|
Post by Curly Wurly on Jul 10, 2014 11:54:07 GMT
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. But that's just because you are a grumpy old git None of us know and even if we did, we'd get shot for telling.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 10, 2014 11:54:58 GMT
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. think you could well be right !
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 10, 2014 12:06:43 GMT
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. Spot on. Whatever price was agreed for the site would have been justified by a detailed feasibility study. But then the market moved. It makes you wonder if the original contract was binding, but only up to a certain point in time, hence the spurious and at initial glance, desperate attempts to drag things out by TRASH and Carstairs, maybe they knew something we didn't know? Sainsbury's, unlike Rovers, know how to do PR, they put that word 'commercially' in there and wrapped it up in 499 other words for a very good reason. If the problem is around money then it needs resolving PDQ, as the economy continues to recover build costs are rising. All in all, if you think that UWE is good for Rovers then there's nothing positive for you in Sainsbury's statement.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 10, 2014 12:11:01 GMT
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. But that's just because you are a grumpy old git None of us know and even if we did, we'd get shot for telling. I agree, none of us do know for sure, but its about interpretation of statements that are made. As usual we get types like you who suggest you do no more and wish to make rude remarks about the author of a post than the post itself. Carry on.
|
|
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 12:12:02 GMT
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. Surely though as long as the stadium could be funded, does it matter if any of the directors loans are repaid. After all UWE will be a money making machine and all the magic bean profits can go to paying off the debt. That is if the board are all in it together
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 10, 2014 12:15:28 GMT
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. Spot on. Whatever price was agreed for the site would have been justified by a detailed feasibility study. But then the market moved. It makes you wonder if the original contract was binding, but only up to a certain point in time, hence the spurious and at initial glance, desperate attempts to drag things out by TRASH and Carstairs, maybe they knew something we didn't know? Sainsbury's, unlike Rovers, know how to do PR, they put that word 'commercially' in there and wrapped it up in 499 other words for a very good reason. If the problem is around money then it needs resolving PDQ, as the economy continues to recover build costs are rising. All in all, if you think that UWE is good for Rovers then there's nothing positive for you in Sainsbury's statement. Blimey mate, I just opened a new bottle in celebration of the fact that for the first time for years we completely agree
|
|
|
Post by gasheadnaboo on Jul 10, 2014 12:18:18 GMT
I can't comment on how commercially viable the Horfield store would be, but I'm confident the convenience store at the stadium would be a hit. The SU shop and cafeterias at UWE are a massive rip off atm.
|
|
|
Post by Topper Gas on Jul 10, 2014 12:25:37 GMT
Whilst it is positive that Sainsbury's haven't at least pulled out on the deal to buy the mem there are clearly some unknown issues stopping the development going ahead, the big question is clearly are these issues something Rovers can overcome? It sounds to me possibly some kind of funding problem given that nobody is prepared to go public on the problem?
|
|
|
Post by lulworthgas on Jul 10, 2014 12:26:19 GMT
The start date for the build will be announced on the morning of the open fans forum!
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 10, 2014 12:35:06 GMT
The start date for the build will be announced on the morning of the open fans forum! 2 things 1 , it had better be good news or they wouldnt tell us on that day 2 - ill believe it once i actually see ground broke
|
|
basel
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 3,064
|
Post by basel on Jul 10, 2014 12:35:45 GMT
What is the fans forum date please?
|
|
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 12:37:05 GMT
The start date for the build will be announced on the morning of the open fans forum! Do you know this or is this speculation based on how the club work? I.e Revealing good news when they might be set for a kicking
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 10, 2014 12:46:14 GMT
What is the fans forum date please? Its an act of sexual perversion
|
|
|
Post by daniel300380 on Jul 10, 2014 12:46:53 GMT
We understand the imperative to get this scheme moving.
Don't know what else he could have said to make everyone happy??? He is not allowed to give loads away. But that one line itself says they want to get things moving IMO.
|
|
|
Post by Curly Wurly on Jul 10, 2014 12:48:07 GMT
But that's just because you are a grumpy old git None of us know and even if we did, we'd get shot for telling. I agree, none of us do know for sure, but its about interpretation of statements that are made. As usual we get types like you who suggest you do no more and wish to make rude remarks about the author of a post than the post itself. Carry on. Lighten up Oldie, didn't mean to cross swords with you. It was meant as a light hearted dig - that's why I put the wink. I can see your interpretation and I can also see a more positive one, but I doubt whether any on here have a real insight. My biggest fear following the MPs' open letter last week, was that Sainsbury's had pulled out or were about to. Truth is we are still at the table with Sainsbury's and whether final agreement can be struck that facilitates the UWE - we will have to see. What do you mean, "types like me?"
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 10, 2014 12:49:10 GMT
We understand the imperative to get this scheme moving. Don't know what else he could have said to make everyone happy??? He is not allowed to give loads away. But that one line itself says they want to get things moving IMO. Hardly. It just says he recognises the ambitions of others, its the least important thing he said.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 10, 2014 12:51:11 GMT
I agree, none of us do know for sure, but its about interpretation of statements that are made. As usual we get types like you who suggest you do no more and wish to make rude remarks about the author of a post than the post itself. Carry on. Lighten up Oldie, didn't mean to cross swords with you. It was meant as a light hearted dig - that's why I put the wink. I can see your interpretation and I can also see a more positive one, but I doubt whether any on here have a real insight. My biggest fear following the MPs' open letter last week, was that Sainsbury's had pulled out or were about to. Truth is we are still at the table with Sainsbury's and whether final agreement can be struck that facilitates the UWE - we will have to see. What do you mean, "types like me?"Yep sorry...bad morning
|
|
rovers2
Bruce Bannister
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 326
|
Post by rovers2 on Jul 10, 2014 12:56:36 GMT
We understand the imperative to get this scheme moving. Don't know what else he could have said to make everyone happy??? He is not allowed to give loads away. But that one line itself says they want to get things moving IMO. Hardly. It just says he recognises the ambitions of others, its the least important thing he said. Totally agree. You could also postulate that it is the most negative thing he said!
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 10, 2014 13:00:52 GMT
Hardly. It just says he recognises the ambitions of others, its the least important thing he said. Totally agree. You could also postulate that it is the most negative thing he said! I can also postulate that the contracts could be exchanged tomorrow
|
|
basel
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 3,064
|
Post by basel on Jul 10, 2014 13:02:45 GMT
The start date for the build will be announced on the morning of the open fans forum! Really,for sure? 21st July.
|
|