nit3owl64
Respect The Beard!!!
Joined: July 2014
Posts: 382 
|
Post by nit3owl64 on Oct 5, 2014 14:57:08 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. Im sure Henleaze is as far from the mem as Sainsburys store in is Filton and I think they did tender for the Mem too? |
|
brizzle
Lindsay Parsons
No Buy . . . No Sell!
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 4,293
|
Post by brizzle on Oct 5, 2014 15:04:43 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 ? Is that another ray of sunshine, or another horse bolting? |
|
|
|
Post by swissgas on Oct 5, 2014 15:26:51 GMT
Could this all hinge on the enhanced mitigation measures (soundproofing) costing more than 40 000 ?
If it does then would Rovers argument be "but we are paying the extra costs"
And would Sainsburys argument be that the 40 000 figure was inserted in the contract as a means of identifying the scale of work necessary to satisfy the planners. They would not have wanted to proceed with the development if significant extra work was required and they considered 40 000 worth to be significant amount of extra work which is why they inserted this figure in the contract as an onerous condition.
If the main plank of Rovers case is that they would pay the 40 000 and so Sainsburys would suffer no financial loss it may come down to whether 40 000 was an actual sum of money or a means of quantifying the scale of work and there may be precedents for this.
My fear would be that a judge may rule that 40 000 in money terms could not possibly be significant to Sainsburys in the context of a 60 million + value development and so it was clearly inserted in the contract as a means of quantifying the scale of work needed to satisfy planners in which case the onerous condition has been met.
|
|
Peter Parker
Global Moderator
Richard Walker
You have been sentenced to DELETION!
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 4,920
|
Post by Peter Parker on Oct 5, 2014 15:32:54 GMT
Could this all hinge on the enhanced mitigation measures (soundproofing) costing more than 40 000 ? If it does then would Rovers argument be "but we are paying the extra costs" And would Sainsburys argument be that the 40 000 figure was inserted in the contract as a means of identifying the scale of work necessary to satisfy the planners. They would not have wanted to proceed with the development if significant extra work was required and they considered 40 000 worth to be significant amount of extra work which is why they inserted this figure in the contract as an onerous condition. If the main plank of Rovers case is that they would pay the 40 000 and so Sainsburys would suffer no financial loss it may come down to whether 40 000 was an actual sum of money or a means of quantifying the scale of work and there may be precedents for this. My fear would be that a judge may rule that 40 000 in money terms could not possibly be significant to Sainsburys in the context of a 60 million + value development and so it was clearly inserted in the contract as a means of quantifying the scale of work needed to satisfy planners in which case the onerous condition has been met. you really should not speculate Swiss. Some on here are keen to tell us that our application is fine, its a done deal and Sainsburysb wont have a leg to stand on. its all alright and Sainsburys will just give us the money in a short time |
|
|
|
Post by swissgas on Oct 5, 2014 15:40:25 GMT
Could this all hinge on the enhanced mitigation measures (soundproofing) costing more than 40 000 ? If it does then would Rovers argument be "but we are paying the extra costs" And would Sainsburys argument be that the 40 000 figure was inserted in the contract as a means of identifying the scale of work necessary to satisfy the planners. They would not have wanted to proceed with the development if significant extra work was required and they considered 40 000 worth to be significant amount of extra work which is why they inserted this figure in the contract as an onerous condition. If the main plank of Rovers case is that they would pay the 40 000 and so Sainsburys would suffer no financial loss it may come down to whether 40 000 was an actual sum of money or a means of quantifying the scale of work and there may be precedents for this. My fear would be that a judge may rule that 40 000 in money terms could not possibly be significant to Sainsburys in the context of a 60 million + value development and so it was clearly inserted in the contract as a means of quantifying the scale of work needed to satisfy planners in which case the onerous condition has been met. you really should not speculate Swiss. Some on here are keen to tell us that our application is fine, its a done deal and Sainsburysb wont have a leg to stand on. its all alright and Sainsburys will just give us the money in a short time If I was going to speculate Peter I should speculate that advice is being ignored and a cheque book is being waved  |
|
|
|
Post by stevek192 on Oct 5, 2014 15:55:41 GMT
Its all speculation lads with none of you really having a clue what you are talking about and that is being polite. Why can't you all just await the final outcome because What will be will be.
|
|
|
|
Post by Topper Gas on Oct 5, 2014 17:13:33 GMT
SteveK I can't recall posters telling you to do the same when you spent the last two, or was three, summers talking about the club signing a striker or two?
There is clearly enough info in the public domain for posters to work out what is going on i.e. Sainsbury's don't want to build a new store and so somehow NH now has to get £30m out of them.
|
|
|
|
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 |
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 5, 2014 17:35:07 GMT
Russell can write some odd stuff at times - sometimes correct but then the careless error over the ownership of the land makes me wonder about how much weight he gives to accuracy over the need to get a story for his column. I'll treat it all with as much caution as tales of what NH is supposed to have said in a casual chat tbh
|
|
|
|
Post by bemmygas on Oct 5, 2014 17:37:20 GMT
When we we get a decent payout from sainsburys because of their downturn in fortunes then ,with the right management the original Mem refurb is a definite option with the upturn in property prices. It's a goer.being where we are, time is not a problem.lets just concentrate on getting out of the conference.we still own a prime piece of real estate,so all is not lost.
|
|
GasHeadGaz
Vita Astafjevs
Joined: June 2014
Posts: 518
|
Post by GasHeadGaz on Oct 5, 2014 17:41:20 GMT
Its all speculation lads with none of you really having a clue what you are talking about and that is being polite. Why can't you all just await the final outcome because What will be will be. "Kid in a riot" knows what he's talking about! He has sources in South Glos council(even though it has nothing to do with them...), so he must be telling the truth, right? |
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 5, 2014 17:57:32 GMT
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 ? Is that another ray of sunshine, or another horse bolting? Or straw clutching. Why people can't accept the blindingly obvious - there's a hole in the bucket, how do we deal with it, what happens next? - rather than convincing themselves there is no hole and the myriad evidence that there is (a very wet floor, an empty bucket, light shining through from the bottom) is all a conspiracy by bad people or else a cunningly crafted smokescreen to detract from a secret master plan behind the scenes - is beyond me. Add to which, this sort of thing becomes FACT, closely followed by 'who says Sainsbury's want out?' Madness. |
|
brizzle
Lindsay Parsons
No Buy . . . No Sell!
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 4,293
|
Post by brizzle on Oct 5, 2014 18:02:58 GMT
Is that another ray of sunshine, or another horse bolting? Or straw clutching. Why people can't accept the blindingly obvious - there's a hole in the bucket, how do we deal with it, what happens next? - rather than convincing themselves there is no hole and the myriad evidence that there is (a very wet floor, an empty bucket, light shining through from the bottom) is all a conspiracy by bad people or else a cunningly crafted smokescreen to detract from a secret master plan behind the scenes - is beyond me. Add to which, this sort of thing becomes FACT, closely followed by 'who says Sainsbury's want out?' Madness. It's frustrating, ennit Seth?  |
|
toteend
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 305
|
Post by toteend on Oct 5, 2014 18:11:23 GMT
Why do people believe anything this past it journo writes? All he is doing is guessing to make up a story. We aren't buying the land, our lawyers will not have spoken with him, everyone knows about the changes in shopping habits, if Sainsburys have spoken of max compensation of £2m that should encourage us more. It shows they know they are in the wrong. And remember, they have shareholders to answer to, so they can't just give money away.
The truth is that NH, as he has all along is saying nowt, because it only creates a feeding frenzy. He kept it quiet about even beginning all this, and has maintained that stance.
If the council grant the additional hours, Sainsburys are up sh* t creek without a paddle. We know it and they know it. They will not contest a case that is doomed to failure ( remember the shareholders)@
The stadium will be built.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bath Gas on Oct 5, 2014 19:03:34 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 I believe that the OTIB poster has a fairly decent record of being accurate. He was the first person to post about the JR, so I would presume his source is reasonably close to BCC planning dept. I though that Henbury was the person who has a source from South Glos? I'm resigned to not losing any sleep before the official news, be it good or bad - who knows! |
|
GasHeadGaz
Vita Astafjevs
Joined: June 2014
Posts: 518
|
Post by GasHeadGaz on Oct 5, 2014 19:09:34 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 I believe that the OTIB poster has a fairly decent record of being accurate. He was the first person to post about the JR, so I would presume his source is reasonably close to BCC planning dept. I though that Henbury was the person who has a source from South Glos? I'm resigned to not losing any sleep before the official news, be it good or bad - who knows! Nope it was kid in a riot, he mentioned it on their forum. They might both have the same source, I know who I trust out of them & it ain't kiddy in a riot. |
|
|
|
Post by stevek192 on Oct 5, 2014 19:16:38 GMT
Topper Gas, Think harder I am sure there were plenty telling me exactly that. The stadium is however a slightly different case and who knows what is truth and what is rubbish and that goes for the Public Domain too. Much has come out that should not have been leaked but who knows if what is leaked is true. Its all speculation.
|
|
|
|
Post by Topper Gas on Oct 5, 2014 20:50:24 GMT
The fact your reading this thread suggests, like the rest of us, you are interested to find out what's going on, we know for a fact there's some truth in the story as somebody from within the club leaked the writ to the B Post.
|
|
|
|
Post by alloutofgas on Oct 5, 2014 21:28:12 GMT
I still maintain that the planning permission given for the UWE is priceless. It will be built, the funding will be found, either from the Sainsbury deal or a consortium of investors.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 5, 2014 21:54:26 GMT
Funny all these people who have "inside information" and have to tell everyone about it. Is it supposed to impress people? I don't really know anything and don't really care about it, like someone said earlier what happens happens.
|
|
