faggotygas
Byron Anthony
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 1,862
|
Post by faggotygas on Dec 12, 2014 13:41:39 GMT
Sainsbury's wouldn't need to "stall" as a multi millions pound case like this could take years to get to a court hearing once a writ is eventually served, and even that could be 6 months away. They are already using the legal process to delay matters re the delivery hours when really they could have proceed with the deal, if they had wanted to, whilst that was being appealed. Current average is 56 weeks link
|
|
brizzle
Lindsay Parsons
No Buy . . . No Sell!
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 4,293
|
Post by brizzle on Dec 12, 2014 14:04:14 GMT
I agree, mainly because I have seen and heard both the Chairman and Finance Director attempting to do whatever they can to bring the matter to a successful conclusion. Also the Chairman has described the contract as being ''watertight.'' In assuming that there is a contract, only time and potentially an awful lot of money (should the matter go to Court) will decide if the contract is indeed ''watertight.'' But the fact remains that Sainsburys have considerably more assets than BRFC, and if push did come to shove (and should Sainsburys decide to play hardball), then they could just sit back and do nothing. This would leave the onus on Rovers to actively pursue the matter through the Courts, using their own limited resources remember. Does anyone remember the Chairman's recent griping over legal fees? I think that the sum mentioned was in excess of £1m, so he had every reason to complain, because that money could have been spent on strengthening the team and a whole host of other projects. But the fact remains that if the worst does come to the worst, then we could find ourselves throwing good money after bad in an attempt to get a settlement from Sainsburys. And all that they would need to do would be to drop a dead bat on everything until such time as BRFC's well runs dry. In the intervening period, which seems to be now, I really do hope that the Chairman and his legal team can bring sufficient pressure on Sainsburys to honour their side of the contract. I do understand this business of the confidentiality clause because it does make excellent sense for both parties, understandably neither wants to negotiate in the public arena. But inevitably this is bound to lead to speculation, which is where we presently are I believe. If only we had a time-frame, eh? Would be risky for Sainsburys though, Judges look at such tactics very critically, and they won't want to spend more in legal fees than they would lose by just fulfilling the contract (purchase price less market price for the land). So they don't have an unlimited budget on this. Also, luckily its not Sainsburys that set court dates, and any obvious stalling, or refusing to comply with court orders or injunctions (which are not that expensive to get), would be likely seen as contempt of court. It really is refreshing to read such a positive post, a look at the other side of the coin so to speak. I'm not saying that I agree with you 100%, but it is an interesting viewpoint. Many thanks.
|
|
faggotygas
Byron Anthony
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 1,862
|
Post by faggotygas on Dec 12, 2014 14:12:14 GMT
Would be risky for Sainsburys though, Judges look at such tactics very critically, and they won't want to spend more in legal fees than they would lose by just fulfilling the contract (purchase price less market price for the land). So they don't have an unlimited budget on this. Also, luckily its not Sainsburys that set court dates, and any obvious stalling, or refusing to comply with court orders or injunctions (which are not that expensive to get), would be likely seen as contempt of court. It really is refreshing to read such a positive post, a look at the other side of the coin so to speak. I'm not saying that I agree with you 100%, but it is an interesting viewpoint. Many thanks. Pleasure. Personally I am hopeful, but am also aware that my hope is based on very limited information. I do have a slightly naive belief in British common law, though.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 12, 2014 16:14:22 GMT
Just been told that the 106 for the extended hours has been signed ??
Anybody any info on this ??
|
|
|
Post by CountyGroundHotel on Dec 12, 2014 16:25:06 GMT
Sainsbury's wouldn't need to "stall" as a multi millions pound case like this could take years to get to a court hearing once a writ is eventually served, and even that could be 6 months away. They are already using the legal process to delay matters re the delivery hours when really they could have proceed with the deal, if they had wanted to, whilst that was being appealed. Current average is 56 weeks linkAnd there are also very well funded companies out there that will fund litigation if it needs to go that far. Will still drag on but there are options to fight sainsbury superior financial resources
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 12, 2014 17:11:25 GMT
Would be risky for Sainsburys though, Judges look at such tactics very critically, and they won't want to spend more in legal fees than they would lose by just fulfilling the contract (purchase price less market price for the land). So they don't have an unlimited budget on this. Also, luckily its not Sainsburys that set court dates, and any obvious stalling, or refusing to comply with court orders or injunctions (which are not that expensive to get), would be likely seen as contempt of court. It really is refreshing to read such a positive post, a look at the other side of the coin so to speak. I'm not saying that I agree with you 100%, but it is an interesting viewpoint. Many thanks. Don't Sainsbury's have their own 'in house' legal team? If so, only disbursements would apply to the above formula. Whilst Rovers, or maybe just Nick, will be receiving hefty invoices on a regular basis. Also, just a thought, if any compensation formula were to be bsed on the value of the Mem site for any other form of development, that would hinge on a prospective purchaser obtaining the necessary premissions, until those permissions are granted you can't establish a definate market value. Can you?
|
|
faggotygas
Byron Anthony
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 1,862
|
Post by faggotygas on Dec 12, 2014 21:01:40 GMT
It really is refreshing to read such a positive post, a look at the other side of the coin so to speak. I'm not saying that I agree with you 100%, but it is an interesting viewpoint. Many thanks. Don't Sainsbury's have their own 'in house' legal team? If so, only disbursements would apply to the above formula. Whilst Rovers, or maybe just Nick, will be receiving hefty invoices on a regular basis. Also, just a thought, if any compensation formula were to be bsed on the value of the Mem site for any other form of development, that would hinge on a prospective purchaser obtaining the necessary premissions, until those permissions are granted you can't establish a definate market value. Can you? Only if you assume that those lawyers would otherwise be twiddling their thumbs. Internal cross charging. Plus court costs, external hire eg barristers etc. To your second point you can, but obviously its less than the price with planning permission - risk based discount.
|
|
|
Post by Topper Gas on Dec 12, 2014 22:30:16 GMT
Just been told that the 106 for the extended hours has been signed ?? Anybody any info on this ?? Does the extended hours even relate to the 106? If it does who hss signed it Rovers or Sainsbury's, if the former then it's fairly meaningless, if the latter a very interesting development, unless they were legally obliged to sign it by the contract?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 13, 2014 0:26:51 GMT
Don't Sainsbury's have their own 'in house' legal team? If so, only disbursements would apply to the above formula. Whilst Rovers, or maybe just Nick, will be receiving hefty invoices on a regular basis. Also, just a thought, if any compensation formula were to be bsed on the value of the Mem site for any other form of development, that would hinge on a prospective purchaser obtaining the necessary premissions, until those permissions are granted you can't establish a definate market value. Can you? Only if you assume that those lawyers would otherwise be twiddling their thumbs. Internal cross charging. Plus court costs, external hire eg barristers etc. To your second point you can, but obviously its less than the price with planning permission - risk based discount. Agreed, there will be internal invoicing, but in the real world, regardless of what pieces of paper are moved from one desk to another within their offices, the cost will probably be a lot lower and more sustainable for Sainsbury's than for Higgs I would have thought? Ref the 2nd point, you make it far better than I managed. My point was in reply to a possible compensation formula. It's all well and good saying that the site would be worth 'X' for development, but you if 'X' is based on the site having permissions something tells me that Sainsbury's may question the figures, unless of course permissions exist in full and every avenue to object or appeal against the permissions are exhausted. I'm no expert, but I can see plenty of issues to resolve before any compensation figures are agreed. If indeed to original contract is enforceable. As far as I'm aware Sainsbury's didn't even bother responding to Rovers' writ? This looks set to run and run doesn't it?
|
|
|
Post by gasbound on Dec 13, 2014 12:41:42 GMT
Spoke to frend in the pub lasst night and she said the club has recetly paid off some loans recently, but have taken on 4 new loans with a company called MCP capital I thnk she said. had a look at companies house (not easy as website changd recently) and sure enough ther are new charges presumeably loans showing for Bristol Rovers. What I wonder are these new loans towards cost of UWE stadium? If so goood news.
|
|
Peter Parker
Global Moderator
Richard Walker
You have been sentenced to DELETION!
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 4,920
|
Post by Peter Parker on Dec 13, 2014 16:10:45 GMT
Spoke to frend in the pub lasst night and she said the club has recetly paid off some loans recently, but have taken on 4 new loans with a company called MCP capital I thnk she said. had a look at companies house (not easy as website changd recently) and sure enough ther are new charges presumeably loans showing for Bristol Rovers. What I wonder are these new loans towards cost of UWE stadium? If so goood news. Thats interesting if true. At the Q and A, NH was bigging up the fact external debt was reduced
|
|
brizzle
Lindsay Parsons
No Buy . . . No Sell!
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 4,293
|
Post by brizzle on Dec 13, 2014 16:26:11 GMT
Spoke to frend in the pub lasst night and she said the club has recetly paid off some loans recently, but have taken on 4 new loans with a company called MCP capital I thnk she said. had a look at companies house (not easy as website changd recently) and sure enough ther are new charges presumeably loans showing for Bristol Rovers. What I wonder are these new loans towards cost of UWE stadium? If so goood news. Umm . . . ![VTVTUFVVLJ](//storage.proboards.com/5622478/images/lWKjXBJ65p0Ty2HzYqv2.gif)
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 13, 2014 16:47:03 GMT
Spoke to frend in the pub lasst night and she said the club has recetly paid off some loans recently, but have taken on 4 new loans with a company called MCP capital I thnk she said. had a look at companies house (not easy as website changd recently) and sure enough ther are new charges presumeably loans showing for Bristol Rovers. What I wonder are these new loans towards cost of UWE stadium? If so goood news. Umm . . . ![VTVTUFVVLJ](//storage.proboards.com/5622478/images/lWKjXBJ65p0Ty2HzYqv2.gif) I think you will find that Barclays called in their loan and the club had to refinance.
|
|
brizzle
Lindsay Parsons
No Buy . . . No Sell!
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 4,293
|
Post by brizzle on Dec 13, 2014 17:10:40 GMT
Umm . . . ![VTVTUFVVLJ](//storage.proboards.com/5622478/images/lWKjXBJ65p0Ty2HzYqv2.gif) I think you will find that Barclays called in their loan and the club had to refinance. Either I have misunderstood the post, or you have. Kindly accept my apologies in advance.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 13, 2014 17:25:32 GMT
I think you will find that Barclays called in their loan and the club had to refinance. Either I have misunderstood the post, or you have. Kindly accept my apologies in advance. Old loan repaid, new loans with new charges.
|
|
brizzle
Lindsay Parsons
No Buy . . . No Sell!
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 4,293
|
Post by brizzle on Dec 13, 2014 17:28:33 GMT
Either I have misunderstood the post, or you have. Kindly accept my apologies in advance. Old loan repaid, new loans with new charges. 'Tis the way of the (modern) world, apparently.
|
|
Alveston Gas
Brucie Bannister
Once a Gashead always a Gashead
Joined: June 2014
Posts: 746
|
Post by Alveston Gas on Dec 13, 2014 18:18:51 GMT
My guess cheaper than Barclays, highly unlikely Barclays would call it in but if after an interest rate review we could borrow cheaper elsewhere then good work!
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 13, 2014 18:52:51 GMT
Umm . . . ![VTVTUFVVLJ](//storage.proboards.com/5622478/images/lWKjXBJ65p0Ty2HzYqv2.gif) I think you will find that Barclays called in their loan and the club had to refinance. you seem to have your finger on the club finances, would it have anything to do with Barclays being one of the signatures on the recent 106 approval for extended hours ??
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 13, 2014 18:55:54 GMT
I think you will find that Barclays called in their loan and the club had to refinance. you seem to have your finger on the club finances, would it have anything to do with Barclays being one of the signatures on the recent 106 approval for extended hours ?? No idea about the 106
|
|
|
Post by gasbound on Dec 13, 2014 19:15:46 GMT
hang on Henbury i thougth the 106 aproval was linked to the land. if barclays have caled in the club debt surely them signing the s106 cannot have happened? Would it not be legal?
|
|