The Gas
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 484
|
Post by The Gas on Jul 29, 2015 19:07:09 GMT
And even if the contract were to be enforced, UWE is reported to cost a lot more than £30m, so does anyone know where the rest of the money is coming from? Where is it reported to cost a 'lot' more than £30m? I thought the court case had established the build cost to be £31.7m. TW mentioned in Court that there was a shortfall of £4.38m, of which £2.7m was covered.
He added that Sainsbury were not funding a fully fitted out stadium but it would not be a basic stadium. The UWE estimate was updated every 3 months. Items were being taken out as costs increased.
It was a fixed price building contract.
|
|
The Gas
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 484
|
Post by The Gas on Jul 29, 2015 19:27:17 GMT
That is correct, it will only be our lawyers in Court. Yes. On this occasion it's us against Mrs Justice Proudfoot. Add her to the long list. Meanwhile the the grass continues to grow on that field at UWE. I cannot believe that Mrs Justice Proudman will be hearing the appeal, if that is what you are inferring.
|
|
dido
Predictions League
Peter Aitken
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 1,883
|
Post by dido on Jul 29, 2015 19:39:18 GMT
Implying.
|
|
|
Post by Topper Gas on Jul 29, 2015 19:39:47 GMT
Proudlove will deal with Friday's hearing to seek leave to Appeal. If she gives approval then our Appeal will be heard by the Court of Appeal judges. Then should that not be acceptable I assume it can be challenged in the House of Lords.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 29, 2015 19:43:09 GMT
Surely the first hurdle is to overcome Friday's hearing, then win the Appeal, then worry about enforcing the contract/compensation. There seems little point the discussing the latter for 20 pages until we get past the first two stages and then Sainsbury's then contest the Appeal decision. And we then have a lengthy dispute about what constitutes 'the stadium', it sounds as if what's planed now is very different from the all singing all dancing complex that Sainsbury's thought they were funding, then we can have an argument about whether build costs are correct and have been kept to a minimum to meet the original spec and when the last competitive tender process was, there's £1.6m due to BCC to be argued over as well, and probably a dozen other things.
I'm off for a nap, if this is sorted before 2020 can someone give me a nudge please?
|
|
|
Post by Topper Gas on Jul 29, 2015 19:47:33 GMT
Perhaps Ferguson could waive the £1.6m levy his council want as that could well increase Sainsbury's return on investment black to nearer the 12% return they wanted!
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 29, 2015 19:48:14 GMT
Yes. On this occasion it's us against Mrs Justice Proudfoot. Add her to the long list. Meanwhile the the grass continues to grow on that field at UWE. I cannot believe that Mrs Justice Proudman will be hearing the appeal, if that is what you are inferring. You've got 36 hours to get used to the idea. It's her they want to have a word with: who d'you think it should be? Oh, and it's not an appeal: it's permission to apply for an appeal - which might then be heard (by someone else) about this time next year.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 29, 2015 19:51:34 GMT
Perhaps Ferguson could waive the £1.6m levy his council want as that could well increase Sainsbury's return on investment black to nearer the 12% return they wanted! As far as Sainsbury's are concerned the £1.6m is Higgs' problem. And we were told that he wasn't very happy when he found out about it.
Add that to the list of things they can use to stall / delay.
|
|
The Gas
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 484
|
Post by The Gas on Jul 29, 2015 19:55:40 GMT
I cannot believe that Mrs Justice Proudman will be hearing the appeal, if that is what you are inferring. You've got 36 hours to get used to the idea. It's her they want to have a word with: who d'you think it should be? Oh, and it's not an appeal: it's permission to apply for an appeal - which might then be heard (by someone else) about this time next year. Can you point me in the direction where it says Mrs Justice Proudman will hear the case for leave to appeal as I cannot find it in the Evening Post article.
|
|
|
Post by bluebeard on Jul 29, 2015 19:57:23 GMT
Perhaps Ferguson could waive the £1.6m levy his council want as that could well increase Sainsbury's return on investment black to nearer the 12% return they wanted! As far as Sainsbury's are concerned the £1.6m is Higgs' problem. And we were told that he wasn't very happy when he found out about it.
Add that to the list of things they can use to stall / delay.
If The Gas has his figures right, the shortfall is £4.3m less £2.7m that's "covered" which equals £1.6m. Council b'stards.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 29, 2015 19:59:38 GMT
As far as Sainsbury's are concerned the £1.6m is Higgs' problem. And we were told that he wasn't very happy when he found out about it.
Add that to the list of things they can use to stall / delay.
If The Gas has his figures right, the shortfall is £4.3m less £2.7m that's "covered" which equals £1.6m. Council b******s. Do you know how we got from £40m down to £32.7m, especially when I think that Higgs' writ was talking about build costs increasing month-on-month?
|
|
|
Post by chippenhamgas on Jul 29, 2015 20:04:32 GMT
Surely the first hurdle is to overcome Friday's hearing, then win the Appeal, then worry about enforcing the contract/compensation. There seems little point the discussing the latter for 20 pages until we get past the first two stages and then Sainsbury's then contest the Appeal decision. And we then have a lengthy dispute about what constitutes 'the stadium', it sounds as if what's planed now is very different from the all singing all dancing complex that Sainsbury's thought they were funding, then we can have an argument about whether build costs are correct and have been kept to a minimum to meet the original spec and when the last competitive tender process was, there's £1.6m due to BCC to be argued over as well, and probably a dozen other things.
I'm off for a nap, if this is sorted before 2020 can someone give me a nudge please? you are mightily optimistic to think this football club will last till 2020 under current ownership.
|
|
|
Post by bluebeard on Jul 29, 2015 20:05:50 GMT
You've got 36 hours to get used to the idea. It's her they want to have a word with: who d'you think it should be? Oh, and it's not an appeal: it's permission to apply for an appeal - which might then be heard (by someone else) about this time next year. Can you point me in the direction where it says Mrs Justice Proudman will hear the case for leave to appeal as I cannot find it in the Evening Post article. Yea not sure where that came from but it makes sense for her to grant leave and for someone else to review the decision. Maybe all high court rulings are written in a similar way but hers did seem to be lacking in conviction. I'm getting excited. Let's take this all the way, the gas, the gas, you'll never get rid of the gas.
|
|
|
Post by bluebeard on Jul 29, 2015 20:07:07 GMT
And we then have a lengthy dispute about what constitutes 'the stadium', it sounds as if what's planed now is very different from the all singing all dancing complex that Sainsbury's thought they were funding, then we can have an argument about whether build costs are correct and have been kept to a minimum to meet the original spec and when the last competitive tender process was, there's £1.6m due to BCC to be argued over as well, and probably a dozen other things.
I'm off for a nap, if this is sorted before 2020 can someone give me a nudge please? you are mightily optimistic to think this football club will last till 2020 under current ownership. You are mightily optimistic if you think this poster is going for a nap.
|
|
|
Post by bluebeard on Jul 29, 2015 20:07:38 GMT
Double post
|
|
|
Post by bluebeard on Jul 29, 2015 20:15:28 GMT
If The Gas has his figures right, the shortfall is £4.3m less £2.7m that's "covered" which equals £1.6m. Council b******s. Do you know how we got from £40m down to £32.7m, especially when I think that Higgs' writ was talking about build costs increasing month-on-month? No but its standard to have 2 sets of figures in business. One for the tax man and one for the investors. Or in our case, NH has just switched to Superkings which has enabled a more detailed cost appraisal.
|
|
|
Post by Topper Gas on Jul 29, 2015 20:18:23 GMT
You've got 36 hours to get used to the idea. It's her they want to have a word with: who d'you think it should be? Oh, and it's not an appeal: it's permission to apply for an appeal - which might then be heard (by someone else) about this time next year. Can you point me in the direction where it says Mrs Justice Proudman will hear the case for leave to appeal as I cannot find it in the Evening Post article. It said so in an earlier report: m.bristolpost.co.uk/Bristol-Rovers-confirms-appeal-High-Court-ruling/story-27440120-detail/story.htmlIn fact it also said it would be this Friday so this isn't new news anyway!
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 29, 2015 20:59:58 GMT
Or in our case, NH has just switched to Superkings which has enabled a more detailed cost appraisal.
|
|
womble
Arthur Cartlidge
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 300
|
Post by womble on Jul 29, 2015 22:24:25 GMT
If The Gas has his figures right, the shortfall is £4.3m less £2.7m that's "covered" which equals £1.6m. Council b******s. Do you know how we got from £40m down to £32.7m, especially when I think that Higgs' writ was talking about build costs increasing month-on-month? Actually we do know. £40m is the project cost, which includes absolutely everything, the construction cost, the professional fees, the land value etc. The construction cost is £31.7m. The nominal land value is £8m. This was covered by giving UWE the stadium naming rights in exchange for the 125 year lease on the land, so the actual money changing hands is zero, but it is still included in the project cost. The steady inflation of the build has taken the project from a point where the stadium could be built and leave money to pay off debts, to where it exceeded the money from to be received from Sainsbury's. Unfortunately, this is almost certainly an entirely theoretical discussion.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 29, 2015 22:27:19 GMT
Great, I'm off to the pub then. For twelve months? Nope, I'm back now. Great ales though.
|
|