brizzle
Lindsay Parsons
No Buy . . . No Sell!
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 4,293
|
Post by brizzle on Dec 15, 2014 19:03:08 GMT
I think everyone has now accepted the project is dead, Sainsburys has no intention of opening a store at the Mem, we are owed some compensation but certainly not anything like the original price and the range being debated is between £3 and £5 million paid in instalments. Internally I believe it is anticipated we stay at the Mem until we at the very least achieve promotion into League Div 1. So all in all a great result. Have they? That's a bit of a sweeping/all-embracing statement to make, ennit? How did you come to that conclusion, may I inquire? ![JNRJERBN](//storage.proboards.com/5622478/images/ZHol6pKkbMjXXQ6lDtpW.gif)
|
|
toteend
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 305
|
Post by toteend on Dec 15, 2014 19:11:26 GMT
Because monster monster is a sh*thead and he's talking out his rear.
|
|
|
Post by matealotblue on Dec 15, 2014 19:25:49 GMT
So if I have understood this right.....the project may or may not be dead in the water or it may or may not be still alive. Think that's clear enough for all of us.
|
|
|
Post by gasbound on Dec 15, 2014 20:04:31 GMT
spoke to a frend over lunchtime sanwich and he thinks the new loans are on 3 bits of land that are the memorial stadium. i did not know thier are 3 bits of land!. anyway it seems every thing including the office stappler is now mortgaged so repayments could be high. if UWE stadium is still a goer i wonder what price the tickets will be? i'm sure some will strugle if tickets, even season tickets, are hiked up. still want the new stadium but thought it would be debt free...
|
|
|
Post by Topper Gas on Dec 15, 2014 20:38:57 GMT
The loans must be on the Mem rather than UWE, if so, should Sainsbury's finally pay up then surely all the Mem loans will be paid off. It's then a case if whether there's still sufficient money left to build the UWE and leave us debt free, or at least not owing vast sums in share capital to the BoD etc.
I'm not too concerned about tickets prices as I just want to sit in the new stadium, regardless Rovers need to get 10,000+ paying fans through the turnstiles and they won't achieve that with high prices whilst we're in the lower leagues.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 15, 2014 21:21:29 GMT
I think everyone has now accepted the project is dead, Sainsburys has no intention of opening a store at the Mem, we are owed some compensation but certainly not anything like the original price and the range being debated is between £3 and £5 million paid in instalments. Internally I believe it is anticipated we stay at the Mem until we at the very least achieve promotion into League Div 1. So all in all a great result. Have they? That's a bit of a sweeping/all-embracing statement to make, ennit? How did you come to that conclusion, may I inquire? ![JNRJERBN](//storage.proboards.com/5622478/images/ZHol6pKkbMjXXQ6lDtpW.gif) Well I have, and the people who'd have to write the cheques and take on the personal guarantees have, Sainsburys has, UWE has...but don't listen to me, let's just wait and see.
|
|
|
Post by fanatical on Dec 15, 2014 21:50:43 GMT
Have they? That's a bit of a sweeping/all-embracing statement to make, ennit? How did you come to that conclusion, may I inquire? ![JNRJERBN](//storage.proboards.com/5622478/images/ZHol6pKkbMjXXQ6lDtpW.gif) Well I have, and the people who'd have to write the cheques and take on the personal guarantees have, Sainsburys has, UWE has... but don't listen to me, let's just wait and see. No-one should listen to you because you plainly do not have any idea at all what is happening. Those who do know also know how far off the mark you are.
|
|
|
Post by Topper Gas on Dec 15, 2014 21:56:08 GMT
Even if the Mem sale is dead why would the club accept just £3m in compensation when they have "watertight" contracts for £30m?
I think if I was the BoD I'd take my chances in court if I was only being offered a 10th of the contract price.
Also why is the S106 being progressed if the deals dead, are you accusing Henbury of making that up?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 15, 2014 22:11:48 GMT
Logic says if the contract is so watertight it would be in our interest to allow Sainsburys to default, sue them for compensation, still own the Mem and build the UWE and sell the Mem at our leisure...none of this is happening, I wonder why not. Equally the planning issues are all a matter of public record, before taking someone you don't knows word for what his mate told him in the pub I think I would get onto the planning department and ask them, or even better go and check up your self. I've been saying for over two years that the UWE wouldn't happen and I've been right every time I've taken the trouble to post, about Sainsburys, about the board and about the financial unviability of the project as a non league club and I'm right again today. As I said let's wait and see.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 15, 2014 22:18:15 GMT
Logic says if the contract is so watertight it would be in our interest to allow Sainsburys to default, sue them for compensation, still own the Mem and build the UWE and sell the Mem at our leisure...none of this is happening, I wonder why not. Equally the planning issues are all a matter of public record, before taking someone you don't knows word for what his mate told him in the pub I think I would get onto the planning department and ask them, or even better go and check up your self. I've been saying for over two years that the UWE wouldn't happen and I've been right every time I've taken the trouble to post, about Sainsburys, about the board and about the financial unviability of the project as a non league club and I'm right again today. As I said let's wait and see. I think your just guessing like the rest of us.
|
|
|
Post by stevek192 on Dec 15, 2014 22:33:55 GMT
Monstermonster, Just another jumping on the Bandwagon knowing that if you are right with your guess you will come on here and say told you so and if you are wrong and don't have a clue like the rest of us then you will disappear. Its a 50:50 situation so you have a 1 in 2 chance of being right so instead of listening to you I suggest everybody goes off and tosses a coin. One thing is for sure if it doesn't happen there is only going to be one party who will look very stupid and that is Nick Higgs and the Board.
|
|
|
Post by onedaytheuwe on Dec 15, 2014 22:53:36 GMT
Honestly speaking no-one knows the eventual outcome. We must wait to mid January and hope a challenge isn't submitted. If all goes well we must await a close inspection by Sainsbury's to make sure they haven't found another 'gap' . Even if they were unable to find a 'gap' could they push for a long legal battle based on the 'time scale' and strong anti who have dragged this out for years ?. Who knows we know very little about factual points on both sides and their defence.
I hear nothing is happening in the short term and we must wait to early spring.
The question is this. Will Sainsbury's pay out in full on a site they don't want to build a supermarket on ?. Will we have enough in the contract to make them by January or early Spring ?. Of course we know things are progressing : but will this be enough ?.
The truth is it is a 12 rounder that can go either way but not a draw..
|
|
Bridgeman
Alfie Biggs
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 3,549
|
Post by Bridgeman on Dec 16, 2014 1:57:33 GMT
If what Henbury Gas is saying is true then I will be totally shocked Sainsbury's are paying out before the legal challenge finishes. My source ( political) suggest the papers have recently been signed and a 'window' taking us to around mid January is now starting . Once this legal access is over then the ball can start rolling. Like I said before I don't anticipate a challenge unless some ultra - anti supermarket : anti - extended hours groups fills in the paperwork in the next few weeeks and makes a challenge. But Henbury do have good contacts . It;s certainly not what I'm hearing and we still have a long way to go... So you've never heard of a local pressure group called TRASH then ?! I'll be amazed if they let this opportunity pass by without making a challenge, it's what they are all about surely ?!
|
|
|
Post by Topper Gas on Dec 16, 2014 11:57:00 GMT
Logic says if the contract is so watertight it would be in our interest to allow Sainsburys to default, sue them for compensation, still own the Mem and build the UWE and sell the Mem at our leisure...none of this is happening, I wonder why not. Equally the planning issues are all a matter of public record, before taking someone you don't knows word for what his mate told him in the pub I think I would get onto the planning department and ask them, or even better go and check up your self. I've been saying for over two years that the UWE wouldn't happen and I've been right every time I've taken the trouble to post, about Sainsburys, about the board and about the financial unviability of the project as a non league club and I'm right again today. As I said let's wait and see. Who says the club aren't allowing Sainsbury's to "default"? if you point me in the irght direction where I can check if the S106 has been signed I will go and check failing which I will accept HG's word for it as he hasn't been wrong so far.
|
|
faggotygas
Byron Anthony
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 1,862
|
Post by faggotygas on Dec 16, 2014 12:40:09 GMT
Logic says if the contract is so watertight it would be in our interest to allow Sainsburys to default, sue them for compensation, still own the Mem and build the UWE and sell the Mem at our leisure...none of this is happening, I wonder why not. Equally the planning issues are all a matter of public record, before taking someone you don't knows word for what his mate told him in the pub I think I would get onto the planning department and ask them, or even better go and check up your self. I've been saying for over two years that the UWE wouldn't happen and I've been right every time I've taken the trouble to post, about Sainsburys, about the board and about the financial unviability of the project as a non league club and I'm right again today. As I said let's wait and see. Under what circumstances would Rovers get payment for the Mem, AND still own the Mem? Maximum is surely only either enforcement of the contract, or contract value less market rate? Plus costs, loss of income. The recent delays to resolution have been in ensuring any contractual conditions to the sale of the Mem have been met, i.e. extended delivery hours - have you not been following?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 16, 2014 12:46:45 GMT
Logic says if the contract is so watertight it would be in our interest to allow Sainsburys to default, sue them for compensation, still own the Mem and build the UWE and sell the Mem at our leisure...none of this is happening, I wonder why not. Equally the planning issues are all a matter of public record, before taking someone you don't knows word for what his mate told him in the pub I think I would get onto the planning department and ask them, or even better go and check up your self. I've been saying for over two years that the UWE wouldn't happen and I've been right every time I've taken the trouble to post, about Sainsburys, about the board and about the financial unviability of the project as a non league club and I'm right again today. As I said let's wait and see. Who says the club aren't allowing Sainsbury's to "default"? if you point me in the irght direction where I can check if the S106 has been signed I will go and check failing which I will accept HG's word for it as he hasn't been wrong so far. Not sure what a 106 agreement has to do with Sainsbury's either failing to match the terms of the contract or the terms of the contract being unenforceable.
|
|
brizzle
Lindsay Parsons
No Buy . . . No Sell!
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 4,293
|
Post by brizzle on Dec 16, 2014 12:51:35 GMT
Have they? That's a bit of a sweeping/all-embracing statement to make, ennit? How did you come to that conclusion, may I inquire? ![JNRJERBN](//storage.proboards.com/5622478/images/ZHol6pKkbMjXXQ6lDtpW.gif) Well I have, and the people who'd have to write the cheques and take on the personal guarantees have, Sainsburys has, UWE has...but don't listen to me, let's just wait and see. You may have done so, but as for the other people and organisations that you mention I'm not so sure. I cannot recall seeing a public statement by Sainsbury's or the UWE to the effect that they have ''given up'' on the project, in fact I cannot recall any negative statements from either body on the subject. As for BRFC's position it has been outlined on a few occasions now by the Chairman, who has said that he is bound by a confidentiality clause within the contract with Sainsbury's, and is therefore unable to comment publicly. But like yourself I don't have a clue what is happening behind closed doors, so as you quite rightly say let's just wait and see.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 16, 2014 12:53:23 GMT
Logic says if the contract is so watertight it would be in our interest to allow Sainsburys to default, sue them for compensation, still own the Mem and build the UWE and sell the Mem at our leisure...none of this is happening, I wonder why not. Equally the planning issues are all a matter of public record, before taking someone you don't knows word for what his mate told him in the pub I think I would get onto the planning department and ask them, or even better go and check up your self. I've been saying for over two years that the UWE wouldn't happen and I've been right every time I've taken the trouble to post, about Sainsburys, about the board and about the financial unviability of the project as a non league club and I'm right again today. As I said let's wait and see. Under what circumstances would Rovers get payment for the Mem, AND still own the Mem? Maximum is surely only either enforcement of the contract, or contract value less market rate? The recent delays to resolution have been in ensuring any contractual conditions to the sale of the Mem have been met, i.e. extended delivery hours - have you not been following? If Sainsburys are indeed obligated to buy the Mem and fail to so do then the ground would still belong to us, but as they(Sainsburys) would have failed to fulfill their obligations within the terms of the contract and if there were conditions within the contract allowing for compensation in the event that the contract was breached, then we could be due compensation. So, we would still own the Mem and Sainsburys could pay us compensation...Sainsburys do not intend to buy the Mem or build a supermarket on the site-have you not been following? HTH
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 16, 2014 13:00:01 GMT
Under what circumstances would Rovers get payment for the Mem, AND still own the Mem? Maximum is surely only either enforcement of the contract, or contract value less market rate? The recent delays to resolution have been in ensuring any contractual conditions to the sale of the Mem have been met, i.e. extended delivery hours - have you not been following? If Sainsburys are indeed obligated to buy the Mem and fail to so do then the ground would still belong to us, but as they(Sainsburys) would have failed to fulfill their obligations within the terms of the contract and if there were conditions within the contract allowing for compensation in the event that the contract was breached, then we could be due compensation. So, we would still own the Mem and Sainsburys could pay us compensation...Sainsburys do not intend to buy the Mem or build a supermarket on the site-have you not been following? HTH If a court of law tells Sainsbury's that it has to buy the Mem under the terms of the contract they signed, they will have to. Regardless of anything. They don't want to build a supermarket now, that makes no difference to the law binding contract they signed. It really is black and white and not too technical to understand. Unless people put in many ifs and butts. They are playing the stalling game at present. That's all.....
|
|
faggotygas
Byron Anthony
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 1,862
|
Post by faggotygas on Dec 16, 2014 13:08:12 GMT
Under what circumstances would Rovers get payment for the Mem, AND still own the Mem? Maximum is surely only either enforcement of the contract, or contract value less market rate? The recent delays to resolution have been in ensuring any contractual conditions to the sale of the Mem have been met, i.e. extended delivery hours - have you not been following? If Sainsburys are indeed obligated to buy the Mem and fail to so do then the ground would still belong to us, but as they(Sainsburys) would have failed to fulfill their obligations within the terms of the contract and if there were conditions within the contract allowing for compensation in the event that the contract was breached, then we could be due compensation. So, we would still own the Mem and Sainsburys could pay us compensation...Sainsburys do not intend to buy the Mem or build a supermarket on the site-have you not been following? HTH Contract law does not allow you to receive something for nothing. Compensation means just that - its a payment to put a party that has been damaged, back into the condition they would have been in had the damage not occurred. If the contract is enforced then the ground would not belong to Rovers. If compensatory damages are paid, then the ground would belong to Rovers, but the value of the ground would be deducted from the compensation due. I believe you are talking about a penalty clause. What makes you think that such a thing exists? Even if one exists, excessive penalty clauses are unenforceable. What Sainsburys intend to do with the site is irrelevant.
|
|