|
Post by gasbound on Oct 3, 2018 21:58:03 GMT
|
|
|
Post by gasbound on Dec 6, 2017 15:46:14 GMT
Ian, igs very frustrating to read your many cryptic posts. You say for now but you also say that you only know someone in planning so can you add some meat to the bones or are you just leaving it at that ? I ask as these kind of posts only get many to think of more bizarre, some not, things that clukd be happening. My understanding is that planning for what was supposed to be a grade 2 academy would never habe got planning but I’m often wrong so how long is for now then mate ? UWE is a dead duck my good friend, even the planning people accept this now. The colony has PP to at least start the development with some buildings and pitches. The academy side of things i would guess is Phase 2 of the development which is the big money... Note sure what phase 3 involves yet No Plans have been submitted so far but discovery meetings are on going and no formal dates have been logged with the Planning people yet. A friend suggested looking at the South Gloucestershire planning website; at the UWE stadium application PT12/0888/F. I expected no activity after November 2014 but was surprised to find a new discharge of conditions letter dated 14th November 2017. Strangely the application was made by UWEs planning consultants Alder King and not the usual Pegasus group. The letter clearly states the original application was a joint one by Rovers and UWE so I guess UWE can move the application on. So what is happening - a dead duck or a few 'quacks' left yet!
|
|
|
Post by gasbound on Dec 22, 2015 21:28:08 GMT
The problem I have with the ACV anouncement and the new charge on the land (up to £199,000) in favor of Sainsbury's is the timing. The result of the Appeal will be known by the end of January - and the expressions of interest(EoI) by community groups (if any) will also be known by then. And if there are any EoIs then the Community Group(s) will have to come up with the money by the end of June 2016, which is when the MSP loan (plus interest) will have to be paid back if previous comments on the loan are accurate.
I cannot understand why the ACV announcement could not have waited a few weeks until after the appeal so the BoD could decide what plan to follow, IF they have any! Waht are the reasons behind their recent actions? If they are about to go-ahead with UWE why go on with the appeal?
On the one hand perhaps the UWE stadium is on it's way and on the other the future of the club may be damaged. There's the cliff edge...
|
|
|
Post by gasbound on Dec 18, 2015 18:14:19 GMT
Sorry to restart this thread but this time last year we found out about the MSP loan, and now I've had one of those phone calls from a friend...!
I've been told there is yet another charge listed on the Companies House website against Bristol Rovers (1883) Ltd. After some searching I've found it, dated 16 December 2015. It is registration of a charge riased by 'Bristol Rovers (1883) ltd. with Sainsbury's Supermarkets Limited being the entitled party.
I do not understand most of the document but in one section it clearly states that "This charge is provided as security for the lenders potential legal costs...in the event the borrower is ordered by the court of appeal to pay such costs. A sum of £199,000 is quoted in the document.
Someone tell me this is a good sign and a 'step in the right direction' - Please!
|
|
|
Post by gasbound on Nov 24, 2015 18:11:18 GMT
Why don't we as a group stick in a bid for a tenner now. In 6 months time we tell rovers that we couldn't raise the cash but thanks for the opportunity of allowing us a chance to keep the ground. We can then give them our blessings when they plan on ripping the place down! Hang on. After doing some lateral thinking I'm going to be devil's advocate here. The asset of community value i believe means any group can try to get the money to buy the Mem. If this is correct (?) then can we the true supporters of the club can also try to put in a bid? If the appeal fails and the BoD decides time to go or possible administration then we could have time to put in a bid/get external support. The Mem would certainly be worth considerably less than what Sainsbury's would have paid for it under these cercumstances. Perhaps the Mem being an asset of community value will work in our favour? Perhaps those who put in the 'application' have actually shot themselves in the foot?
|
|
|
Post by gasbound on Oct 15, 2015 20:57:20 GMT
Anyone see Lidl's have now got planing permission for store on Muller Road?
A frend in the Council suggested looking in the planning report for the application, which recommended approval by the way and I found the following:
"There are no allocated sites that could accommodate a store and the only other locations that have been subject to recent retail development proposals are the Memorial Stadium and a site between Gloucester Road and Merton Road.
With regard to the former, there is a legal dispute between Sainsbury's, the applicant, and the owners. If Sainsbury's are relinquished from their contract, this site would still be available for retail development with the current consent expiring June 2016. However a key part of the overall assessment was the relocation of the existing sports use to facilities elsewhere and it is unlikely that this existing sports use could be relocated on the basis of a discount food store operator.
The Merton Road site, which is next to centre, was subject to an application for a retail store but this was refused on the basis of loss of employment land and buildings and highway issues. These issues would still be salient."
Kind of states the bleeding obvious...
|
|
|
Post by gasbound on Mar 26, 2015 17:22:27 GMT
Note from the BoD to protesters The board of directors understand supporters are planning a series of protests against Sainsbury’s during the coming weeks, over their attempts to pull out of the UWE Stadium deal. At this moment in time, due to our ongoing legal action and with the High Court hearing a matter of weeks away, the club is not able to officially endorse or engage in any such protests, however we share the supporters' frustration with the position Sainsbury's is adopting and have no objection to supporters making their views known and taking any lawful steps to draw Sainsbury's actions to the attention of the wider public. We do entirely understand how supporters feel given the on-going saga surrounding the UWE Stadium, especially when the project is pivotal to our ambitions of taking the club to the next level. So we ask all supporters who are organising, or plan to take part in the protests to keep them both lawful and peaceful. On behalf of the board we would like to take this opportunity to once again thank you all for your patience and co-operation in this matter, we are all very frustrated by the course of recent events. Your support throughout this process is hugely appreciated, and we can assure you it does not go un-noticed. This is a team effort and we are grateful to have you on our side during what is a testing time for all involved. As a board we continue to work incredibly hard behind the scenes to give the club a brighter future. Bristol Rovers is a unique club, with unique supporters. Keep the faith. Nick, Ed, Barry, Chris, Rod, Ken, Brian and Toni Read more at www.bristolrovers.co.uk/news/article/anti-sainsburys-protests-2360605.aspxOoops I think I mucked that up - I notice the OF is down at the moment - wonder if this is linked to the above news...
|
|
|
Post by gasbound on Mar 26, 2015 17:19:32 GMT
Note from the BoD to protesters The board of directors understand supporters are planning a series of protests against Sainsbury’s during the coming weeks, over their attempts to pull out of the UWE Stadium deal. At this moment in time, due to our ongoing legal action and with the High Court hearing a matter of weeks away, the club is not able to officially endorse or engage in any such protests, however we share the supporters' frustration with the position Sainsbury's is adopting and have no objection to supporters making their views known and taking any lawful steps to draw Sainsbury's actions to the attention of the wider public. We do entirely understand how supporters feel given the on-going saga surrounding the UWE Stadium, especially when the project is pivotal to our ambitions of taking the club to the next level. So we ask all supporters who are organising, or plan to take part in the protests to keep them both lawful and peaceful. On behalf of the board we would like to take this opportunity to once again thank you all for your patience and co-operation in this matter, we are all very frustrated by the course of recent events. Your support throughout this process is hugely appreciated, and we can assure you it does not go un-noticed. This is a team effort and we are grateful to have you on our side during what is a testing time for all involved. As a board we continue to work incredibly hard behind the scenes to give the club a brighter future. Bristol Rovers is a unique club, with unique supporters. Keep the faith. Nick, Ed, Barry, Chris, Rod, Ken, Brian and Toni Read more at www.bristolrovers.co.uk/news/article/anti-sainsburys-protests-2360605.aspx
|
|
|
Post by gasbound on Mar 26, 2015 10:58:32 GMT
my confidance in the BoDs decision to go to court is about 50:50 i am a little concerned by a coment made to me by a friend about the recently published accounts. The accounts show that the Bod are now purchasing 3 year bonds, apparently over £900,000 pounds worth and support for the club that is most appreciated, but bonds repayment is higher up the pecking order in administraton situations than shares I'm told which gives me a doubt over the so called water tight court case. anyone confirm the bond purchases?
|
|
|
Post by gasbound on Jan 23, 2015 17:24:55 GMT
Whilst i tend to ignore everything thats said south of the river one comment made me stop and consider.
"I understand Sainsbury’s have not signed the new S106 agreement associated with the extended delivery hours planning approval, and this is possibly due to Sainsbury’s wanting 24 x 7 delivery hours not the few extra Rovers got. In other words one onerous condition has not been met and there are likely to be others. It was Rovers who said the other onerous conditions have been waived, not Sainsbury’s."
we know Sainsbury's did not attend the JR and have been extremly quiet about the whole situation. i just wonder how close the club is to scoring an own goal by pressing on with a legal case.
|
|
|
Post by gasbound on Jan 20, 2015 19:53:07 GMT
Rovers have a contract with UWE as well you know and The UWE can only pull out after a predetermined time set in the contract ( Normally 5 years ). Also Rovers have to start building the Stadium within a certain timescale as per Planning permission requirements or apply for an extension to that timescale Well, to be fair, all planning permissions do have a time-scale attached to them - and we must be nearly 2 years into whatever that time-scale is. So there is a finite time by which the first sods have to be cut. The S106 agreement for the UWE stadium was signed on about the 17th January 2013 and the planning approval gave 5 years in which to start the new stadium so we are two years into the building start period. if the legal bit does take until the end of the year then there should be 2 years remaining to get started BUT if the club fails to get full payment or Sainsbury's appeal the court decision then the remainig 2 years could, well, I just don't want to think about it. I am hoping the BoD know what they are doing and we will be in a position to start the build this time next year...
|
|
|
Post by gasbound on Jan 18, 2015 12:15:13 GMT
I take your comments are tongue in cheek football stadiums are constructed from concrete and steel for speed and cost and with fuel cost dropping possible that these will drop in price too we have enough hurdles in our way without material shortages image we had the go ahead and then couldn't build because of a cement shortage Id guess most of the increase is a rise in wages Yes, tongue in cheek but i believe most construction projects are quoted with some form of inflation index reference (it could be the Government produced figures) included on the pricing due to the construction period being over many months if not years. presumably there is a tender or quotation from a construction company (wasn't the Buckingham Group mentioned?) received by the club and possibly formally accepted? i know guess work and rumour. too many outstanding questions...
|
|
|
Post by gasbound on Jan 17, 2015 18:35:00 GMT
i've been told by someone in the construction business that due to brick works closing down during the recession British made bricks are in short supply and expensive at the moment, and this country is currently importing heavily from Belgium. given the latest construction sector inflation figures this is possibly true. if you pop over the channel consider buying and bringing back a few bricks to donate or sell to NH, though i don't know what the import duty will be and we still don't know if the building of the UWE stadium is to start any time soon!
|
|
|
Post by gasbound on Jan 17, 2015 9:35:30 GMT
The ball has always been in the hands of BRFC to ensure all the Contract conditions have been met.
I'm amazed that no-one is asking for confirmation that ALL contract conditions have now been met, it is the fundamental part of the Contract.
The question of Sainsbury not wanting to complete is another matter
I wonder if the waived onerous conditions will crop up. I would hope they were waived in a signed legal document the only place I can think of where the 'onerous conditions being waived' is in the writ which was prepared by the clubs legal team. have they been waived by the Sainsbury's legal team i wonder? hopefully an announcement next week to say JR not now possible and full steam ahead with the UWE stadium or am i being too optimistic...
|
|
|
Post by gasbound on Jan 15, 2015 13:41:19 GMT
i may be wrong but i thought the annual results should be announced at the AGM which i though was suposed to be held in early December.
|
|
|
Post by gasbound on Jan 14, 2015 18:41:28 GMT
Who had the original idea and made first contact about a stadium at UWE? Not Nick Higgs! That honour goes to the top person at uwe who's name escapes me. Discussions were in place at the time the student accommodation was hitting the buffers. If memory serves me right. Probs not. my recollection is that Nick Higgs and all attended a meeting at UWE to salvage something out of the plans for the student acomodation and were basically asking UWE to take on the cost of the development to which UWE refused as their remite is to educate not develop, or so i was told at the time. it was definately someone high up at UWE that suggested a new stadium could be built at UWE as an alternative to developing the Mem. Another possible option was a new stadium at the old Rolls Royce site but perhaps this was considered too expensive given it is a brown field site. There are facts and roumors going around at the moment. Perhaps it is time to hold the AGM and get to the bottom of what is sodding well going on.
|
|
|
Post by gasbound on Jan 13, 2015 22:28:11 GMT
what worres me is the facts we know, 5 new loans or charges taken on by the club increasing the debt mountain and a writ suggesting some sort of court action could be pending, and now a relative of mine (supports Cardiff...shame, nice guy!) is aleging most of the BOD have fairly recently had their home addresses removed from documents on the companies house website. The last part may not be correct, not that I think he would wind me up but i'll be seeing him next week so he can show me the evidence then has anyone else seen this? I wouldn't fret too much about that. Legislation changed some years ago allowing directors to conceal their home addresses from limited companies public details. I'm amazed that they didn't remove theirs at the earliest opportunity. Yes, but that's the point, the change in details has happend relatively recently and I think the legislation came in about 2006/7 though I'm happy to be corrected here.
|
|
|
Post by gasbound on Jan 13, 2015 21:26:06 GMT
The reason for low oil prices is to force fracking companies out of business. According to latest reports the plan is working. On another note, I think Totend is spot on. Sainsbury's want out and this will go to court as long as Higgs is up for the fight. Or NH will take their best offer, if the contract are "watertight" Sainsbury's will know they will have to make him a decent offer to buy up the risk of losing the court case. what worres me is the facts we know, 5 new loans or charges taken on by the club increasing the debt mountain and a writ suggesting some sort of court action could be pending, and now a relative of mine (supports Cardiff...shame, nice guy!) is aleging most of the BOD have fairly recently had their home addresses removed from documents on the companies house website. The last part may not be correct, not that I think he would wind me up but i'll be seeing him next week so he can show me the evidence then has anyone else seen this?
|
|
|
Post by gasbound on Jan 3, 2015 18:38:33 GMT
That was the date the Daily Mail ran an article about Jamie Carstairs and the Mem, I doubt you can read anything into those comments Correct, but it says that they (Sainsbury's) will be building a Memorial garden, as reported to the Mail. If they were n't why say it? The daily mail were only quoting what BCC were quoting at the time. IMO Topper Gas is right to be doubtfull about the comment in the mail pointing to Sainsbury's honouring the contract. i remember someone saying some time ago that it is not even a garden but a plaza no where near large enough for a netball game let alone football or rugby. don't shoot me for pointing this out but it was a rugby supporter who said it.
|
|
|
Post by gasbound on Dec 30, 2014 18:39:59 GMT
Regarding the loans, I wonder if there are four of them because each one has been guaranteed by a different director? I know personally that sometimes it is better to borrow money than use your own, even if you have got it from what i've been told they are all signed by Barry Bradshaw, 4 on behalf of Bristol rovers (1883) ltd and 1 on behaff or Bristol Rovers Football club. all 5 are witnessed by Mr Watola. i spoke to a friend of mine today, ok he's a city supporter but he seems to know about this type of charge, and his take on the situation is that no director is guaranteeing any of the loans. they are straignt mortgages, or loans, against all assets of the club. anyone heard about a new director yet. i think the club needs a new person with some cash to invest to at least clear some of these loans but how attractive is Bristol Rovers to a new backer?
|
|