Thatslife
"Decisions are made by those who turn up"
Joined: June 2014
Posts: 669
|
Post by Thatslife on Sept 19, 2015 15:49:42 GMT
Obviously JTS has been informed of certain information, part of which he has disclosed but it could be, and it was in my experience,that to reveal more could identify the source of that information, which may be not desirable.
|
|
womble
Arthur Cartlidge
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 300
|
Post by womble on Sept 19, 2015 15:56:54 GMT
If these are serious investors with serious cash what's stopping them from telling nick that they will by the club for a quid, and then start the UWE build. Higgs gets to keep the mem and pursue his golden goose through the courts whilst he allows rovers to use the mem rent free until UWE is ready. If Higgs loses his appeal, he can still get his cash back plus more from selling the mem to developers. My understanding was that the PP for UWE is on the site itself rather than being the property of Nick or BRFC, so, with UWE's permission, the bulldozers could roll on Monday morning. Maybe someone can confirm if that's correct? Planning permission establishes use and design. As you suggest, ownership in this and most cases, is irrelevant. As the land belongs to UWE it is up to them who, if anyone, builds on their land. If all the conditions attached to the permission have been met, then with UWE's approval, bulldozers could indeed roll on Monday.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 19, 2015 16:04:05 GMT
My understanding was that the PP for UWE is on the site itself rather than being the property of Nick or BRFC, so, with UWE's permission, the bulldozers could roll on Monday morning. Maybe someone can confirm if that's correct? Planning permission establishes use and design. As you suggest, ownership in this and most cases, is irrelevant. As the land belongs to UWE it is up to them who, if anyone, builds on their land. If all the conditions attached to the permission have been met, then with UWE's approval, bulldozers could indeed roll on Monday. Thank you Womble, a rare occurence on here, someone who actually knows what they are talking about So, if the stadium was going to generate sufficient funds to support a League football club, there must be a strong business case for owning the stadium and additional revenue streams but without the drain of a football club attached to it?
|
|
kingswood Polak
Without music life would be a mistake
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 10,353
|
Post by kingswood Polak on Sept 19, 2015 16:25:45 GMT
My understanding was that the PP for UWE is on the site itself rather than being the property of Nick or BRFC, so, with UWE's permission, the bulldozers could roll on Monday morning. Maybe someone can confirm if that's correct? Planning permission establishes use and design. As you suggest, ownership in this and most cases, is irrelevant. As the land belongs to UWE it is up to them who, if anyone, builds on their land. If all the conditions attached to the permission have been met, then with UWE's approval, bulldozers could indeed roll on Monday. Blimey. That is something I hadn't even thought of. Surely there must be something other than just the agreement between us & UWE ? Interesting news indeed
|
|
|
Post by lulworthgas on Sept 19, 2015 16:38:07 GMT
Planning permission establishes use and design. As you suggest, ownership in this and most cases, is irrelevant. As the land belongs to UWE it is up to them who, if anyone, builds on their land. If all the conditions attached to the permission have been met, then with UWE's approval, bulldozers could indeed roll on Monday. Blimey. That is something I hadn't even thought of. Surely there must be something other than just the agreement between us & UWE ? Interesting news indeed That's how any consortium can get their foot in the door then. Tell UWE they will build now then put pressure on Higgs to sell. Without the UWE sight NH tenure is finished. He gets his money back with a golden hand shake on top with a life president role for "securing the UWE" and we march on with new owners!
|
|
|
Post by droitwichgas on Sept 19, 2015 16:46:17 GMT
Planning permission establishes use and design. As you suggest, ownership in this and most cases, is irrelevant. As the land belongs to UWE it is up to them who, if anyone, builds on their land. If all the conditions attached to the permission have been met, then with UWE's approval, bulldozers could indeed roll on Monday. Thank you Womble, a rare occurence on here, someone who actually knows what they are talking about So, if the stadium was going to generate sufficient funds to support a League football club, there must be a strong business case for owning the stadium and additional revenue streams but without the drain of a football club attached to it? Surely having a league football, or even rugby, club is the main driving force behind the income streams I can't see a sports stadium w/o a decent league side would generate income to make it viable on it's own? I'm sure a conference or wedding etc sounds most impressive at BRFC's UWE stadium than just a stadium at the UWE? Also surely the UWE want the plaudits that go with having a league club in their staduim, as their own Principle suggested they could generate more income from a business school than a stadium. However, perhaps if the UWE want Plan A rather than Plan B they could put pressure on NH to agree a deal with the new investors. How ironic would that be if NH's stadium partners, the UWE & Sainsbury's, finished his ownership of Rovers? I can't understand why the B Post or 20men apparently seem to be showing so little interest in this story, perhaps it's all a load of nonsense or they are just being lazy?
|
|
womble
Arthur Cartlidge
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 300
|
Post by womble on Sept 19, 2015 16:55:30 GMT
Planning permission establishes use and design. As you suggest, ownership in this and most cases, is irrelevant. As the land belongs to UWE it is up to them who, if anyone, builds on their land. If all the conditions attached to the permission have been met, then with UWE's approval, bulldozers could indeed roll on Monday. Blimey. That is something I hadn't even thought of. Surely there must be something other than just the agreement between us & UWE ? Interesting news indeed Well to be fair, I assume (I don't know) that there would have been some sort of exclusivity agreement between Rovers and UWE, where it was agreed that nothing else would be done with the land for x number of years while Rovers and Sainsbury's sorted out their respective permissions. The fact that NH has on a number of occasions, mentioned that UWE were willing to wait, suggests that any such agreement has now run out.
|
|
|
Post by droitwichgas on Sept 19, 2015 17:21:38 GMT
Or NH knows full well they have no alternative to wait until x years expires? I wonder where the UWE stand with this as will they be happy to personally fund Plan B, should it even exist, if Plan C involves no investment/the original planned stadium is built, assuming they are not part of the consortium anyway?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 19, 2015 17:39:30 GMT
Blimey. That is something I hadn't even thought of. Surely there must be something other than just the agreement between us & UWE ? Interesting news indeed Well to be fair, I assume (I don't know) that there would have been some sort of exclusivity agreement between Rovers and UWE, where it was agreed that nothing else would be done with the land for x number of years while Rovers and Sainsbury's sorted out their respective permissions. The fact that NH has on a number of occasions, mentioned that UWE were willing to wait, suggests that any such agreement has now run out. Based on nothing other than a hunch, I'm guessing that the time UWE are tied to allowing Rovers to build on the land expires with the Sainsbury's contract? So, not dead techically, but the fat Lady is clearing her throat.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 19, 2015 17:47:53 GMT
Well to be fair, I assume (I don't know) that there would have been some sort of exclusivity agreement between Rovers and UWE, where it was agreed that nothing else would be done with the land for x number of years while Rovers and Sainsbury's sorted out their respective permissions. The fact that NH has on a number of occasions, mentioned that UWE were willing to wait, suggests that any such agreement has now run out. Based on nothing other than a hunch, I'm guessing that the time UWE are tied to allowing Rovers to build on the land expires with the Sainsbury's contract? So, not dead techically, but the fat Lady is clearing her throat. Well the excuse for getting the Sainsbury's case fast tracked was not necessarily being able to keep UWE onside beyond June. As it was the High Court they were talking to, there might be some basis for saying that rather than their usual 'say whatever it takes' stance. Another possible review point would be expiry of the planning permission, which is what, 4 or 5 months away? Or more to the point, the point at which it's decided whether or not to put in for a renewal of that permission ahead of its expiry, which is.... coming right up.
|
|
|
Post by Henbury Gas on Sept 19, 2015 17:50:41 GMT
But why can't the investors speak up themselves today, why use JTS as a news breaker then wait until next week? I can't see what they have to lose by speaking out now, or have they entered into one of NH's infamous "confidentially" clauses, if so, we might never hear their plans or even who's involved. All the other poster suggested do our BoD keep giving up hope of a new stadium knowing full well they find some kind of hitch to stop it happening? What makes you think the Investors told JTS maybe a disgruntled board member leaked the info ?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 19, 2015 17:52:56 GMT
But why can't the investors speak up themselves today, why use JTS as a news breaker then wait until next week? I can't see what they have to lose by speaking out now, or have they entered into one of NH's infamous "confidentially" clauses, if so, we might never hear their plans or even who's involved. All the other poster suggested do our BoD keep giving up hope of a new stadium knowing full well they find some kind of hitch to stop it happening? What makes you think the Investors told JTS maybe a disgruntled board member leaked the info ? NO WAY!!!! Who would have done a thing like that?
|
|
|
Post by Henbury Gas on Sept 19, 2015 17:54:27 GMT
Planning permission establishes use and design. As you suggest, ownership in this and most cases, is irrelevant. As the land belongs to UWE it is up to them who, if anyone, builds on their land. If all the conditions attached to the permission have been met, then with UWE's approval, bulldozers could indeed roll on Monday. Thank you Womble, a rare occurence on here, someone who actually knows what they are talking about So, if the stadium was going to generate sufficient funds to support a League football club, there must be a strong business case for owning the stadium and additional revenue streams but without the drain of a football club attached to it? Why make a stupid comment like that, what will that achieve ?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 19, 2015 18:12:02 GMT
Thank you Womble, a rare occurence on here, someone who actually knows what they are talking about So, if the stadium was going to generate sufficient funds to support a League football club, there must be a strong business case for owning the stadium and additional revenue streams but without the drain of a football club attached to it? Why make a stupid comment like that, what will that achieve ? It made me feel better about having a tiny todger.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 19, 2015 18:22:06 GMT
Based on nothing other than a hunch, I'm guessing that the time UWE are tied to allowing Rovers to build on the land expires with the Sainsbury's contract? So, not dead techically, but the fat Lady is clearing her throat. Well the excuse for getting the Sainsbury's case fast tracked was not necessarily being able to keep UWE onside beyond June. As it was the High Court they were talking to, there might be some basis for saying that rather than their usual 'say whatever it takes' stance. Another possible review point would be expiry of the planning permission, which is what, 4 or 5 months away? Or more to the point, the point at which it's decided whether or not to put in for a renewal of that permission ahead of its expiry, which is.... coming right up. Having looked it up, UWE planning permission expires on Sunday 17th January 2016, btw. No way is work going to start by then, so renewal will need actioning fairly soon.
|
|
|
Post by droitwichgas on Sept 19, 2015 18:33:25 GMT
But why can't the investors speak up themselves today, why use JTS as a news breaker then wait until next week? I can't see what they have to lose by speaking out now, or have they entered into one of NH's infamous "confidentially" clauses, if so, we might never hear their plans or even who's involved. All the other poster suggested do our BoD keep giving up hope of a new stadium knowing full well they find some kind of hitch to stop it happening? What makes you think the Investors told JTS maybe a disgruntled board member leaked the info ? Your probably correct and I could have a good guess which one, but I assume JTS checked to ensure the investors were happy for him to break the story now rather than next week?
|
|
|
Post by fanatical on Sept 19, 2015 19:32:09 GMT
Why make a stupid comment like that, what will that achieve ? It made me feel better about having a tiny todger. I presume your todger is your brain? tiny!
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 19, 2015 19:32:25 GMT
Geoff Dunford confirmed on twitter there is a consortium and urged the board to inform shareholders if its serious
|
|
|
Post by o2o2bo2ba on Sept 19, 2015 19:39:37 GMT
Geoff Dunford confirmed on twitter there is a consortium and urged the board to inform shareholders if its serious Seen GD sat with us peasants in away end. Fair play. (also seen Kitey too, he got a song, GD didn't.....hope kitey won't be banned because that?!)
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 19, 2015 19:46:21 GMT
Twitter post has been edited, so it may not be 100% accurate. Post now read: I am aware there is news of a consortium. The board should make shareholders and fans aware of the details if it is serious #UTG
|
|