Thatslife
"Decisions are made by those who turn up"
Joined: June 2014
Posts: 669
|
Post by Thatslife on Sept 21, 2014 16:59:57 GMT
What will be annoying is that if there is a compensation amount, whatever it is, what's to bet it will be "an undisclosed figure" thus keeping Gasheads further in the dark (as usual).
|
|
GasHeadGaz
Vita Astafjevs
Joined: June 2014
Posts: 518
|
Post by GasHeadGaz on Sept 21, 2014 17:01:40 GMT
What will be annoying is that if there is a compensation amount, whateven it is, whats to bet it will be "an undiclosed figure" thus keeping Gasheads further in the dark. If it goes through the court it can't be undisclosed. Nice try though.
|
|
Thatslife
"Decisions are made by those who turn up"
Joined: June 2014
Posts: 669
|
Post by Thatslife on Sept 21, 2014 17:04:24 GMT
What will be annoying is that if there is a compensation amount, whateven it is, whats to bet it will be "an undiclosed figure" thus keeping Gasheads further in the dark. If it goes through the court it can't be undisclosed. Nice try though. It wont be decided by a court, it will be an "out of court" settlement, as they usually are, and what exactly does "nice try though" supposed to mean or infer?
|
|
brizzle
Lindsay Parsons
No Buy . . . No Sell!
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 4,293
|
Post by brizzle on Sept 21, 2014 17:31:14 GMT
I think that we'll all just have to wait and see, and I post that as a supporter of BRFC. Once anything gets into the hands of the legal eagles, well who knows? But it's safe to say that all bets are off. But I remain quietly confident, and a trifle optimistic. So do I, foolish maybe but after supporting them for 57 years something MUST go right sometime !Exactly. Well, I hope so at any rate.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 21, 2014 18:14:42 GMT
So do I, foolish maybe but after supporting them for 57 years something MUST go right sometime !Exactly. Well, I hope so at any rate. Take it from me things are going on behind the scenes
|
|
brizzle
Lindsay Parsons
No Buy . . . No Sell!
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 4,293
|
Post by brizzle on Sept 22, 2014 11:29:44 GMT
Exactly. Well, I hope so at any rate. Take it from me things are going on behind the scenes I'm uncertain if this is a genuine post from you Henbury, or if you're just winding The Cyclist up. I assume that you have been keeping abreast of the thread?
|
|
|
Post by mancgas has left the building on Sept 22, 2014 13:06:12 GMT
Tidying up the Mem won't turn an annual loss into a profit, as the UWE was meant to. I agree, we're not going to get £19m in a month of Sundays. That said, if they got just enough to pay back the debts they so helpfully accrued with their shocking mismanagement, and then let someone else take over a debt free club, I'd take that, because even with the UWE, these owners are a clear and present danger to BRFC. never understood this argument, stand full length both sides,big one on dribuild side would hold 7000, using current roof level on the other side adding flanks to existing stands say 4000, already had planing for Blackthorn end with 4900, 15,000 capacity with much lower spend, plus may be 1000 stand at tent end as well . Could incorporate load of flats on back of what is now the Dribuild and Blackthorn stand to rent out with underground car parking, (say 50 I bed at £700 pm= £420k a year) all doable, even give Sainsbury's a mini supermarket as part of deal compensation. Keep most of matchday car park, plus park and ride. Sure UWE would be better for all concerned, but there has to be an option with Mem to make money enough to help club survive. Anyone who went to FGR and witnessed their simple but highly effective and commercial main stand( which cost @£1.8 million and gives then 8 rooms to rent out, including a massive banqueting facility) can see as we already own the land £8-10 million spend would turn a mismatch stadium into a working decent looking cash machine fit for football up to Championship level if we ever reach dizzy heights again.
|
|
|
Post by mancgas has left the building on Sept 22, 2014 13:06:34 GMT
Tidying up the Mem won't turn an annual loss into a profit, as the UWE was meant to. I agree, we're not going to get £19m in a month of Sundays. That said, if they got just enough to pay back the debts they so helpfully accrued with their shocking mismanagement, and then let someone else take over a debt free club, I'd take that, because even with the UWE, these owners are a clear and present danger to BRFC. never understood this argument, stand full length both sides,big one on dribuild side would hold 7000, using current roof level on the other side adding flanks to existing stands say 4000, already had planing for Blackthorn end with 4900, 15,000 capacity with much lower spend, plus may be 1000 stand at tent end as well . Could incorporate load of flats on back of what is now the Dribuild and Blackthorn stand to rent out with underground car parking, (say 50 I bed at £700 pm= £420k a year) all doable, even give Sainsbury's a mini supermarket as part of deal compensation. Keep most of matchday car park, plus park and ride. Sure UWE would be better for all concerned, but there has to be an option with Mem to make money enough to help club survive. Anyone who went to FGR and witnessed their simple but highly effective and commercial main stand( which cost @£1.8 million and gives then 8 rooms to rent out, including a massive banqueting facility) can see as we already own the land £8-10 million spend would turn a mismatch stadium into a working decent looking cash machine fit for football up to Championship level if we ever reach dizzy heights again.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 22, 2014 13:17:55 GMT
Take it from me things are going on behind the scenes I'm uncertain if this is a genuine post from you Henbury, or if you're just winding The Cyclist up. I assume that you have been keeping abreast of the thread? You assume correctly sir, and i'm genuine !
|
|
brizzle
Lindsay Parsons
No Buy . . . No Sell!
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 4,293
|
Post by brizzle on Sept 22, 2014 13:26:58 GMT
I'm uncertain if this is a genuine post from you Henbury, or if you're just winding The Cyclist up. I assume that you have been keeping abreast of the thread? You assume correctly sir, and i'm genuine ! Speak now Cyclist, or forever hold your peace.
|
|
|
Post by thecyclist on Sept 22, 2014 20:39:45 GMT
You assume correctly sir, and i'm genuine ! Speak now Cyclist, or forever hold your peace. You continue with your hero worship and I'll follow Geoff Dunford's frequent example of remaining silent at the appropriate moment.....
|
|
Bridgeman
Alfie Biggs
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 3,549
|
Post by Bridgeman on Sept 22, 2014 20:59:50 GMT
Exactly. Well, I hope so at any rate. Take it from me things are going on behind the scenes There are things going on behind all scenes, genuine one's too. Unless you qualify your statement it doesn't mean anything more than my statement really does it, sorry
|
|
Bridgeman
Alfie Biggs
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 3,549
|
Post by Bridgeman on Sept 22, 2014 21:13:54 GMT
Bridgeman I totally agree with most of your comments and the 'green light' from the S.O.S would strengthen our case. Perhaps Sainsburys are awaiting the final say from him which I understand could take up to 3 months. However: I don:t understand your comment ' we get to keep the mem". Surely if Sainsbury:s are forced to pay out in full. We will move to the UWE and they will re-sell the land at a knock down price. Personally: I think a deal will be reached which will offer a fee in part. Not enough to fund the UWE but maybe enough to clear our debts and keep the board happy. Rebuilding the MEM in bits will be the next goal.. Realistically I think that is the fight now. A best possible outcome in a dire situation ( BUT NO UWE). Along with everyone else on this forum I'm merely speculating as to what may happen. My view was merely if Sainsbury's withdraw from buying the Mem (I think they already have haven't they ?) if we can legally prove they have acted unfairly not only will they have to pay up in full the amount they bid for the stadium as part of a legally binding tendering process but as they've withdrawn from buying it it will remain in our ownership, it's probably a ludicrous suggestion but it's as plausible as anyone else's
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 23, 2014 6:21:20 GMT
Take it from me things are going on behind the scenes There are things going on behind all scenes, genuine one's too. Unless you qualify your statement it doesn't mean anything more than my statement really does it, sorry I don't have to qualify anything at the moment BCC will be doing that for me real soon
|
|
|
Post by CountyGroundHotel on Sept 23, 2014 8:36:47 GMT
Bridgeman I totally agree with most of your comments and the 'green light' from the S.O.S would strengthen our case. Perhaps Sainsburys are awaiting the final say from him which I understand could take up to 3 months. However: I don:t understand your comment ' we get to keep the mem". Surely if Sainsbury:s are forced to pay out in full. We will move to the UWE and they will re-sell the land at a knock down price. Personally: I think a deal will be reached which will offer a fee in part. Not enough to fund the UWE but maybe enough to clear our debts and keep the board happy. Rebuilding the MEM in bits will be the next goal.. Realistically I think that is the fight now. A best possible outcome in a dire situation ( BUT NO UWE). Along with everyone else on this forum I'm merely speculating as to what may happen. My view was merely if Sainsbury's withdraw from buying the Mem (I think they already have haven't they ?) if we can legally prove they have acted unfairly not only will they have to pay up in full the amount they bid for the stadium as part of a legally binding tendering process but as they've withdrawn from buying it it will remain in our ownership, it's probably a ludicrous suggestion but it's as plausible as anyone else's If we could win I think it would be one of 2 judgements, either the judge forces the contract to be upheld so we get the cash & Sainsburys get the land or he awards compensation which would effectively be the contract amount less the open market value of the land. We won't ever get the full contract amount plus ownership of the Mem.
|
|
brizzle
Lindsay Parsons
No Buy . . . No Sell!
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 4,293
|
Post by brizzle on Sept 23, 2014 14:12:28 GMT
Speak now Cyclist, or forever hold your peace. You continue with your hero worship and I'll follow Geoff Dunford's frequent example of remaining silent at the appropriate moment..... You don't 'alf make I laff, cyclist. By the way, you ain't GD are you?
|
|
faggotygas
Byron Anthony
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 1,862
|
Post by faggotygas on Sept 23, 2014 14:41:53 GMT
Along with everyone else on this forum I'm merely speculating as to what may happen. My view was merely if Sainsbury's withdraw from buying the Mem (I think they already have haven't they ?) if we can legally prove they have acted unfairly not only will they have to pay up in full the amount they bid for the stadium as part of a legally binding tendering process but as they've withdrawn from buying it it will remain in our ownership, it's probably a ludicrous suggestion but it's as plausible as anyone else's If we could win I think it would be one of 2 judgements, either the judge forces the contract to be upheld so we get the cash & Sainsburys get the land or he awards compensation which would effectively be the contract amount less the open market value of the land. We won't ever get the full contract amount plus ownership of the Mem. Yes, as I understand it a judge could either order the contract to be performed - so Rovers get the money, Sainsbury's get the property - or award compensation for non-performance of the contract. Further damages may be awarded in either case, if Rovers can show and the judge agrees that Sainsbury's acting the giddy goat has cost us more money. In reality, should the judge enforce the contract, Sainsbury's may well offer to settle it in return for some dosh rather than have the cost and hassle of buying the Mem then trying to sell it again.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 23, 2014 15:37:21 GMT
If we could win I think it would be one of 2 judgements, either the judge forces the contract to be upheld so we get the cash & Sainsburys get the land or he awards compensation which would effectively be the contract amount less the open market value of the land. We won't ever get the full contract amount plus ownership of the Mem. Yes, as I understand it a judge could either order the contract to be performed - so Rovers get the money, Sainsbury's get the property - or award compensation for non-performance of the contract. Further damages may be awarded in either case, if Rovers can show and the judge agrees that Sainsbury's acting the giddy goat has cost us more money. In reality, should the judge enforce the contract, Sainsbury's may well offer to settle it in return for some dosh rather than have the cost and hassle of buying the Mem then trying to sell it again. But that's not what we're asking the court to do, is it? We're asking for compensation of a couple of hundred grand or whatever it is for costs incurred by us since April (or whenever) due to Sainsbury's 'dragging their feet' on a contract they told us they were pulling out of, in compliance with clauses whatever, in February, which we refused to accept turning instead to offering to pay for noise abatement measures. If we'd had the confidence to be able to claim non-compliance, we could have done so then.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 23, 2014 15:42:42 GMT
If we could win I think it would be one of 2 judgements, either the judge forces the contract to be upheld so we get the cash & Sainsburys get the land or he awards compensation which would effectively be the contract amount less the open market value of the land. We won't ever get the full contract amount plus ownership of the Mem. Yes, as I understand it a judge could either order the contract to be performed - so Rovers get the money, Sainsbury's get the property - or award compensation for non-performance of the contract. Further damages may be awarded in either case, if Rovers can show and the judge agrees that Sainsbury's acting the giddy goat has cost us more money. In reality, should the judge enforce the contract, Sainsbury's may well offer to settle it in return for some dosh rather than have the cost and hassle of buying the Mem then trying to sell it again. Is the writ just a pre cursor to the main event when Sainsbury pull the plug ?? Win that and you have a very good chance to win the following court case(s)
|
|
|
Post by CountyGroundHotel on Sept 23, 2014 15:45:32 GMT
Yes, as I understand it a judge could either order the contract to be performed - so Rovers get the money, Sainsbury's get the property - or award compensation for non-performance of the contract. Further damages may be awarded in either case, if Rovers can show and the judge agrees that Sainsbury's acting the giddy goat has cost us more money. In reality, should the judge enforce the contract, Sainsbury's may well offer to settle it in return for some dosh rather than have the cost and hassle of buying the Mem then trying to sell it again. But that's not what we're asking the court to do, is it? We're asking for compensation of a couple of hundred grand or whatever it is for costs incurred by us since April (or whenever) due to Sainsbury's 'dragging their feet' on a contract they told us they were pulling out of, in compliance with clauses whatever, in February, which we refused to accept turning instead to offering to pay for noise abatement measures. If we'd had the confidence to be able to claim non-compliance, we could have done so then. Think everyone is correct in what there saying Seth. Ours is a pre-emptive strike for dilly dallying rather than suing for non-performance at this stage
|
|