why our other partners in all this don't seem to be helping with the upfront costs of suing these nefarious people who believe big means the law is irrelevant to them. Perhaps this is where big companies start to get their comeuppance. After all, BCC must have spent a hell of a lot of taxpayers money doing their bit to resolve these issues, not to mention that UWE are desperate to get a stadium built. UWE aren't desperate to get a stadium built, are losing patience, and are close to knocking the whole scheme on the head. That's why the case got fast tracked. They've always said there are other uses for the land. Can then please explain why UWE planning agents was at Glou Planning dept this week discussing minor changes to plans to accommodate the stadium ??
|
|
Bridgeman
Alfie Biggs
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 3,549
|
Post by Bridgeman on Mar 13, 2015 18:39:25 GMT
To a certain extent. You have to read between lines sometimes and when a person in authority says `Tescos have paid through the nose to get out of a contract to buy land, which paid off a £5.3 million loan with money left over but the `exact` figure cant be disclosed and the land is retained by the council as part of the deal` you just have to believe it true. Its the `exact` final figure which wont get out.
So, they 'paid through the nose' but we don't know how much. It's reported incorrectly that the sum went towards paying off the cost of building a swimming pool. There's a gagging order, but staff members don't care and tell all and sundry. We don't know who insisted on the gagging order. Experience has told me that it's foolish to ''just believe that things are true''. You are absolutely right, there is a certain degree of what I would describe as 'whistling in the wind' going on as usual in some of these threads !
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 13, 2015 18:57:14 GMT
UWE aren't desperate to get a stadium built, are losing patience, and are close to knocking the whole scheme on the head. That's why the case got fast tracked. They've always said there are other uses for the land. Can then please explain why UWE planning agents was at Glou Planning dept this week discussing minor changes to plans to accommodate the stadium ?? Because there's a world of difference between being 'desperate to get a stadium built', which was the statement (maybe even 'dangerous assumption') I challenged, and agreeing to a stadium being built until such time that they lose faith in it ever happening and find another use for the land. If my statement is wrong, can you explain why the club's lawyers stood up in court and said it?
|
|
|
Post by Nobbygas on Mar 13, 2015 19:02:45 GMT
Maybe it was a tactic they had agreed with UWE to get the court case heard ASAP, instead of it being delayed for another year by Sainsbury's ?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 13, 2015 19:05:22 GMT
So, they 'paid through the nose' but we don't know how much. It's reported incorrectly that the sum went towards paying off the cost of building a swimming pool. There's a gagging order, but staff members don't care and tell all and sundry. We don't know who insisted on the gagging order. Experience has told me that it's foolish to ''just believe that things are true''. You are absolutely right, there is a certain degree of what I would describe as 'whistling in the wind' going on as usual in some of these threads ! Not for the first time Bridgeman you are absolutely wrong. Along with the never wrong Mr gasgroin. You keep whistling in the wind and I will keep on posting what I know is true. if I didn't I would not post it. Unlike some
|
|