Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 13, 2015 15:03:06 GMT
It is rather indicative of a poor communications approach though. Rovers have tried to behave in a totally bullish way through this whole process; but to me it's come across the other way. Not as confident and dynamic; but as paranoid and insecure. I think I'd have been a lot happier if the emphasis from the word go had been along the lines of 'look this is a great opportunity but there's no guarantees because this is a complicated project and we're going to have to work very hard to get all our duck in a row'. Instead it feels like the more the project has come under pressure the more grandstanding we've seen. I never understood all the people who came on here to celebrate as if that was the last hurdle when the case went through in October that seemed really premature; all it did was keep us in the game for the next stage. There's been a lack of humility and realism about this whole thing; and far too much blind hope and over confident statements. There seems to be this feeling from the board that fans can't cope with complexity or uncertainty and they'll cop more flak that way - but I think in truth what pisses fans off more than anything else is if they feel they're being taken for a ride and bulls***ted and there's no doubt that there have been moments in this process where the confidence that we've expressed in public has not been justified by what was going on behind the scenes. I'm not saying that they should be behaving like eeyores but realistic optimism is a much better approach than default bullishness. You shouldn't treat people like fools - there have been many moments where it became pretty obvious that this project was in the balance but the noises coming out of Rovers have never really been anything other than 'it's in the bag'. That's a good way to lose some of the goodwill Rovers fans had towards the project and the board in the aftermath if the original proposals. I totally agree with you, but when i was talking about posturing and bullishness i meant since it became clear that Sainsburys were no longer interested in the project, at that point when it became obvious they wanted out and there were no prospects of sitting round a table and thrashing out a compromise, it was inevitable that the language and attitudes would change, and i don't blame the BOD for that. But you're right, i think from the very start of this process they should have been more pragmatic and more open with the fans,i think they were definately guilty of getting carried away when the planning permission was granted, and you felt they thought it was a done deal, when someone like NH who has made a living in the building trade should have know better. I think the 'watertight' comment instead of some sentence involving 'very strong case' was ill judged and symptomatic of the general attitude that Irish talks about, but is a reasonably minor instance of it. Far worse, for example, was saying after the JR last March, when - irrespective of their faith in it - the enabling contract with Sainsbury's was in bits, that they were hoping work at UWE would start by the end of May. It seemed breakneck and overly optimistic even if all contracts were ready to go. Given that they weren't, it was either delusional or known nonsense. Why say it? Then there was the petulant 'nothing to hinder immediate progress' interview with Geoff Twentyman, who seemed to be begging the man to wind back and talk sense. The club had just issued a writ against Sainsbury's for goodness sake. Add in all other 'work will begin in [insert approximate date roughly 3 months hence]' statements. I understand commercial confidentiality and that we necessarily won't know the exact position or stance at any given stage, but trotting out totally false status statements loses you all credibility and shows a disregard bordering on contempt for the fans. The daft thing is, it's not as if the fact they're talking nonsense wasn't bound to come out when another target date sped past, but presumably they feel that it gets them through today and the future's another place. I think that attitude's probably a fairly deep rooted problem at the club, btw. More frustratingly, in the case of the 'end of May' statement after the JR, it wasn't even needed to 'get them through' that immediate moment: proper expectation management rather than daft bullishness would have gone down a treat. if you lose credibility, you also lose trust and struggle to get people (other than gullible massochists) to rally to your cause. So much for BSS bringing PR expertise: he's either mute, or rubbish, or they're not listening to him.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 13, 2015 16:08:00 GMT
So much for BSS bringing PR expertise: he's either mute, or rubbish, or they're not listening to him. Take a look at the latest trading figures for his PR company, that may provide one possible answer to your question.
|
|
irishrover
Global Moderator
Joined: June 2014
Posts: 3,372
|
Post by irishrover on Feb 13, 2015 16:28:41 GMT
I totally agree with you, but when i was talking about posturing and bullishness i meant since it became clear that Sainsburys were no longer interested in the project, at that point when it became obvious they wanted out and there were no prospects of sitting round a table and thrashing out a compromise, it was inevitable that the language and attitudes would change, and i don't blame the BOD for that. But you're right, i think from the very start of this process they should have been more pragmatic and more open with the fans,i think they were definately guilty of getting carried away when the planning permission was granted, and you felt they thought it was a done deal, when someone like NH who has made a living in the building trade should have know better. Had they been more pragmatic, rather than bullish, with residents then they may not have ceded fertile ground to people like Carstairs? Community benefits to BS7 of the plans to build Sainsbury's on that site? None whatsoever that I can think of. Hardly surprising that they met with resistance and delays, is it? I'm not sure I quite agree there - I think the likes of Carstairs are likely to turn up anyway. This was never going to be a straightforward exercise given where our ground is located and the complexity of the project. What I find strange is that at the start there seemed to be some acknowledgement of this but as it's gone on far from managing expectations through a difficult and complex process they've actually increased the levels of confidence in their statements. I find that peculiar because all it's done is create a series of false dawns and led to doubt in those statements and their ability to deliver. There's only so often you can imply we're as good as there or there's only one more hurdle before fatigue sets in. That's what I find extraordinary - that as the stakes in this have gotten higher and higher most fans seem to find it harder and harder to care because the finish line has felt like it's been in sight for nearly 3 years now. A more realistic approach from the start would have kept a lot more people on board and generated a lot more sympathy for those in charge. Surely you'd rather cast yourself as the little guy who's is having to run very fast to join up all the dots than the big guy who's got it all sussed inspite of the mounting evidence to contrary. The attitude from the club from the moment this project hit any kind of snag has been along the lines of 'don't worry we've got it covered' and it's hard to sustain the credibility of that when obstacle after obstacle keeps emerging. Humility goes a long way. Many of the problems in the relationship between the fans and board are about perception; they don't seem to get that.
|
|
|
Post by Curly Wurly on Feb 13, 2015 16:36:18 GMT
I totally agree with you, but when i was talking about posturing and bullishness i meant since it became clear that Sainsburys were no longer interested in the project, at that point when it became obvious they wanted out and there were no prospects of sitting round a table and thrashing out a compromise, it was inevitable that the language and attitudes would change, and i don't blame the BOD for that. But you're right, i think from the very start of this process they should have been more pragmatic and more open with the fans,i think they were definately guilty of getting carried away when the planning permission was granted, and you felt they thought it was a done deal, when someone like NH who has made a living in the building trade should have know better. I think the 'watertight' comment instead of some sentence involving 'very strong case' was ill judged and symptomatic of the general attitude that Irish talks about, but is a reasonably minor instance of it. Far worse, for example, was saying after the JR last March, when - irrespective of their faith in it - the enabling contract with Sainsbury's was in bits, that they were hoping work at UWE would start by the end of May. It seemed breakneck and overly optimistic even if all contracts were ready to go. Given that they weren't, it was either delusional or known nonsense. Why say it? Then there was the petulant 'nothing to hinder immediate progress' interview with Geoff Twentyman, who seemed to be begging the man to wind back and talk sense. The club had just issued a writ against Sainsbury's for goodness sake. Add in all other 'work will begin in [insert approximate date roughly 3 months hence]' statements. I understand commercial confidentiality and that we necessarily won't know the exact position or stance at any given stage, but trotting out totally false status statements loses you all credibility and shows a disregard bordering on contempt for the fans. The daft thing is, it's not as if the fact they're talking nonsense wasn't bound to come out when another target date sped past, but presumably they feel that it gets them through today and the future's another place. I think that attitude's probably a fairly deep rooted problem at the club, btw. More frustratingly, in the case of the 'end of May' statement after the JR, it wasn't even needed to 'get them through' that immediate moment: proper expectation management rather than daft bullishness would have gone down a treat. if you lose credibility, you also lose trust and struggle to get people (other than gullible massochists) to rally to your cause. So much for BSS bringing PR expertise: he's either mute, or rubbish, or they're not listening to him. Anyone placed under pressure during a TV or Radio interview will know that it is often difficult to fully express their thoughts in precise language, particularly given the level of forensic analysis after the event that many of us indulge in on here. As such, I have sympathy for NH on this. Having said that and in my ignorance of the full text of the contract and of the process going on behind the scenes, I had always thought that the consistently positive noises on the project from NH and TW were in large part directed at Sainsbury's, more than for our benefit as fans. To show any signs of wavering, doubt or delay, would hand Sainsbury's an excuse to say "Rovers are not doing their upmost to make sure this goes through as quickly as possible, we have grounds to terminate the contract". I've certainly interpreted "watertight" "i's and t's" and the various projected start dates in this context.
|
|
|
Post by Curly Wurly on Feb 13, 2015 16:40:32 GMT
Had they been more pragmatic, rather than bullish, with residents then they may not have ceded fertile ground to people like Carstairs? Community benefits to BS7 of the plans to build Sainsbury's on that site? None whatsoever that I can think of. Hardly surprising that they met with resistance and delays, is it? Willingham made great play of the lack of consultation, when Sainsbury's had conducted wide-scale consultation and amended to the scheme to increase the affordable housing and the community facilities included. I don't think for one moment that TRASHorfield or Carstairs would have been influenced by any further consultation or inclusion of additional benefits.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 13, 2015 16:42:48 GMT
Had they been more pragmatic, rather than bullish, with residents then they may not have ceded fertile ground to people like Carstairs? Community benefits to BS7 of the plans to build Sainsbury's on that site? None whatsoever that I can think of. Hardly surprising that they met with resistance and delays, is it? I'm not sure I quite agree there - I think the likes of Carstairs are likely to turn up anyway. This was never going to be a straightforward exercise given where our ground is located and the complexity of the project. What I find strange is that at the start there seemed to be some acknowledgement of this but as it's gone on far from managing expectations through a difficult and complex process they've actually increased the levels of confidence in their statements. I find that peculiar because all it's done is create a series of false dawns and led to doubt in those statements and their ability to deliver. There's only so often you can imply we're as good as there or there's only one more hurdle before fatigue sets in. That's what I find extraordinary - that as the stakes in this have gotten higher and higher most fans seem to find it harder and harder to care because the finish line has felt like it's been in sight for nearly 3 years now. A more realistic approach from the start would have kept a lot more people on board and generated a lot more sympathy for those in charge. Surely you'd rather cast yourself as the little guy who's is having to run very fast to join up all the dots than the big guy who's got it all sussed inspite of the mounting evidence to contrary. The attitude from the club from the moment this project hit any kind of snag has been along the lines of 'don't worry we've got it covered' and it's hard to sustain the credibility of that when obstacle after obstacle keeps emerging. Humility goes a long way. Many of the problems in the relationship between the fans and board are about perception; they don't seem to get that. Of course you are right, there will always be some resistance, but as far as I'm aware, apart from some woolly nonsense about how the store would bring 'much needed competition' to the area, I can't remember anything whatsoever that a rersident could look at and say 'this will be better for me because'? And it looks like Sainsbury's now agree, there are enough large stores to meet demand. Had they worked at getting locals onside then of course Carstairs and TRASH would have made a fuss, but they may have been more of a fringe minority voice, and without so much support they may not have had the courage to persue the thing as long and hard as they did?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 13, 2015 16:44:33 GMT
Had they been more pragmatic, rather than bullish, with residents then they may not have ceded fertile ground to people like Carstairs? Community benefits to BS7 of the plans to build Sainsbury's on that site? None whatsoever that I can think of. Hardly surprising that they met with resistance and delays, is it? Willingham made great play of the lack of consultation, when Sainsbury's had conducted wide-scale consultation and amended to the scheme to increase the affordable housing and the community facilities included. I don't think for one moment that TRASHorfield or Carstairs would have been influenced by any further consultation or inclusion of additional benefits. Can you list these 'community facilities' please?
|
|
brizzle
Lindsay Parsons
No Buy . . . No Sell!
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 4,293
|
Post by brizzle on Feb 13, 2015 17:06:58 GMT
The decision from high court judge may be appealed to the court of appeal or House of Lords; the decision of court of appeal may be appealed to the House of Lords. I can see this going all the way to the top. Not if you read into what their brief said in court - Why, what did he say?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 13, 2015 17:10:25 GMT
News Archives EXPEDITED TRIAL IN THE BRISTOL ROVERS v SAINSBURY’S LITIGATION On Monday 12 February 2015 at a contested hearing in the Chancery Division Mr Justice Roth ordered that a claim for breach of contract brought by Bristol Rovers football club against Sainsbury’s Supermarkets should be expedited on the basis that the claim had an objective urgency which justified it “jumping the queue”. The expedited trial will take place in mid-May of this year. David Matthias Q.C. and George Mackenzie represented Bristol Rovers at the hearing, and sought the order for expedition with detailed directions to facilitate a speedy trial. In 2011 Bristol Rovers contracted to sell Sainsbury’s the site of their football stadium for a superstore-led mixed use redevelopment. It was envisaged that the funds from the sale - some £30 million - would enable the club to construct a new state-of-the-art stadium on the campus of the University of the West of England. Bristol Rovers claims that, in breach of the contract, Sainsbury’s failed to use all reasonable endeavours to ensure that a satisfactory planning permission for the proposed superstore was granted and acted in bad faith in respect of their contractual obligations towards the club. As a result it seems clear that the delivery of the new stadium will be a significantly more complex and expensive enterprise than had originally been anticipated. The judge also ordered Sainsbury’s to undertake an onerous disclosure exercise which, he ruled, must be completed within the next 7 weeks. Sainsbury’s had argued that the exercise could not be accomplished within less than 3 months and indicated that they would not be ready for trial before 2016. Not suprisingly the case has already generated significant public interest. The Bristol Post reported on Monday’s hearing here: www.bristolpost.co.uk/Key-hearing-pushed-forward-Bristol-Rovers-plans/story-25997409-detail/story.htmlDavid Matthias Q.C. and George Mackenzie appeared for Bristol Rovers and were instructed directly by Jim Tarzey of Pegasus Planning. They were assisted by Burges Salmon who are also instructed on behalf of Bristol Rovers.
|
|
irishrover
Global Moderator
Joined: June 2014
Posts: 3,372
|
Post by irishrover on Feb 13, 2015 17:48:51 GMT
I'm not sure I quite agree there - I think the likes of Carstairs are likely to turn up anyway. This was never going to be a straightforward exercise given where our ground is located and the complexity of the project. What I find strange is that at the start there seemed to be some acknowledgement of this but as it's gone on far from managing expectations through a difficult and complex process they've actually increased the levels of confidence in their statements. I find that peculiar because all it's done is create a series of false dawns and led to doubt in those statements and their ability to deliver. There's only so often you can imply we're as good as there or there's only one more hurdle before fatigue sets in. That's what I find extraordinary - that as the stakes in this have gotten higher and higher most fans seem to find it harder and harder to care because the finish line has felt like it's been in sight for nearly 3 years now. A more realistic approach from the start would have kept a lot more people on board and generated a lot more sympathy for those in charge. Surely you'd rather cast yourself as the little guy who's is having to run very fast to join up all the dots than the big guy who's got it all sussed inspite of the mounting evidence to contrary. The attitude from the club from the moment this project hit any kind of snag has been along the lines of 'don't worry we've got it covered' and it's hard to sustain the credibility of that when obstacle after obstacle keeps emerging. Humility goes a long way. Many of the problems in the relationship between the fans and board are about perception; they don't seem to get that. Of course you are right, there will always be some resistance, but as far as I'm aware, apart from some woolly nonsense about how the store would bring 'much needed competition' to the area, I can't remember anything whatsoever that a rersident could look at and say 'this will be better for me because'? And it looks like Sainsbury's now agree, there are enough large stores to meet demand. Had they worked at getting locals onside then of course Carstairs and TRASH would have made a fuss, but they may have been more of a fringe minority voice, and without so much support they may not have had the courage to persue the thing as long and hard as they did? I see what you mean and you're right about the big picture. There's definitely truth in that and we probably could have done more to lessen community opposition by involving people more in the process. But I find it hard to see what exactly we could have said or done that would have bought the residents onside to quite that extent. No matter which way you look at it the plan was still going to be to put a big superstore built on the site so I'd have thought there was a limit to the extent to which local opposition could be dampended by offering some sops on the side. I think the majority of people probably don't want a massive supermarket in their immediate vicinity (though most probably do want one just outside it) and ultimately I feel most of the opposition is of the zero-sum variety. I'm not sure there's that many waverers you could bring round by tweaking the project although I suppose people might react more vociferously against if you are perceived as the big bully (though I think we might always be perceived as that by some).
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 13, 2015 18:14:48 GMT
Recycling bins are useful.
|
|
LPGas
Stuart Taylor
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 1,240
|
Post by LPGas on Feb 13, 2015 18:31:47 GMT
Walsall make no money from football, but on top of their stadium they have large advertising hoardings which are VERY visible from the M6. That is where the bulk of their income comes from Where they get their money from isn't really the point. Both Rovers and Walsall have turnovers of around £4,000.000 and while we're making losses of up to a million a year, Walsall are run within their means, make a small profit and are in league 1. Comparing the money available to Rovers and Walsall (as an example, but there are many more), Walsall are absolutely streets ahead of Rovers in financial management and league position. I really cannot understand the people who tell me that I should be grateful to the current board for funding their own failure. I didn't say that, I just pointed out that Walsall makes most of their money through advertising. Having said that their is no one on here who did not agree to the Buckle sacking, or the Mc Ghee sacking, and both cost us a lot of money. Walsall haven't been down the road that we have.
|
|
|
Post by Topper Gas on Feb 13, 2015 18:52:48 GMT
Walsall's total wage budget last season was £2.5m, that goes along way to explaining why they break even each season but we run up £0.5m/£1m losses each season spending £3.5m on our wage budget.
|
|
|
Post by Topper Gas on Feb 13, 2015 18:56:45 GMT
News Archives EXPEDITED TRIAL IN THE BRISTOL ROVERS v SAINSBURY’S LITIGATION On Monday 12 February 2015 at a contested hearing in the Chancery Division Mr Justice Roth ordered that a claim for breach of contract brought by Bristol Rovers football club against Sainsbury’s Supermarkets should be expedited on the basis that the claim had an objective urgency which justified it “jumping the queue”. The expedited trial will take place in mid-May of this year. David Matthias Q.C. and George Mackenzie represented Bristol Rovers at the hearing, and sought the order for expedition with detailed directions to facilitate a speedy trial. In 2011 Bristol Rovers contracted to sell Sainsbury’s the site of their football stadium for a superstore-led mixed use redevelopment. It was envisaged that the funds from the sale - some £30 million - would enable the club to construct a new state-of-the-art stadium on the campus of the University of the West of England. Bristol Rovers claims that, in breach of the contract, Sainsbury’s failed to use all reasonable endeavours to ensure that a satisfactory planning permission for the proposed superstore was granted and acted in bad faith in respect of their contractual obligations towards the club. As a result it seems clear that the delivery of the new stadium will be a significantly more complex and expensive enterprise than had originally been anticipated. The judge also ordered Sainsbury’s to undertake an onerous disclosure exercise which, he ruled, must be completed within the next 7 weeks. Sainsbury’s had argued that the exercise could not be accomplished within less than 3 months and indicated that they would not be ready for trial before 2016. Not suprisingly the case has already generated significant public interest. The Bristol Post reported on Monday’s hearing here: www.bristolpost.co.uk/Key-hearing-pushed-forward-Bristol-Rovers-plans/story-25997409-detail/story.htmlDavid Matthias Q.C. and George Mackenzie appeared for Bristol Rovers and were instructed directly by Jim Tarzey of Pegasus Planning. They were assisted by Burges Salmon who are also instructed on behalf of Bristol Rovers. Well that seems to explain things a damn sight better than the BPost article, it seems our case is based on Sainsbury's dragging their heels in getting pp/EH, given Rovers went ahead and got it on their behalf could well put us in a stronge position plus it's interesting the Judge dismissed Sainsbury's request to delay things even longer whilst they got their defence together. I'm starting to feel more confident that we might actually win the trial, or at least get some decent compensation.
|
|
|
Post by Curly Wurly on Feb 13, 2015 19:00:14 GMT
Willingham made great play of the lack of consultation, when Sainsbury's had conducted wide-scale consultation and amended to the scheme to increase the affordable housing and the community facilities included. I don't think for one moment that TRASHorfield or Carstairs would have been influenced by any further consultation or inclusion of additional benefits. Can you list these 'community facilities' please? Added after public consultation: Replaced commercial space in Atrium with community space Replaced 6 residential units with community garden Provision of residential home zone, including additional landscaping and private gardens (Significant -my word) community unit added adjacent to memorial square Memorial square design and access improved.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 13, 2015 19:13:08 GMT
Can you list these 'community facilities' please? Added after public consultation: Replaced commercial space in Atrium with community space Replaced 6 residential units with community garden Provision of residential home zone, including additional landscaping and private gardens (Significant -my word) community unit added adjacent to memorial square Memorial square design and access improved. What exactly is a community space in an atrium? Sounds like a notice board in the foyer to me? The community garden I assume being the Memorial garden? Residential Home Zone with private gardens? Seriously? Building houses that they want to sell is a community benefit that helps existing residents? What's this community unit adjacent to the Memorial Square? I've followed this fairly closely and have no idea what that is or for whose use it would be intended?
|
|
|
Post by Curly Wurly on Feb 13, 2015 19:21:44 GMT
Added after public consultation: Replaced commercial space in Atrium with community space Replaced 6 residential units with community garden Provision of residential home zone, including additional landscaping and private gardens (Significant -my word) community unit added adjacent to memorial square Memorial square design and access improved. What exactly is a community space in an atrium? Sounds like a notice board in the foyer to me? The community garden I assume being the Memorial garden? Residential Home Zone with private gardens? Seriously? Building houses that they want to sell is a community benefit that helps existing residents? What's this community unit adjacent to the Memorial Square? I've followed this fairly closely and have no idea what that is or for whose use it would be intended? What do you expect? Free Thai massage for every Bishopston resident? But seeing as you have asked, and risking your further cynical scorn, I'll find out more about the community unit. My understanding is that it is a large room available to the community, just as a village hall would be. I would also emphasise that all the things I listed were changes made to the proposals following community consultan ion.
|
|
aghast
David Williams
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 395
|
Post by aghast on Feb 13, 2015 22:20:50 GMT
What exactly is a community space in an atrium? Sounds like a notice board in the foyer to me? The community garden I assume being the Memorial garden? Residential Home Zone with private gardens? Seriously? Building houses that they want to sell is a community benefit that helps existing residents? What's this community unit adjacent to the Memorial Square? I've followed this fairly closely and have no idea what that is or for whose use it would be intended? What do you expect? Free Thai massage for every Bishopston resident? But seeing as you have asked, and risking your further cynical scorn, I'll find out more about the community unit. My understanding is that it is a large room available to the community, just as a village hall would be. I would also emphasise that all the things I listed were changes made to the proposals following community consultan ion. Imagine a free Bishopston massage for every Thai resident. Can't see there being many takers.
|
|
|
Post by Curly Wurly on Feb 13, 2015 23:33:51 GMT
What exactly is a community space in an atrium? Sounds like a notice board in the foyer to me? The community garden I assume being the Memorial garden? Residential Home Zone with private gardens? Seriously? Building houses that they want to sell is a community benefit that helps existing residents? What's this community unit adjacent to the Memorial Square? I've followed this fairly closely and have no idea what that is or for whose use it would be intended? The community unit is a 380m2 community centre in the North West corner of the developmment facing onto the Memorial Square and gardens. Use would be exactly like any other community centre. You might be right about the noticeboard in the foyer, but seeing as this was changed from commercial use to community space, I would imagine that it is a little more than just a noticeboard. More landscaped space was included for public and resident use as a result of the consultation and reducing the overall housing density. The plans for memorial square and gardens/ landscaping were improved following consultation - particularly following consultation with the Bristol Former Players association.
|
|
|
Post by Curly Wurly on Feb 13, 2015 23:35:05 GMT
Of course, it is all bollocks if the development doesn't go ahead!
|
|