faggotygas
Byron Anthony
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 1,862
|
Post by faggotygas on Dec 16, 2014 14:23:27 GMT
Any half decent legal team will have no trouble getting punitive terms rescinded. The Faggoty one is spot on with his post above. I've never known a contract to contain onerous terms because competent legal professionals sort these out in advance. And yet you are saying that there are punitive terms in this case?
|
|
|
Post by bluebeard on Dec 16, 2014 14:23:31 GMT
Any half decent legal team will have no trouble getting punitive terms rescinded. The Faggoty one is spot on with his post above. I've never known a contract to contain onerous terms because competent legal professionals sort these out in advance. Most contracts contain terms that can be very onerous if you fail to meet them. example 1; a construction project sub contractor fails to complete the work they have been contracted to do within the agreed timescale example 2; a motor parts supplier fails to deliver the agreed quantity of components on time and a car manufacturer's production line is disrupted example 3; a supermarket fails to pay a land owner the price agreed for purchase of the land when all planning conditions have been met
|
|
faggotygas
Byron Anthony
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 1,862
|
Post by faggotygas on Dec 16, 2014 14:30:36 GMT
Well I must admit I've been assuming that the contract of sale was would be under English jurisdiction, being that both parties are based in England, and the land in question is in England, and the recent writ was issued in England. The rest of your post, you seem to both agree and disagree with me. Penalty clauses have to be reasonable, and designed to compensate for material loss. A clause that is greater than the value of the contract, in the case of a land purchase, could not be considered reasonable. Again, I think you are confused about what the word 'compensation' means. Compensation is designed to negate an actual loss. Its not a punishment, it is an equitable solution to a dispute. Your post indicated that Rovers could be compensated to the value of the contract, and keep the land. That's not possible as then Rovers would not have brought any consideration to the contract. A contract cannot just mean anything, not in English law anyway. It has to be equitable. Just pointing out some basics. You're right I do agree with much of what you say but the contact is the contract and I very much doubt it's watertight. I never mentioned penalty clauses ie punishment, you did. Equally rather like onerous terms equitability is always sorted out in advance. Consideration doesn't have to be paid it merely has to be provided for within the contract. Little point in us continuing the debate, we can do that when Sainsbury's formally withdraws and it really does hit the fan. You said: ' still own the Mem and build the UWE ' I asked in what circumstances that would be possible, as that would be far in excess of any compensation. You referred to clauses in the contract awarding compensation. I said that such clauses would be invalid as they would be in excess of any reasonable amount of compensation, so would be considered penalty clauses. You said that a contract could contain anything, I said that wasn't true.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 16, 2014 14:31:38 GMT
Interesting that the existing stadium loan with Barclays has just been refinanced by MCP. According to their website, MCP Capital is a private equity funder - i.e. a long term investor who invariably takes share capital and puts one of their own on to the board of directors. This could of course be a bail out scenario but, being an optimist, I think it could also mean something big (e.g. transition to new debt free stadium) is about to happen. PE investors are much more flexible than the banks but as far as I'm aware they don't usually pawnbroke (in the sense that they lend directly against an asset). Someone, somewhere must have produced a fairly convincing business plan based on the expected outcome with Sainsburys. Who are the directors of MCP, any clues who is behind it? I believe they are USA Based
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 16, 2014 14:36:00 GMT
Any half decent legal team will have no trouble getting punitive terms rescinded. The Faggoty one is spot on with his post above. I've never known a contract to contain onerous terms because competent legal professionals sort these out in advance. Don't work in the legal profession, do you
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 16, 2014 14:47:36 GMT
I've never known a contract to contain onerous terms because competent legal professionals sort these out in advance. And yet you are saying that there are punitive terms in this case? Please feel free to illustrate where I have said this.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 16, 2014 14:49:40 GMT
I've never known a contract to contain onerous terms because competent legal professionals sort these out in advance. Don't work in the legal profession, do you No, but I have been involved on the commercial side of the construction industry since August 1987...currently timber engineering.
|
|
|
Post by Gas Since 1957 on Dec 16, 2014 15:02:29 GMT
How many more times - THE CLUB WILL UPDATE THE NEWS WHEN THERE IS SOMETHING TO TELL US. What's the point in all the speculation and discussion on this topic?
|
|
co3
Joined: September 2014
Posts: 34
|
Post by co3 on Dec 16, 2014 15:02:51 GMT
Interesting that the existing stadium loan with Barclays has just been refinanced by MCP. According to their website, MCP Capital is a private equity funder - i.e. a long term investor who invariably takes share capital and puts one of their own on to the board of directors. This could of course be a bail out scenario but, being an optimist, I think it could also mean something big (e.g. transition to new debt free stadium) is about to happen. PE investors are much more flexible than the banks but as far as I'm aware they don't usually pawnbroke (in the sense that they lend directly against an asset). Someone, somewhere must have produced a fairly convincing business plan based on the expected outcome with Sainsburys. they also are a company who comes in to a business to "try" and avoid administration. Also they are like the wonga of business high interest rates ect. They have lent directly against the mem and the surrounding land sounds to me barclays have wanted there money back quick and rovers have had to borrow directly against the mem as they would never be able to borrow against the uwe as they would never actually own it
|
|
faggotygas
Byron Anthony
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 1,862
|
Post by faggotygas on Dec 16, 2014 15:39:35 GMT
And yet you are saying that there are punitive terms in this case? Please feel free to illustrate where I have said this. As above: You said: ' still own the Mem and build the UWE ' I asked in what circumstances that would be possible, as that would be far in excess of any compensation. You referred to clauses in the contract awarding compensation. I said that such clauses would be invalid as they would be in excess of any reasonable amount of compensation, so would be considered penalty clauses. You said that a contract could contain anything, I said that wasn't true.
|
|
faggotygas
Byron Anthony
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 1,862
|
Post by faggotygas on Dec 16, 2014 15:40:57 GMT
How many more times - THE CLUB WILL UPDATE THE NEWS WHEN THERE IS SOMETHING TO TELL US. What's the point in all the speculation and discussion on this topic? How many more times - BECAUSE THIS IS A DISCUSSION FORUM
|
|
Peter Parker
Global Moderator
Richard Walker
You have been sentenced to DELETION!
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 4,920
|
Post by Peter Parker on Dec 16, 2014 15:51:00 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 16, 2014 16:03:03 GMT
How many more times - THE CLUB WILL UPDATE THE NEWS WHEN THERE IS SOMETHING TO TELL US. What's the point in all the speculation and discussion on this topic? No they won't, they will respond to a story which breaks in The Post or Vitalgas as they always do. How many more times.
|
|
|
Post by bluebeard on Dec 16, 2014 16:23:00 GMT
Interesting that the existing stadium loan with Barclays has just been refinanced by MCP. According to their website, MCP Capital is a private equity funder - i.e. a long term investor who invariably takes share capital and puts one of their own on to the board of directors. This could of course be a bail out scenario but, being an optimist, I think it could also mean something big (e.g. transition to new debt free stadium) is about to happen. PE investors are much more flexible than the banks but as far as I'm aware they don't usually pawnbroke (in the sense that they lend directly against an asset). Someone, somewhere must have produced a fairly convincing business plan based on the expected outcome with Sainsburys. they also are a company who comes in to a business to "try" and avoid administration. Also they are like the wonga of business high interest rates ect. They have lent directly against the mem and the surrounding land sounds to me barclays have wanted there money back quick and rovers have had to borrow directly against the mem as they would never be able to borrow against the uwe as they would never actually own it Why say "try"? Now that they're involved administration is highly unlikely. I've seen many businesses use PE money (invariably businesses with huge unfulfilled potential incidentally) and they get their returns from: 1. Interest on loans or preference shares - usually at slightly higher than bank rates but certainly not Wonga territory and / or 2. Sale of equity once the business they have supported fulfills its potential Go back to OTIB mate you aren't intelligent or knowledgeable enough to fool anyone.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 16, 2014 16:38:59 GMT
Kid in the riot (seems to have inside knowledge?) on the poo forum just posted this, They don't like you henbury "Chris Windows wouldn't have a scooby doo what's going on. The problem with HenburyGas is that: a) He's been proven wrong on many occassions; b) He's practically illiterate, and I for one can't make head nor tail of what he's actually been trying to say in the last 24 hours. Most of what he has said appears to be no more than hearsay and then some guesswork on his part. I have nothing to add to this thread at the moment other than to reiterate that as far as I'm aware the UWE project has been dead for 10 months now - since Sainsburys first told Higgs they were pulling out."
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 16, 2014 16:39:53 GMT
Please feel free to illustrate where I have said this. As above: You said: ' still own the Mem and build the UWE ' I asked in what circumstances that would be possible, as that would be far in excess of any compensation. You referred to clauses in the contract awarding compensation. I said that such clauses would be invalid as they would be in excess of any reasonable amount of compensation, so would be considered penalty clauses. You said that a contract could contain anything, I said that wasn't true. And they could still own the Mem and build the the UWE, but I ask again "where have I said "punitive"?
|
|
|
Post by bluebeard on Dec 16, 2014 16:46:56 GMT
Kid in the riot (seems to have inside knowledge?) on the poo forum just posted this, They don't like you henbury "Chris Windows wouldn't have a scooby doo what's going on. The problem with HenburyGas is that: a) He's been proven wrong on many occassions; b) He's practically illiterate, and I for one can't make head nor tail of what he's actually been trying to say in the last 24 hours. Most of what he has said appears to be no more than hearsay and then some guesswork on his part. I have nothing to add to this thread at the moment other than to reiterate that as far as I'm aware the UWE project has been dead for 10 months now - since Sainsburys first told Higgs they were pulling out." I think it's clear that Sainsburys would prefer to pull out but if they decide, or are made, to fulfil their contractual obligations the UWE project is definitely NOT dead.
|
|
brizzle
Lindsay Parsons
No Buy . . . No Sell!
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 4,293
|
Post by brizzle on Dec 16, 2014 17:03:58 GMT
Kid in the riot (seems to have inside knowledge?) on the poo forum just posted this, They don't like you henbury "Chris Windows wouldn't have a scooby doo what's going on. The problem with HenburyGas is that: a) He's been proven wrong on many occassions; b) He's practically illiterate, and I for one can't make head nor tail of what he's actually been trying to say in the last 24 hours. Most of what he has said appears to be no more than hearsay and then some guesswork on his part. I have nothing to add to this thread at the moment other than to reiterate that as far as I'm aware the UWE project has been dead for 10 months now - since Sainsburys first told Higgs they were pulling out." Well if that were me, I'd take it as a ringing endorsement. What do that lot know anyway, about anybody or anything? Most certainly not a lot about football appreciation and supporting your team, that's for sure.
|
|
|
Post by tbonegas on Dec 16, 2014 17:17:34 GMT
I'm fed up with all of this now.I think its time to sack the board.
|
|
vaughan
Joined: June 2014
Posts: 1,237
|
Post by vaughan on Dec 16, 2014 17:37:27 GMT
I think it's a lot worse than any of us dare think.
We have sold out effectively to a new set of credit financiers (MCP - DYOR) who will effectively strip us of the Mem asset.
If UWE folds, then Higgs and Co will get thier money back via limited compensation deal and the ground will go via MCP if we can not pay back loans.
We are tonight looking at the end-game.
|
|