|
Post by bluebeard on Nov 17, 2015 20:26:43 GMT
No, I don't think it was? I do know the club categorically denied that the judge said the offer should have been accepted. As for your other point, maybe Higgs would have been praised for getting us out of an onerous contract. More likely though, it would simply be accepted and he would be lambasted for taking us into it in the first place. But isn't it more about the relative impact? Sainsburys the retail giant, would simply buy another site. We are a small local business with limited resources and we are being left well and truly in the s***. The trouble is that we have a ruling from a judge that we willingly walked into the s*** of our own accord. Major multi-national (I think) company screws over small business is hardly anything new under the sun. I don't see how relative impact will have bearing on anything here - it is simply about what the contract says. One judge looked at it for months and decided that Sainsbury's are in the clear - I would suggest the chances of another judge reaching the opposing decision is pretty slim as no one at all is suggesting that a glaring error has been made and there's no new information. It seems to me that we are hoping that whoever hears this is in a contrary mood because I don't think judges normally overrule other judges unless they have a pretty rock solid reason for doing so and even then Sainsbury's will presumably appeal. As for the hope of compensation - it seems to me that it's like playing a game of Poker in which you are trying to bluff but your opponent already knows your cards. I wouldn't argue with any of that IR but someone has posted on gas chat that our judge has a relatively poor record (or good from our perspective) in terms of having judgements overturned. But just to clarify, my point about impact was aimed at the moral high ground debate not the legal position.
|
|
|
Post by droitwichgas on Nov 17, 2015 20:31:38 GMT
On that logic no-one would ever win an appeal, I'd suggest that the evidence proves otherwise. As to the judgement I didn't take anything away that suggested her verdict was clear cut, to paraphrase she said along the lines that the contract needed a good draughtsman (ie in legalise it was a pigs ear of a contract), didn't seem to refer to any previous precedents (ie she could indeed be setting the precedent) and even said 'and if I'm right,which I believe I am.... ' again hardly a ringing endorsement of her own decision. Still its the big corporation against the little dog so let's give up. Of course that dies overlook the fact that both parties have top quality legal teams I would suggest the contract had a good draughtsman (at least for Sainsbury’s that is). Sainsbury’s must have had hundreds of similar contracts written over the years and seem to be pulling out all sort of sites relatively easily We could all agree on the judge’s summation has hardly being a ringing endorsement, but her interpretation was that the contract had a clause that could not be met. For all the clubs tubthumping how they won this point, that point, kind of irrelevant if all 4 judges decide the most important point can’t be made. You can win 11 rounds in a boxing match by jabbing your oponent, but matters little if you get knocked out in the 12th. Perhaps we can get some clarification of what can be argued at appeal and whether we are just trying to overturn this one insurmountable point. It says the case will last 3 days. I wonder how long we have to wait for 3 judges to come to a decision. Will we be looking at March/April? I hope it goes our way, but am dreading it not. Anyone got any news on the clubs re-financing? Have Wonga extended our repayment date Problem is what happens if we do win, will Sainsbury's just pay up or will they seek leave to Appeal, if they do Appeal how long will that decision take let alone the Appeal hearing itself? Alternatively will there be a long drawn out dispute, even more court proceedings/appeals, over what compensation Sainsbury's are due to pay? If there's a consortium on the scene how long will they wait around? In some ways losing and finally moving on might be better than winning and being left in limbo for another few years, although the best outcome might well be a deal being thrashed out before the Appeal hearing.
|
|
|
Post by billyocean on Nov 17, 2015 21:24:02 GMT
Used to do the big family shop once a fortnight in Sainsburys Ironically, if we'd all switched back to big fortnightly supermarket shops at the time the contract was initially drawn up, the sale would've gone ahead. Wish someone had thought of it back then
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 17, 2015 21:54:46 GMT
I would suggest the contract had a good draughtsman (at least for Sainsbury’s that is). Sainsbury’s must have had hundreds of similar contracts written over the years and seem to be pulling out all sort of sites relatively easily We could all agree on the judge’s summation has hardly being a ringing endorsement, but her interpretation was that the contract had a clause that could not be met. For all the clubs tubthumping how they won this point, that point, kind of irrelevant if all 4 judges decide the most important point can’t be made. You can win 11 rounds in a boxing match by jabbing your oponent, but matters little if you get knocked out in the 12th. Perhaps we can get some clarification of what can be argued at appeal and whether we are just trying to overturn this one insurmountable point. It says the case will last 3 days. I wonder how long we have to wait for 3 judges to come to a decision. Will we be looking at March/April? I hope it goes our way, but am dreading it not. Anyone got any news on the clubs re-financing? Have Wonga extended our repayment date Problem is what happens if we do win, will Sainsbury's just pay up or will they seek leave to Appeal, if they do Appeal how long will that decision take let alone the Appeal hearing itself? Alternatively will there be a long drawn out dispute, even more court proceedings/appeals, over what compensation Sainsbury's are due to pay? If there's a consortium on the scene how long will they wait around? In some ways losing and finally moving on might be better than winning and being left in limbo for another few years, although the best outcome might well be a deal being thrashed out before the Appeal hearing. And if we do win, and whether or not they then appeal to push us into 2017, then what? If it's ever made to stand, the deal is they pay us £30 mill, we use that to build at UWE, and then move out and give them possession. Except it will probably cost a lot more than that five year old figure to build at UWE (and by memory there was an unexplained gap in the figures even back then). Would we find the missing millions to get on and build? There must be some cut off date in the contract for them taking possession of the place. If we haven't built at UWE by then, do we pack up our £30 million and move out, or buy it back off them? There's potentially years of non-progress and worthless assurances the other side of winning the appeal. Normally I'd expect all that to be managed and in hand with contingency plans and the rest, but this lot have lost all credibility on that score.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 17, 2015 21:59:23 GMT
Problem is what happens if we do win, will Sainsbury's just pay up or will they seek leave to Appeal, if they do Appeal how long will that decision take let alone the Appeal hearing itself? Alternatively will there be a long drawn out dispute, even more court proceedings/appeals, over what compensation Sainsbury's are due to pay? If there's a consortium on the scene how long will they wait around? In some ways losing and finally moving on might be better than winning and being left in limbo for another few years, although the best outcome might well be a deal being thrashed out before the Appeal hearing. And if we do win, and whether or not they then appeal to push us into 2017, then what? If it's ever made to stand, the deal is they pay us £30 mill, we use that to build at UWE, and then move out and give them possession. Except it will probably cost a lot more than that five year old figure to build at UWE (and by memory there was an unexplained gap in the figures even back then). Would we find the missing millions to get on and build? There must be some cut off date in the contract for them taking possession of the place. If we haven't built at UWE by then, do we pack up our £30 million and move out, or buy it back off them? There's potentially years of non-progress and worthless assurances the other side of winning the appeal. Normally I'd expect all that to be managed and in hand with contingency plans and the rest, but this lot have lost all credibility on that score. Wasn't this the point of the writ, to lay down a case for claiming costs such as increased build price?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 17, 2015 22:05:28 GMT
And if we do win, and whether or not they then appeal to push us into 2017, then what? If it's ever made to stand, the deal is they pay us £30 mill, we use that to build at UWE, and then move out and give them possession. Except it will probably cost a lot more than that five year old figure to build at UWE (and by memory there was an unexplained gap in the figures even back then). Would we find the missing millions to get on and build? There must be some cut off date in the contract for them taking possession of the place. If we haven't built at UWE by then, do we pack up our £30 million and move out, or buy it back off them? There's potentially years of non-progress and worthless assurances the other side of winning the appeal. Normally I'd expect all that to be managed and in hand with contingency plans and the rest, but this lot have lost all credibility on that score. Wasn't this the point of the writ, to lay down a case for claiming costs such as increased build price? Was it? It's all becoming a bit of a blur 16 months on. The writ was withdrawn, wan't it, so that would be another court case. All hypothetical though: I don't believe the Sainsbury's contract will build the UWE stadium (or that the appeal will be upheld).
|
|
|
Post by bluebeard on Nov 17, 2015 22:47:27 GMT
Problem is what happens if we do win, will Sainsbury's just pay up or will they seek leave to Appeal, if they do Appeal how long will that decision take let alone the Appeal hearing itself? Alternatively will there be a long drawn out dispute, even more court proceedings/appeals, over what compensation Sainsbury's are due to pay? If there's a consortium on the scene how long will they wait around? In some ways losing and finally moving on might be better than winning and being left in limbo for another few years, although the best outcome might well be a deal being thrashed out before the Appeal hearing. And if we do win, and whether or not they then appeal to push us into 2017, then what? If it's ever made to stand, the deal is they pay us £30 mill, we use that to build at UWE, and then move out and give them possession. Except it will probably cost a lot more than that five year old figure to build at UWE (and by memory there was an unexplained gap in the figures even back then). Would we find the missing millions to get on and build? There must be some cut off date in the contract for them taking possession of the place. If we haven't built at UWE by then, do we pack up our £30 million and move out, or buy it back off them? There's potentially years of non-progress and worthless assurances the other side of winning the appeal. Normally I'd expect all that to be managed and in hand with contingency plans and the rest, but this lot have lost all credibility on that score.Plan A involved a buyer paying 40%-50% over the odds for an enabling development which barely covered build cost. Branson, Sugar and Trump would struggle to find a contingency for that one going pear shaped. I think it's pretty obvious that even if Sainsburys cough up £30m the figures no longer stack up. But, in the unlikely event that we do recover something from Sainsburys, the club will at least have some options.
|
|
|
Post by Bernard Briggs on Nov 18, 2015 8:07:21 GMT
Touche. But I'm no spring chicken myself and I definitely pay for my own groceries. The tone of my post wasn't meant to be personal but it reflects my irritation at people mocking those who choose to boycott Sainsburys. It won't hurt them financially but if it gained momentum and attracted publicity it could hurt them reputationally. As long as there is a glimmer of hope, protest isn't entirely futile. Touché to you, it's all a bit tongue in cheek, if I knew you I'm sure I'd be proud to be your mate. Protest is fine as long as it's justified, ours isn't because Sainsburys has done nothing wrong legally and I always find it a but rich when anything football related attempts to mount the moral high horse. True enough, Mentors. Where are the morals in any of this? We entered into a tawdry arrangement with Sainsburys, to demolish a stadium that exists to perpetuate the name of men killed in WW1. Short of knocking down the cenotaph on the centre, and replacing it with a Costa Coffee, I don`t see how either party could have acted less morally. But life is what it is, and I`ll continue shopping in Sainsbury`s, and watching Bristol Rovers.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 18, 2015 11:13:37 GMT
Touché to you, it's all a bit tongue in cheek, if I knew you I'm sure I'd be proud to be your mate. Protest is fine as long as it's justified, ours isn't because Sainsburys has done nothing wrong legally and I always find it a but rich when anything football related attempts to mount the moral high horse. True enough, Mentors. Where are the morals in any of this? We entered into a tawdry arrangement with Sainsburys, to demolish a stadium that exists to perpetuate the name of men killed in WW1. Short of knocking down the cenotaph on the centre, and replacing it with a Costa Coffee, I don`t see how either party could have acted less morally. But life is what it is, and I`ll continue shopping in Sainsbury`s, and watching Bristol Rovers. Super post Bernard. It's this old thing about 'you can't make an omelette without breaking some eggs', but it was Rovers and Sainsbury's who were going to feast on the omelette whilst the eggs that got broken belonged to the local shop owners and the residents whose lives would have been made hell during the build and then by the extended delivery hours.
|
|
faggotygas
Byron Anthony
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 1,862
|
Post by faggotygas on Nov 18, 2015 13:29:12 GMT
No, I don't think it was? I do know the club categorically denied that the judge said the offer should have been accepted. As for your other point, maybe Higgs would have been praised for getting us out of an onerous contract. More likely though, it would simply be accepted and he would be lambasted for taking us into it in the first place. But isn't it more about the relative impact? Sainsburys the retail giant, would simply buy another site. We are a small local business with limited resources and we are being left well and truly in the s***. The trouble is that we have a ruling from a judge that we willingly walked into the s*** of our own accord. Major multi-national (I think) company screws over small business is hardly anything new under the sun. I don't see how relative impact will have bearing on anything here - it is simply about what the contract says. One judge looked at it for months and decided that Sainsbury's are in the clear - I would suggest the chances of another judge reaching the opposing decision is pretty slim as no one at all is suggesting that a glaring error has been made and there's no new information. It seems to me that we are hoping that whoever hears this is in a contrary mood because I don't think judges normally overrule other judges unless they have a pretty rock solid reason for doing so and even then Sainsbury's will presumably appeal. As for the hope of compensation - it seems to me that it's like playing a game of Poker in which you are trying to bluff but your opponent already knows your cards.
Around a third of appeals are allowed - fascinating stats
|
|
Peter Parker
Global Moderator
Richard Walker
You have been sentenced to DELETION!
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 4,920
|
Post by Peter Parker on Nov 18, 2015 14:33:15 GMT
The trouble is that we have a ruling from a judge that we willingly walked into the s*** of our own accord. Major multi-national (I think) company screws over small business is hardly anything new under the sun. I don't see how relative impact will have bearing on anything here - it is simply about what the contract says. One judge looked at it for months and decided that Sainsbury's are in the clear - I would suggest the chances of another judge reaching the opposing decision is pretty slim as no one at all is suggesting that a glaring error has been made and there's no new information. It seems to me that we are hoping that whoever hears this is in a contrary mood because I don't think judges normally overrule other judges unless they have a pretty rock solid reason for doing so and even then Sainsbury's will presumably appeal. As for the hope of compensation - it seems to me that it's like playing a game of Poker in which you are trying to bluff but your opponent already knows your cards.
Around a third of appeals are allowed - fascinating stats
and 2/3rds....
|
|
irishrover
Global Moderator
Joined: June 2014
Posts: 3,372
|
Post by irishrover on Nov 18, 2015 17:01:35 GMT
The trouble is that we have a ruling from a judge that we willingly walked into the s*** of our own accord. Major multi-national (I think) company screws over small business is hardly anything new under the sun. I don't see how relative impact will have bearing on anything here - it is simply about what the contract says. One judge looked at it for months and decided that Sainsbury's are in the clear - I would suggest the chances of another judge reaching the opposing decision is pretty slim as no one at all is suggesting that a glaring error has been made and there's no new information. It seems to me that we are hoping that whoever hears this is in a contrary mood because I don't think judges normally overrule other judges unless they have a pretty rock solid reason for doing so and even then Sainsbury's will presumably appeal. As for the hope of compensation - it seems to me that it's like playing a game of Poker in which you are trying to bluff but your opponent already knows your cards.
Around a third of appeals are allowed - fascinating stats
Well I think Seth dealt with that pretty well above - to read the stats that way is not correct because you are not comparing like with like. Someone could launch an appeal tomorrow based on next to nothing - that doesn't mean they have a 33% chance of winning that appeal. All those stats really tell you is that some people are sometimes successful with appeals so the process presumably works. All appeals are not created equal - you'd have to look at similar cases etc before you could come to any reasonable conclusion. The question for me is whether we have done that and along with our Lawyer decided it's worth a crack or we've just decided to go ahead anyway in order to ward of the inevitable. Either way this whole thing hasn't felt right for a very long time now and the vibes coming out of the club have hardly been positive and optimistic - more desperate and gloomy I would suggest. Hence why I lean towards the latter based on prior experience. I think we have done this in hope, not expectation - I'm far more interested in what happens afterwards to be honest because either way it doesn't look like we will have the cash to build the stadium. Many people's worst case scenario is that we stay at the Mem and the financial situation becomes ever more dire - mine isn't, my worst case scenario is that we build the UWE at all costs and wind up as the next Coventry or Darlington because the deal on it is so terrible. It is a total myth that stadium = guaranteed prosperity, those are the extreme examples but loads of clubs got into deep financial cacky building their shiny new stadiums.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 18, 2015 17:21:10 GMT
Well I think Seth dealt with that pretty well above - to read the stats that way is not correct because you are not comparing like with like. Someone could launch an appeal tomorrow based on next to nothing - that doesn't mean they have a 33% chance of winning that appeal. All those stats really tell you is that some people are sometimes successful with appeals so the process presumably works. All appeals are not created equal - you'd have to look at similar cases etc before you could come to any reasonable conclusion. The question for me is whether we have done that and along with our Lawyer decided it's worth a crack or we've just decided to go ahead anyway in order to ward of the inevitable. Either way this whole thing hasn't felt right for a very long time now and the vibes coming out of the club have hardly been positive and optimistic - more desperate and gloomy I would suggest. Hence why I lean towards the latter based on prior experience. I think we have done this in hope, not expectation - I'm far more interested in what happens afterwards to be honest because either way it doesn't look like we will have the cash to build the stadium. Many people's worst case scenario is that we stay at the Mem and the financial situation becomes ever more dire - mine isn't, my worst case scenario is that we build the UWE at all costs and wind up as the next Coventry or Darlington because the deal on it is so terrible. It is a total myth that stadium = guaranteed prosperity, those are the extreme examples but loads of clubs got into deep financial cacky building their shiny new stadiums. Thought you had to have a judge allow you to appeal,don't think they would let any old reason to appeal go ahead,maybe wrong,as for other clubs only Darlo are not above us playing in new stadia,well can't think of another at present. How many are worse off now compared to when they were In their old stadia ?
|
|
faggotygas
Byron Anthony
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 1,862
|
Post by faggotygas on Nov 18, 2015 17:30:01 GMT
Well I think Seth dealt with that pretty well above - to read the stats that way is not correct because you are not comparing like with like. Someone could launch an appeal tomorrow based on next to nothing - that doesn't mean they have a 33% chance of winning that appeal. All those stats really tell you is that some people are sometimes successful with appeals so the process presumably works. All appeals are not created equal - you'd have to look at similar cases etc before you could come to any reasonable conclusion. The question for me is whether we have done that and along with our Lawyer decided it's worth a crack or we've just decided to go ahead anyway in order to ward of the inevitable. Either way this whole thing hasn't felt right for a very long time now and the vibes coming out of the club have hardly been positive and optimistic - more desperate and gloomy I would suggest. Hence why I lean towards the latter based on prior experience. I think we have done this in hope, not expectation - I'm far more interested in what happens afterwards to be honest because either way it doesn't look like we will have the cash to build the stadium. Many people's worst case scenario is that we stay at the Mem and the financial situation becomes ever more dire - mine isn't, my worst case scenario is that we build the UWE at all costs and wind up as the next Coventry or Darlington because the deal on it is so terrible. It is a total myth that stadium = guaranteed prosperity, those are the extreme examples but loads of clubs got into deep financial cacky building their shiny new stadiums. Of course, it is just a vague stat, but I think it still shows that judges overturn other judge's decision more often that you might suppose, it's more likely on average that they don't but its not rare. I've scrolled through a few times. I can't see Seth's comments on the statistics? As you have to be given leave for appeal by the high court judge, don't you? Shouldn't that filter out any frivolous appeals? And that fact that the decision has gone against the appealant in the first place should filter out almost all cases where the appealant has a cast iron case, so I would have thought that you are looking at a fairly narrow window of cases that actually get to appeal. I agree that the club has not been as gung-ho this time. Perhaps they are learning about managing expectations. And, like you, I hope the board don't build / move in to the UWE if the deal on it is terrible.
|
|
irishrover
Global Moderator
Joined: June 2014
Posts: 3,372
|
Post by irishrover on Nov 18, 2015 17:37:20 GMT
Well I think Seth dealt with that pretty well above - to read the stats that way is not correct because you are not comparing like with like. Someone could launch an appeal tomorrow based on next to nothing - that doesn't mean they have a 33% chance of winning that appeal. All those stats really tell you is that some people are sometimes successful with appeals so the process presumably works. All appeals are not created equal - you'd have to look at similar cases etc before you could come to any reasonable conclusion. The question for me is whether we have done that and along with our Lawyer decided it's worth a crack or we've just decided to go ahead anyway in order to ward of the inevitable. Either way this whole thing hasn't felt right for a very long time now and the vibes coming out of the club have hardly been positive and optimistic - more desperate and gloomy I would suggest. Hence why I lean towards the latter based on prior experience. I think we have done this in hope, not expectation - I'm far more interested in what happens afterwards to be honest because either way it doesn't look like we will have the cash to build the stadium. Many people's worst case scenario is that we stay at the Mem and the financial situation becomes ever more dire - mine isn't, my worst case scenario is that we build the UWE at all costs and wind up as the next Coventry or Darlington because the deal on it is so terrible. It is a total myth that stadium = guaranteed prosperity, those are the extreme examples but loads of clubs got into deep financial cacky building their shiny new stadiums. Thought you had to have a judge allow you to appeal,don't think they would let any old reason to appeal go ahead,maybe wrong,as for other clubs only Darlo are not above us playing in new stadia,well can't think of another at present. How many are worse off now compared to when they were In their old stadia ? As I understand it you have to demonstrate that it isn't completely frivolous - it's not a measure of likely success or not. It's simply an acknowledgement that there is doubt over the judgement - which in complex cases like this is quite likely. You can technically have a case but it doesn't necessarily you have much chance of actually succeeding. We may be succeed, I'm not sure we had much choice but to appeal actually but I'm struggling to see anything that makes it look like we have much of a chance still less that Sainsbury's will offer up compensation. There may be a gamechanger but right now it doesn't feel like it's going our way really. All depends how you define worse off-but many of the clubs who built new stadiums damn near bankrupted themselves doing it only to be bailed out by investors. I have no great desire to see us become Cardiff City either. But the real issue is that the more complex the stadium deal, the more desperate the owners of a club are to get it through then the worse off a club can become in the end because it comes a strange mix of personal investment, ego and lots of people that have a finger in the pie. Coventry spent ages trying to get a new stadium - in the end their directors signed one of the worst lease deals in football history and they're now desperately trying to move again so that they can get out of the mess. Oxford tried to sort a new ground out many times - then had to sell to a meglomaniac they still owe money to and they're desperate to move. Darlington isn't a great example compared with that but it is evidence of what happens if common sense flys out of the window for all parties concerned because their fixated on a fantasy, Plymouth nearly went under mainly because of overambitious stadium plans not being matched with revenue, Wrexham are still living with the after effects of machinations from a failed attempt at moving grounds 15 years ago, Oldham have been in the mire for 20 years over protracted ground negotiations. The ones that did well were relatively smooth and uncontroversial (and even then there were much bigger issues than is often remembered; Leicester, Derby and Saints all ended up in deep trouble and had to sell pretty much everything off to get out of it) - and I don't see us as being in that camp. It is not some magic bullet for success.
|
|
LPGas
Stuart Taylor
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 1,240
|
Post by LPGas on Nov 18, 2015 17:47:06 GMT
I will never go in to Sainsburys, I'd rather get food from a bin. Not just for us but for all the others they have f**ked about with. I personally don't believe they ever wanted to build a shop, I think they went through all this to stop their competitors getting the land. Someone told me that Waitrose had put in a bid of £22 million and it was about to be accepted when Sainsburys put in the £30 million bid. We shop at Aldi, M&S and Waitrose. I like Waitrose, although they are a little expensive. and of course good old British Sainsburys with Oman Royal family being the biggest shareholders
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 18, 2015 17:47:44 GMT
Thought you had to have a judge allow you to appeal,don't think they would let any old reason to appeal go ahead,maybe wrong,as for other clubs only Darlo are not above us playing in new stadia,well can't think of another at present. How many are worse off now compared to when they were In their old stadia ? As I understand it you have to demonstrate that it isn't completely frivolous - it's not a measure of likely success or not. It's simply an acknowledgement that there is doubt over the judgement - which in complex cases like this is quite likely. You can technically have a case but it doesn't necessarily you have much chance of actually succeeding. We may be succeed, I'm not sure we had much choice but to appeal actually but I'm struggling to see anything that makes it look like we have much of a chance still less that Sainsbury's will offer up compensation. There may be a gamechanger but right now it doesn't feel like it's going our way really. All depends how you define worse off-but many of the clubs who built new stadiums damn near bankrupted themselves doing it only to be bailed out by investors. I have no great desire to see us become Cardiff City either. But the real issue is that the more complex the stadium deal, the more desperate the owners of a club are to get it through then the worse off a club can become in the end because it comes a strange mix of personal investment, ego and lots of people that have a finger in the pie. Coventry spent ages trying to get a new stadium - in the end their directors signed one of the worst lease deals in football history and they're now desperately trying to move again so that they can get out of the mess. Oxford tried to sort a new ground out many times - then had to sell to a meglomaniac they still owe money to and they're desperate to move. Darlington isn't a great example compared with that but it is evidence of what happens if common sense flys out of the window for all parties concerned because their fixated on a fantasy, Plymouth nearly went under mainly because of overambitious stadium plans not being matched with revenue, Wrexham are still living with the after effects of machinations from a failed attempt at moving grounds 15 years ago, Oldham have been in the mire for 20 years over protracted ground negotiations. The ones that did well were relatively smooth and uncontroversial (and even then there were much bigger issues than is often remembered; Leicester, Derby and Saints all ended up in deep trouble and had to sell pretty much everything off to get out of it) - and I don't see us as being in that camp. It is not some magic bullet for success. Reading your post I must admit that paints a different picture,i forgot how many clubs did go bankrupt like Southampton,but was it because of the new grounds,must have a bearing I suppose. You've given me food for thought there Irish,think I was happier being a bit ignorant
|
|
brizzle
Lindsay Parsons
No Buy . . . No Sell!
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 4,293
|
Post by brizzle on Nov 18, 2015 17:58:09 GMT
I will never go in to Sainsburys, I'd rather get food from a bin. Not just for us but for all the others they have fed about with. I personally don't believe they ever wanted to build a shop, I think they went through all this to stop their competitors getting the land. Someone told me that Waitrose had put in a bid of £22 million and it was about to be accepted when Sainsburys put in the £30 million bid. We shop at Aldi, M&S and Waitrose. I like Waitrose, although they are a little expensive. and of course good old British Sainsburys with Oman Royal family being the biggest shareholders There may well be some truth in that sentence, I think. It comes under the heading of keeping all of their options open, and it has been done by some of their competitors in the past.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 18, 2015 18:43:25 GMT
I will never go in to Sainsburys, I'd rather get food from a bin. Not just for us but for all the others they have fed about with. I personally don't believe they ever wanted to build a shop, I think they went through all this to stop their competitors getting the land. Someone told me that Waitrose had put in a bid of £22 million and it was about to be accepted when Sainsburys put in the £30 million bid. We shop at Aldi, M&S and Waitrose. I like Waitrose, although they are a little expensive. and of course good old British Sainsburys with Oman Royal family being the biggest shareholders Where would the balance between £22m and the build cost of UWE have come from?
|
|
crater
Joined: June 2014
Posts: 1,444
|
Post by crater on Nov 18, 2015 19:31:25 GMT
Maybe the plans for the ground were based on getting £30m? If we knew we were 'only' getting £22m, the plans would have been for a 16k seater stadium perhaps?
|
|