|
Post by a more piratey game on May 6, 2016 14:12:23 GMT
I'm struggling to understand what we learned here. We all knew this - if we didn't sell to Sainsburys then we didn't have any money to build the UWE. Putting that in the contract or not doesn't seem to affect anything
what am I missing please?
the best bit for me was when Hamer Time said that everyone at the club said that they'd never known something like the current buzz and 20p said immediately 'that's what they've been telling me too'. Nice
Not quite. We all assumed (I assume) that we had a contract with UWE, and we just had to find the money; plan A for getting it was to sell the Mem to Sainsbury's for over the odds; when it became increasingly clear that it wasn't going to happen, the assumption - and talk - was of a plan B to raise the money. What seems to have been said now is that the sale to Sainsbury's was written into the contract with UWE, so if that didn't happen the contract with them was void. Maybe UWE had good grounds for giving a toss how we raised the money, and wanted that clause in there, but it sounds to me like a get-out clause for us. Sadly, we didn't want to get out, but without selling to Sainsbury's, we didn't (and presumably currently don't) have a contract with UWE. So much for the mythical plan B. Who knows how ready UWE would have been to change contract terms with the old regime and sign up for another five years of being jerked around, if another way of finding the dosh had been found, but I expect they're far readier to re-contract with the new lot. Damn, I'm glad they came along. thanks Seth. I think I take a different view - that it was there to stop BRFC being pursued by UWE in the event of non-completion by Sainsbury's, which seems sensible to me, but I can see other perspectives on it too
we can only wonder about the thought process at the time
on your other point, yes this honeymoon period has lasted a spectacularly long time already. There is a huge amount to be optimistic about, and the present is also very good. Viva the Gas!
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 6, 2016 14:16:10 GMT
I'm struggling to understand what we learned here. We all knew this - if we didn't sell to Sainsburys then we didn't have any money to build the UWE. Putting that in the contract or not doesn't seem to affect anything
what am I missing please?
the best bit for me was when Hamer Time said that everyone at the club said that they'd never known something like the current buzz and 20p said immediately 'that's what they've been telling me too'. Nice
Not quite. We all assumed (I assume) that we had a contract with UWE, and we just had to find the money; plan A for getting it was to sell the Mem to Sainsbury's for over the odds; when it became increasingly clear that it wasn't going to happen, the assumption - and talk - was of a plan B to raise the money. What seems to have been said now is that the sale to Sainsbury's was written into the contract with UWE, so if that didn't happen the contract with them was void. Maybe UWE had good grounds for giving a toss how we raised the money, and wanted that clause in there, but it sounds to me like a get-out clause for us. Sadly, we didn't want to get out, but without selling to Sainsbury's, we didn't (and presumably currently don't) have a contract with UWE. So much for the mythical plan B. Who knows how ready UWE would have been to change contract terms with the old regime and sign up for another five years of being jerked around, if another way of finding the dosh had been found, but I expect they're far readier to re-contract with the new lot. Damn, I'm glad they came along. It may be just that it was contracted that the Sainsbury's funds were popped into a secure account and released in phases as the work progressed. But as I think you are suggesting, that should have been easy to deal with via an amendment to the contract if alternative funding was in place.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 6, 2016 14:41:35 GMT
Not quite. We all assumed (I assume) that we had a contract with UWE, and we just had to find the money; plan A for getting it was to sell the Mem to Sainsbury's for over the odds; when it became increasingly clear that it wasn't going to happen, the assumption - and talk - was of a plan B to raise the money. What seems to have been said now is that the sale to Sainsbury's was written into the contract with UWE, so if that didn't happen the contract with them was void. Maybe UWE had good grounds for giving a toss how we raised the money, and wanted that clause in there, but it sounds to me like a get-out clause for us. Sadly, we didn't want to get out, but without selling to Sainsbury's, we didn't (and presumably currently don't) have a contract with UWE. So much for the mythical plan B. Who knows how ready UWE would have been to change contract terms with the old regime and sign up for another five years of being jerked around, if another way of finding the dosh had been found, but I expect they're far readier to re-contract with the new lot. Damn, I'm glad they came along. thanks Seth. I think I take a different view - that it was there to stop BRFC being pursued by UWE in the event of non-completion by Sainsbury's, which seems sensible to me, but I can see other perspectives on it too
we can only wonder about the thought process at the time
on your other point, yes this honeymoon period has lasted a spectacularly long time already. There is a huge amount to be optimistic about, and the present is also very good. Viva the Gas!
Actually, I think we take the same view - I think that's exactly why it was there. Whether it was sensible or not.... On the one hand we were immune from any obligations to UWE, if it had suited us; on the other hand, we painted ourselves into a corner without a contract with UWE. Either way it shows why they flogged a dead horse for so long, talked of needing to appeal in order to keep UWE on-side (which didn't seem to make sense at the time), and that there couldn't be a plan B unless UWE agreed to it. Hey ho. It was a mess and good riddance: far more exciting concerns atm.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 6, 2016 14:45:06 GMT
Not quite. We all assumed (I assume) that we had a contract with UWE, and we just had to find the money; plan A for getting it was to sell the Mem to Sainsbury's for over the odds; when it became increasingly clear that it wasn't going to happen, the assumption - and talk - was of a plan B to raise the money. What seems to have been said now is that the sale to Sainsbury's was written into the contract with UWE, so if that didn't happen the contract with them was void. Maybe UWE had good grounds for giving a toss how we raised the money, and wanted that clause in there, but it sounds to me like a get-out clause for us. Sadly, we didn't want to get out, but without selling to Sainsbury's, we didn't (and presumably currently don't) have a contract with UWE. So much for the mythical plan B. Who knows how ready UWE would have been to change contract terms with the old regime and sign up for another five years of being jerked around, if another way of finding the dosh had been found, but I expect they're far readier to re-contract with the new lot. Damn, I'm glad they came along. It may be just that it was contracted that the Sainsbury's funds were popped into a secure account and released in phases as the work progressed. But as I think you are suggesting, that should have been easy to deal with via an amendment to the contract if alternative funding was in place. That principle would be equally delivered if you deleted the word 'Sainsbury's'. I think someone was trying to cover their back and it bit them in the bum. Hopefully the new contract will be more deliverable!
|
|
kingswood Polak
Without music life would be a mistake
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 10,278
|
Post by kingswood Polak on May 6, 2016 14:53:57 GMT
Great piece Nick and summarises Mr Hamers time on the interview very well.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 6, 2016 14:56:17 GMT
I thought it was a good answer: no numbers; his thinking is that it was too much, without saying the words; next question. Don't often disagree with what you post, but on this we'll have to agree to disagree. No problem with him thinking it was too much, I agree, it was, far too much, from the comfort of our living rooms it was a car crash unfolding before our eyes, but to call the actions of the previous owners 'embarrassing'' simply isn't professional and I think falls short of the standards Wael has set. On reflection I suspect that Steve would agree. Well it was a spur of the moment answer to a direct question. I guess he could have said 'I'd rather not say', but that begs the question why not, and the obvious answer is 'too embarrassing' so he's just cut straight to the chase. Maybe he would have answered differently given thinking time. If he'd have said 'I would like to make a statement on just how embarrassing...' I think I'd agree with you. Either way, the guy speaks well and openly, and I think the odd reply that might have been improbable is excusable.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 6, 2016 15:24:38 GMT
It may be just that it was contracted that the Sainsbury's funds were popped into a secure account and released in phases as the work progressed. But as I think you are suggesting, that should have been easy to deal with via an amendment to the contract if alternative funding was in place. That principle would be equally delivered if you deleted the word 'Sainsbury's'. I think someone was trying to cover their back and it bit them in the bum. Hopefully the new contract will be more deliverable! Sure you could delete Sainsbury's and replace with an alternative partner, but I would have thought that would require agreement from UWE, who you would imagine would care a great deal about the source of the funds they were about to be associated with? Or am I missing the point?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 6, 2016 15:45:40 GMT
That principle would be equally delivered if you deleted the word 'Sainsbury's'. I think someone was trying to cover their back and it bit them in the bum. Hopefully the new contract will be more deliverable! Sure you could delete Sainsbury's and replace with an alternative partner, but I would have thought that would require agreement from UWE, who you would imagine would care a great deal about the source of the funds they were about to be associated with? Or am I missing the point? Well, I guess if it were to be funded by a Colombian drug baron, they might have concerns. There might also be reputational concerns if we were to sell the Mem to someone viewed unsuitable - Spearmint Rhino*, maybe. Then again, Sainsbury's wasn't without contention. Otherwise, I can't imagine why they would care how we raised the money or who we sold the Mem to to the extent of making it a contractual condition that we sold the Mem to Sainsbury's. On the other hand that clause would have left us with no obligations to UWE if the sale didn't proceed; sadly, it left UWE with no obligations to us when it didn't. Oops (again). * Are they still going?
|
|
|
Post by Curly Wurly on May 6, 2016 16:03:35 GMT
Sure you could delete Sainsbury's and replace with an alternative partner, but I would have thought that would require agreement from UWE, who you would imagine would care a great deal about the source of the funds they were about to be associated with? Or am I missing the point? Well, I guess if it were to be funded by a Colombian drug baron, they might have concerns. There might also be reputational concerns if we were to sell the Mem to someone viewed unsuitable - Spearmint Rhino*, maybe. Then again, Sainsbury's wasn't without contention. Otherwise, I can't imagine why they would care how we raised the money or who we sold the Mem to to the extent of making it a contractual condition that we sold the Mem to Sainsbury's. On the other hand that clause would have left us with no obligations to UWE if the sale didn't proceed; sadly, it left UWE with no obligations to us when it didn't. Oops (again). * Are they still going? I don't know about Spearmint Rhino I'm afraid, but back in the world of contractual speculation ... in looking to remove the "Sell the Mem to Sainsbury's" clause I had read this that we were looking to remove not one but two conditions, i.e i. Sale to Sainsbury's (dead) ii. Sale of the Mem (no longer necessary).
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 6, 2016 16:05:00 GMT
Sure you could delete Sainsbury's and replace with an alternative partner, but I would have thought that would require agreement from UWE, who you would imagine would care a great deal about the source of the funds they were about to be associated with? Or am I missing the point? Well, I guess if it were to be funded by a Colombian drug baron, they might have concerns. There might also be reputational concerns if we were to sell the Mem to someone viewed unsuitable - Spearmint Rhino*, maybe. Then again, Sainsbury's wasn't without contention. Otherwise, I can't imagine why they would care how we raised the money or who we sold the Mem to to the extent of making it a contractual condition that we sold the Mem to Sainsbury's. On the other hand that clause would have left us with no obligations to UWE if the sale didn't proceed; sadly, it left UWE with no obligations to us when it didn't. Oops (again). * Are they still going? What makes you think I even know what Spearmint Rhino is, or was? Cheers for that, now I've got to clear the browser history before the Dragon comes home!
|
|
|
Post by CountyGroundHotel on May 6, 2016 17:50:44 GMT
Not quite. We all assumed (I assume) that we had a contract with UWE, and we just had to find the money; plan A for getting it was to sell the Mem to Sainsbury's for over the odds; when it became increasingly clear that it wasn't going to happen, the assumption - and talk - was of a plan B to raise the money. What seems to have been said now is that the sale to Sainsbury's was written into the contract with UWE, so if that didn't happen the contract with them was void. Maybe UWE had good grounds for giving a toss how we raised the money, and wanted that clause in there, but it sounds to me like a get-out clause for us. Sadly, we didn't want to get out, but without selling to Sainsbury's, we didn't (and presumably currently don't) have a contract with UWE. So much for the mythical plan B. Who knows how ready UWE would have been to change contract terms with the old regime and sign up for another five years of being jerked around, if another way of finding the dosh had been found, but I expect they're far readier to re-contract with the new lot. Damn, I'm glad they came along. It may be just that it was contracted that the Sainsbury's funds were popped into a secure account and released in phases as the work progressed. But as I think you are suggesting, that should have been easy to deal with via an amendment to the contract if alternative funding was in place. Exactly, been saying that regarding the Sainsburys cash for a couple of years. I'm sure the clause was at UWEs insistence so that they didn't end up with a halfbuilt white elephant on their doorstep. Still Al water under the bridge now just matters if the new owners can provide the financial guarantees to satisfy UWE enough to get them to sign a contract. Suspect they again want to see a large sum of money deposited in an escrow account before contract becomes legally binding.
|
|
|
Post by pressuredrop on May 6, 2016 18:34:53 GMT
Just to clear up any misunderstanding, Hamer didn't say the previous board or their actions were embarrassing, he stated (when prompted) that the amount of money lost on pursuing the Sainsbury case was an embarrassing amount.
|
|
|
Post by droitwichgas on May 6, 2016 21:33:14 GMT
But wasn't the money spent a means to an end? As without the Sainsbury's court case the whole UWE project was dead, as clearly NH & co couldn't fund it themselves. NH & TW really played a blinder by spending £1m+ on legal costs they managed to keep the project alive long enough to get ALQ to buy the club, clear the clubs debts and, hopefully, build the UWE and it now seems also purchase a training ground, what's that all worth £50m/60m+?
|
|
Rex
Predictions League
Joined: June 2014
Posts: 3,287
|
Post by Rex on May 7, 2016 8:45:00 GMT
I thought it was interesting when asked about partners for the funding of the stadium, he said that finding investment is what investment bankers do, and almost as much admitted that we would need help to fund it. Hopefully that will put a stop to some Rovers fans thinking we are now owned by one of the wealthiest people in the world. I much prefer the idea of someone putting some time and effort into getting a thing off the ground, rather than someone chucking huge sums at a project, and then taking their wallet away when they get bored.
|
|
|
Post by bttrsblue on May 7, 2016 9:43:08 GMT
I thought it was interesting when asked about partners for the funding of the stadium, he said that finding investment is what investment bankers do, and almost as much admitted that we would need help to fund it. Hopefully that will put a stop to some Rovers fans thinking we are now owned by one of the wealthiest people in the world. I much prefer the idea of someone putting some time and effort into getting a thing off the ground, rather than someone chucking huge sums at a project, and then taking their wallet away when they get bored. Or maybe the point that you don't get that wealthy by throwing money at things. Everything should be weighed up, and assessed- I guess sometimes having money leads to making wrong decisions. I liked his comments on having something different about the project is what will bring better investment, as well as the investment in back of house schemes. Exciting times! I expect a completely new stadium plans over the summer
|
|
|
Post by manchestergas on May 7, 2016 10:29:57 GMT
But wasn't the money spent a means to an end? As without the Sainsbury's court case the whole UWE project was dead, as clearly NH & co couldn't fund it themselves. NH & TW really played a blinder by spending £1m+ on legal costs they managed to keep the project alive long enough to get ALQ to buy the club, clear the clubs debts and, hopefully, build the UWE and it now seems also purchase a training ground, what's that all worth £50m/60m+? They didn't play a blinder. Many of the issues with the stadium was not their fault, but how they managed the project particularly communication was poorly managed and effectively pouring money into a black hole post JR was a disaster. I think the blinder comment is based in the presumption selling the club to switched on and apparently gentlemanly Jordanan billionaire was the ultimate plan, it wasn't. They were flying by the seat of their pants most of time, always reacting to others. i get the impression Wael did not primarily buy us for the stadium project, after all they are already changing it and appear to have the expertise to build it in another location if need be. The attraction to them was league status and the massive potential of the club. Personally I feel the old board post JR decision potentially put the future of the club at risk with the Wonga loan, fighting a case which was doomed and managing a relationship with the fan base which was increasingly going toxic. They didn't play blinder they played a stinker. However they were Gasheads.
|
|