|
Post by droitwichgas on Jul 14, 2015 13:03:19 GMT
That's still the point Bridgemen made, once Sainsbury's didn't assist with the JR NH should have looked for a new partner, or simply given up on the UWE, as it was clear then that Sainsbury's were no longer going to proceed.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 14, 2015 13:17:04 GMT
That's still the point Bridgemen made, once Sainsbury's didn't assist with the JR NH should have looked for a new partner, or simply given up on the UWE, as it was clear then that Sainsbury's were no longer going to proceed. Exactly. They questioned the Sainsbury's guy about it in November 2013 and asked in Feb 14 'if they still intended walking away'. Plan B should be 18 months down the tracks by now. If it weren't needed, fair enough, but they'd at least have had a choice. Meanwhile we could have saved a fortune in court costs by trying to force the only show in town, and might even have started building work by now. The aim of the game has always been to fund the new build, not to beat Sainsbury's.
|
|
kingswood Polak
Without music life would be a mistake
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 10,278
|
Post by kingswood Polak on Jul 14, 2015 13:31:11 GMT
That's still the point Bridgemen made, once Sainsbury's didn't assist with the JR NH should have looked for a new partner, or simply given up on the UWE, as it was clear then that Sainsbury's were no longer going to proceed. Exactly. They questioned the Sainsbury's guy about it in November 2013 and asked in Feb 14 'if they still intended walking away'. Plan B should be 18 months down the tracks by now. If it weren't needed, fair enough, but they'd at least have had a choice. Meanwhile we could have saved a fortune in court costs by trying to force the only show in town, and might even have started building work by now. The aim of the game has always been to fund the new build, not to beat Sainsbury's. As usual Seth, Bang on the money. This has been turned into a sideshow but one that has overshadowed the main event. When I read the various Facebook posts, let's burn sainsburys or not buying a trolley of shopping then I despair. This has been encouraged by the official site too albeit saying to use legal protest. How can anyone be drawn in by it ? It beggars belief that so many still look to blame Sainsburys when my understanding is that the contract itself was at fault. I think there maybe some truth in that sainsburys bought the right to build with never having any intent of proceeding. I saw someone post that yesterday and laughed it off at first but, upon further thought, it made sense. I am told their bid was significantly higher than the next bid. They could well have bought it as a blocking move. Just s thought but it certainly stopped any of their competitors from building a store that would provide competition.
|
|
kingswood Polak
Without music life would be a mistake
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 10,278
|
Post by kingswood Polak on Jul 14, 2015 13:31:25 GMT
That's still the point Bridgemen made, once Sainsbury's didn't assist with the JR NH should have looked for a new partner, or simply given up on the UWE, as it was clear then that Sainsbury's were no longer going to proceed. Exactly. They questioned the Sainsbury's guy about it in November 2013 and asked in Feb 14 'if they still intended walking away'. Plan B should be 18 months down the tracks by now. If it weren't needed, fair enough, but they'd at least have had a choice. Meanwhile we could have saved a fortune in court costs by trying to force the only show in town, and might even have started building work by now. The aim of the game has always been to fund the new build, not to beat Sainsbury's. . DUPLICATE POST
|
|
|
Post by gasolder on Jul 14, 2015 13:32:30 GMT
|
|
kingswood Polak
Without music life would be a mistake
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 10,278
|
Post by kingswood Polak on Jul 14, 2015 13:35:32 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 14, 2015 13:36:47 GMT
|
|
Peter Parker
Global Moderator
Richard Walker
You have been sentenced to DELETION!
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 4,920
|
Post by Peter Parker on Jul 14, 2015 13:39:33 GMT
well the Spokeswomen had sense at least (Kirsty?)
|
|
Smithy Gas
Craig Hinton
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 271
|
Post by Smithy Gas on Jul 14, 2015 14:06:21 GMT
Its not as if the plans can just be dusted off either. The many changes in planning legislation means the the extant planning permission will not comply with current regulations on a number of issues so it would have to be a new application of a new scheme open to the usual scrutiny.
Shocking decision to let this permission lapse whilst chasing the dream... it would have been allowed easily enough and would have been a viable Plan B in a city where every other development is student housing at the moment.
|
|
|
Post by gasolder on Jul 14, 2015 14:13:26 GMT
Do we actually know if the plans were refreshed, because if they were then they are still in place given a five year extension?
|
|
|
Post by billyocean on Jul 14, 2015 14:19:54 GMT
To be fair it wasn't really BRFC that didn't get it completed, it was Sains. And the contract cut off date itself was the subject of hours and hours of debate in court because its poorly worded definition made it wide open to interpretation. Sains used it to their advantage in looking for an excuse to terminate the contract. Could BRFC have done more? Yes. Would it have changed the end result? No, IMO, because Sains would have found a different way out of it. The contract wasn't designed primarily to prevent both parties getting out of it. It was designed and drawn up with agreement from both parties when they actually wanted to proceed for their mutual benefit. The conditions were there so that Sains didn't end up buying the land but not being able to build a supermarket on it (because of a failed planning permission application). What changed over time was Sains projections and critically their ROCE not hitting hurdle. From that point on, they would use every trick in the book but, as has been now proved in court, it was all legal technically. Morally reprehensible yes. Illegal no.
But, if we had sent back Sainsbury's Delivery hours appeal and asked for amendments to their proposals (as we had to sign of on it) the perhaps we would have made the cut-off date.
What did we doing that instance? just trusting that Sainsbury's had done enough because we believed they wanted the supermarket or did we do our own work and agree that their application was good enough?
Maybe we could but Sains would have just sat on it, delayed, used tactics etc. They probably had dirty trick 3, 4, 5 and 6 all lined up ready to go. Agree we should have done more but not sure it would have changed the ultimate outcome.
|
|
womble
Arthur Cartlidge
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 300
|
Post by womble on Jul 14, 2015 14:22:27 GMT
Do we actually know if the plans were refreshed, because if they were then they are still in place given a five year extension? No they weren't. Despite the fact that the cost would probably have been limited to a few thousand pounds, Rovers withdrew the application for renewal in June 2013. That means that the planning permission has lapsed, and the only current valid permission is for a rather large supermarket. As I've said before, a spectacularly short-sighted decision.
|
|
|
Post by CountyGroundHotel on Jul 14, 2015 14:54:42 GMT
If UWE pull the plug then that would be a thousand times worse news than Sainsbury's winning today's case. We don't need UWE, all we need is a competant BoD and to slowly develop the ground we already have. Or, If I were investing I would be looking long and hard at that land opposite Filton Airport, much better site than UWE. There is no Plan B, if there were that would be Higgs' focus today, not whinging on about losing the case on a technicallity. Which bit doesn't he understand, the whole point was to argue those technicalities and to convince Judy that they were the very reasons that the contract should be enforced. Said for a very long time that site would've been perfect to jointly develop with Glos CCC thus sharing a lot of facilities for year round use. However I'd now be dead set against that idea as Glos CCC are in the perfect position, playing in front of my balcony.
|
|
Bridgeman
Alfie Biggs
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 3,549
|
Post by Bridgeman on Jul 14, 2015 19:51:39 GMT
Do we actually know if the plans were refreshed, because if they were then they are still in place given a five year extension? No they weren't. Despite the fact that the cost would probably have been limited to a few thousand pounds, Rovers withdrew the application for renewal in June 2013. That means that the planning permission has lapsed, and the only current valid permission is for a rather large supermarket. As I've said before, a spectacularly short-sighted decision. I think it just indicates how water tight the BoD's or certainly Nick and Tony thought the contract was, why would you continue extending planning permission for the Mem when i) the money to develop it was no longer available, Opal having withdrawn and ii) you'd gone through a tendering process that was going to deliver the funds to build a brand new stadium, pay off the loans to the Director's or former Director's and also had planning permission for the supermarket and the UWE stadium, there would no reason to extend the planning permission for the Mem, it could seem at the time to 'our partners' that we either weren't serious about their proposal or we didn't trust them to deliver (how ironic !). Anyone know if that planning permission is transferable to another competitor ? Or perhaps we could build our own (hmmm shopping or watching football at the Mem, now there's a choice ? )
|
|
|
Post by Topper Gas on Jul 14, 2015 20:45:51 GMT
I assume any retailer could take over the plans, with Sainsbury's permission?, but I can't see the likes of Aldi nor Lidl would want to build such a large store particularly, as it's been designed solely for Sainsbury's use.
I wonder what Sainsbury's reaction would be now if say Waitrose or Asda stepped forward and said they'd buy Mem for £20m and build the superstore along the lines of the plans already agreed? In fact could Rovers have negotiated a lower sale price to keep the deal, and RoTR, alive rather than follow the NH typical route of "we'll sue
|
|
Smithy Gas
Craig Hinton
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 271
|
Post by Smithy Gas on Jul 14, 2015 21:57:29 GMT
Planning permission is based for a site not an applicant so it is possible with amendments to the current permission.
|
|