|
Post by frenchgashead on Jul 18, 2015 13:27:08 GMT
This could be catastrophic for the club. How is it going to be funded? Another Wonga loan at exorbitant interest rates? This would be NH using the club to massage his ego that can't take a defeat. First we have to get leave to appeal - on a point of law not that we don't like the outcome - if successful it would then go the court of appeal. When? Perhaps 2017. Will the UWE still be possible by then? If we win Sainsbury's will probably argue that it's all too late to buy the Mem - here's some compo. Which NH would presumably be able to use to pay off his 'investment'. If we lose we will certainly have to pay Sainbury's costs as well as the Wonga loan(s) and probably lose the ground and go into administration. Meanwhile what money will be able to fund that peculiar activity called football? Let's hope the judges chuck it out quickly.
|
|
|
Post by frenchgashead on Jun 2, 2015 15:49:52 GMT
I can't see morality coming in to this. It's a legal case to be settled by whatever the contract actually says, contract law and how the judge decides on the evidence before her. What worries me is that judges (especially those on the way up) don't want to have an appeal lodged against them - a black mark on their career prospects. So the inevitable tendency is, in a difficult area, to go with the side that's most likely to appeal i.e. Sainsbury's. Let's hope our case is so overwheming she can't do that but I'm not sure it is. Nail biting time!
|
|
|
Post by frenchgashead on Apr 7, 2015 14:02:13 GMT
We've done as well as any reasonable person could have expected. Obviously we can only win the league if Barnet stumble - we're effectively 2 points behind because of GD. What worries me is that the play-offs are a lottery and the team finishing 2nd (as we should do) doesn't always go up. Anything could happen - just a simple piece of good/bad luck - dodgy penalty/offside etc.
Mid-May is certainly the defining moment for the future of BRFC. Obviously the best outcome would be promotion plus either the UWE or enough money to survive for a few more years. The ghastly prospect is losing in the play-offs just as we lose the court case. If we go into admin that will be an automatic 10 point penalty for next season.
This really is squeaky bum time for everyone.
|
|
|
Post by frenchgashead on Mar 15, 2015 19:03:18 GMT
'Walk away' was simply an off the cuff remark by a Sainsbury's exec and has no legal meaning. But the situation is quite clear. Sainsbury's regard the contract as no longer valid. We're not sure on exactly what grounds but it is one of these, or some combination of them: 1. the contract is time expired as set out in one of the conditions 2. the conditions for a valid contract (onerous conditions etc) have not been met or met in the agreed timescale 3. Sainsbury's do not believe BRFC have the resources to complete the UWE in any reasonable timescale even with the £30m and therefore can't agree to buy the Mem with no guarantee when they will take possession of the Mem.
BRFC disagree and going to court to try and force Sainsbury's to complete the contract. We are quite within our rights to do that. If we lose there will no compensation and we might even have to pay Sainsbury's costs. Sainsbury's will only offer a deal if their lawyers advise they are likely to lose. If Sainsbury's do lose we should get the £30m and our costs but don't forget Sainsbury's could appeal on a point of law and this would take months and we might be down the pan before then.
|
|
|
Post by frenchgashead on Feb 16, 2015 7:04:51 GMT
What gets me is why club owners continue to employ managers who've already shown they are incompetent. There are loads of managers that simply aren't any good but keep on getting jobs - remember B. Robson who was hopeless at Middlesborough but still kept getting jobs after that fiasco? I'm sure we could all come up with a long list of similarly useless managers.
|
|
|
Post by frenchgashead on Feb 16, 2015 7:00:52 GMT
Obviously we can do it but it means we have to be on top form and lucky and Barnet have to implode. We do look pretty certain to be in the play-offs but they are a complete lottery.
|
|
|
Post by frenchgashead on Feb 16, 2015 6:55:39 GMT
I can't believe this. If such a clause existed it would be an open-ended commitment on Sainsbury's that could cost them millions. It seems more likely that BRFC have to provide evidence that they have sufficient funds to complete the UWE and leave the Mem within a reasonable time. Sainsbury's wouldn't be prepared to give us the money and then wait for ages to get at the Mem to start building. This seems a better explanation of why NH is hawking himself around trying to find extra finance.
|
|
|
Post by frenchgashead on Feb 13, 2015 11:30:07 GMT
Sainsbury's (as we're finding out) are not a charity. They are not giving us £30m on the off chance we can eventually leave the Mem after building a new stadium some time in the future. Surely there must a timescale in the contract and BRFC will have to be able to show they have the total amount of money necessary for the UWE and all planning issues resolved. On the 'ring fencing' of the money NH also said we had a 'watertight contract' so are we reassured on this issue?
|
|
|
Post by frenchgashead on Feb 12, 2015 17:01:18 GMT
On the question of an appeal you can ask leave to appeal either from the judge or if he refuses the court of appeal. But it can't be on the fact you don't like the decision - it has to be on a point of law. In other words the judge got the law wrong, misinterpreted it or was biased. But it's expensive.
|
|
|
Post by frenchgashead on Feb 12, 2015 13:15:07 GMT
But as far as we can see the MSP money is NOT a mortgage. It is a loan with the Mem used as security. Later this year they will ask for their money back. If we can't pay then we've defaulted on the loan terms and the security passes to MSP who then own the Mem. Maybe we could negotiate a new deal either with MSP or some other Wonga style company but I assume the terms would be a lot worse than 14%.
|
|
|
Post by frenchgashead on Feb 12, 2015 11:30:44 GMT
This certainly confirms just how bad the situation is. We're running at a yearly loss of about £1m (apart from the Lambert windfall), debts of almost £6m, a BoD refusing to put in more money and a loan from MSP (secured on the Mem) at 14% a year partly used to pay off Dunford and the rest for the case against Sainsbury's. So as everybody says it's s..t or bust with bust looking the best bet at the moment. Can we really say that the BoD have acted responsibly? We are in hoc to a firm that would surely take the Mem cheap at £2m and sell from under us and charge a high rental while they do it. May be Sainsbury's pay us enough to write off about £7.5/8m of debts (probably £9m now) or some unknown benefactor buys the club - but would they do it knowing they could sell the Mem and then clear off? All this has happened to other clubs. Administration in the Conference means a loss of 10 points (either this season with the play-offs much more difficult) or next. Insolvency means automatic relegation to Conference South but as Hereford found out that isn't automatic - it could be worse.
|
|
|
Post by frenchgashead on Feb 12, 2015 7:30:09 GMT
We all know that the club's financial position is bad. If BRFC lose the court case there will be no compensation and the debts incurred with 'Wonga' on the Mem look a disaster in the making. But the Conference rules on adminstration/insolvency are very strict. Administration means automatic 10 point deduction and insolvency means automatic relegation - to Conference South but financial problems can mean refusal to join that as happened to Hereford.
|
|
|
Post by frenchgashead on Feb 10, 2015 11:20:00 GMT
What seems to have happened is this. There was, as many of us having been saying for months, a date in the contract by which the Mem had to be sold to Sainsbury's. This seems only sense from Sainsbury's point of view. We don't know when it was but we are long past it mainly due to TRASH and the EH review. Sainsbury's not only don't want the project anymore but the 'sell by date' has gone - therefore in their view the contract is dead. BRFC put through the revised delivery hours in a desperate attempt to validate the contract. Sainsbury's have obviously said that makes no difference. We are now going to court to try and enforce the contract and it seems likely that we are arguing that all the delays (not of BRFC's making) + Sainsbury's refusal to appeal the delivery hours mean that the contract ought to be regarded as still valid. Seems a weak case to me and if Sainsbury's are correct then we will get no compensation. UWE may scupper the whole thing anyway but will probably wait till the court case but not if there is an appeal. If we get nothing how do the BoD intend to repay the Wonga-style loans? These are we believe secured on the Mem. This could be the end game - a club in big debts and the ground owned by a hedge fund that will want to sell it - (for housing?) and take the profit.
|
|
|
Post by frenchgashead on Jan 24, 2015 7:04:07 GMT
But have Sainsbury's ever said they intend to carry out the contract? They have probably told BRFC that in their view the contract is void - why else are we taking them to court to enforce the contract? Sainsbury's haven't 'cancelled' the contract - that's not how it works.I suspect that in their view it is no longer valid either because all the conditions have not been met or that BRFC cannot keep their side of the bargain (completing the UWE in reasonable time). The court action suggests that Sainsbury's have 'walked away'
|
|
|
Post by frenchgashead on Jan 22, 2015 13:06:15 GMT
I think PTopper and Peter Parker may have hit the nail on the head. All the info is that Sainsbury's don't get the Mem until we can move to the UWE. It would be essential for them to have hard evidence from BRFC that the UWE can be finished in a reasonable time and that all the money is in place to cover all anticipated costs. Otherwise they would be chucking £30m away for an indefinite period. I'm sure that any judge would agree that was only reasonable. We know there is a shortfall on the UWE as NH has confirmed - hence his desperate efforts to raise money in the Gulf or anywhere. Presumably BRFC haven't been able to give the assurances Sainsbury's require and so they've called the deal off. If this is the case and the judge agrees with Sainbury's then there wouldn't be any compensation either.
|
|
|
Post by frenchgashead on Jan 20, 2015 14:30:48 GMT
This looks like a desperate attempt to get Sainsbury's to negotiate some compensation. Sainsbury's must have made it absolutely clear that they will not proceed. Difficult to see this being resolved within a year minimum unless a compromise is made. The High Court will probably push both sides towards this.
The problem for BRFC is if Sainsbury's do pay compensation then the money is presumably not ringfenced as (it is claimed) it would be if the UWE were to be built. What is then to stop the BoD paying themselves their loans back and disappearing? They would seem to be no other way they could do this if we stay at the Mem. What then happens to the loans with the equivalent of Wonga. If the court case drags on how would they be repaid anyway?
Unless we find a rich sugar daddy administration is looking more likely than it was before today.
|
|
|
Post by frenchgashead on Dec 23, 2014 6:46:18 GMT
Two questions.
1. If we have a 'watertight' contract why are the BoD still talking about dotting the i's and crossing the t's? 2. Why have Barclay's called in their loan, why did another bank not step in and why go to a 'hedge fund' style operation for the money?
All this suggests a serious crisis in the background. We might get a bit of money out of Sainsbury's (we certainly can't afford to sue them for the next 2 or 3 years) but it won't be enough to clear all the debts. The BoD will then find MSP own the Mem and we are paying rent before we go into administration and the Mem is sold for housing or a supermarket with MSP taking all the profits.
|
|
|
Post by frenchgashead on Dec 19, 2014 14:40:54 GMT
Been away for a while so catching up. The Barclays/'Wonga' deal is awful news.The ground is now a charge for the equivalent of payday lenders not a bank. It doesn't really matter why Barclays packed it in. It seems to me that are now 3 possibilities: 1. Sainsbury's deal goes through but is the money then enough to pay off the short term loans and build the UWE? Doubtful 2. The deal doesn't go through but the compensation is enough to pay off the loans but we're stuck at the Mem. 3. The deal doesn't go through compensation isn't enough for the loans and 'Wonga' call in the loans, they then own the Mem, kick us out and sell it for housing or something. Why have 'Wonga' done the loans? Only because they think they can make money in some way - exorbitant interest or the likelihood of owning the Mem without a football club mucking up 'development' and a huge profit. We really are up 's..t creek' and the paddles aren't in good condition.
|
|
|
Post by frenchgashead on Nov 14, 2014 15:20:26 GMT
Surely the point is that if Sainsbury's believe they have a possible get out they will probably use it. They will say that something means that the contract is no longer valid. BRFC will have to sue them to complete the contract. This means a long and expensive court case. There are always two views of a contract - NH may say the contract is 'watertight' but Sainsbury's lawyers may say it isn't. Then it's up to the judge to decide. Can BRFC afford such a case especially if Sainsbury's offer a settlement in court? Money now and each side pays its own costs or a long battle which BRFC may or may not win and if they lose have to pay costs.
|
|
|
Post by frenchgashead on Nov 13, 2014 7:11:54 GMT
Until we know what is actually in the contract we don't know if Sainsbury's have got an easy let out - say for example there was a time clause by which the sale had to be completed or something else in the small print. All they have to do is find an arguable point and let it all go to court when BRFC try to enforce the contract. On the other hand they might buy the Mem and then not incur the costs of building the store and then try and sell it off. TRASH can't appeal against planning permission being granted but they can try another JR about the procedure used - that BCC didn't take sufficient account of some aspect.
|
|