|
Post by alloutofgas on Oct 5, 2014 22:02:43 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. They are stroking their dicks, metaphorically of course.
|
|
Lazza
Rod Hull
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 264
|
Post by Lazza on Oct 6, 2014 8:08:08 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. Totally agree. The chances of the UWE ever coming off now are slim and none IMHO, Sainsbury's will not be paying us £30m+ in a month of Sunday's will they? Why would they? They don't want to build a store there, they're not going to build a store there and we cannot force them in all reality. The realistic best we can ever hope for is taking them to court for breech of contract and getting a pay-off which won't even come remotely close to getting us to the UWE in any shape or form. Which will only leave us with one choice - stay where we are and redevelop. Always the sensible and realistic option from the start just like it always was and what we originally intended to do several years ago. The trouble is with this option the original intention of the directors getting their money back will therefore never happen. It's time they just accept the reality of this and get on with improving the club they love and getting us back into league football. By all means continue the action against Sainsbury's so long as it is a sensible option and is affordable, we need the pay-off to redevelop the Mem after all.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 6, 2014 8:21:38 GMT
I think the argument is that the contract we have obliges them to buy the land at the agreed price so long as planning conditions are as agreed. The store doesn't matter.
Whether this is the case or not is a matter for conjecture really, as we see in these endless speculative threads
|
|
|
Post by chippenhamgas on Oct 6, 2014 9:41:17 GMT
Think people are missed the basic fact that we have planning permission to build a stadium on a piece of land that is secured (for the time being). I suspect that one of the reasons that there has been such silence over the last few months from higgs is that discussions/negotiations have been going on whilst we pursue the maximum compensation from sainsbury's. To an outsider wishing to invest/buy a football club we are a very attractive proposition, solid support base with lots of potential and that all important planning permission. Uwe is the only game in town, we will never get another opportunity like this one, another piece of cheap land that a stadium can be built on isn't going to pop up and present itself. I'm pretty confident we'll get decent money from sainsbury's, then revert to plan b (whatever that is!) to plug the gap whilst the mem is sold again. There is no way that higgs has pinned all his hopes on sainsbury's coming up with 30m to build uwe, when he's known for a year they want out, and continuously promised during that time it will be built.
|
|
Igitur
Joined: June 2014
Posts: 2,294
|
Post by Igitur on Oct 6, 2014 9:54:57 GMT
Think people are missed the basic fact that we have planning permission to build a stadium on a piece of land that is secured (for the time being). I suspect that one of the reasons that there has been such silence over the last few months from higgs is that discussions/negotiations have been going on whilst we pursue the maximum compensation from sainsbury's. To an outsider wishing to invest/buy a football club we are a very attractive proposition, solid support base with lots of potential and that all important planning permission. Uwe is the only game in town, we will never get another opportunity like this one, another piece of cheap land that a stadium can be built on isn't going to pop up and present itself. I'm pretty confident we'll get decent money from sainsbury's, then revert to plan b (whatever that is!) to plug the gap whilst the mem is sold again. There is no way that higgs has pinned all his hopes on sainsbury's coming up with 30m to build uwe, when he's known for a year they want out, and continuously promised during that time it will be built. Remember relegation was not an option.
|
|
Cheshiregas
Global Moderator
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 2,165
|
Post by Cheshiregas on Oct 6, 2014 11:43:03 GMT
The stadium will be built. If that is your cast iron guarantee then I will take it. Until its built though I will continue to enjoy the current run of a team of players that actually look as if they give a toss about playing for the Gas and treat every post either way from "those in the know" with a massive dose of scepticism.
|
|
|
Post by chippenhamgas on Oct 6, 2014 11:58:08 GMT
The stadium will be built. If that is your cast iron guarantee then I will take it. Until its built though I will continue to enjoy the current run of a team of players that actually look as if they give a toss about playing for the Gas and treat every post either way from "those in the know" with a massive dose of scepticism.
|
|
|
Post by chippenhamgas on Oct 6, 2014 12:08:33 GMT
If sainsbury's could walk away from this without paying up they would have done so by now, if uwe knew we didn't have the means to fulfill our obligations as partners in the development they would have gone public and said the whole thing is off. I believe there is stuff going on behind the scenes that none of us can be privy to at this stage, possibly on 2 or even 3 fronts. I would imagine when we have a clearer idea about where we stand re sains compensation (late nov) we will then know how much extra money is needed and proper negotiations can take place. It amazes me how people are taking the view that the whole thing is off when if you think about it we are not in that bad a position, we have a valuable piece of real estate, we have a contract with a buyer (who, at least at this stage can't walk away from it), planning permission to build a stadium (now ready to go at any time) and new investors lined up.
|
|
|
Post by Topper Gas on Oct 6, 2014 12:42:52 GMT
If sainsbury's could walk away from this without paying up they would have done so by now, if uwe knew we didn't have the means to fulfill our obligations as partners in the development they would have gone public and said the whole thing is off. I believe there is stuff going on behind the scenes that none of us can be privy to at this stage, possibly on 2 or even 3 fronts. I would imagine when we have a clearer idea about where we stand re sains compensation (late nov) we will then know how much extra money is needed and proper negotiations can take place. It amazes me how people are taking the view that the whole thing is off when if you think about it we are not in that bad a position, we have a valuable piece of real estate, we have a contract with a buyer (who, at least at this stage can't walk away from it), planning permission to build a stadium (now ready to go at any time) and new investors lined up. I think you've missed the fact there's a copy of the writ in the public domain which suggests Sainsbury's will walk if they don't get the extended delivery hours, there's no suggestion in the writ that Sainsbury's have entered into any talks about giving us compensation. Whilst we may have the mem, pp for the uwe and even a contract unless unless we can raise the £30m it's all a non starter. I'm guessing Sainsbury's will only make a decision on buidling a store, or entering into talks to give us compo, once a final decision is made on the delivery hours, as if that goes against BRFC Sainsbury's will just walk away and there's nothing NH can do about it.
|
|
|
Post by chippenhamgas on Oct 6, 2014 13:09:11 GMT
You could argue that sainsbury's only have one way out of this and after fighting and partly financing the defence against a judicial review are bcc going to let them off the hook and waive goodbye too 200m worth of investment in the city. I think they've let rovers know exactly what they need to do and put in place to get the original refusal overturned.
|
|
|
Post by mehewmagic on Oct 6, 2014 13:16:11 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. thanks for the summary. I would suspect that your average streetwise gashead would have guessed most of this already. this is a big battle.
|
|
|
Post by fanatical on Oct 6, 2014 14:06:11 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. A stadium is in the South Glos long term plan for the area so I agree - someone will fill in if necessary
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 6, 2014 14:09:26 GMT
You could argue that sainsbury's only have one way out of this and after fighting and partly financing the defence against a judicial review are bcc going to let them off the hook and waive goodbye too 200m worth of investment in the city. I think they've let rovers know exactly what they need to do and put in place to get the original refusal overturned.Nail & Head with this one ! Also i can confirm that this has not yet been called in so will be dealt with by the planning officer not full committee
|
|
brizzle
Lindsay Parsons
No Buy . . . No Sell!
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 4,293
|
Post by brizzle on Oct 6, 2014 15:02:56 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. They are stroking their dicks, metaphorically of course. Well really.
|
|
|
Post by Feeling The Blues on Oct 6, 2014 15:03:05 GMT
You could argue that sainsbury's only have one way out of this and after fighting and partly financing the defence against a judicial review are bcc going to let them off the hook and waive goodbye too 200m worth of investment in the city. I think they've let rovers know exactly what they need to do and put in place to get the original refusal overturned.Nail & Head with this one ! Also i can confirm that this has not yet been called in so will be dealt with my the planning officer not full committee I think that it is quite clear that a number of people who either talk to the club or talk to people in planning are very positive that the final onerous condition will be removed. That is great news. However that doesn't mean that Sainsburys will simply hand over the cash does it? They could still force Rovers to chance suing them.
|
|
brizzle
Lindsay Parsons
No Buy . . . No Sell!
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 4,293
|
Post by brizzle on Oct 6, 2014 15:19:13 GMT
Nail & Head with this one ! Also i can confirm that this has not yet been called in so will be dealt with my the planning officer not full committee I think that it is quite clear that a number of people who either talk to the club or talk to people in planning are very positive that the final onerous condition will be removed. That is great news. However that doesn't mean that Sainsburys will simply hand over the cash does it? They could still force Rovers to chance suing them. Exactly right. Rovers may well assist in helping to remove all of the obstacles in the planning process, but if Sainsbury's are not so inclined to complete then they will have wasted their time and money. Sainsbury's are in a very strong position, and they must surely know it. They won't be forced, bullied or coerced into buying the Mem, and they will do what is the correct thing to do for their company, and not for BRFC. But if by chance the aims and aspirations of the two parties overlap, then they might complete the purchase. As many others have posted previously, Sainsbury's can sit back and wait, and allow BRFC to do all the running (and make all the financial outlay as well), a bit like a spider in its web.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 6, 2014 15:33:09 GMT
I think that it is quite clear that a number of people who either talk to the club or talk to people in planning are very positive that the final onerous condition will be removed. That is great news. However that doesn't mean that Sainsburys will simply hand over the cash does it? They could still force Rovers to chance suing them. Exactly right. Rovers may well assist in helping to remove all of the obstacles in the planning process, but if Sainsbury's are not so inclined to complete then they will have wasted their time and money. Sainsbury's are in a very strong position, and they must surely know it. They won't be forced, bullied or coerced into buying the Mem, and they will do what is the correct thing to do for their company, and not for BRFC. But if by chance the aims and aspirations of the two parties overlap, then they might complete the purchase. As many others have posted previously, Sainsbury's can sit back and wait, and allow BRFC to do all the running (and make all the financial outlay as well), a bit like a spider in its web. Push Sainsburys into a corner and they will pay
|
|
irishrover
Global Moderator
Joined: June 2014
Posts: 3,372
|
Post by irishrover on Oct 6, 2014 16:02:57 GMT
I don't normally comment on these because they tend to degenerate into 'I know something you don't' kind of arguments which is largely pointless. But I very much hope that those who are confident that the stadium will get built are absolutely right - it seems to me the club has basically thrown all it's eggs into the Stadium basket (wrongly in my view but there is a debate to be had there) and if they end up smashed then the future does not look good. If it gets done this will obviously be a major achievement for the club - possibly THE major achievement. However, for those of us that remain at least somewhat skeptical (and personally I am in the 'haven't a clue what will happen' camp at this stage) I'd say the issues look like this (a flowchart might work better).
1)Sainsbury's do not appear to want to build anymore large Supermarkets in the current market climate and would presumably therefore rather get out of this deal if they can. 2)The most current possibility that this may happen is if the 'onerous' conditions are not removed. I assume that where we (and Sainsburys) would stand at that point would come down to the minutae of the agreement - ie. Whether there is anything in there giving them the right to pull out under those circumstances. On that I have no idea but I imagine Lawyers on both sides would be lining up to have pop at it. 3)If everything goes tickety-boo and the onerous conditions are removed we presumably move to the next stage to try and force Sainsbury's to honour their agreement. Armies of lawyers then enter at this point instead with various strategies - including delaying tactics. There are then 3 possible outcomes of whatever lawyering then takes place (as I see it); 4a)Sainsbury's have to go ahead and buy the land off us at the agreed price (whether they actually put a Supermarket on the land or not is irrelevant to us obviously). 4b)Sainsbury's have to give us a pretty hefty compensation package for reneging on the deal. 4c)Sainsbury's get away with offering us a paltry compensation package or nowt at all.
5) Now imagine our options for each of the above scenarios. 4a)Happy days - we can proceed with the agreed plan and we can put the delays down to the difficulties of a fairly complex project and inevitable balancing of different interests. We get the UWE. 4b)We have to find a way of making up the shortfall in the funding for the UWE. Therefore, depending on the level of compensation either we can sell the Mem off to someone else (probably housing, which is a more complicated and time-consuming process I would have thought, as it looks like bottom has fallen out the Supermarket industry) and use that to fund the UWE. Alternatively if the figures don't add up anymore we junk the UWE and use the money to pay off our debts and/or fund a more modest development at the Mem. In any case the future looks a lot more unclear regarding the future finances of the club. 4c)We're utterly screwed. The UWE would likely be dead in the water and with no prospect of getting their money back the board would presumably stop funding the losses we are making every year. Either we get sold and are at the whim of the kind of people who buy clubs in those circumstances or we go under.
While all this is going on there's also the external factor of UWE. They don't need this development anywhere near as much as we do - they're doing quite nicely thank you very much. This could be a good thing for them but it isn't vital. Urgo, if the lawyers drag it all on too long I think there's a very reasonable chance that UWE might decide to put it's efforts and resources elsewhere rather than waiting. The higher education sector is changing rapidly and different opportunities and crises are likely to emerge very quickly in the next few years; they're not going to want to hang on for a long legal dispute that may go either way. This isn't a deal that is going to make or break UWE; something better could well come along particularly given the increased links between British Higher Education and the Far East which is where the real money is currently to be made is in the sector.
Now, admittedly all of the above is based on the assumption that Sainsbury's do not want to build a Supermarket at the Mem anymore but I think it's fair to say that assumption is based on pretty strong evidence both in the way Sainsbury's are now behaving towards the Mem, how their national strategy is being described by their CEO and the current state of the Supermarket sector.
From a decidedly non-expert outside perspective that sure sounds like an awful lot of things that could go wrong and an awful lot of them that are largely outside of Rovers control. None of these issues have been addressed in a convincing way by the key parties involved beyond a kind of 'trust us everything will be fine' sort of approach. Maybe that is justified at delicate stages of a project but you can hardly be surprised, especially given what has happened to the club in the last 5 years, if that response is more likely to generate doubt than confidence in Rovers fans. Now I'm extremely glad that people closer to the pulse on this stuff are more optimistic than I am but it's pretty easy to see why a lot of people wouldn't be. I have no idea what the reality is - I only have hope that it works out. One thing I would say though is that if people think this is definitely going to happen purely because BCC and South Gloucester want it to happen and there is genuine political will to see something built then I think they may have a misconception about where the power actually lies here.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 6, 2014 16:42:04 GMT
I don't normally comment on these because they tend to degenerate into 'I know something you don't' kind of arguments which is largely pointless. But I very much hope that those who are confident that the stadium will get built are absolutely right - it seems to me the club has basically thrown all it's eggs into the Stadium basket (wrongly in my view but there is a debate to be had there) and if they end up smashed then the future does not look good. If it gets done this will obviously be a major achievement for the club - possibly THE major achievement. However, for those of us that remain at least somewhat skeptical (and personally I am in the 'haven't a clue what will happen' camp at this stage) I'd say the issues look like this (a flowchart might work better). 1)Sainsbury's do not appear to want to build anymore large Supermarkets in the current market climate and would presumably therefore rather get out of this deal if they can. 2)The most current possibility that this may happen is if the 'onerous' conditions are not removed. I assume that where we (and Sainsburys) would stand at that point would come down to the minutae of the agreement - ie. Whether there is anything in there giving them the right to pull out under those circumstances. On that I have no idea but I imagine Lawyers on both sides would be lining up to have pop at it. 3)If everything goes tickety-boo and the onerous conditions are removed we presumably move to the next stage to try and force Sainsbury's to honour their agreement. Armies of lawyers then enter at this point instead with various strategies - including delaying tactics. There are then 3 possible outcomes of whatever lawyering then takes place (as I see it); 4a)Sainsbury's have to go ahead and buy the land off us at the agreed price (whether they actually put a Supermarket on the land or not is irrelevant to us obviously). 4b)Sainsbury's have to give us a pretty hefty compensation package for reneging on the deal. 4c)Sainsbury's get away with offering us a paltry compensation package or nowt at all. 5) Now imagine our options for each of the above scenarios. 4a)Happy days - we can proceed with the agreed plan and we can put the delays down to the difficulties of a fairly complex project and inevitable balancing of different interests. We get the UWE. 4b)We have to find a way of making up the shortfall in the funding for the UWE. Therefore, depending on the level of compensation either we can sell the Mem off to someone else (probably housing, which is a more complicated and time-consuming process I would have thought, as it looks like bottom has fallen out the Supermarket industry) and use that to fund the UWE. Alternatively if the figures don't add up anymore we junk the UWE and use the money to pay off our debts and/or fund a more modest development at the Mem. In any case the future looks a lot more unclear regarding the future finances of the club. 4c)We're utterly screwed. The UWE would likely be dead in the water and with no prospect of getting their money back the board would presumably stop funding the losses we are making every year. Either we get sold and are at the whim of the kind of people who buy clubs in those circumstances or we go under. While all this is going on there's also the external factor of UWE. They don't need this development anywhere near as much as we do - they're doing quite nicely thank you very much. This could be a good thing for them but it isn't vital. Urgo, if the lawyers drag it all on too long I think there's a very reasonable chance that UWE might decide to put it's efforts and resources elsewhere rather than waiting. The higher education sector is changing rapidly and different opportunities and crises are likely to emerge very quickly in the next few years; they're not going to want to hang on for a long legal dispute that may go either way. This isn't a deal that is going to make or break UWE; something better could well come along particularly given the increased links between British Higher Education and the Far East which is where the real money is currently to be made is in the sector. Now, admittedly all of the above is based on the assumption that Sainsbury's do not want to build a Supermarket at the Mem anymore but I think it's fair to say that assumption is based on pretty strong evidence both in the way Sainsbury's are now behaving towards the Mem, how their national strategy is being described by their CEO and the current state of the Supermarket sector. From a decidedly non-expert outside perspective that sure sounds like an awful lot of things that could go wrong and an awful lot of them that are largely outside of Rovers control. None of these issues have been addressed in a convincing way by the key parties involved beyond a kind of 'trust us everything will be fine' sort of approach. Maybe that is justified at delicate stages of a project but you can hardly be surprised, especially given what has happened to the club in the last 5 years, if that response is more likely to generate doubt than confidence in Rovers fans. Now I'm extremely glad that people closer to the pulse on this stuff are more optimistic than I am but it's pretty easy to see why a lot of people wouldn't be. I have no idea what the reality is - I only have hope that it works out. One thing I would say though is that if people think this is definitely going to happen purely because BCC and South Gloucester want it to happen and there is genuine political will to see something built then I think they may have a misconception about where the power actually lies here. Brilliant write-up by Irish. If I were purist I might see if we could rationalise box 2 and the first part of box 3 in your flowchart: I'm not sure there's an 'if' in there - a broad scope, subject to precise wording that needn't delay us, of some sort of jazz about both sides doing all they can to get the best hand ahead of 'Armies of lawyers then enter' (except it's 'then deploy the ammunition they ended up with as a result of [2]' rather than 'enter'). But basically, yes, exactly this: it's lawyers' delight as Sainsbury's exit; what are the options. Oh, and I'd spell it 'ergo': let's not ruin it with Thracian dialect!
|
|
aghast
David Williams
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 395
|
Post by aghast on Oct 6, 2014 20:51:12 GMT
A truly excellent summary from irishrover. As said elsewhere, it's not really about the supermarket any more - or so it appears - it's about the money we can extract from Sainsbury's. They know that if they are required to pay us the full £30m, they can sell the land for perhaps £10m for housing - net cost to them £20m. The full compensation, assuming the appeal succeeds, is nevertheless unlikely, I would have thought. Whether the other two onerous conditions have been waived, as in legally dismissed, or could be resurrected, is unclear. The Sainsbury's legal team will have plenty of good reasons for a reduced amount to be paid, starting with the minimum of our costs incurred to date. They will offer option 4c and will plan for option 4b.
If this happens, then the UWE stadium as designed will not happen. If UWE themselves are prepared to wait, then we may see a smaller stadium built there, or perhaps the reduced funds will be sufficient for a decent redevelopment of the Mem.
|
|