Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 10, 2014 15:10:32 GMT
If someone (anyone) can show me, or inform me how we are able to conclude that Sainsbury's are contractually obligated to buy the land,I'll be very grateful. Thank you. I think that Higgs and his legal team may be grateful for that information as well.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 10, 2014 16:11:41 GMT
When did Sainsburys say that? I thought they said they were going to build LESS large stores, not no large stores. Now that the delivery times suit them, they might decide to go ahead with this store, it would be as good as any other for them. They would get money back for the mixed use areas, ie the housing as part of the scheme. Think we have to wait and see what happens, but I wouldn't be suprised if Sainsburys go ahead with the store and if they don't they have already said they have millions to write of projects that they are commuted too. Either way hopefully they will pay up early next year. If our contract is tight now, why would we accept compensation? If they are contracted to buy the site?? . . . and that is the nub of the matter, the proverbial $1m Dollar Question so to speak. The point is that if Sainsburys do not want to build the store then they would have pulled out some time ago unless NH is correct and the contract is water tight and we have them by the proverbials,because if it wasnt then the deal would be over and we wouldnt be having this conversation
|
|
faggotygas
Byron Anthony
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 1,862
|
Post by faggotygas on Dec 10, 2014 16:15:59 GMT
Oldie, I'm sorry, don't understand; I asked a sincere question. Just saying "Its called a signature" is not proof that Sainsburys are contractually obliged to buy the land. Is there a contract that is public knowledge that I am not aware of, or something? If someone (anyone) can show me, or inform me how we are able to conclude that Sainsbury's are contractually obligated to buy the land,I'll be very grateful. Thank you. You might be better off going through the conversation on old threads matey, rather then people having to go through old ground again. Basically though, Rovers issued a writ against Sainsbury's because they were not appealing the opening hours planning decision, which they were obligated to do in the contract for the sale of the Mem. That writ was published on the Evening Post website. The writ referred to certain passages in the contract pertaining to criteria that had to be met for the contract to be enforceable. I think that's pretty much all we are going on, along with Higgs stating on a number of occasions that a contract for the sale of the Mem to Sainsbury's is in place, which he described as 'watertight'.
|
|
faggotygas
Byron Anthony
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 1,862
|
Post by faggotygas on Dec 10, 2014 16:20:49 GMT
. . . and that is the nub of the matter, the proverbial $1m Dollar Question so to speak. The point is that if Sainsburys do not want to build the store then they would have pulled out some time ago unless NH is correct and the contract is water tight and we have them by the proverbials,because if it wasnt then the deal would be over and we wouldnt be having this conversation Well no, I think it is generally agreed that Sainsbury's were at least waiting for the outcome of the planning decision on extended opening hours to be resolved, as if this had been refused then Sainsburys may have had the right to exit the contract. A contract can only be water tight once any conditions attaching to the contract are met.
|
|
|
Post by Somerset Blue on Dec 10, 2014 16:52:42 GMT
Higgs will use the compensation to stock up his wine cellar in Italy
|
|
The Gas
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 484
|
Post by The Gas on Dec 10, 2014 17:10:57 GMT
Higgs will use the compensation to stock up his wine cellar in Italy He's perfectly entitled to restock his wine cellar when he is repaid the millions of loans he has given to BRFC.
Good luck to him
|
|
|
Post by tauntongas on Dec 10, 2014 18:57:49 GMT
Oldie, I'm sorry, don't understand; I asked a sincere question. Just saying "Its called a signature" is not proof that Sainsburys are contractually obliged to buy the land. Is there a contract that is public knowledge that I am not aware of, or something?If someone (anyone) can show me, or inform me how we are able to conclude that Sainsbury's are contractually obligated to buy the land,I'll be very grateful. Thank you. tauntongas . . . Without wishing to get involved in the crossfire of your conversation with Oldie, but I do believe that on several occasions the Chairman has refused to confirm or deny anything to do with the contract, because of legal constraints that (he says) are written into the contract, which forbids either party from commenting publicly on any part of the contract. I think that this is accurate, but things move so slowly and there is so much speculation that fact becomes fiction and vice versa. But I have definitely heard the contract mentioned by the Chairman and the Finance Director, but obviously no details were forthcoming other than it is ''watertight'' in their opinion. Sit back, relax and enjoy the ride is my advice. Thanks, Brizzle - that's all I was after and it is much appreciated. You have confirmed exactly what I thought: we cannot even confirm if there is a contract between BRFC and Sainsbury's. Your advice is sound. I may even get popcorn.
|
|
|
Post by tauntongas on Dec 10, 2014 19:10:01 GMT
Oldie, I'm sorry, don't understand; I asked a sincere question. Just saying "Its called a signature" is not proof that Sainsburys are contractually obliged to buy the land. Is there a contract that is public knowledge that I am not aware of, or something? If someone (anyone) can show me, or inform me how we are able to conclude that Sainsbury's are contractually obligated to buy the land,I'll be very grateful. Thank you. You might be better off going through the conversation on old threads matey, rather then people having to go through old ground again. Basically though, Rovers issued a writ against Sainsbury's because they were not appealing the opening hours planning decision, which they were obligated to do in the contract for the sale of the Mem. That writ was published on the Evening Post website. The writ referred to certain passages in the contract pertaining to criteria that had to be met for the contract to be enforceable. I think that's pretty much all we are going on, along with Higgs stating on a number of occasions that a contract for the sale of the Mem to Sainsbury's is in place, which he described as 'watertight'. To be honest, that's why I was asking; because I thought I was up to date. At present, the only information we have is the possible existence of a "contract" that representatives of BRFC have mentioned. Fingers crossed...
|
|
strung out
Administrator
Paul Hardyman
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 758
|
Post by strung out on Dec 10, 2014 19:55:50 GMT
Higgs will use the compensation to stock up his wine cellar in Italy He's perfectly entitled to restock his wine cellar when he is repaid the millions of loans he has given to BRFC.
Good luck to him
Sorry to perpetuate the image of this forum as the anti-board forum, but if you loan the club money and then piss that money up the wall while ending up in the conference, then you deserve all the criticism that comes to you.
|
|
leoni
Joined: December 2014
Posts: 25
|
Post by leoni on Dec 10, 2014 20:09:14 GMT
If Higgs delivers UWE then fair play. But no one can argue that on the pitch his tenure has been disaster.
|
|
faggotygas
Byron Anthony
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 1,862
|
Post by faggotygas on Dec 10, 2014 20:32:55 GMT
You might be better off going through the conversation on old threads matey, rather then people having to go through old ground again. Basically though, Rovers issued a writ against Sainsbury's because they were not appealing the opening hours planning decision, which they were obligated to do in the contract for the sale of the Mem. That writ was published on the Evening Post website. The writ referred to certain passages in the contract pertaining to criteria that had to be met for the contract to be enforceable. I think that's pretty much all we are going on, along with Higgs stating on a number of occasions that a contract for the sale of the Mem to Sainsbury's is in place, which he described as 'watertight'. To be honest, that's why I was asking; because I thought I was up to date. At present, the only information we have is the possible existence of a "contract" that representatives of BRFC have mentioned. Fingers crossed... Well, if there is no contract at all between brfc and Sainsburys, it would mean that Higgs is an outrageous liar, the most incompetent businessman in the history of businessmen, and in serious legal trouble, as the contract is mentioned in both the original planning application, and the afore mentioned writ, making him guilty of pergury (possibly). I think we can assume the existence of some kind of contract. If there was none at all, that would have leaked by now.
|
|
faggotygas
Byron Anthony
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 1,862
|
Post by faggotygas on Dec 10, 2014 20:36:12 GMT
Higgs will use the compensation to stock up his wine cellar in Italy He's perfectly entitled to restock his wine cellar when he is repaid the millions of loans he has given to BRFC.
Good luck to him
That would depend on the terms of the loans. He's not the only shareholder.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 10, 2014 21:12:00 GMT
If Higgs delivers UWE then fair play. But no one can argue that on the pitch his tenure has been disaster. It's off the pitch his tenure has been a disaster hence the reason we knocked on the door of the vanarama conference for his almost entire tenure. He is without exception far and above the worst chairman in the history of our football club and has rendered us a complete laughing stock. Given that he has made no effort to galvanise the club it makes dc's achievements to date all the more remarkable. The day the man walks away with his pension pot is the day BRFC will start to slowly regain the pride and dignity it once had under Dennis Dunford, hopefully....
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 10, 2014 21:18:24 GMT
To be honest, that's why I was asking; because I thought I was up to date. At present, the only information we have is the possible existence of a "contract" that representatives of BRFC have mentioned. Fingers crossed... , it would mean that Higgs is an outrageous liar, . That's him
|
|
brizzle
Lindsay Parsons
No Buy . . . No Sell!
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 4,293
|
Post by brizzle on Dec 10, 2014 21:18:42 GMT
To be honest, that's why I was asking; because I thought I was up to date. At present, the only information we have is the possible existence of a "contract" that representatives of BRFC have mentioned. Fingers crossed... Well, if there is no contract at all between brfc and Sainsburys, it would mean that Higgs is an outrageous liar, the most incompetent businessman in the history of businessmen, and in serious legal trouble, as the contract is mentioned in both the original planning application, and the afore mentioned writ, making him guilty of pergury (possibly). I think we can assume the existence of some kind of contract. If there was none at all, that would have leaked by now. In my very limited business experience, I've always worked on the basis that when dealing with contractual issues one should never assume anything. It's a very dangerous practice, and could prove to be very expensive. But logically there is a contract between Sainsbury's and BRFC, isn't there? ![:o](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/shocked.png)
|
|
|
Post by Topper Gas on Dec 10, 2014 22:27:47 GMT
The big question now is do Sainsbury's see the contracts as "watertight" or can they find a reason i.e. the contracts were signed on the basis we would bow have vacant possession of the Mem to declare them null & void, the fact there's no announcements yet makes you fear the worse.
|
|
intheknow
Archie Stephens
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 232
|
Post by intheknow on Dec 10, 2014 22:37:20 GMT
The big question now is do Sainsbury's see the contracts as "watertight" or can they find a reason i.e. the contracts were signed on the basis we would bow have vacant possession of the Mem to declare them null & void, the fact there's no announcements yet makes you fear the worse. It makes YOU fear the worst , not me .
|
|
Alveston Gas
Brucie Bannister
Once a Gashead always a Gashead
Joined: June 2014
Posts: 746
|
Post by Alveston Gas on Dec 10, 2014 22:44:47 GMT
Really no one other that a few on our Board and a few Sainsburys senior officials has any idea what's going on! Anything else is guesswork!
|
|
|
Post by daniel300380 on Dec 10, 2014 23:11:46 GMT
The big question now is do Sainsbury's see the contracts as "watertight" or can they find a reason i.e. the contracts were signed on the basis we would bow have vacant possession of the Mem to declare them null & void, the fact there's no announcements yet makes you fear the worse. Can't see how they can say that, a lot of stores get delayed because of appeals. If they can say that, what's the point of the contract in the first place. Surely it is there to stop companies wasting others time and money.
|
|
Bridgeman
Alfie Biggs
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 3,549
|
Post by Bridgeman on Dec 10, 2014 23:45:27 GMT
Thought box 1 said if the project was going to proceed they would be on site March 2015; therefore, I would imagine Higgs is currently trying to sort out a satisfactory level of compensation with Sainsburys, as they have said their business strategy is not to build any more large stores. I personally think the UWE project will fall on its **** and Higgs may you use the compensation to refurbish the shabby old MEM. Utg I wonder if TRASH and Carstairs would join us if we were to propose going back to redeveloping the Mem against opposition from Horfield Rose ![:)](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/smiley.png)
|
|