RG2 Gas
Andy Spring
Joined: June 2014
Posts: 229
|
Post by RG2 Gas on Nov 12, 2014 16:26:04 GMT
Tony the till on twitter saying that they hope agree on a date to start work on the site. Seriously? To be fair this was the guy who didn't know the financial implications of relegation until about 6 weeks after we went down and hadn't anticipated us going down as we were 'only in the relegation zone for 70 minutes'. Take everything he says with a huge dose of cynicism!
|
|
Peter Parker
Global Moderator
Richard Walker
You have been sentenced to DELETION!
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 4,920
|
Post by Peter Parker on Nov 12, 2014 16:26:05 GMT
What is hard for me?
Like many others (not just ones on this forum) I have been told for years and years about stadium projects and yet none have ever materialised. This one hasn't yet either
I do hope we get our money, and we can build the stadium (not least because I have no idea what happens if we don't).
Simple question and you like avoiding these, Do you honestly think Sainsbury's are just going to hand over the money? I hope they do, but can't see it
I hope and want to be in a new stadium in the next couple of years barring complications
Even if we do get the money, what is going to happen about the extra costs? Are we still suing Sainsbury's for those?
Yes. They are contracted to do this. You can't see it, because you don't want too. and no idea what you are talking about. I thought you were up on the news? Did you not read the writ that was published. Us threatening Sainsbury's for the extra costs we have incurred in relation to them dragging their heels on the project
You can wind me up all you like, yeah I will bite. Have a chuckle to yourself and enjoy.
|
|
|
Post by Blue Mist on Nov 12, 2014 16:26:09 GMT
None of us will really believe a ground will be built until its made official etc etc but can we not just celebrate this victory. Things are certainly getting interesting.
|
|
brizzle
Lindsay Parsons
No Buy . . . No Sell!
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 4,293
|
Post by brizzle on Nov 12, 2014 16:31:25 GMT
Tony the till on twitter saying that they hope agree on a date to start work on the site. Seriously? Yes, baldersgas is correct in what he is saying Blue Mist. I think that he qualified his statement by adding that he wished to move forward ''with all of our partners.''
|
|
kingswood Polak
Without music life would be a mistake
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 10,353
|
Post by kingswood Polak on Nov 12, 2014 16:32:50 GMT
GTFI !! Now, we wait & see if Sainsburys are going to keep to their part of the agreement. If so then I am happy to apologise to those I've argued with and NH. Feeling pretty damned happy right now but holding back the champagne At the end of the day Sainsbury's primary responsibility is to their shareholders and I'm sure if they don't want to spend money on the Mem they will do all they can to avoid doing so. They could try and force a prolonged legal battle and hope that the legal costs of such a dispute are not tenable to us and we withdraw before the legal bills cripple us. Or they may have another reason to declare that they are not in breach of contract (depends how 'watertight' that contract is I guess), either way I suspect this is far from the end of the story. So we may have won a battle today, there's still a long way to go in the war. I genuinely hope that this is resolved firmly in Rovers favour, we get the cash, and the UWE is built asap. Nobody would be happier with that than me. But I will mute my celebrations for now - I'm pleased but not ecstatic!
Very much how I feel. There's no escaping the fact that the years of raised hopes has made us this way. Too many false dawns have an ongoing and incremental effect buddy but there is always the hope and I guess this is why we adopted a blues song as our anthem. Contrary to certain people's beliefs, I would be over the kin moon if and when it happens but, right now, I would like a decent team as that has always been the stuff that has bonded and cemented many a long friendship at the club. We have been starved of any sustained positives fior so long. I can't help but think of the broken clock analogy, even that HAS to be right twice a day and we only need it once !
|
|
brizzle
Lindsay Parsons
No Buy . . . No Sell!
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 4,293
|
Post by brizzle on Nov 12, 2014 16:35:28 GMT
None of us will really believe a ground will be built until its made official etc etc but can we not just celebrate this victory. Things are certainly getting interesting. Softly, Softly, Catchee Monkey eh Blue Mist?
|
|
Alveston Gas
Brucie Bannister
Once a Gashead always a Gashead
Joined: June 2014
Posts: 746
|
Post by Alveston Gas on Nov 12, 2014 16:35:29 GMT
If Sainsburys are going to compete with the likes of Aldi and Lidl then surely as eggs are eggs they need to have a store of some size and potential amongst the thousands of chimney pots in Horfield. Where is their nearest store - Stoke Gifford - hardly competitive are they. Go on Sainsburys you know it makes sense!
|
|
Cheshiregas
Global Moderator
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 2,697
|
Post by Cheshiregas on Nov 12, 2014 16:36:08 GMT
From Sainsbury Interim Results statement
"One-off items One-off items of £663 million for the 28 week period to 27 September 2014 includes: a non-cash impairment and onerous contract charge of £628 million; costs of £23 million in relation to transitioning Sainsbury's Bank to a new, more flexible banking platform and £12 million of pension compensation payments. As part of adapting to our changing customer needs, we have reassessed our store pipeline and the potential to achieve an appropriate return on capital, which resulted in a decision that some sites will no longer be developed. A charge of £287 million has been recognised within administration expenses, including £255 million of property plant and equipment which is all land and buildings, £1 million of goodwill, and £31 million of onerous contract provisions. A charge of £341 million has also been recognised, £310 million within cost of sales and £31 million within administrative expenses, in relation to unprofitable and marginally profitable trading stores. This includes £283 million of property plant and equipment, comprised of £162 million of land and buildings and £121 million of fixtures and fittings, £7 million of intangible assets, comprised of £2 million goodwill and £5 million of other intangibles, and onerous lease provisions of £51 million. The recoverable amount of these assets has been determined as the higher of value-in-use or fair-value less costs to dispose."
That may relate to one or more contracts so not necessarily all for the Mem as they have numerous other ongoing projects.....
|
|
|
Post by Blue Mist on Nov 12, 2014 16:36:38 GMT
Yes, baldersgas is correct in what he is saying Blue Mist. I think that he qualified his statement by adding that he wished to move forward ''with all of our partners.'' Blimey! I wonder if he even considered the ramifications of a YES vote until it actually happened
|
|
|
Post by otleygas on Nov 12, 2014 16:37:28 GMT
Tony the till on twitter saying that they hope agree on a date to start work on the site. Seriously? Actually to be fair what was said was "we look forward to progressing with all our partners... So that we can agree a date to start work on the university site "
|
|
kingswood Polak
Without music life would be a mistake
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 10,353
|
Post by kingswood Polak on Nov 12, 2014 16:38:39 GMT
Out of interest is anyone able to paste a link to a statement from Sainsburys saying they have/had no intention of buying the Mem following the change in shopping habits of the general public with large stores allegedly no longer viable. Seems to have been lots of assumptions based on hearsay on forums and social media assuming that Sainsburys have every intention of trying to wriggle out of purchasing the Mem but cant recall reading any hint of this from Sainsburys themselves... I can't find it right now but have it on a back up hard drive. It's in the timeline of the writ that the evil post published. Littman has twice been very clear that the company ( behemoth corporation) have no intention to go ahead. I have to get that drive online tonight so, if you don't mind waiting, I'll post it later on. Have some very exciting stuff going on myself so have not been really paying much attention to the forums of late.
|
|
brizzle
Lindsay Parsons
No Buy . . . No Sell!
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 4,293
|
Post by brizzle on Nov 12, 2014 16:41:46 GMT
From Sainsbury Interim Results statement
"One-off items One-off items of £663 million for the 28 week period to 27 September 2014 includes: a non-cash impairment and onerous contract charge of £628 million; costs of £23 million in relation to transitioning Sainsbury's Bank to a new, more flexible banking platform and £12 million of pension compensation payments. As part of adapting to our changing customer needs, we have reassessed our store pipeline and the potential to achieve an appropriate return on capital, which resulted in a decision that some sites will no longer be developed. A charge of £287 million has been recognised within administration expenses, including £255 million of property plant and equipment which is all land and buildings, £1 million of goodwill, and £31 million of onerous contract provisions. A charge of £341 million has also been recognised, £310 million within cost of sales and £31 million within administrative expenses, in relation to unprofitable and marginally profitable trading stores. This includes £283 million of property plant and equipment, comprised of £162 million of land and buildings and £121 million of fixtures and fittings, £7 million of intangible assets, comprised of £2 million goodwill and £5 million of other intangibles, and onerous lease provisions of £51 million. The recoverable amount of these assets has been determined as the higher of value-in-use or fair-value less costs to dispose."That may relate to one or more contracts so not necessarily all for the Mem as they have numerous other ongoing projects..... Blinded by the light I'm afraid, Cheshiregas.
|
|
Cheshiregas
Global Moderator
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 2,697
|
Post by Cheshiregas on Nov 12, 2014 16:45:15 GMT
Out of interest is anyone able to paste a link to a statement from Sainsburys saying they have/had no intention of buying the Mem following the change in shopping habits of the general public with large stores allegedly no longer viable. Seems to have been lots of assumptions based on hearsay on forums and social media assuming that Sainsburys have every intention of trying to wriggle out of purchasing the Mem but cant recall reading any hint of this from Sainsburys themselves... I can't find it right now but have it on a back up hard drive. It's in the timeline of the writ that the evil post published. Littman has twice been very clear that the company ( behemoth corporation) have no intention to go ahead. I have to get that drive online tonight so, if you don't mind waiting, I'll post it later on. Have some very exciting stuff going on myself so have not been really paying much attention to the forums of late. The BEP of 26 Aug 2014 ~ www.bristolpost.co.uk/Bristol-Rovers-insist-stadium-ahead-despite/story-22818740-detail/story.html states ~ "...The writ alleges that in a meeting between Mr Higgs, Mr Watola and Sainsbury's regional development manager Ben Littman in April, Mr Higgs asked whether Sainsbury's was "still intending to walk away" from the Memorial Stadium site.
Mr Littman replied "Yes", the writ claims. .."
|
|
|
Post by Blue Mist on Nov 12, 2014 16:46:15 GMT
Who let Toni on the official twitter, is this wise?
|
|
irishrover
Global Moderator
Joined: June 2014
Posts: 3,372
|
Post by irishrover on Nov 12, 2014 16:48:46 GMT
Excellent news - at the very least this means we have whacked the ball very firmly into Sainsbury's court.
Now we should get to see very soon what hand it is they are playing and whether the confidence of the optimists on here has been well placed.
Why anyone connected to the club should see the announcement of what has been acknowledged as universal good news (in the sense that whatever happens from here the club is clearly in a better position regarding the whole UWE business than at midday today) to try and further alienate gasheads is completely and utterly beyond me.
|
|
RG2 Gas
Andy Spring
Joined: June 2014
Posts: 229
|
Post by RG2 Gas on Nov 12, 2014 16:52:51 GMT
From Sainsbury Interim Results statement
"One-off items One-off items of £663 million for the 28 week period to 27 September 2014 includes: a non-cash impairment and onerous contract charge of £628 million; costs of £23 million in relation to transitioning Sainsbury's Bank to a new, more flexible banking platform and £12 million of pension compensation payments. As part of adapting to our changing customer needs, we have reassessed our store pipeline and the potential to achieve an appropriate return on capital, which resulted in a decision that some sites will no longer be developed. A charge of £287 million has been recognised within administration expenses, including £255 million of property plant and equipment which is all land and buildings, £1 million of goodwill, and £31 million of onerous contract provisions. A charge of £341 million has also been recognised, £310 million within cost of sales and £31 million within administrative expenses, in relation to unprofitable and marginally profitable trading stores. This includes £283 million of property plant and equipment, comprised of £162 million of land and buildings and £121 million of fixtures and fittings, £7 million of intangible assets, comprised of £2 million goodwill and £5 million of other intangibles, and onerous lease provisions of £51 million. The recoverable amount of these assets has been determined as the higher of value-in-use or fair-value less costs to dispose."That may relate to one or more contracts so not necessarily all for the Mem as they have numerous other ongoing projects..... I suspect many supporters are putting 2 and 2 together and making 5 with this £31m The Sainsbury's results published today are the Quarter ending Sept 30th 2014. At that time it was still unclear what the outcome of the BCC planning decision was so I would be surprised if they had done a full write-off of the costs of the Mem site until any compensation package was agreed and delivered. So not until Q4 at the earliest. The caveat here is the likelihood of having to pay any compo or the contract in full. If, at the time the accounts were closed, it was deemed more likely than not that they would have to pay for the Mem then they may have taken the full cost to the P&L straight away. Similarly they may have wanted to do all impairment cost write-offs in one go rather than have 2 separate quarters with exceptional costs. But I would wager, on the balance of probability, that the £31m for onerous contract provisions is nothing to do with the Mem. Would be delighted if proved wrong though!
|
|
|
Post by brovers90 on Nov 12, 2014 16:55:14 GMT
Lets celebrate today based on the facts rather than conjecture and people plucking compensation amounts out of thin air. I'm sure there are a few more hurdles to cross but this is a huge one that has taken the best part of a year to get over.
Carstairs we can be sure will appeal the decision if he can but it is a monumental task to reverse a 7-2 planning permission vote, these guys do not like to admit they were wrong by reversing an approval vote.
We have a legally enforceable contract granting us a put option on the land for £30m subject to onerous store conditions. All of these conditions have now been met or waived and we are now well within our rights to enforce the contract.
Our contract with Sainsburys is for the sale of the land with planning permission, not for them to actually build it. They can build a store, not build a store or decide to dig a ruddy deep hole on the site and bury a timecapsule filled with taste the difference pasties for all we care.
There is strong political support for our plans now and if Sainsburys decide they want to change their minds on a SIGNED legal contract then I'm sure NH and our legal team will be seeking damages of roughly £30m being the amount that of damages that we can clearly prove plus the increase in our costs.
UTG
|
|
|
Post by Blue Mist on Nov 12, 2014 17:03:24 GMT
Lets celebrate today based on the facts rather than conjecture and people plucking compensation amounts out of thin air. I'm sure there are a few more hurdles to cross but this is a huge one that has taken the best part of a year to get over. Carstairs we can be sure will appeal the decision if he can but it is a monumental task to reverse a 7-2 planning permission vote, these guys do not like to admit they were wrong by reversing an approval vote. We have a legally enforceable contract granting us a put option on the land for £30m subject to onerous store conditions. All of these conditions have now been met or waived and we are now well within our rights to enforce the contract. Our contract with Sainsburys is for the sale of the land with planning permission, not for them to actually build it. They can build a store, not build a store or decide to dig a ruddy deep hole on the site and bury a timecapsule filled with taste the difference pasties for all we care. There is strong political support for our plans now and if Sainsburys decide they want to change their minds on a SIGNED legal contract then I'm sure NH and our legal team will be seeking damages of roughly £30m being the amount that of damages that we can clearly prove plus the increase in our costs. UTG
|
|
|
Post by Blue Mist on Nov 12, 2014 17:04:15 GMT
Completely agree with the rest of your post though.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 12, 2014 17:04:37 GMT
To be fair this was the guy who didn't know the financial implications of relegation until about 6 weeks after we went down and hadn't anticipated us going down as we were 'only in the relegation zone for 70 minutes'. Take everything he says with a huge dose of cynicism! Attachments:
|
|