LPGas
Stuart Taylor
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 1,240
|
Post by LPGas on Oct 6, 2014 21:45:51 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. I hate the Mem it is a dump. In the 21st Century a football ground must at the very least allow people to stay dry when it rains. Plus it make very little money.
|
|
LPGas
Stuart Taylor
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 1,240
|
Post by LPGas on Oct 6, 2014 22:04:30 GMT
Forget building a supermarket. the reality is they have been used to making Big profits for years, that has been challenged by Aldi and Co and of course their own smaller shops. So at the moment big stores are a no go. But apart from the Royal family, and a few Lords of the Manor, the biggest owners of land, are in fact the supermarkets. If I could afford to buy the Mem I would, because I would just sit on it for 10 years. Lets face it the population of this country is not going to go down, and more people = higher land prices. Of course the supermarkets strategy is only short term, a bit like the government
|
|
irishrover
Global Moderator
Joined: June 2014
Posts: 3,372
|
Post by irishrover on Oct 6, 2014 23:11:03 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! I was sort of wondering if some kind of full path analysis might be the way forward.... But I honestly don't know if that's a good summary of the actual situation or not - I could be way off beam. But I think it's a decent summary of the situation as it is being perceived by Gasheads and under those circumstance it's kind of easy to see why optimism is in fairly short supply. Even if everything works out it looks like a long, messy haul to the destination right now. Again, I would be utterly delighted if that was completely wrong.
|
|
|
Post by CountyGroundHotel on Oct 7, 2014 8:47:00 GMT
Forget building a supermarket. the reality is they have been used to making Big profits for years, that has been challenged by Aldi and Co and of course their own smaller shops. So at the moment big stores are a no go. But apart from the Royal family, and a few Lords of the Manor, the biggest owners of land, are in fact the supermarkets. If I could afford to buy the Mem I would, because I would just sit on it for 10 years. Lets face it the population of this country is not going to go down, and more people = higher land prices. Of course the supermarkets strategy is only short term, a bit like the government That would work unless the plastic Socialists get elected who have already laid out there plans to expropriate the assets of big businesses so far they have detailed plans to take assets from the banks, housebuilders, energy firms & tobacco firms. Supermarkets land banks will also be in their thieving eyes
|
|
|
Post by Curly Wurly on Oct 7, 2014 10:11:47 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. 5a)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. 5b)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. 5c)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. I can't disagree with much of your logic, Irish. I might suggest that there is another outcome resulting from 4c, which is the current board DO continue to fund the club (i.e. the status quo option). As countless recent threads have shown, our attendance ranks well with most L1 clubs, therefore our financial position should be on a par with many at that level. Nick's pockets are not bottomless, so the model for financial survival of the club would be one of "cutting our cloth to suit" and "living within our means". New investment in the club would be possible, but may not be of the magnitude that would be likely had the UWE gone ahead. As I understand it, Rovers debt is debt to our current directors - all Rovers supporters. Ambition of getting a return on previous investment would be put to one side for the time being. This is a better position than many clubs are in, where owners have no connection or affinity with the club or their supporters. In short, if we get nothing from Sainsbury's, it may be s**tty, but we may not be utterly screwed.
|
|
brizzle
Lindsay Parsons
No Buy . . . No Sell!
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 4,293
|
Post by brizzle on Oct 7, 2014 11:24:29 GMT
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 Is that a legal term for squeezing their pips, Henbury?
|
|
brizzle
Lindsay Parsons
No Buy . . . No Sell!
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 4,293
|
Post by brizzle on Oct 7, 2014 11:35:19 GMT
Forget building a supermarket. the reality is they have been used to making Big profits for years, that has been challenged by Aldi and Co and of course their own smaller shops. So at the moment big stores are a no go. But apart from the Royal family, and a few Lords of the Manor, the biggest owners of land, are in fact the supermarkets. If I could afford to buy the Mem I would, because I would just sit on it for 10 years. Lets face it the population of this country is not going to go down, and more people = higher land prices. Of course the supermarkets strategy is only short term, a bit like the government It's a pity that a very good post was spoiled by the last sentence, or at least the highlighted part of it.
|
|
|
Post by alloutofgas on Oct 7, 2014 17:53:11 GMT
Forget building a supermarket. the reality is they have been used to making Big profits for years, that has been challenged by Aldi and Co and of course their own smaller shops. So at the moment big stores are a no go. But apart from the Royal family, and a few Lords of the Manor, the biggest owners of land, are in fact the supermarkets. If I could afford to buy the Mem I would, because I would just sit on it for 10 years. Lets face it the population of this country is not going to go down, and more people = higher land prices. Of course the supermarkets strategy is only short term, a bit like the government It's a pity that a very good post was spoiled by the last sentence, or at least the highlighted part of it. It is a reality that nearly all governments are short term. They mainly look at getting re elected on the back of five year terms, hence Osborne's tax cuts he announced last week. However, HS2 is a long term project, but that's for another thread!
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 7, 2014 18:10:10 GMT
But apart from the Royal family, and a few Lords of the Manor, the biggest owners of land, are in fact the supermarkets. How much land do supermarkets own? National Trust has around 618,000 acres, they could build a few Tescos on that, and The Forestry Commission used to be the largest land owners in the UK didn't they?
|
|
|
Post by fanatical on Oct 8, 2014 8:24:56 GMT
Forget building a supermarket. the reality is they have been used to making Big profits for years, that has been challenged by Aldi and Co and of course their own smaller shops. So at the moment big stores are a no go. But apart from the Royal family, and a few Lords of the Manor, the biggest owners of land, are in fact the supermarkets. If I could afford to buy the Mem I would, because I would just sit on it for 10 years. Lets face it the population of this country is not going to go down, and more people = higher land prices. Of course the supermarkets strategy is only short term, a bit like the government It is not the size of the stores that is the real problem. It is the fact that Sainsburys and the like are no longer food stores like Aldi. They are Banks, travel agents, hairdressers, chemists etc and still believe in 'customer loyalty' and spend vast sums on coupons etc. In fact customer loyalty these days is to Price and that is where they no longer compete.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 9, 2014 1:12:45 GMT
But apart from the Royal family, and a few Lords of the Manor, the biggest owners of land, are in fact the supermarkets. How much land do supermarkets own? National Trust has around 618,000 acres, they could build a few Tescos on that, and The Forestry Commission used to be the largest land owners in the UK didn't they? british rail was the biggest land owner until the tory bas&ards privatised that i think now the mod is the biggest land owners
|
|
Cheshiregas
Global Moderator
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 2,165
|
Post by Cheshiregas on Oct 9, 2014 8:17:57 GMT
I think you will find that you are out a bit there. For institutions it has nearly always been the Forestry Commission who still own 2.5 million acres. The National Trust have 630k acres, the MOD estates total around 593k. Various pension funds own 358k and the RSPB 321k. Supermarkets come nowhere near it. Individuals the Duke of Buccleuth in Scotland owns 277k acres, the Duke of Westminster 140k and the Royal Estates total some 677k acres.
|
|
|
Post by michaelb on Oct 9, 2014 9:27:22 GMT
I think you will find that you are out a bit there. For institutions it has nearly always been the Forestry Commission who still own 2.5 million acres. The National Trust have 630k acres, the MOD estates total around 593k. Various pension funds own 358k and the RSPB 321k. Supermarkets come nowhere near it. Individuals the Duke of Buccleuth in Scotland owns 277k acres, the Duke of Westminster 140k and the Royal Estates total some 677k acres. I think The Church of England are quite large land owners as well
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 9, 2014 14:51:30 GMT
But apart from the Royal family, and a few Lords of the Manor, the biggest owners of land, are in fact the supermarkets. How much land do supermarkets own? National Trust has around 618,000 acres, they could build a few Tescos on that, and The Forestry Commission used to be the largest land owners in the UK didn't they? I think the Church of England is,or was,the largest land owner in the country
|
|
irishrover
Global Moderator
Joined: June 2014
Posts: 3,372
|
Post by irishrover on Oct 9, 2014 15:31:03 GMT
How much land do supermarkets own? National Trust has around 618,000 acres, they could build a few Tescos on that, and The Forestry Commission used to be the largest land owners in the UK didn't they? I think the Church of England is,or was,the largest land owner in the country I think it partly depends on how ownership is defined and measured. So sometimes it might be defined purely by the amount of land but actually if you think about it that's not neccesarily a great measure if what you want to know is the worth/potential development value of that land. You could own a massive amount of land but if it was all a bog you wouldn't be able to do much with it and it wouldn't be worth that much. So I think what you are getting it is that the Church of England is one of the wealthiest landowners in the country in the sense that they own a lot of prime land that is worth quite a lot (no doubt they own quite a bit as well though). This is where the confusion over the Duke of Westminster comes in - he owns a lot of land but the key reason he's always mentioned in these sort of discussions is that a huge proportion of it is in central London which is what makes him the richest landowner in the country I believe. Network Rail is similar I think. The amount is not neccesarily what matters - it's where it is that's key. So the Forestry Commission and the National Trust may own a lot more but most of it is remote and has little or no development value and is therefore not comparing like with like really. On that measure I would have thought Supermarkets would be some of the wealthiest landowners in the country.
|
|
brizzle
Lindsay Parsons
No Buy . . . No Sell!
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 4,293
|
Post by brizzle on Oct 9, 2014 19:15:23 GMT
How much land do supermarkets own? National Trust has around 618,000 acres, they could build a few Tescos on that, and The Forestry Commission used to be the largest land owners in the UK didn't they? I think the Church of England is,or was,the largest land owner in the country I think that the Duke of Westminster has the most lucrative of portfolios, with his Grosvenor Group in central London. His family clearly went for quality over quantity.
|
|
|
Post by mancgas has left the building on Oct 10, 2014 13:14:15 GMT
People sometimes focus on wrong things here - we dont care what Sainsbury's build, or when they do it - completely irrelevant.
All we need is for conditions of land sale contract to be met in terms of permissions needed to satisfy clauses in contract.
Thereafter they can bank land as asset in balance sheet until they decide what to do or sell it on for someone to try and get planning for an asylum centre or probation hostel or health spa as far as we care.
The watertight contract obviously has a few sieve like holes, but the putty to fill them may be in reach
Hopefully the Board have learned not to use words like watertight and concrete in future and fans wot just swallow their bulls**t anymore. Its some hope tho, but sometimes hope is all you can have.
|
|
|
Post by nailseagas36 on Oct 10, 2014 17:27:53 GMT
People sometimes focus on wrong things here - we dont care what Sainsbury's build, or when they do it - completely irrelevant. All we need is for conditions of land sale contract to be met in terms of permissions needed to satisfy clauses in contract. Thereafter they can bank land as asset in balance sheet until they decide what to do or sell it on for someone to try and get planning for an asylum centre or probation hostel or health spa as far as we care. The watertight contract obviously has a few sieve like holes, but the putty to fill them may be in reach Hopefully the Board have learned not to use words like watertight and concrete in future and fans wot just swallow their bulls*** anymore. Its some hope tho, but sometimes hope is all you can have. We have heard time and time again it's a watertight contract, I would assume that if bcc approve the extended delivery hours and we must be confident that they will after stumping up our own money for the appeal, then sainsbury have no get out jail free card. I would assume if sainsbury though they had a get out clause they would of used it by now surely, and say to the bod see you in court pay a few million and say so long farewell. Even Nh isn't that stupid to keep saying it's a watertight contract to us fan's knowing that if it all falls apart then he would be unable to stay at chairman and the board would have to go. Here an idea nh and Co all pool there pension into a pooled pot borrow the cost of the uwe
|
|
|
Post by onedaytheuwe on Oct 10, 2014 19:09:42 GMT
Totally agree that NH have said many times ' It is watertight' ' legally binding' ' work will start soon' . And for any ultra pro BOD supporters to deny this is rather foolish. On the face of it the board have made very positive sounds and seem to convince us ' it is a done deal'.
Therefore: What can I be accused of if I am only repeating what the BOD are proclaiming.
However: Do I believe what they say ? . That is a much more difficult one. My heart say ' yes' . They have the best intentions and will deliver. My head says ' IT is just about saving face now'. We have very little chance in the power struggle game with Sainsbury:s . We may of messed up in the alpha contract and of course we will give the appearance we have a case.
Of course people have a right to challenge me on my negative views . But they can:t also say - The club hasn't been saying ' it will happen' or ' its not BOD thought because they were badly advised'. The club HAVE given us the impression it will happen and they HAVE printed images of the UWE on products to sell...
We will only know when it is finshed who turns out to be right...
|
|
|
Post by Topper Gas on Oct 10, 2014 19:31:51 GMT
People sometimes focus on wrong things here - we dont care what Sainsbury's build, or when they do it - completely irrelevant. All we need is for conditions of land sale contract to be met in terms of permissions needed to satisfy clauses in contract. Thereafter they can bank land as asset in balance sheet until they decide what to do or sell it on for someone to try and get planning for an asylum centre or probation hostel or health spa as far as we care. The watertight contract obviously has a few sieve like holes, but the putty to fill them may be in reach Hopefully the Board have learned not to use words like watertight and concrete in future and fans wot just swallow their bulls*** anymore. Its some hope tho, but sometimes hope is all you can have. Whilst I agree with your sentiment the problem is that if Sainsbury's have no interest in building on the Mem what interest will they have in handing over £30m+ to the club for land probably worth less than half that sum as a residential building plot? They won't want to walk at present, and so face a potential breach of contract claim, as they will be still hoping the extended delivery times are rejected. Could their get out card now be the lengthy delays caused by Trash etc should BCC now pass the extended delivery times, is that enough to defeat the apparently "watertight" contract is there another clause about delays we don't know about yet? Even if it's not just how easy is it to get £30m out of a company like Sainsbury's if they don't want to pay up?
|
|