|
Post by frenchgashead on Nov 10, 2014 14:15:33 GMT
The Telegraph article just said 'this week'
|
|
|
Post by frenchgashead on Nov 9, 2014 11:30:31 GMT
The worry is that Sainsbury's offer compensation - say £10m and BRFC lawyers advise that the club could fight it but it will cost a large amount of money, no guarantee of success and facing paying Sainsbury's costs if they lose. They recommend accepting the offer. The BoD clear their debts with the £10m and then clear off. That leaves the club very vulnerable to a take over by property developers and con artists who do sell the Mem but don't build a new stadium. Sorry to be so pessimistic but it's happened to other clubs.
|
|
|
Post by frenchgashead on Nov 9, 2014 6:58:31 GMT
This report looks spot on. Sainsbury's will simply weigh up the cost of buying the land, building the store. cost of running it and likely profits against the cost of getting out of the contract. Even paying the £30m is cheaper than having to build the store and they probably think they can get away with less than that. The only option in which they might buy the Mem is if they think they could sell the land for housing or something else.
|
|
|
Post by frenchgashead on Nov 5, 2014 16:08:48 GMT
TRASH can't appeal against any decision made by BCC - that can only be done by the applicants i.e. Sainsbury's. What TRASH can do is see if they can get another JR - but that can't be on merits of the planning application only on the process eg failure to take account of something, not a quorum, corruption etc.
|
|
|
Post by frenchgashead on Oct 15, 2014 13:22:58 GMT
This is an example of 'be careful what you wish for'. The current BoD may not be much good and we might be better off with someone else. On the other hand there are a lot worse people out there than NH & Co - spivs, crooks, dubious financiers, hedge funds etc.
|
|
|
Post by frenchgashead on Oct 10, 2014 13:08:05 GMT
This is the main part of the report in the Guardian today on Tesco in Margate. It certainly casts more doubt over the supermarkets and our chance of getting the UWE:
"Tesco has ditched plans to build a huge superstore on Margate’s seafront in the latest sign of the troubled supermarket’s retreat from aggressive expansion.
Campaigners have lobbied hard to prevent Tesco opening the store in Kent. Last year the development was approved by communities secretary Eric Pickles, and a judicial review was pending to rule on whether planning permission for the scheme was properly considered ahead of that approval. However, the ailing supermarket group has now written to the site’s landlord, Freshwater Developments, to terminate its contract to operate the 82,000sq ft store.
Tesco, which has two smaller stores in Margate, said its change of plan was the result of shoppers switching from large stores towards neighbourhood outlets and the internet. “We are reducing the number of large stores we open each year as a result of changing customer shopping habits. After careful consideration we have therefore decided not to pursue a new large store in Margate,” a spokesman said.
The latest retreat comes after Tesco mothballed two new supermarkets in Chatteris, Cambridgeshire, and Immingham, Lincolnshire, as it reassesses its strategy under new chief executive Dave Lewis."
|
|
|
Post by frenchgashead on Oct 5, 2014 17:30:35 GMT
When I posted the piece from the Guardian earlier in the week about how Sainsbury's were examining the whole of their business in the next six weeks the key part seemed to be: "In his first presentation as chief executive, Coupe said the grocery market had changed more quickly in his 84 days in the CEO’s chair than he had seen in his 30 years in the industry. Shoppers are making smaller purchases, prices are falling and people are spending any money they save on eating out, he said. As a result of the industry turmoil, Coupe has launched a review of Sainsbury’s entire business, including its dividend policy, and will update investors in November. Coupe said: “We are in a very dynamic market at the moment and we are looking at all aspects of our . We will leave no stone unturned. The rate of change going on in the marketplace is something we will be thinking very carefully about over the next six weeks.” This seems to tie in exactly with the latest piece. In the end it will be cheaper for Sainbury's to get out of the contract in anyway they can - even with a fairly substantial sum in compensation - than buy the Mem, build the store and then run it not being able to make much of a profit. If BCC don't agree to vary the hours they don't have a problem if the appeal goes through they may do. But surely TRASH can appeal the BCC decision to the Planning Inspectorate and eventually the Secretary of State all of which will take months if not years - this is effectively what happened to Brighton and the Amex stadium (though that was about stopping the stadium not a store. If Sainsbury's offer a few million quid (chicken feed from their point of view) are the Board really going to go on with a case that will take years on the 60:40 chance they might win (if your own lawyers are telling you that then you really don't have a 'watertight' contract! Read more: gasheads.org/thread/1457/sainsburys#ixzz3FIAOorU7
|
|
|
Post by frenchgashead on Oct 1, 2014 10:10:44 GMT
This is the Guardian report on Sainsbury's position from their new CEO. Not exactly a cause for optimism!
Sainsbury’s has cut its forecast for annual sales and is reviewing its dividend after the supermarket group was forced to slash prices amid the toughest grocery market for decades.
The change in forecast by the company’s new chief executive, Mike Coupe, means almost a decade of rising annual sales at Sainsbury’s will come to an end.
In a trading update, the group said sales fell more quickly in the second quarter of the financial year and that they would not pick up in the second half.
Sales at stores open a year or more, excluding fuel, dropped by 2.8% in the 16 weeks to 27 September compared with a 1.1% fall in the previous three months. Sainsbury’s said it expected second-half like-for-like sales to be similar to the first half.
The supermarket had predicted that like-for-like sales would pick up in the second half, and that they would rise slightly for the full year. The revised guidance means annual sales will now fall.
Sainsbury’s shares fell 3.5% to 243p, their lowest since the depths of the financial crisis in October 2008. The gloomy updated dragged rivals Morrisons down 4% and Tesco down 2.7%.
In his first presentation as chief executive, Coupe said the grocery market had changed more quickly in his 84 days in the CEO’s chair than he had seen in his 30 years in the industry. Shoppers are making smaller purchases, prices are falling and people are spending any money they save on eating out, he said.
As a result of the industry turmoil, Coupe has launched a review of Sainsbury’s entire business, including its dividend policy, and will update investors in November.
Coupe said: “We are in a very dynamic market at the moment and we are looking at all aspects of our business. We will leave no stone unturned. The rate of change going on in the marketplace is something we will be thinking very carefully about over the next six weeks.”
Sainsbury’s finance director, John Rogers, said: “If we are doing a full-scale strategic review with no stone unturned you would expect the dividend to be part of that full-scale review.” Some analysts have said all three listed big supermarkets might have to cut their dividends to take account of falling profitability.
The sense of crisis in the sector increased last week when Tesco revealed it had overstated its expected first-half profits by £250m. Sainsbury’s bigger rival blamed incorrect accounting of commercial revenues from suppliers for most of the accounting shambles, which is being investigated by the Financial Conduct Authority.
Coupe, Sainsbury’s commercial director until becoming chief executive, and Rogers said they were “100% confident” that Sainsbury’s had accounted for promotional income correctly. Rogers said there was “a gross misrepresentation” that retailers had lots of leeway about how and when to record the revenues and that “the accounting rules are clearly defined”.
Sainsbury’s had withstood the onslaught from German discounters Aldi and Lidl more successfully than its rivals Tesco and Morrisons by treading a fine line between price and quality. But with the wider grocery market stagnant and cash-strapped consumers searching for bargains, it has been forced to join the price war in the sector.
Coupe said he had cut basic prices on thousands of food items and would do away with confusing promotions. He has also simplified Sainsbury’s “brand match” pledge to match Asda prices even when its rival, which shoppers view as the cheapest supermarket, has a promotion.
Coupe, who took over in July from his celebrated predeccessor, Justin King, refused to comment on whether price competition was a skirmish, as King had described it. City analysts had expected Sainsbury’s to be hit by the sector’s malaise and had forecast like-for-like sales down between 3% and 4%.
|
|
|
Post by frenchgashead on Sept 18, 2014 5:47:50 GMT
I think we can be cautiously optimistic. The team seems to be settling in and in this division almost any team can beat any other (there's no Hyde this year!) I think we will be lucky to make the play-offs but that was a big ask at the first attempt. A good top half finish would be enough, even a season not thinking about relegation would be nice. We may have a dip inform at some point but we look to have enough to survive that.
|
|
|
Post by frenchgashead on Sept 7, 2014 10:39:01 GMT
money-pile-smiley-emoticonThey're not football men? Then why buy a FOOTBALL CLUB!!!!!! Because they think they can make money out of the Mem/UWE - they are property speculators.
|
|
|
Post by frenchgashead on Sept 1, 2014 13:06:21 GMT
I can't see the BoD putting the club into administration while the UWE still has a very outside chance of success - they may be creditors but they would lose a lot. Being cynical I expect the answer for today is 'not very much'. However, some clarity about the future would be nice but unexpected.
|
|
|
Post by frenchgashead on Sept 1, 2014 13:02:34 GMT
A good season would be top half, an excellent season play-offs, an unbelievable season - promotion. I think the last two are unlikely but a good top half, just missing out on play-offs would be satisfactory after all we've been through.
|
|
|
Post by frenchgashead on Aug 29, 2014 15:14:05 GMT
I would be surprised if there was not a 'termination clause' in the contract. It would be unreasonable to hold Sainsbury's to the contract if it couldn't be completed in X years. How many the X is we don't know. But we are looking at long delays now with the planning appeal (they have a huge backlog) and then other appeals afterwards. Sainsbury's/TRASH/UWE - any of them or all three - may be able to drag this out long enough so that the whole deal collapses. How long would you put in if you were a lawyer - 5 years? - anything like that (and it's difficult to see it could be much longer) then we may well reach that date before everything is resolved.
|
|
|
Post by frenchgashead on Aug 29, 2014 7:24:28 GMT
I'm not sure BRFC had much choice over the clause. If Sainsbury's said this was the only thing that made the store viable how could BRFC disagree - desperate as they are. There may also have been an 'understanding' that it not successful on the long hours the store would be built and then try to change hours as Tesco did. Now it's an easy way out.
|
|
|
Post by frenchgashead on Aug 29, 2014 7:20:35 GMT
Starkadder is spot on. For the last 6 months the BoD have been trying to force Sainsbury's to do something they don't want to do. It's all pretty desperate stuff - the second noise study etc. The writ - not unreasonable in cicumstances - but lawyers will always tell you that you have an arguable case - it's how they make their money. Quite how Sainsbury's play the planning appeal is difficult to see - supposedly arguing for something they don't want but no doubt their lawyers will be up to it. No doubt they will 'sympathise' with whatever TRASH say. TRASH can always appeal any decision in favour of the longer hours to the Secretary of State (and another JR?). This could take years. The BoD are desperate but they probably have little choice but to go down this road if the deal is ever going to be completed. The chances of success must be minimal. Sainsbury's will find another excuse (delays so long as to invalidate the contract?) and how long will UWE stay onside - they've made it clear they would like to get out of the deal.
|
|
|
Post by frenchgashead on Aug 28, 2014 11:01:36 GMT
I agree with Brockworth Gas. I think some (not all by a very long way!) of the criticism of Higgs is a bit misplaced. The contract will have been agreed by the lawyers - if Sainsbury's insisted that the extra long hours were put in there was little BRFC could do. There may even have been an informal agreement (a verbal contract is not worth the paper it's written on!) that if they didn't get the hours it wouldn't matter as they would build first and then try to change the hours like Tesco at Golden Hill. Sainsbury's have changed their mind and are using the clause as a get out. I'm not sure what Higgs could have done (apart from recover BRFC's extra costs as he's trying to do). However, he's been 'economical with the truth' and very far from frank and open. He looks like somebody whose been shafted. The delays caused by the planning appeal and then possibly a further appeal by TRASH means we won't be seeing anything resolved for a couple of years unless the whole deal collapses before then. What will UWE do in the meantime?
|
|
|
Post by frenchgashead on Aug 27, 2014 10:33:37 GMT
Sainsbury's already have longer hours that Golden Hill and that is a more open area (my old school fields!). The hours Sainsbury's want look unreasonable, especially the Sunday hours in a residential area. Planning inspector might overrule BCC but probably not with Sainsbury's not exerting themselves. If the PI is overworked then November looks optimistic and even then there would be a delay before result announced. Is it possible to appeal the PI if he gives the longer hours - I think TRASH would be able to go to the Secretary of State - all this happened with the Amex in Brighton. As 'Feeling the Blues' said why did the club agree to this condition in the first place - perhaps they had no choice and Sainsbury's insisted on it or no deal at all. It all seems to mean long delays even if we're successful. What will UWE do in the meantime? Have Sainsbury's got another condition in the contract they could use to wriggle out of completing. The writ against Sainsbury's is a separate matter - all that will do is sour relations even more.
|
|
|
Post by frenchgashead on Aug 26, 2014 15:59:27 GMT
Those of us who've had their suspicions about what was going on have been proved right. All the signs were there a couple of months ago - the MPs letter, the refusal of Sainsbury's to confirm anything and talking about 'commercial issues', UWE making it clear the project was on the rocks and they wouldn't bail it out and had other things they wanted to do. What worries me now is that the contract to buy the Mem must have had in it a clause that it was subject to suitable planning permission. To that extent the contract was 'watertight' - it's just that Sainbury's found the issue of delivery hours. They didn't appeal because they were happy with the refusal because it gives them an easy way out of the contract by claiming they haven't got the planning permission they need to run the store commercially. BRFC may not be able to sue Sainsbury's over the contract - because the terms for its implementation, agreed by both sides, have not been met. All they can do is try for compensation over costs over the last few months. We may not even win that but £300,000 + our legal costs may be the most we can get and it may not even be that - Sainsbury's will claim they acted reasonably. We really are down the pan.
|
|
|
Post by frenchgashead on Aug 24, 2014 6:10:16 GMT
ok, so we were adequate against a team that will almost certainly be looking like relegation fodder this season. What worries me is the next two games. FGR and Halifax - the two teams at the top of the league and both unbeaten. If we can get through that without a disaster (two defeats) - a couple of points would be reasonable - then we'll have a better idea where we are and maybe there will be a bit of confidence as the team start to gel.
|
|
|
Post by frenchgashead on Aug 14, 2014 15:11:52 GMT
OK we've played two of the better teams in the League and our team is still settling in. So far, so bad. But we really need something out of the next two games. I'm not thinking two wins but a win and a draw look pretty essential against teams that were a league lower last year. Even a goal would be a start! If we get nothing or just a point we are in real trouble.
|
|