basel
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 3,064
|
Post by basel on Jul 10, 2014 10:16:09 GMT
I thought a smaller Sainsbury at the UWE was always part of the plans Henbury. If so good cause I don't want to lose anything from the original plans and definitely nothing off the stadium capacity or ability to raise it at a later date. Perhaps UWE as part of the lease have insisted that the monies from Sainsburys are ringfenced to develop the stadium? But of course when I suggested this a few days ago it was pooh poohed but some over opininated people (ok one poster) Beg your pardon CountyGH,what does "ringfenced" mean?
|
|
basel
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 3,064
|
Post by basel on Jul 10, 2014 10:17:12 GMT
I think we need to read this letter carefully. A lot is just verbiage about commitment to Bristol and means nothing. The key part is "once we are in a position commercially and contractually to discuss the next steps" The key word is commercially. I take this to mean that they still haven't decided to go ahead - i.e. whether the scheme is financially viable for them. That would be the let out if they want it. I think you are spot on frenchgashead.This letter from Sainsbury's leaves doubt still.
|
|
RG2 Gas
Andy Spring
Joined: June 2014
Posts: 229
|
Post by RG2 Gas on Jul 10, 2014 10:24:02 GMT
I think we need to read this letter carefully. A lot is just verbiage about commitment to Bristol and means nothing. The key part is "once we are in a position commercially and contractually to discuss the next steps" The key word is commercially. I take this to mean that they still haven't decided to go ahead - i.e. whether the scheme is financially viable for them. That would be the let out if they want it. I think you are spot on frenchgashead.This letter from Sainsbury's leaves doubt still. That's my take too. Maybe I'm just too negative but that didn't sound anywhere as near as positive to me as many others have interpreted. A very political answer - keep Bristolians onside by saying how important they are in terms of existing stores but nothing to suggest the Horfield store will proceed. Still at square one.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 10, 2014 10:28:48 GMT
I think you are spot on frenchgashead.This letter from Sainsbury's leaves doubt still. That's my take too. Maybe I'm just too negative but that didn't sound anywhere as near as positive to me as many others have interpreted. A very political answer - keep Bristolians onside by saying how important they are in terms of existing stores but nothing to suggest the Horfield store will proceed. Still at square one. .... and he gave the reason why he did not say ! The same reason why Sir Nick has not made a comment
|
|
Peter Parker
Global Moderator
Richard Walker
You have been sentenced to DELETION!
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 4,920
|
Post by Peter Parker on Jul 10, 2014 10:31:15 GMT
I think you are spot on frenchgashead.This letter from Sainsbury's leaves doubt still. That's my take too. Maybe I'm just too negative but that didn't sound anywhere as near as positive to me as many others have interpreted. A very political answer - keep Bristolians onside by saying how important they are in terms of existing stores but nothing to suggest the Horfield store will proceed. Still at square one. There is obviously still doubt because there are issues being sorted. However it was at least encouraging that Bristol is an active area for Sainbury's
|
|
basel
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 3,064
|
Post by basel on Jul 10, 2014 10:32:14 GMT
That's my take too. Maybe I'm just too negative but that didn't sound anywhere as near as positive to me as many others have interpreted. A very political answer - keep Bristolians onside by saying how important they are in terms of existing stores but nothing to suggest the Horfield store will proceed. Still at square one. .... and he gave the reason why he did not say ! The same reason why Sir Nick has not made a comment So,the result is no one has effectively said anything definite and so we are still very much in the dark.
|
|
Peter Parker
Global Moderator
Richard Walker
You have been sentenced to DELETION!
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 4,920
|
Post by Peter Parker on Jul 10, 2014 10:33:26 GMT
That's my take too. Maybe I'm just too negative but that didn't sound anywhere as near as positive to me as many others have interpreted. A very political answer - keep Bristolians onside by saying how important they are in terms of existing stores but nothing to suggest the Horfield store will proceed. Still at square one. .... and he gave the reason why he did not say ! The same reason why Sir Nick has not made a comment Again though what is so confidential about saying the project IS going ahead if all parties are adamant it will?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 10, 2014 10:48:08 GMT
.... and he gave the reason why he did not say ! The same reason why Sir Nick has not made a comment So,the result is no one has effectively said anything definite and so we are still very much in the dark. Yep ! its the old mushroom joke :- Why are Gasheads called Mushrooms ?? Because they kept in the dark and fed on Bullsh@t i'll get me coat
|
|
|
Post by PessimistGas on Jul 10, 2014 10:50:12 GMT
.... and he gave the reason why he did not say ! The same reason why Sir Nick has not made a comment Again though what is so confidential about saying the project IS going ahead if all parties are adamant it will? Because it might not be?
|
|
lockleazer
Tarki Micalleff
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 411
|
Post by lockleazer on Jul 10, 2014 10:54:00 GMT
My opinion after reading this is Sainsburys will still be buying the mem and we can get on building UWE stad soon .....
However i can see Sainsburys sitting on the land at the mem for a while, i believe they have done this in the past (at Portishead they only started building a few months ago yet brought the land 4/5 years before)
Maybe they want to see how the econmy grows and maybe will re apply in the future for a smaller store and more houses or something? As long as the club still get the money i frankly dont mind , although i'd like a supermarket as its close to my gaff!
|
|
basel
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 3,064
|
Post by basel on Jul 10, 2014 10:56:45 GMT
My opinion after reading this is Sainsburys will still be buying the mem and we can get on building UWE stad soon ..... However i can see Sainsburys sitting on the land at the mem for a while, i believe they have done this in the past (at Portishead they only started building a few months ago yet brought the land 4/5 years before) Maybe they want to see how the econmy grows and maybe will re apply in the future for a smaller store and more houses or something? As long as the club still get the money i frankly dont mind , although i'd like a supermarket as its close to my gaff! This sounds a feasible option Lockleazer.
|
|
rovers2
Bruce Bannister
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 326
|
Post by rovers2 on Jul 10, 2014 11:01:23 GMT
I think we need to read this letter carefully. A lot is just verbiage about commitment to Bristol and means nothing. The key part is "once we are in a position commercially and contractually to discuss the next steps" The key word is commercially. I take this to mean that they still haven't decided to go ahead - i.e. whether the scheme is financially viable for them. That would be the let out if they want it. Exactly. You can strip out all the guff about Bristol and come down to the one word "commercially". There should be no doubt about the commercials or commercial viability at this stage.
|
|
|
Post by phillistine on Jul 10, 2014 11:07:12 GMT
I think we need to read this letter carefully. A lot is just verbiage about commitment to Bristol and means nothing. The key part is "once we are in a position commercially and contractually to discuss the next steps" The key word is commercially. I take this to mean that they still haven't decided to go ahead - i.e. whether the scheme is financially viable for them. That would be the let out if they want it. The guy stated that this project has been a really slow burner even for a company of their experience. A decision made 2 years ago needs reexamining to make sure that it is still viable for them as a Company but the reality is that this was always going to be a major investment by them and I find it extremely doubtful that they would have gone this far if they did not believe that this was something that would be of substantial long term benefit to their Group.
|
|
basel
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 3,064
|
Post by basel on Jul 10, 2014 11:15:38 GMT
I think we need to read this letter carefully. A lot is just verbiage about commitment to Bristol and means nothing. The key part is "once we are in a position commercially and contractually to discuss the next steps" The key word is commercially. I take this to mean that they still haven't decided to go ahead - i.e. whether the scheme is financially viable for them. That would be the let out if they want it. Exactly. You can strip out all the guff about Bristol and come down to the one word "commercially". There should be no doubt about the commercials or commercial viability at this stage. This is the favourite of all the options open for us to 'guess' and it means there are new hurdles to jump! Maybe Sainsbury's are waiting for the new bloke to take over,apparently he is more savvy with online shopping but surely,if Sainsbury's are still building some big shops,then Horfield would be a decent bit of business for them.Suppose there's a lot to it.
|
|
|
Post by Finnish Gas on Jul 10, 2014 11:16:13 GMT
My opinion after reading this is Sainsburys will still be buying the mem and we can get on building UWE stad soon ..... However i can see Sainsburys sitting on the land at the mem for a while, i believe they have done this in the past (at Portishead they only started building a few months ago yet brought the land 4/5 years before) Maybe they want to see how the econmy grows and maybe will re apply in the future for a smaller store and more houses or something? As long as the club still get the money i frankly dont mind , although i'd like a supermarket as its close to my gaff! You could well be right. My fear is that given the changed circumstances Sainsbury's might be saying to NH that the purchase value of the Mem has diminished. This could be the reason for the current impasse.
|
|
|
Post by CountyGroundHotel on Jul 10, 2014 11:25:30 GMT
Perhaps UWE as part of the lease have insisted that the monies from Sainsburys are ringfenced to develop the stadium? But of course when I suggested this a few days ago it was pooh poohed but some over opininated people (ok one poster) Beg your pardon CountyGH,what does "ringfenced" mean? In short Bas I suspect (ie only an educated guess) that UWE agreed to the lease on condition that rovers could prove they had the funds to develop a stadium. Hence if my guess is right they would've legally protected that position by ensuring all the Sainsburys money is put straight in to an account (not a Bristol Rovers bank account) that canonly be accessed to pay stadium ddevelopment costs, the directors / Bristol Rovers will get what if any is left once the stadium is built. This then ensures UWE gets what it wants on the site & that the stadium can be completed. This is the reason I've been quietly confident about the stadium hapoening.
|
|
faggotygas
Byron Anthony
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 1,862
|
Post by faggotygas on Jul 10, 2014 11:26:54 GMT
My opinion after reading this is Sainsburys will still be buying the mem and we can get on building UWE stad soon ..... However i can see Sainsburys sitting on the land at the mem for a while, i believe they have done this in the past (at Portishead they only started building a few months ago yet brought the land 4/5 years before) Maybe they want to see how the econmy grows and maybe will re apply in the future for a smaller store and more houses or something? As long as the club still get the money i frankly dont mind , although i'd like a supermarket as its close to my gaff! You could well be right. My fear is that given the changed circumstances Sainsbury's might be saying to NH that the purchase value of the Mem has diminished. This could be the reason for the current impasse. If they are asking rovers to underwrite their planning permission costs, then they are having a laugh. Ultimately, if they pull out, then Rovers have a large piece of land with planning permission granted to build a supermarket on. If anything, the land with permission granted should be worth more. Should Sainsburys pull out - Asda and Tesco already have local stores, but perhaps Waitrose would be interested?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 10, 2014 11:30:58 GMT
I think we need to read this letter carefully. A lot is just verbiage about commitment to Bristol and means nothing. The key part is "once we are in a position commercially and contractually to discuss the next steps" The key word is commercially. I take this to mean that they still haven't decided to go ahead - i.e. whether the scheme is financially viable for them. That would be the let out if they want it. Exactly. You can strip out all the guff about Bristol and come down to the one word "commercially". There should be no doubt about the commercials or commercial viability at this stage. Thats what I took out of the statement as well. I cannot believe that Sainsburys had not undertaken commercial feasibility studies BEFORE they agreed a price with 1883 ltd. It appears now that they have doubts and that is why negotiations are so sensitive. Any reduction in the price offered obviously affects the new stadium viability which, to answer Henburys query on this thread, is why I suspect the UWE are now involved in the holistic negotiations and why nobody is saying anything. Personally I dont see this comment by Justin King as a positive at all, the legals may well be around whether the original offer was binding or not. As it stands my view this whole project hangs in the balance.
|
|
basel
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 3,064
|
Post by basel on Jul 10, 2014 11:37:23 GMT
Beg your pardon CountyGH,what does "ringfenced" mean? In short Bas I suspect (ie only an educated guess) that UWE agreed to the lease on condition that rovers could prove they had the funds to develop a stadium. Hence if my guess is right they would've legally protected that position by ensuring all the Sainsburys money is put straight in to an account (not a Bristol Rovers bank account) that canonly be accessed to pay stadium ddevelopment costs, the directors / Bristol Rovers will get what if any is left once the stadium is built. This then ensures UWE gets what it wants on the site & that the stadium can be completed. This is the reason I've been quietly confident about the stadium hapoening. Okay,thanks CGH.I think it's "in the balance" as Oldie put it. Fingers crossed.
|
|
jozer
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 365
|
Post by jozer on Jul 10, 2014 11:49:15 GMT
My opinion after reading this is Sainsburys will still be buying the mem and we can get on building UWE stad soon ..... However i can see Sainsburys sitting on the land at the mem for a while, i believe they have done this in the past (at Portishead they only started building a few months ago yet brought the land 4/5 years before) Maybe they want to see how the econmy grows and maybe will re apply in the future for a smaller store and more houses or something? As long as the club still get the money i frankly dont mind , although i'd like a supermarket as its close to my gaff! You could well be right. My fear is that given the changed circumstances Sainsbury's might be saying to NH that the purchase value of the Mem has diminished. This could be the reason for the current impasse. This is pretty much what I have come to suspect- the original offer price would have paid for UWE and paid off all or a lot of the Directors' loans-trebles all round! A reduced offer means the BoD fighting over how much goes on UWE, how much they individually get back of their loans, whether Rovers own the UWE outright and benefit form all the franchises or have to sell them off to raise the balance, whether the UWE has to be scaled down etc. This would explain the delays and daily six-hour BoD meetings to me.
|
|