Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 4, 2015 10:32:37 GMT
Why not just find a viable way of funding the stadium at UWE or abandoning the idea and doing something achievable?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 4, 2015 11:08:15 GMT
Why not just find a viable way of funding the stadium at UWE or abandoning the idea and doing something achievable? Because that would involve a certain person having to admit defeat. |
|
|
|
Post by Henbury Gas on Sept 4, 2015 11:14:27 GMT
Why not just find a viable way of funding the stadium at UWE or abandoning the idea and doing something achievable? A ground share at Ashton is "Viable" as well.... |
|
|
|
Post by gashead1979 on Sept 4, 2015 11:15:10 GMT
True, planning permission was allowed to lapse on the Mem and there's no gaurantee the club would now get pp for re-developing the Mem. As far as Appeals if we lose this one next year I guess that's game over but even if we win you could see Sainsbury's taking this to the final Appeal which I assume could take another year or two? If the mem redevelopment was back on the cards you just watch those nimbies/ROSE back complaining, they will be the same ones that a) didnt want a supermarket and b) felt we were unethical in selling a war memorial. |
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 4, 2015 12:35:13 GMT
True, planning permission was allowed to lapse on the Mem and there's no gaurantee the club would now get pp for re-developing the Mem. As far as Appeals if we lose this one next year I guess that's game over but even if we win you could see Sainsbury's taking this to the final Appeal which I assume could take another year or two? If the mem redevelopment was back on the cards you just watch those nimbies/ROSE back complaining, they will be the same ones that a) didnt want a supermarket and b) felt we were unethical in selling a war memorial. When TRASH surfaced it split the original ROSE members. Plenty of them were happy with Sainsbury's proposals and were more than a little frustrated with TRASH for adopting the position that they took. |
|
|
|
Post by gashead1979 on Sept 4, 2015 13:13:43 GMT
If the mem redevelopment was back on the cards you just watch those nimbies/ROSE back complaining, they will be the same ones that a) didnt want a supermarket and b) felt we were unethical in selling a war memorial. When TRASH surfaced it split the original ROSE members. Plenty of them were happy with Sainsbury's proposals and were more than a little frustrated with TRASH for adopting the position that they took. Ah I didnt know that, presumed it was the majority after seeing similar names on petition and council website each time. Shame the actual contract was about as watertight as Katie Price's snatch.. |
|
The Gas
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 484 
|
Post by The Gas on Sept 4, 2015 13:31:03 GMT
Why not just find a viable way of funding the stadium at UWE or abandoning the idea and doing something achievable? I'm sure there is one.
Nick will pull a rabbit out of his top pocket.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 4, 2015 13:40:07 GMT
Why not just find a viable way of funding the stadium at UWE or abandoning the idea and doing something achievable? I'm sure there is one.
Nick will pull a rabbit out of his top pocket.
In which case, stop paying lawyers to chase a dead contract and petulantly adhering to what surely everyone believes is the road to nowhere. It would seem to make sense. |
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 4, 2015 14:01:34 GMT
When TRASH surfaced it split the original ROSE members. Plenty of them were happy with Sainsbury's proposals and were more than a little frustrated with TRASH for adopting the position that they took. Ah I didnt know that, presumed it was the majority after seeing similar names on petition and council website each time. Shame the actual contract was about as watertight as Katie Price's snatch.. Yes, some of the names associated with ROSE were also active TRASH supporters, but not all of them. With the rugby club sodding off to the dark side, things are better now than ROSE could ever have hoped. A ROSE member said to me, and I'll try to quote as accurately as possible, but it was quite a while ago, so this probably isn't verbatim, but you'll get the idea,  |
|
|
|
Post by PessimistGas on Sept 4, 2015 14:12:41 GMT
When TRASH surfaced it split the original ROSE members. Plenty of them were happy with Sainsbury's proposals and were more than a little frustrated with TRASH for adopting the position that they took. Ah I didnt know that, presumed it was the majority after seeing similar names on petition and council website each time. Shame the actual contract was about as watertight as Katie Price's snatch.. The contract is watertight and has been for some time. |
|
|
|
Post by gashead1979 on Sept 4, 2015 14:17:24 GMT
Ah I didnt know that, presumed it was the majority after seeing similar names on petition and council website each time. Shame the actual contract was about as watertight as Katie Price's snatch.. Yes, some of the names associated with ROSE were also active TRASH supporters, but not all of them. With the rugby club sodding off to the dark side, things are better now than ROSE could ever have hoped. A ROSE member said to me, and I'll try to quote as accurately as possible, but it was quite a while ago, so this probably isn't verbatim, but you'll get the idea, That ROSE member is spot on, some of them just want to stop any change at all costs, surprised they dont all travel by horse and cart especially with the so called air pollution issues.!! As you say they have it pretty good now with only 1 game every fortnight or so, but will sure to complain with something like 'right for light' issues if the stadium expansion were to reignite. Some of the residents called for the mem to be turned into a park with a memorial garden, who the hell is going to pay the required price for a park! lol |
|
Lazza
Rod Hull
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 264
|
Post by Lazza on Sept 4, 2015 14:27:42 GMT
Ah I didnt know that, presumed it was the majority after seeing similar names on petition and council website each time. Shame the actual contract was about as watertight as Katie Price's snatch.. The contract is watertight and has been for some time. Aye indeed, said a man some time ago who has been found out as a confidence trickster with no real football business acumen whatsoever.  We all joke about it to lighten up our dark moods about this vital issue but boy is it depressing knowing you have a complete tw#t running the football club you love. A man who NEVER admits his mistakes and keeps on making them. The sooner that particular candle burns out the better for all of us.  |
|
|
|
Post by Henbury Gas on Sept 4, 2015 14:44:08 GMT
The contract is Still watertight until Sir Nick gives up the appeal process  |
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 4, 2015 14:48:08 GMT
About as water tight as a packet of happy shopper Johnies.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 4, 2015 15:54:25 GMT
Why not just find a viable way of funding the stadium at UWE or abandoning the idea and doing something achievable? I'm sure there is one.
Nick will pull a rabbit out of his top pocket.
No chance. His man boobs are in the way. |
|
|
|
Post by PeterHooper57 on Sept 4, 2015 18:22:47 GMT
I fear the only hope is that Sainsbury's will get nervous about the Appeal going in our favour and so make a more attractive if offer of compensation. I just can't see the Appeal court overturning the original Judgement and awarding us the full amount of the contract. Your right. They wont. Rovers are unlikely to win as it is very much a case of buyer beware. The provisions within the contract allowed Shamesburys to walk away; any eventual compensation, for some minor breach on the part of the supermarket will be minimal. Higgs knows this, lets hope he does in fact have a plan B. |
|
|
|
Post by droitwichgas on Sept 4, 2015 20:58:49 GMT
I'm sure there is one.
Nick will pull a rabbit out of his top pocket.
In which case, stop paying lawyers to chase a dead contract and petulantly adhering to what surely everyone believes is the road to nowhere. It would seem to make sense. Perhaps there is a Plan B in place to fund the UWE if Sainsbury's don't fund it and NH is having one last punt at getting some compo, after all spending another few thousand on cost does make sense if it recovers millions. As surely the UWE would have called time on the stadium if it was no longer viable and sort better use for the land? |
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 4, 2015 23:20:43 GMT
In which case, stop paying lawyers to chase a dead contract and petulantly adhering to what surely everyone believes is the road to nowhere. It would seem to make sense. Perhaps there is a Plan B in place to fund the UWE if Sainsbury's don't fund it and NH is having one last punt at getting some compo, after all spending another few thousand on cost does make sense if it recovers millions. As surely the UWE would have called time on the stadium if it was no longer viable and sort better use for the land? A few hundred thousand. Plus Sainsbury's costs - let's call it half a million. And that punt is against a High Court Judge already having concluded the answer is 'no'. I hope it's his money he's taking the punt with, especially since, apparently, Plan B will sort the stadium for us, and the whole thing is just about increasing the book value for the major shareholder. I hope no-one's expecting investment in a playing squad, as we're increasingly a (unsuccessful) property speculation company, piggy-backing a football club, and all resources are being thrown at that failing 'punt'. Please can we go back to being a football club. |
|
Thatslife
"Decisions are made by those who turn up"
Joined: June 2014
Posts: 669
|
Post by Thatslife on Sept 5, 2015 7:58:35 GMT
I'm sure there is one.
Nick will pull a rabbit out of his top pocket.
In which case, stop paying lawyers to chase a dead contract and petulantly adhering to what surely everyone believes is the road to nowhere. It would seem to make sense. That's a very broad statement. The contract is not dead (dying maybe) and not everyone believes it's going nowhere. |
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 5, 2015 8:07:10 GMT
In which case, stop paying lawyers to chase a dead contract and petulantly adhering to what surely everyone believes is the road to nowhere. It would seem to make sense. That's a very broad statement. The contract is not dead (dying maybe) and not everyone believes it's going nowhere. I would say that it's dead but that Higgsy is trying to resuscitate it. |
|
