|
Post by CountyGroundHotel on Oct 30, 2014 19:14:02 GMT
I always like this bit best: "Would I rather build a stadium than a faculty of business and law? Absolutely not. Our core business is education. " Obviously we went round there & held a gun to thier heads.
|
|
|
Post by PeterHooper57 on Oct 30, 2014 19:34:45 GMT
There is no chance Box 1 will be building a Stadium at the UWE. Higgs has not got any money and Sainsburys, who do have money, do not want to give any to Higgs. The best he can hope for is a chunk of compensation and then I guess he will resign, and **** off back to Italy. UTG
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 30, 2014 20:20:17 GMT
There is no chance Box 1 will be building a Stadium at the UWE. Higgs has not got any money and Sainsburys, who do have money, do not want to give any to Higgs. The best he can hope for is a chunk of compensation and then I guess he will resign, and **** off back to Italy. UTG I take it you don't like our leader then ??
|
|
|
Post by Topper Gas on Oct 30, 2014 20:56:50 GMT
I think and i hope i'm wrong, but its all about compensation now and strong a case we can put to the courts to prove our case. I still think the UWE will be built, just not completely owned by BRFC[/quote] As another poster as pointed out you've suddenly changed your views that the stadium would be built. If it is now all about compensation then whose to say NH now as any interest in building the UWE if we need to find £10/15m to complete to work? Unless S Glos are prepared to put finance in like Swansea received, which I can't see happening when local council finances are so grim, who is going to invest such big sums in a non league club?? Perhaps our only hope now is sufficient compensation to see the back of NH and whoever takes over can fund redevelopment of the Mem.
|
|
|
Post by onedaytheuwe on Oct 30, 2014 21:52:21 GMT
The reason Henbury 'jumps around' with one vision and then another is because he don:t know the final outcome. We all have our contacts and certainly as someone who worked for South Gloucestershire council for over 10 years and via my union links ( local councils) . We have a good indication from our own 'sources' what might happen in two weeks time.
However: if the recommendations are to 'approve' and the committee vote for extended hours. There will still be an additional process to finally rubber stamp it . And then the big decision relies with Sainsbury's to make a decision based on the committees findings.
1) Sainsbury:s accept the decision and swiftly agree to costs avoiding a legal challenge - GREAT 2) Sainsbury:s offer a substantial amount which isn;t the £29 mil but enough to temp NH to accept thus avoiding a 2 year battle . GOOD(ISH) 3) Sainsbury:s tell NH to roll up his shelves for a long long legal battle. BAD
Of course this decision by Sainsbury:s to want to do a u-turn is a bit 'untested' in this context. The nature of a dual contract with another council ; a long JR and so much resting makes it unique. That:s why we must wait to see the final ( no appeal) of the extended hours verdict and a decision then by Sainsbury's.
I think most people already know that - but to say ' It will happen' or 'wont' or ' scaled down' is just a snapshot view. As someone put it to me very recently not linked to BR 'To be honest we just don:t know what the final outcome will be '; meaning a UWE...
|
|
|
Post by Topper Gas on Oct 30, 2014 22:04:03 GMT
Sadly I'm not sure it is now untested as Tesco's have just pulled out a similar development at Margate which also went to a JR. We also know Sainsbury's have indicated to NH/TW they don't want to proceed.
I sense we are now looking at option 2 and all we're going to be left with is the possible chance to re-develop the Mem, unless someone is daft enough to invest £10m into the UWE development.
|
|
|
Post by onedaytheuwe on Oct 30, 2014 22:22:56 GMT
I believe a 'legal challenge' in this context is ' untested' . I am aware that supermarkets nationally are pulling out of projects. However: I have yet to see a 'model' which have resulted in a legal battle and a final decision similar to ours. Therefore: when the ' final' decision is reached on extended hours. Sainsbury:s legal team would need to digest all avenues and make an offer to us .
Maybe Topper you could be right about 2.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 31, 2014 0:44:28 GMT
The reason Henbury 'jumps around' with one vision and then another is because he don:t know the final outcome. We all have our contacts and certainly as someone who worked for South Gloucestershire council for over 10 years and via my union links ( local councils) . We have a good indication from our own 'sources' what might happen in two weeks time. However: if the recommendations are to 'approve' and the committee vote for extended hours. There will still be an additional process to finally rubber stamp it . And then the big decision relies with Sainsbury's to make a decision based on the committees findings. 1) Sainsbury:s accept the decision and swiftly agree to costs avoiding a legal challenge - GREAT 2) Sainsbury:s offer a substantial amount which isn;t the £29 mil but enough to temp NH to accept thus avoiding a 2 year battle . GOOD(ISH) 3) Sainsbury:s tell NH to roll up his shelves for a long long legal battle. BAD Of course this decision by Sainsbury:s to want to do a u-turn is a bit 'untested' in this context. The nature of a dual contract with another council ; a long JR and so much resting makes it unique. That:s why we must wait to see the final ( no appeal) of the extended hours verdict and a decision then by Sainsbury's. I think most people already know that - but to say ' It will happen' or 'wont' or ' scaled down' is just a snapshot view. As someone put it to me very recently not linked to BR 'To be honest we just don:t know what the final outcome will be '; meaning a UWE... Before either bandwagon starts to roll when the officer recommendation is published on Wednesday, the committee can ignore that and it's their decision that counts. I generally can't call that one - I think, marginally, they'll reject if only because the most passionate advocates will be against and swing it. Back to your point though and I pretty much agree with all of it with one proviso. We need to factor something into the 'swiftly', 'long long', or any other timescale expectations: whatever the decision on the 12th, the 'other side' can then appeal so bang go another few months. If it's a 'yes' vote, Sainsbury's can claim the permission isn't valid until the end of the possible appeal process. Last time, the opponents left it until the last minute to lodge an appeal to drag it all out as long as possible - that delaying tactic's worked well for them so far. Start building in spring' is no more valid than all the previous hyperbole / bollocks [delete according to how charitable you feel] we've been peddled.
|
|
Thatslife
"Decisions are made by those who turn up"
Joined: June 2014
Posts: 669
|
Post by Thatslife on Oct 31, 2014 7:05:31 GMT
Another possiblity, should BRFC get compensation, then that could be used to reduce the price of the Mem and maybe make it more attractive to other types of buyer / development. I dont know but suspect that The Board have already been looking at this and searching for another buyer, of course nobody could say if this is so as it may influence BCC's decison especially if it was for housing alone etc etc.
|
|
The Gas
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 484
|
Post by The Gas on Oct 31, 2014 7:16:12 GMT
I expect the "vote" to go the same way as the previous vote.
The Conservative and Labour members will vote in favour of allowing the revised hours and the Liberal and Greens will vote against, thus leaving a comfortable majority in favour.
|
|
Peter Parker
Global Moderator
Richard Walker
You have been sentenced to DELETION!
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 4,920
|
Post by Peter Parker on Oct 31, 2014 7:46:20 GMT
I expect the "vote" to go the same way as the previous vote. The Conservative and Labour members will vote in favour of allowing the revised hours and the Liberal and Greens will vote against, thus leaving a comfortable majority in favour. Do Rovers know about the change of application now?
|
|
|
Post by ellington on Oct 31, 2014 7:51:00 GMT
I expect the "vote" to go the same way as the previous vote. The Conservative and Labour members will vote in favour of allowing the revised hours and the Liberal and Greens will vote against, thus leaving a comfortable majority in favour. Do Rovers know about the change of application now? Change of application?
|
|
Peter Parker
Global Moderator
Richard Walker
You have been sentenced to DELETION!
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 4,920
|
Post by Peter Parker on Oct 31, 2014 7:59:21 GMT
Do Rovers know about the change of application now? Change of application? The Gas was saying earlier in the thread that Rovers didn't know anything about the revised plan, I.e the removal of the apparently now uneeded fences
|
|
|
Post by ellington on Oct 31, 2014 8:03:23 GMT
The Gas was saying earlier in the thread that Rovers didn't know anything about the revised plan, I.e the removal of the apparently now uneeded fences The planning application was submitted on behalf of Bristol Rovers though ,don't see how anyone else other than Bristol Rovers or the agent acting on behalf of can make changes to the application.
|
|
|
Post by gastower on Oct 31, 2014 8:28:48 GMT
The Pegasus group posted the amendments to the application on the 15 th of October on the Bristol City Planning portal, of the four changes 2 involved the removal of trellis work and sound barriers as they were considered to be redundant as the acceptable noise levels could be achieved without them 24Accoustics then posted their final report on the 20th.what I am trying to illustrate here is that these reports are available for all to see Last Saturday when this thread was first posted it was made to appear that something significant had gone on behind the scenes.It hasn't ,just read what is available in the public domain and that will explain a lot.I don't believe our board are the slightest bit concerned by this issue
Dave
|
|
|
Post by Topper Gas on Oct 31, 2014 8:45:24 GMT
No the OP's post said:- Just got a letter from BCC saying the applicant is revising the plans, which will need further consultation.
"Omission of a high noise barrier as it is deemed unnecessary by the Applicants. ... Omission of a trellis as it is deemed unnecessary by the Applicants."
Read more: gasheads.org/thread/1605/application-14-04174?page=6#ixzz3Hi5gsWSrThe clear impression from that was the "further consultation" ould delay matters but as BCC have now said the meeting will go ahead on the 12n Nov that doesn't appear to be the case. It's still odd THAT The Gas posted on here saying THAT BRFC knew nothing of the changes when thier own consultants, the Pegasus Group had posted the Imendments!
|
|
|
Post by Antonio Fargas on Oct 31, 2014 8:49:56 GMT
The Pegasus group posted the amendments to the application on the 15 th of October on the Bristol City Planning portal, of the four changes 2 involved the removal of trellis work and sound barriers as they were considered to be redundant as the acceptable noise levels could be achieved without them 24Accoustics then posted their final report on the 20th.what I am trying to illustrate here is that these reports are available for all to see Last Saturday when this thread was first posted it was made to appear that something significant had gone on behind the scenes.It hasn't ,just read what is available in the public domain and that will explain a lot.I don't believe our board are the slightest bit concerned by this issue Dave Yeah. For the record, I wasn't trying to make it look like stuff had gone on behind the scenes. The letter from BCC summarised the changes in a way that looked to me like 'oh, you know those noise reduction things we promised, well we're not going to do that.' So I asked a genuine question, here. It wasn't until I dug up the study on the BCC site (a study that wasn't actually referenced in the letter, btw), that it became clear enough why those measures were considered unnecessary. We were told that BRFC weren't aware of the changes, but that was clearly a misunderstanding/miscommunication. Fwiw, istm, the changes should have been summarised better by BCC, and the way they were put, just seemed to be asking for objections from the public. After all, the letter was literally asking for comments from the public. It confused me and I've been following the matter, and am sympathetic to the planning application. For a local not paying full attention, but negatively inclined towards the planning, istm this would be a red rag.
|
|
|
Post by gastower on Oct 31, 2014 9:11:03 GMT
I would agree that the letter from BCC could have been better constructed and if I had received it I would have been concerned too. The Gas may have been referring to a conversation BSS had with Nick at the Dorchester game when he voiced the concerns expressed on the forum that morning.Perhaps Nick indicated that,as far as he was concerned,everything was on track .he must have been aware of these amendments as we commissioned the reports Just hope I am right though!
|
|
faggotygas
Byron Anthony
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 1,862
|
Post by faggotygas on Oct 31, 2014 10:00:09 GMT
I believe a 'legal challenge' in this context is ' untested' . I am aware that supermarkets nationally are pulling out of projects. However: I have yet to see a 'model' which have resulted in a legal battle and a final decision similar to ours. Therefore: when the ' final' decision is reached on extended hours. Sainsbury:s legal team would need to digest all avenues and make an offer to us . Maybe Topper you could be right about 2. There have been many test cases in the past involving the enforcement of contracts.
|
|
irishrover
Global Moderator
Joined: June 2014
Posts: 3,372
|
Post by irishrover on Oct 31, 2014 12:05:57 GMT
I always like this bit best: "Would I rather build a stadium than a faculty of business and law? Absolutely not. Our core business is education. " Obviously we went round there & held a gun to thier heads. His position makes perfect sense I don't think it's that complicated really. They want new, updated facilities and this was a way of doing it on the cheap that made sense plus it came with something that potential made them stand out a bit as a University with a football stadium on site. But from their point of view the UWE would be a useful bonus - it's not vital to their future success as a University. So if there was a better offer - for example, if a big donor, company or legal firm wanted to sponsor the building of a business school or faculty of law (something that is going on all over the place in Education right now particularly if links to China and the far East can be established) then that would be worth far more to them. There's nothing cryptic here - just stating the reality really. The Stadium is a far more important project for Rovers (and so a lesser extent South Glos council) than it is for UWE. If it gets built and they get modern facilities built cheaply then great if not they won't exactly be devastated as they have plenty of other options they could develop.
|
|