zulugas
Joined: July 2014
Posts: 71
|
Post by zulugas on Mar 16, 2016 7:56:30 GMT
Another thing that was mentioned by Ken Masters was that the club want improved training facilities for the first team and the development squads. To that end Ken and Steve Hamer had been out to look at some "patches of grass", as he put it, yesterday with a view to us developing our own training setup.
Also a question was raised about the design of the stadium with a view to building in more commercially usable space, rather than just concourse around half the stadium as per the current design. Lee Atkins explained that all aspects of the stadium were being revisited, positive talks were happening with UWE and South Glos council. Also any ideas from supporters would be considered, as long as sensible and viable, such as the acoustics of the stadium for atmosphere as suggested by one of the attendees.
|
|
harrybuckle
Always look on the bright side
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 5,430
|
Post by harrybuckle on Mar 16, 2016 8:13:46 GMT
After some well earned praise and thanks to Darrell Clarke for what he had achieved over 12 months which generated a warm round of applause.
I asked a question to Darrell about the impending loss of three players on International duty over the crucial Easter period and asked had he considered any loanees to replace them. He said the board would back him and all being one loanee had been identified but he did not want to disrupt the group as he has a superb winning group. But he confirmed Lawrence, Sinclair and Puddy were all many weeks away from being fit. However he would not consider bringing Jamie Lucas back from loan from Boreham Wood and was full of praise of Ryan Broom. He emphasised how throwing lots of money at players and used Notts County and Portsmouth of examples of clubs with massive budgets had not achieved success and felt his policy of recruitment of players rewarding them after achieving something was the way he wanted to continue.
|
|
bs14gas
Robin. S. Layer
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 462
|
Post by bs14gas on Mar 16, 2016 12:00:49 GMT
Thanks to all those who went and posted. I like the fact that everyone seems positive, clear in their brief, and looking at the best for the club all the time.
|
|
Peter Parker
Global Moderator
Richard Walker
You have been sentenced to DELETION!
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 4,920
|
Post by Peter Parker on Mar 16, 2016 13:23:04 GMT
from Gasincider
With regard to 31 Filton Avenue, yet another ' poorly drafted ' item.
TW said that the option of £125,000 was a ransom sum demanded by the lady owner of the property or she would sell to someone else and not let the club have it to complete a potential deal with Sainsbury's. This sounds rather dodgy to me. How difficult would it have been to have drafted it in a similar fashion to this paragraph, but without using the 'ransom' word?
With regard to the £520,000 price tag, this would only be payable by Sainsburys if they had to buy the property, and not by the club. This is also nonsense, because that price would come from the overall figure Sainsburys would have to pay to complete the contract if enforced, in other words it would reduce what was left from the £28m or whatever the settlement deal was.
This is yet more gobbledegook from our former finance director. On top of the naughty typist who mistyped the shareholdings of our directors, to the ' only in the relegation zone for 20 minutes' , I just hope his tenure is coming to a rather swift end. Professional people like our new owners must not be hamstrung by people like him.
|
|
faggotygas
Byron Anthony
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 1,862
|
Post by faggotygas on Mar 16, 2016 14:47:21 GMT
from Gasincider With regard to 31 Filton Avenue, yet another ' poorly drafted ' item. TW said that the option of £125,000 was a ransom sum demanded by the lady owner of the property or she would sell to someone else and not let the club have it to complete a potential deal with Sainsbury's. This sounds rather dodgy to me. How difficult would it have been to have drafted it in a similar fashion to this paragraph, but without using the 'ransom' word? With regard to the £520,000 price tag, this would only be payable by Sainsburys if they had to buy the property, and not by the club. This is also nonsense, because that price would come from the overall figure Sainsburys would have to pay to complete the contract if enforced, in other words it would reduce what was left from the £28m or whatever the settlement deal was. This is yet more gobbledegook from our former finance director. On top of the naughty typist who mistyped the shareholdings of our directors, to the ' only in the relegation zone for 20 minutes' , I just hope his tenure is coming to a rather swift end. Professional people like our new owners must not be hamstrung by people like him. Why would it come out of any settlement deal? The contract is to buy the Mem, the cost of building the supermarket doesn't come into it.
|
|
Peter Parker
Global Moderator
Richard Walker
You have been sentenced to DELETION!
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 4,920
|
Post by Peter Parker on Mar 16, 2016 15:13:45 GMT
from Gasincider With regard to 31 Filton Avenue, yet another ' poorly drafted ' item. TW said that the option of £125,000 was a ransom sum demanded by the lady owner of the property or she would sell to someone else and not let the club have it to complete a potential deal with Sainsbury's. This sounds rather dodgy to me. How difficult would it have been to have drafted it in a similar fashion to this paragraph, but without using the 'ransom' word? With regard to the £520,000 price tag, this would only be payable by Sainsburys if they had to buy the property, and not by the club. This is also nonsense, because that price would come from the overall figure Sainsburys would have to pay to complete the contract if enforced, in other words it would reduce what was left from the £28m or whatever the settlement deal was. This is yet more gobbledegook from our former finance director. On top of the naughty typist who mistyped the shareholdings of our directors, to the ' only in the relegation zone for 20 minutes' , I just hope his tenure is coming to a rather swift end. Professional people like our new owners must not be hamstrung by people like him. Why would it come out of any settlement deal? The contract is to buy the Mem, the cost of building the supermarket doesn't come into it. Depends on what was written in the contract and expected of both parties
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 16, 2016 15:59:49 GMT
Why would it come out of any settlement deal? The contract is to buy the Mem, the cost of building the supermarket doesn't come into it. Depends on what was written in the contract and expected of both parties So in one post you dismiss comments from TW as gobbledygook then in another you say it depends on what is written in the contract.Confusing,maybe you are letting your prejudices come to the surface
|
|
Angas
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 2,068
|
Post by Angas on Mar 16, 2016 16:20:47 GMT
from Gasincider With regard to 31 Filton Avenue, yet another ' poorly drafted ' item. TW said that the option of £125,000 was a ransom sum demanded by the lady owner of the property or she would sell to someone else and not let the club have it to complete a potential deal with Sainsbury's. This sounds rather dodgy to me. How difficult would it have been to have drafted it in a similar fashion to this paragraph, but without using the 'ransom' word? With regard to the £520,000 price tag, this would only be payable by Sainsburys if they had to buy the property, and not by the club. This is also nonsense, because that price would come from the overall figure Sainsburys would have to pay to complete the contract if enforced, in other words it would reduce what was left from the £28m or whatever the settlement deal was. This is yet more gobbledegook from our former finance director. On top of the naughty typist who mistyped the shareholdings of our directors, to the ' only in the relegation zone for 20 minutes' , I just hope his tenure is coming to a rather swift end. Professional people like our new owners must not be hamstrung by people like him. What is the £125,000? I thought Ed Ware owned the property. I've obviously missed something
|
|
Peter Parker
Global Moderator
Richard Walker
You have been sentenced to DELETION!
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 4,920
|
Post by Peter Parker on Mar 16, 2016 16:23:15 GMT
Depends on what was written in the contract and expected of both parties So in one post you dismiss comments from TW as gobbledygook then in another you say it depends on what is written in the contract.Confusing,maybe you are letting your prejudices come to the surface Maybe I should have added a question mark to my post on Gaschat That said, yes I’ve got no time for Watola. Man speak with Forked Tongue. Why would we buy a property for Sainsbury’s if not part of the contract? In which case I would agree with Gasincider that the purchase of the property would come from the agreed fee of £28m or whatever it is/was. Did we ever bring this up in court as part of Sainsbury’s leading us down the garden path/screwing us over etc, etc? If not part of the contract then surely that was Sainsbury’s problem after the fact.
|
|
zulugas
Joined: July 2014
Posts: 71
|
Post by zulugas on Mar 16, 2016 16:39:36 GMT
So in one post you dismiss comments from TW as gobbledygook then in another you say it depends on what is written in the contract.Confusing,maybe you are letting your prejudices come to the surface Maybe I should have added a question mark to my post on Gaschat That said, yes I’ve got no time for Watola. Man speak with Forked Tongue. Why would we buy a property for Sainsbury’s if not part of the contract? In which case I would agree with Gasincider that the purchase of the property would come from the agreed fee of £28m or whatever it is/was. Did we ever bring this up in court as part of Sainsbury’s leading us down the garden path/screwing us over etc, etc? If not part of the contract then surely that was Sainsbury’s problem after the fact. Just for clarification, the £125,000 paid to the owner of 31 Filton avenue was for the OPTION to purchase the property. This was all part of the original agreement with Shamesburys who would also purchase no 29 & 27 in order to create sufficient access and turning circle for the site. This was of course all subject to timescale of the project going ahead. However when Trash put their two pence worth in and then Shamesburys started to stall the owner of no 31 said enough is enough, either buy my property at the agreed price £395k + £125K (for the option) or i will sell to someone else. Ed Ware stepped in to raise a mortgage on the property and buy it on the understanding that Shamesburys would cover the cost when completing the contact. As we all know Shameburys have then p*ssed us about endlessly and we find out the result of the appeal tomorrow. The vote was for the club to cover the obligation of £125k to an ex-director. should we win the case it will be covered by Shamesburys under the contract.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 16, 2016 16:55:29 GMT
Maybe I should have added a question mark to my post on Gaschat That said, yes I’ve got no time for Watola. Man speak with Forked Tongue. Why would we buy a property for Sainsbury’s if not part of the contract? In which case I would agree with Gasincider that the purchase of the property would come from the agreed fee of £28m or whatever it is/was. Did we ever bring this up in court as part of Sainsbury’s leading us down the garden path/screwing us over etc, etc? If not part of the contract then surely that was Sainsbury’s problem after the fact. Just for clarification, the £125,000 paid to the owner of 31 Filton avenue was for the OPTION to purchase the property. This was all part of the original agreement with Shamesburys who would also purchase no 29 & 27 in order to create sufficient access and turning circle for the site. This was of course all subject to timescale of the project going ahead. However when Trash put their two pence worth in and then Shamesburys started to stall the owner of no 31 said enough is enough, either buy my property at the agreed price £395k + £125K (for the option) or i will sell to someone else. Ed Ware stepped in to raise a mortgage on the property and buy it on the understanding that Shamesburys would cover the cost when completing the contact. As we all know Shameburys have then p*ssed us about endlessly and we find out the result of the appeal tomorrow. The vote was for the club to cover the obligation of £125k to an ex-director. should we win the case it will be covered by Shamesburys under the contract. Well explained Zulu. Thanks.
|
|
Peter Parker
Global Moderator
Richard Walker
You have been sentenced to DELETION!
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 4,920
|
Post by Peter Parker on Mar 16, 2016 17:03:20 GMT
Maybe I should have added a question mark to my post on Gaschat That said, yes I’ve got no time for Watola. Man speak with Forked Tongue. Why would we buy a property for Sainsbury’s if not part of the contract? In which case I would agree with Gasincider that the purchase of the property would come from the agreed fee of £28m or whatever it is/was. Did we ever bring this up in court as part of Sainsbury’s leading us down the garden path/screwing us over etc, etc? If not part of the contract then surely that was Sainsbury’s problem after the fact. Just for clarification, the £125,000 paid to the owner of 31 Filton avenue was for the OPTION to purchase the property. This was all part of the original agreement with Shamesburys who would also purchase no 29 & 27 in order to create sufficient access and turning circle for the site. This was of course all subject to timescale of the project going ahead. However when Trash put their two pence worth in and then Shamesburys started to stall the owner of no 31 said enough is enough, either buy my property at the agreed price £395k + £125K (for the option) or i will sell to someone else. Ed Ware stepped in to raise a mortgage on the property and buy it on the understanding that Shamesburys would cover the cost when completing the contact. As we all know Shameburys have then p*ssed us about endlessly and we find out the result of the appeal tomorrow. The vote was for the club to cover the obligation of £125k to an ex-director. should we win the case it will be covered by Shamesburys under the contract. How come you can write it/explain it in English?
|
|
zulugas
Joined: July 2014
Posts: 71
|
Post by zulugas on Mar 16, 2016 17:07:43 GMT
Just for clarification, the £125,000 paid to the owner of 31 Filton avenue was for the OPTION to purchase the property. This was all part of the original agreement with Shamesburys who would also purchase no 29 & 27 in order to create sufficient access and turning circle for the site. This was of course all subject to timescale of the project going ahead. However when Trash put their two pence worth in and then Shamesburys started to stall the owner of no 31 said enough is enough, either buy my property at the agreed price £395k + £125K (for the option) or i will sell to someone else. Ed Ware stepped in to raise a mortgage on the property and buy it on the understanding that Shamesburys would cover the cost when completing the contact. As we all know Shameburys have then p*ssed us about endlessly and we find out the result of the appeal tomorrow. The vote was for the club to cover the obligation of £125k to an ex-director. should we win the case it will be covered by Shamesburys under the contract. How come you can write it/explain it in English? Because I'm not a solicitor
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 16, 2016 17:11:12 GMT
How come you can write it/explain it in English? Because I'm not a solicitor I'm guessing you aren't a poor accountant either.
|
|
Angas
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 2,068
|
Post by Angas on Mar 16, 2016 17:31:21 GMT
Maybe I should have added a question mark to my post on Gaschat That said, yes I’ve got no time for Watola. Man speak with Forked Tongue. Why would we buy a property for Sainsbury’s if not part of the contract? In which case I would agree with Gasincider that the purchase of the property would come from the agreed fee of £28m or whatever it is/was. Did we ever bring this up in court as part of Sainsbury’s leading us down the garden path/screwing us over etc, etc? If not part of the contract then surely that was Sainsbury’s problem after the fact. Just for clarification, the £125,000 paid to the owner of 31 Filton avenue was for the OPTION to purchase the property. This was all part of the original agreement with Shamesburys who would also purchase no 29 & 27 in order to create sufficient access and turning circle for the site. This was of course all subject to timescale of the project going ahead. However when Trash put their two pence worth in and then Shamesburys started to stall the owner of no 31 said enough is enough, either buy my property at the agreed price £395k + £125K (for the option) or i will sell to someone else. Ed Ware stepped in to raise a mortgage on the property and buy it on the understanding that Shamesburys would cover the cost when completing the contact. As we all know Shameburys have then p*ssed us about endlessly and we find out the result of the appeal tomorrow. The vote was for the club to cover the obligation of £125k to an ex-director. should we win the case it will be covered by Shamesburys under the contract. Ah right, thank you. So the only bit I'm confused about now is did Ed Ware actually go ahead and buy the property? When I looked on the land registry site last month it only showed two sales, both in 1997. Just answered my own question by checking again - sold on 11th January 2016. houseprices.landregistry.gov.uk/sold-prices/31+filton+avenue+bs7+0aq
|
|
|
Post by didlesknowmydad on Mar 16, 2016 19:03:19 GMT
Don't the accounts refer to his period in control of the club so the best man to answer the many questions ? You can't expect the family to know what went on do you ? I expect Toni can answer any query raised. After all, he's plenty of experience of dealing with problems at just 20 minutes' notice!
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 18, 2016 16:18:17 GMT
Too much sense in that post,wont go down well in certain quarters
|
|
aghast
David Williams
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 395
|
Post by aghast on Mar 18, 2016 20:50:04 GMT
Too much sense in that post,wont go down well in certain quarters Read it again. It might be a reference to May 2014 and the Mansfield game.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 19, 2016 16:00:38 GMT
Not referring to the post above,eyesight must be failing or wife shouting at me.pressed wrong reply button
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 20, 2016 14:12:13 GMT
Does that answer your question,Simon?
|
|