|
Post by Henbury Gas on May 16, 2015 10:55:07 GMT
£1.2m is nothing when you consider that £30m from Sainsbury's doesn't include a Football League grant (don't know if we have to be in it to get it!), leases for the gym, UWE teaching space etc. Building it won't be a problem if we get £30m. Making sure it runs at a profit to drive down our £7m debt is more of a concern. There is only a significant debt (apart from Wonga) if the directors insist that our stadium is held to ransom to pay for their mistakes. Looking at those numbers, it makes the Wonga loan make some kind of sense, in fact, didn't Higgs say that those funds served a very specific purpose? But wouldn't the Wonga funds have hit the bank long after the contract with Sainsbury's expired? Correct me if i'm wrong Bamber, but i thought the "Wonga" loan was to Cover our legal costs, pay money to GD and cover our shortfall by being relegated ?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 16, 2015 11:09:09 GMT
There is only a significant debt (apart from Wonga) if the directors insist that our stadium is held to ransom to pay for their mistakes. Looking at those numbers, it makes the Wonga loan make some kind of sense, in fact, didn't Higgs say that those funds served a very specific purpose? But wouldn't the Wonga funds have hit the bank long after the contract with Sainsbury's expired? Correct me if i'm wrong Bamber, but i thought the "Wonga" loan was to Cover our legal costs, pay money to GD and cover our shortfall by being relegated ? Don't know, sorry. I'm not aware of anyone from the FC explaining exactly why the loan was needed, all we got was that it 'served a specific purpose'. I'm beginning to see why the judge had to go and have a rest in a dark room for 5 mins, if this is correct, then they could spend a week arguing that point alone.
|
|
brizzle
Lindsay Parsons
No Buy . . . No Sell!
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 4,293
|
Post by brizzle on May 16, 2015 11:11:16 GMT
This has just been posted by a shed claiming to be a trainee barrister on OTIB. He says he has read the court papers. Posted A minute ago Having looked over the papers I got yesterday at the High Court from the Sainsbury's v R*vers case, one very interesting fact has come to light. I should stress that the following information is only something which appears in Sainsbury's claim and I have seen no mention of it in R*vers' case so it may not be accurate. It was a term of the contract between the two that the 'net proceeds of sale [of the Memorial Ground] ... [must be] greater than the ... building costs for the new stadium' (taken from Sainsbury's lawyers' skeleton argument, which appears to be quoting from the contract between the parties). Sainsbury's say that this was a condition precedent for the contract: i.e. that unless R*vers could show that they would get more from the sale of the Mem than it would cost to build the UWE, Sainsbury's wouldn't buy. The reason for this was that Sainsbury's did not want to become R*vers landlords (who can blame them?) or have to face the negative PR of evicting R*vers in the event that UWE was not completed. Sainsbury's go on to say that on 12 December 2014 R*vers told them that the building costs for the new stadium 'will exceed the Capital Sum [the amount gained by selling the Mem] by £1,169,569.99'. This means it would cost R*vers about £1.2m more to build UWE than they were getting from the sale of the Mem. It also mean R*vers were, and apparently still are, in breach of an important term of the contract. This appears to have two conclusions (to this non-expert!): the first is that I cannot see how Sainsbury's can now be compelled to complete the contract when such an important condition remains unfulfilled. The second is that either Nick Higgs will be looking for further external investment to complete the UWE contract or that project is not fully funded and so it looks even less likely that it will be completed. All of this appears towards the very end of Sainsbury's argument, I have not yet heard any argument about these points and it is not mentioned in a way to suggest Sainsbury's are making a particularly large amount of it. So my conclusions may be a little wide of the mark and make of the facts what you want but the underlying fact that UWE will cost more than R*vers will get from selling the Mem is interesting anyway - they really are in a mess! This post makes absolutely rivetting reading for us laymen who are struggling to understand the complexities of it all, but as the author himself confesses he is a ''non-expert.'' So his conclusions are as valid as the man in the moon's thoughts might be on the subject. But as he comes from the other side anyway, perhaps even less so. Besides which it's all quite predictable, and of no help whatsoever.
|
|
|
Post by bluebeard on May 16, 2015 11:17:44 GMT
As Henbury says, there is note to our accounts saying that the loan was taken out to repay Barclays, cover legal costs and fund trading losses. I think the club are hoping that Sainsburys will be repaying it. We all wondered why the BoD wouldn't raise the money between them at the time but it could be that they were looking to ring fence legal costs and consequential loses leaving their own funds free to cover the infamous funding gap. I've always thought we'd get something out of Sainsburys but the stadium dream was slipping away. However, it looks like our directors are determined to proceed. Wouldn't it be great if we won 2 -0 on Sunday. Sainsbury's are ordered to pay us £30m plus costs on Monday and the directors announce on Tuesday that they are capitalising their loans?
|
|
|
Post by fanatical on May 16, 2015 11:27:51 GMT
It is quite interesting to see that Chris Templeman of Sainsburys has been involved in defending his company where they have renaged on many contracts around the country by saying 'that is not what we agreed to do' and have let down communities across the land - no wonder they are losing support as a brand
|
|
brizzle
Lindsay Parsons
No Buy . . . No Sell!
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 4,293
|
Post by brizzle on May 16, 2015 11:29:08 GMT
As Henbury says, there is note to our accounts saying that the loan was taken out to repay Barclays, cover legal costs and fund trading losses. I think the club are hoping that Sainsburys will be repaying it. We all wondered why the BoD wouldn't raise the money between them at the time but it could be that they were looking to ring fence legal costs and consequential loses leaving their own funds free to cover the infamous funding gap. I've always thought we'd get something out of Sainsburys but the stadium dream was slipping away. However, it looks like our directors are determined to proceed. Wouldn't it be great if we won 2 -0 on Sunday. Sainsbury's are ordered to pay us £30m plus costs on Monday and the directors announce on Tuesday that they are capitalising their loans? It would, it would. It would be like being transported to Shangri-La or Utopia . . . take yer pick.
|
|
|
Post by Topper Gas on May 16, 2015 12:16:44 GMT
He claims he's training to be a Barrister so he hardly just a layman
Templeman seemed a pretty poor witness if he couldn't recall emails he'd exchange, perhaps he sees this as just another case he's got to attend for his employers, however, it clearly means a lot more to Rovers
|
|
brizzle
Lindsay Parsons
No Buy . . . No Sell!
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 4,293
|
Post by brizzle on May 16, 2015 12:28:27 GMT
He claims he's training to be a Barrister so he hardly just a laymanTempleman seemed a pretty poor witness if he couldn't recall emails he'd exchange, perhaps he sees this as just another case he's got to attend for his employers, however, it clearly means a lot more to Rovers If this was in response to my earlier post, I wrote . . . . . . that is to say that ''us laymen'' equates to BRFC supporters, not him the (alleged) trainee Barrister.
|
|
kingswood Polak
Without music life would be a mistake
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 10,278
|
Post by kingswood Polak on May 16, 2015 14:44:24 GMT
Its also a matter of public record that Nick Higgs stated that any shortfall will be covered by the directors But that is not the specific point HG. It says the sale proceeds and not the sale proceeds with others putting money in. I am very interested in what Ben Littman will have to say. It's he that was the one who told the club that Sainsbury intended to walk away and did so relatively early on in the scheme of things. We will find out, hopefully, if NH has been extremely foolish or if he was right in pursuing this. This is one time where I hope and bloody pray that he was in the right but however, going on his past errors and very poor judgment, I can't help but fear the worst. The words silver bullet are very interesting as it shows definite hostility from Sainsbury to us. Our game tomorrow really could be our last as BRFC 1883 if this goes tits up.
|
|
|
Post by fanatical on May 16, 2015 14:47:04 GMT
Its also a matter of public record that Nick Higgs stated that any shortfall will be covered by the directors But that is not the specific point HG. It says the sale proceeds and not the sale proceeds with others putting money in. I am very interested in what Ben Littman will have to say. It's he that was the one who told the club that Sainsbury intended to walk away and did so relatively early on in the scheme of things. We will find out, hopefully, if NH has been extremely foolish or if he was right in pursuing this. This is one time where I hope and bloody pray that he was in the right but however, going on his past errors and very poor judgment, I can't help but fear the worst. The words silver bullet are very interesting as it shows definite hostility from Sainsbury to us. Our game tomorrow really could be our last as BRFC 1883 if this goes tits up. time for you to hang your boots up - you are talking rot
|
|
kingswood Polak
Without music life would be a mistake
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 10,278
|
Post by kingswood Polak on May 16, 2015 15:00:38 GMT
But that is not the specific point HG. It says the sale proceeds and not the sale proceeds with others putting money in. I am very interested in what Ben Littman will have to say. It's he that was the one who told the club that Sainsbury intended to walk away and did so relatively early on in the scheme of things. We will find out, hopefully, if NH has been extremely foolish or if he was right in pursuing this. This is one time where I hope and bloody pray that he was in the right but however, going on his past errors and very poor judgment, I can't help but fear the worst. The words silver bullet are very interesting as it shows definite hostility from Sainsbury to us. Our game tomorrow really could be our last as BRFC 1883 if this goes tits up. time for you to hang your boots up - you are talking rot That's your opinion and you are entitled to it. There is a very real danger of us going into admin if we lose this. That you choose to bury your head in the sand is not my problem. It's that very thing that has brought us to this. As a fanbase, we have been loyal and this has given NH & his acolytes the ability to do what they want, when they want.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 16, 2015 15:06:10 GMT
But that is not the specific point HG. It says the sale proceeds and not the sale proceeds with others putting money in. I am very interested in what Ben Littman will have to say. It's he that was the one who told the club that Sainsbury intended to walk away and did so relatively early on in the scheme of things. We will find out, hopefully, if NH has been extremely foolish or if he was right in pursuing this. This is one time where I hope and bloody pray that he was in the right but however, going on his past errors and very poor judgment, I can't help but fear the worst. The words silver bullet are very interesting as it shows definite hostility from Sainsbury to us. Our game tomorrow really could be our last as BRFC 1883 if this goes tits up. time for you to hang your boots up - you are talking rot In what way is he talking rot?
|
|
kingswood Polak
Without music life would be a mistake
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 10,278
|
Post by kingswood Polak on May 16, 2015 15:38:55 GMT
time for you to hang your boots up - you are talking rot In what way is he talking rot? There is no point in asking the question BG. It's the stance of many to make such sweeping statements but not back it up. I had to learn my lesson in posting stuff I have been told, by people who genuinely have inside knowledge as I have been then mocked or attempts have been made to undermine. I have found many will avoid the truth as the truth makes them uncomfortable and this will not do. I hate it that we are in this very vulnerable position and in no way do I take any pleasure in it. Can you imagine,what those south of the river, would have done had they been in our position ? The sadness I feel is in that our fans are so very loyal that we have never really put any real pressure onto those who lead us. We have seen the official forum shut down, banning orders and had so many promises broken, the latest being Q&A sessions to be held regularly, to make for more access to the club. I may talk rot on occasion and am fully aware of it but not this time.
|
|
|
Post by Topper Gas on May 16, 2015 15:47:39 GMT
He claims he's training to be a Barrister so he hardly just a laymanTempleman seemed a pretty poor witness if he couldn't recall emails he'd exchange, perhaps he sees this as just another case he's got to attend for his employers, however, it clearly means a lot more to Rovers If this was in response to my earlier post, I wrote . . . . . . that is to say that ''us laymen'' equates to BRFC supporters, not him the (alleged) trainee Barrister. You also referred to the poster as suggesting he was a "non-expert" but given he's a trainee barrister he's probably a better understanding of the case than most of us, even if he's not specialising in contract law.
|
|
|
Post by Topper Gas on May 16, 2015 16:00:57 GMT
The original agreement was to cover the stadium costs plus repay the Directors loans, what if the Directors say they are no longer looking to have thier debts repaid are happy to turn the loans into share capital, as somebody else suggests we could also surely cut expenditure on the,£30m stadium build , would those two moves bring the staduim cost back now within the £30m Sainsbury's were due to pay the club?
|
|
|
Post by a more piratey game on May 16, 2015 16:06:49 GMT
it seems to me that yer man's major advantage over the rest of us is that he has purportedly read some of the court papers
|
|
kingswood Polak
Without music life would be a mistake
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 10,278
|
Post by kingswood Polak on May 16, 2015 16:08:45 GMT
The original agreement was to cover the stadium costs plus repay the Directors loans, what if the Directors say they are no longer looking to have thier debts repaid are happy to turn the loans into share capital, as somebody else suggests we could also surely cut expenditure on the,£30m stadium build , would those two moves bring the staduim cost back now within the £30m Sainsbury's were due to pay the club? I guess this would be one of the complexities within this case. It would explain the partial payment of GD but it is way over my little brain. My biggest surprise was that this wasn't settled out of court. I had hoped that there were no reporting restrictions & that we would be able to see exactly who had done what & when. I note that our side had asked the court to disclose the internal mailings within their side but that this had been turned down. It would suggest, to me anyway, that our side feel there would be mileage in that being made public and would show the intent to scupper the deal. It's never good when the judge says that are not really up to speed with the case. Hopes & prayers, it really does look like this could come down to the interpretation of the judge.
|
|
|
Post by timothyq on May 16, 2015 16:14:07 GMT
This guy on OTIB wouldn't be the first person to profess knowledge he does not possess an online forum but if he's correct (did he say where you can access the skeleton arguments btw?) then it's difficult to see how Rovers will not have breached the contract if the build costs of the UWE stadium will have exceeded the proceeds of sale from the mem and this would be the case regardless of whether the club had an adequate plan to make up the shortfall.
On the subject of his 'non-expert' status, you don't need an expensive legal education to understand that law is often a very specialist business, and commercial property transactions of this kind will be rather niche, therefore, even someone who has completed a legal degree and the BVC (or whatever it's called now) and secured pupillage will not necessarily be an expert on any given subject. However, he apparantly still knows how to access and analyse a barristers skelton argument, and he will have greater understanding of how thins happen in court and what factors will shape the judges decision. So, when he says he is 'non-expert' we should take it to mean 'I don't much about the subject, but I know more than you.'
|
|
brizzle
Lindsay Parsons
No Buy . . . No Sell!
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 4,293
|
Post by brizzle on May 16, 2015 16:32:59 GMT
If this was in response to my earlier post, I wrote . . . . . . that is to say that ''us laymen'' equates to BRFC supporters, not him the (alleged) trainee Barrister. You also referred to the poster as suggesting he was a "non-expert" but given he's a trainee barrister he's probably a better understanding of the case than most of us, even if he's not specialising in contract law. On the contrary I never referred to the OP as a ''non-expert,'' he actually used that expression to refer to himself, and it was this that I highlighted in my original reply.
|
|
The Gas
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 484
|
Post by The Gas on May 16, 2015 17:36:38 GMT
time for you to hang your boots up - you are talking rot That's your opinion and you are entitled to it. There is a very real danger of us going into admin if we lose this. That you choose to bury your head in the sand is not my problem. It's that very thing that has brought us to this. As a fanbase, we have been loyal and this has given NH & his acolytes the ability to do what they want, when they want. What evidence do you have for saying that.
You and I do not have a clue what is going on in the background.
|
|