Peter Parker
Global Moderator
Richard Walker
You have been sentenced to DELETION!
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 4,920 
|
Post by Peter Parker on Jul 30, 2015 5:40:48 GMT
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.
Whats been being removed from the s**tting out money stsdium? |
|
|
|
Post by Topper Gas on Jul 30, 2015 7:37:55 GMT
Plan B could well be for a smaller/cheaper staduim at the UWE, however, nobody will want to let Sainsbury's know that until the court case is finally over, given that we were still seeking the full £30m from them, for all we know the staduim may never have even cost £30m to build as Rother ham managed to build a decent one for £20m??
|
|
|
|
Post by michaelb on Jul 30, 2015 8:03:02 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. Its strange, if she agrees to allow the appeal, It almost suugests that she is not confident of her original decision ! |
|
|
|
Post by fanatical on Jul 30, 2015 9:09:09 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. Its strange, if she agrees to allow the appeal, It almost suugests that she is not confident of her original decision ! No - it is quite normal - especially as she stated it was a complex case and she will know that other legals might come to a different view to hers. |
|
The Gas
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 484
|
Post by The Gas on Jul 30, 2015 9:09:26 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. Its strange, if she agrees to allow the appeal, It almost suugests that she is not confident of her original decision ! That's the very reason I will be surprised if she hears the case tomorrow. |
|
The Gas
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 484
|
Post by The Gas on Jul 30, 2015 9:23:28 GMT
In Court it was stated by BRFC QC that the revised Contract price (the price Sainsbury were going to pay us)was £28m, that is the original £30m less the cost of the CIL etc.
Remember the Contract was signed in 2012!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
A figure for the up to date, as of the Court date, cost of construction was never given, apart from TW's quote that there was a shortfall of £4.38m
So what the actual building cost, as of the Court case, was is anyone's guess. It certainly was not mentioned in Court. No doubt this may have increased since the last updated figure from the Buckingham group. As previously mentioned the cost is revised every three months according to TW.
|
|
womble
Arthur Cartlidge
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 300
|
Post by womble on Jul 30, 2015 9:29:42 GMT
In Court it was stated by BRFC QC that the revised Contract price (the price Sainsbury were going to pay us)was £28m, that is the original £30m less the cost of the CIL etc. Remember the Contract was signed in 2012!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! A figure for the up to date, as of the Court date, cost of construction was never given, apart from TW's quote that there was a shortfall of £4.38m So what the actual building cost, as of the Court case, was is anyone's guess. It certainly was not mentioned in Court. No doubt this may have increased since the last updated figure from the Buckingham group. As previously mentioned the cost is revised every three months according to TW. Thanks for that. Great to have information from someone who was actually there. |
|
The Gas
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 484
|
Post by The Gas on Jul 30, 2015 9:40:10 GMT
In Court it was stated by BRFC QC that the revised Contract price (the price Sainsbury were going to pay us)was £28m, that is the original £30m less the cost of the CIL etc. Remember the Contract was signed in 2012!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! A figure for the up to date, as of the Court date, cost of construction was never given, apart from TW's quote that there was a shortfall of £4.38m So what the actual building cost, as of the Court case, was is anyone's guess. It certainly was not mentioned in Court. No doubt this may have increased since the last updated figure from the Buckingham group. As previously mentioned the cost is revised every three months according to TW. Thanks for that. Great to have information from someone who was actually there. I was there for the five days of the evidence but did not attend the last two days which were devoted to each QC giving their summing up.
It was an enlightening experience and something I am glad that I attended. I have been to all the Planning/Court decisions, but not the final "verdict" and will not be in Court tomorrow.
It could be an interesting day in Court tomorrow and I wish I could be there.
|
|
|
|
Post by michaelb on Jul 30, 2015 9:51:08 GMT
Its strange, if she agrees to allow the appeal, It almost suugests that she is not confident of her original decision ! No - it is quite normal - especially as she stated it was a complex case and she will know that other legals might come to a different view to hers. I think thats my point, if has been suggested it is a complex case and in light that others might reach a different decision, if she allows it to go to appeal, to me it suggests she was not confident about her ruling ? |
|
The Gas
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 484
|
Post by The Gas on Jul 30, 2015 10:01:46 GMT
I expect the "leave to appeal" will be granted no matter who hears the case.
If it isn't, I think NH's days of being in charge will be very short.
|
|
Peter Parker
Global Moderator
Richard Walker
You have been sentenced to DELETION!
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 4,920
|
Post by Peter Parker on Jul 30, 2015 10:13:46 GMT
If we are allowed to appeal, what are reason/excuse are we going to use to get it heard A.S.A.P this time.
Rovers have made noises about having it hear by the end of the year, but surely we must give a compelling reason for it to be heard quickly
|
|
kingswood Polak
Without music life would be a mistake
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 10,278
|
Post by kingswood Polak on Jul 30, 2015 11:08:10 GMT
If we are allowed to appeal, what are reason/excuse are we going to use to get it heard A.S.A.P this time. Rovers have made noises about having it hear by the end of the year, but surely we must give a compelling reason for it to be heard quickly I was thinking along the same lines. I believe NH asked the court to expedite the hearing by end of June due to the possibility of UWE pulling out. Whatever happens, UWE will not happen from any court case with Sainsburys. It has a long shot if we get investment in |
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 30, 2015 11:11:04 GMT
If we are allowed to appeal, what are reason/excuse are we going to use to get it heard A.S.A.P this time. Rovers have made noises about having it hear by the end of the year, but surely we must give a compelling reason for it to be heard quickly UWE, maybe even in consultation with its Law Faculty, is trying to understand the small print of the judgement ahead of reacting to its conclusion, so we need to keep running to keep ahead of them. |
|
The Gas
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 484
|
Post by The Gas on Jul 30, 2015 11:15:58 GMT
If we are allowed to appeal, what are reason/excuse are we going to use to get it heard A.S.A.P this time. Rovers have made noises about having it hear by the end of the year, but surely we must give a compelling reason for it to be heard quickly I was thinking along the same lines. I believe NH asked the court to expedite the hearing by end of June due to the possibility of UWE pulling out. Whatever happens, UWE will not happen from any court case with Sainsburys. It has a long shot if we get investment in Deleted |
|
kingswood Polak
Without music life would be a mistake
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 10,278
|
Post by kingswood Polak on Jul 30, 2015 11:26:21 GMT
If we are allowed to appeal, what are reason/excuse are we going to use to get it heard A.S.A.P this time. Rovers have made noises about having it hear by the end of the year, but surely we must give a compelling reason for it to be heard quickly I thought someone had posted the UWE were sticking with it ? |
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 30, 2015 12:02:36 GMT
If we are allowed to appeal, what are reason/excuse are we going to use to get it heard A.S.A.P this time. Rovers have made noises about having it hear by the end of the year, but surely we must give a compelling reason for it to be heard quickly I thought someone had posted the UWE were sticking with it ? I think that's what was said at the time of the judgement, I think by a spokesman for UWE. However, the weird article in the Evening Post, linked from the first post in this thread was less clear. According to this, UWE are considering the small print [sic] of the judgement before commenting further. To be frank, it smacks of someone talking vague nonsense to a reporter who wrote it down and then published vague nonsense with a sense of 'job done'. So who knows. As Ann says, it would be good if the club could give a clear statement. Maybe that requires them having confidence in their position, though. |
|
The Gas
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 484
|
Post by The Gas on Jul 30, 2015 12:20:47 GMT
I thought someone had posted the UWE were sticking with it ? I think that's what was said at the time of the judgement, I think by a spokesman for UWE. However, the weird article in the Evening Post, linked from the first post in this thread was less clear. According to this, UWE are considering the small print [sic] of the judgement before commenting further. To be frank, it smacks of someone talking vague nonsense to a reporter who wrote it down and then published vague nonsense with a sense of 'job done'. So who knows. As Ann says, it would be good if the club could give a clear statement. Maybe that requires them having confidence in their position, though. I think the Evening Post reporter was Ian Onions and he is no fool.
He has an avid interest in this case and he only quotes the facts he has been told/elicited and not any rumours he has heard.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 30, 2015 12:26:15 GMT
Plan B could well be for a smaller/cheaper staduim at the UWE, however, nobody will want to let Sainsbury's know that until the court case is finally over, given that we were still seeking the full £30m from them, for all we know the staduim may never have even cost £30m to build as Rother ham managed to build a decent one for £20m?? Not sure how that would work.
I thought that the £30m was lodged in an account and released at stages as UWE was built.
If that's the case, the release of funds will be tied to a specific plan/build. Hard to see Sainsbury's agreeing to a change in detail.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 30, 2015 12:34:18 GMT
I think that's what was said at the time of the judgement, I think by a spokesman for UWE. However, the weird article in the Evening Post, linked from the first post in this thread was less clear. According to this, UWE are considering the small print [sic] of the judgement before commenting further. To be frank, it smacks of someone talking vague nonsense to a reporter who wrote it down and then published vague nonsense with a sense of 'job done'. So who knows. As Ann says, it would be good if the club could give a clear statement. Maybe that requires them having confidence in their position, though. I think the Evening Post reporter was Ian Onions and he is no fool.
He has an avid interest in this case and he only quotes the facts he has been told/elicited and not any rumours he has heard.
Maybe he had an off day: we all do. Then again, maybe he's lost track of what's previously been put into the public domain in this web of intrigue, so doesn't need elaboration, and what contradicts that so probably shouldn't just get dropped in with no explanation. In this case: 1. The ambition of the appeal is damages from Sainsbury's, not fulfilment of the contract; 2. UWE is considering its position, which is a markedly less positive stance than their last declared position. Maybe he'll do a follow-up. |
|
|
|
Post by droitwichgas on Jul 30, 2015 13:18:23 GMT
Plan B could well be for a smaller/cheaper staduim at the UWE, however, nobody will want to let Sainsbury's know that until the court case is finally over, given that we were still seeking the full £30m from them, for all we know the staduim may never have even cost £30m to build as Rother ham managed to build a decent one for £20m?? Not sure how that would work.
I thought that the £30m was lodged in an account and released at stages as UWE was built.
If that's the case, the release of funds will be tied to a specific plan/build. Hard to see Sainsbury's agreeing to a change in detail.
From yesterday's B Post article I thought it was all about compo now if the Appeal was succesful not enforcing the contract, although I do recall the Sainsbury's Barrister suggesting if they "were stuck with the Mem" they may as well know sooner than later, so perhaps the BP article was totally incorrect. |
|
