|
Post by Feeling The Blues on Oct 5, 2014 10:05:50 GMT
Another piece from Graham Russell in today's paper where he says our bid to build our new stadium is about to become a car crash. I don't think he has all his facts right because he says that Rovers have already bought the land at UWE, but he has obviously spoken to his source again that gave him the story a couple of months ago that Sainsburys wanted to pull out ahead of that becoming public knowledge.
The main gist of what he has said today is;-
New Sainsburys chief to announce a freeze on all major development on Nov 12th. Rovers are poised to sue Sainsburys for (he says £20m) for the contract to buy the land in full. Sainsburys say it is all about a supermarket or nothing. Our chances of successfully suing Sainsburys is considered to be 60%. Sainsburys are prepared to consider a max of £2m in compensation for costs incurred. Rovers costs on the battle are running at £10,000 per month
So not much new really and he seems to be saying that even if the remaining onerous condition is satisfied Rovers will still have to take Sainsburys to court if they want to force the contract.
|
|
womble
Arthur Cartlidge
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 300
|
Post by womble on Oct 5, 2014 10:17:33 GMT
Odd he should get that wrong. It's common knowledge that we are leasing the ground from UWE. Looks like we'll be suing Sainsbury's then.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 5, 2014 10:18:41 GMT
Another piece from Graham Russell in today's paper where he says our bid to build our new stadium is about to become a car crash. I don't think he has all his facts right because he says that Rovers have already bought the land at UWE, but he has obviously spoken to his source again that gave him the story a couple of months ago that Sainsburys wanted to pull out ahead of that becoming public knowledge. The main gist of what he has said today is;- New Sainsburys chief to announce a freeze on all major development on Nov 12th. Rovers are poised to sue Sainsburys for (he says £20m) for the contract to buy the land in full. Sainsburys say it is all about a supermarket or nothing. Our chances of successfully suing Sainsburys is considered to be 60%. Sainsburys are prepared to consider a max of £2m in compensation for costs incurred. Rovers costs on the battle are running at £10,000 per month So not much new really and he seems to be saying that even if the remaining onerous condition is satisfied Rovers will still have to take Sainsburys to court if they want to force the contract. Knowing the way these things go I would imagine we could be looking at max 6 to 8 million in compo,ideal scenario i suppose is getting that, then someone like waitrose coming in and everything preceding that way. But this is rovers so we will end up with 1 million and no new ground.
|
|
Lazza
Rod Hull
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 264
|
Post by Lazza on Oct 5, 2014 10:22:50 GMT
1) Who say's? Plucked from the air figure from Graham? 2) Only some £30m+ less than what we want then. Again, where would he have got that figure from if all this is supposed to be highly confidential? Salt and large pinch of methinks.
|
|
|
Post by Feeling The Blues on Oct 5, 2014 10:27:13 GMT
1) Who say's? Plucked from the air figure from Graham? 2) Only some £30m+ less than what we want then. Again, where would he have got that figure from if all this is supposed to be highly confidential? Salt and large pinch of methinks. 1. The article says "legal speculation is that a court case would give Rovers a 60/40 chance of winning. 2. I guess it's the same source who told him Sainsburys wanted out before the writ revealing that became public?
|
|
crater
Joined: June 2014
Posts: 1,444
|
Post by crater on Oct 5, 2014 10:31:42 GMT
This is not meant in a derogatory way but who is Graham Russell?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 5, 2014 10:33:16 GMT
This is not meant in a derogatory way but who is Graham Russell? A poohead who is a reporter! I meant that in a derogatory way by the way!
|
|
GasHeadGaz
Vita Astafjevs
Joined: June 2014
Posts: 518
|
Post by GasHeadGaz on Oct 5, 2014 10:34:19 GMT
I thought Citys number 1 poster on otib "kid in the riot" was everyones source on this? "Apparently" his source is someone in South Glos Council, even though South Glos council has nothing to do with the dispute. Who was it on here who said they trust "kid in a riot" posts... LOL
|
|
|
Post by CountyGroundHotel on Oct 5, 2014 10:58:58 GMT
Which comes back to the question that no-one wants to consider - if Sainsburys are so confident of there legal position why haven't they pulled the plug already?
Now someone is suggesting they are contemplating paying £2m in compensation. Why? Perhaps because they are so sure of their legal position.
And if we sue there will be one of three outcomes: 1) we lose & get nothing; 2) the judge orders performance of the contract, Sainsburys get the land & we get the full cash sttlement; or 3) the judge awards us damages to cover our costs plus the difference between the full cash amount and the open market value of the land.
|
|
|
Post by Feeling The Blues on Oct 5, 2014 11:06:27 GMT
Which comes back to the question that no-one wants to consider - if Sainsburys are so confident of there legal position why haven't they pulled the plug already? Now someone is suggesting they are contemplating paying £2m in compensation. Why? Perhaps because they are so sure of their legal position. And if we sue there will be one of three outcomes: 1) we lose & get nothing; 2) the judge orders performance of the contract, Sainsburys get the land & we get the full cash sttlement; or 3) the judge awards us damages to cover our costs plus the difference between the full cash amount and the open market value of the land. Re your first point I think they need to wait to see if Rovers appeal against the remaining Store Onerous condition is upheld. Everything is going to kick off so to speak next monthe by the looks of it.
|
|
|
Post by onedaytheuwe on Oct 5, 2014 11:14:36 GMT
But you could look at it another way. If Sainsbury:s are so unsure: why don:t they pay out now thus avoiding bad public press. It seems to most of us there is a big dispute and no-one is budging. And of course the legal rep:s will give it 60% . They make big money on misery and confusion. In fact TRASH proclaimed " We have been advised there is a conservative 60 or 70 % chance of willing": and the judge throw it out in 2 minutes on a motorway service station. Of course NH will give it fighting talk and smiles. But the reality is it will be a long long battle now... Unless of course Sainsbury:s have told NH they will accept the decision by BCC on extended hours. And BCC have told people they will rubber stamp it. And work will start in the New year like the ' BOD Backers ' are pushing around. But is that possible
|
|
womble
Arthur Cartlidge
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 300
|
Post by womble on Oct 5, 2014 12:16:10 GMT
But you could look at it another way. If Sainsbury:s are so unsure: why don:t they pay out now thus avoiding bad public press. It seems to most of us there is a big dispute and no-one is budging. And of course the legal rep:s will give it 60% . They make big money on misery and confusion. In fact TRASH proclaimed " We have been advised there is a conservative 60 or 70 % chance of willing": and the judge throw it out in 2 minutes on a motorway service station. Of course NH will give it fighting talk and smiles. But the reality is it will be a long long battle now... Unless of course Sainsbury:s have told NH they will accept the decision by BCC on extended hours. And BCC have told people they will rubber stamp it. And work will start in the New year like the ' BOD Backers ' are pushing around. But is that possible Clearly Sainsbury's would like to pull out, but if the extended delivery hours goes through they are in an awkward position. Do they risk losing a court case and have to pay for the Mem, plus what will be by then several million in compensation? Or, do they offer a high enough compensation package to put the whole thing to bed? Or just possibly, do they accept the store will make lower profits than originally forecast, but bite the bullet and go ahead with the scheme? November will be interesting, both on and off the field.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 5, 2014 12:17:21 GMT
and if Sainsbury pay us £5-10m in compo and walk away.... we still have planning permission on the mem to build a supermarket.... come on down Waitrose the only one of the big supermarkets who are looking to expand into large stores,and pay us £10-15m for the mem.... Happy days !
|
|
|
Post by Topper Gas on Oct 5, 2014 12:33:56 GMT
Waitrose have never shown any interest in building another store in Bristol, why would they now want to build one in Horfield to compete with their present nearby Henleaze store?
As far as GR's article there's nothing really new but just a 60% chance of successfully suing Sainsbury's seems low, given we have a binding contract if the delivery hours are approved. As I can't see what their defence would be as just blaming changing shoppers habits, is hardly like to impress a judge plus Trash fought Sainsbury's not BRFC to delay the development.
|
|
Angas
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 2,067
|
Post by Angas on Oct 5, 2014 12:38:18 GMT
I wonder what the land value would be for housing. Less than Sainsbury's were going to pay, but with a sufficient amount of compensation it might all add up to just about enough. NH could probably top it up anyway if push came to shove.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 5, 2014 12:45:01 GMT
Another piece from Graham Russell in today's paper where he says our bid to build our new stadium is about to become a car crash. I don't think he has all his facts right because he says that Rovers have already bought the land at UWE, but he has obviously spoken to his source again that gave him the story a couple of months ago that Sainsburys wanted to pull out ahead of that becoming public knowledge. The main gist of what he has said today is;- New Sainsburys chief to announce a freeze on all major development on Nov 12th. Rovers are poised to sue Sainsburys for (he says £20m) for the contract to buy the land in full. Sainsburys say it is all about a supermarket or nothing. Our chances of successfully suing Sainsburys is considered to be 60%. Sainsburys are prepared to consider a max of £2m in compensation for costs incurred. Rovers costs on the battle are running at £10,000 per month So not much new really and he seems to be saying that even if the remaining onerous condition is satisfied Rovers will still have to take Sainsburys to court if they want to force the contract. All sounds highly credible to me.
|
|
brizzle
Lindsay Parsons
No Buy . . . No Sell!
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 4,293
|
Post by brizzle on Oct 5, 2014 12:45:20 GMT
I wonder what the land value would be for housing. Less than Sainsbury's were going to pay, but with a sufficient amount of compensation it might all add up to just about enough. NH could probably top it up anyway if push came to shove. He probably could. But I shudder to think what Mrs Higgs would make of seeing even more of her pension pot disappearing down the plughole.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 5, 2014 12:54:20 GMT
Which comes back to the question that no-one wants to consider - if Sainsburys are so confident of there legal position why haven't they pulled the plug already? Now someone is suggesting they are contemplating paying £2m in compensation. Why? Perhaps because they are so sure of their legal position. And if we sue there will be one of three outcomes: 1) we lose & get nothing; 2) the judge orders performance of the contract, Sainsburys get the land & we get the full cash sttlement; or 3) the judge awards us damages to cover our costs plus the difference between the full cash amount and the open market value of the land. I think you've got it bottom about face. Sainsbury's pulled the plug in February. It's for the club to show confidence by suing them because, as it stands, they're not buying the land. it seems perfectly sensible that discussions re out of court settlement might have been held at which £2million was mentioned - chicken feed for Sainsbury's to avoid hassle, probably good vfm, and a saving if £36million on contract fulfilment. Then again, that clean break figure might be on the slide given the injunction and hassle already incurred.
|
|
GasHeadGaz
Vita Astafjevs
Joined: June 2014
Posts: 518
|
Post by GasHeadGaz on Oct 5, 2014 13:06:38 GMT
Which comes back to the question that no-one wants to consider - if Sainsburys are so confident of there legal position why haven't they pulled the plug already? Now someone is suggesting they are contemplating paying £2m in compensation. Why? Perhaps because they are so sure of their legal position. And if we sue there will be one of three outcomes: 1) we lose & get nothing; 2) the judge orders performance of the contract, Sainsburys get the land & we get the full cash sttlement; or 3) the judge awards us damages to cover our costs plus the difference between the full cash amount and the open market value of the land. I think you've got it bottom about face. Sainsbury's pulled the plug in February. It's for the club to show confidence by suing them because, as it stands, they're not buying the land. it seems perfectly sensible that discussions re out of court settlement might have been held at which £2million was mentioned - chicken feed for Sainsbury's to avoid hassle, probably good vfm, and a saving if £36million on contract fulfilment. Then again, that clean break figure might be on the slide given the injunction and hassle already incurred. "that clean break figure might be on the slide given the injunction and hassle already incurred." Who's fault is that? Not BRFC's. Read more: gasheads.org/thread/1489/sunday-independent-graham-russell-stadium#ixzz3FH8dDtdt
|
|
|
Post by michaelb on Oct 5, 2014 13:49:57 GMT
Waitrose have never shown any interest in building another store in Bristol, why would they now want to build one in Horfield to compete with their present nearby Henleaze store? As far as GR's article there's nothing really new but just a 60% chance of successfully suing Sainsbury's seems low, given we have a binding contract if the delivery hours are approved. As I can't see what their defence would be as just blaming changing shoppers habits, is hardly like to impress a judge plus Trash fought Sainsbury's not BRFC to delay the development. I don't have any knowledge inside or out on this matter, but I'm pretty sure i read somewhere that Waitrose were the second highest tender ? can someone confirm ?
|
|