rovers2
Bruce Bannister
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 326
|
Post by rovers2 on Jul 10, 2014 20:28:39 GMT
They now say how important it is to get things moving yet some pick out certain words to make it look different. Do you think they just popped those extra words in for a laugh? Exactly, I spent several years writing press releases telling people want they wanted to hear, yet also factually correct (which was what they didn't want to hear).
|
|
|
Post by onedaytheuwe on Jul 10, 2014 20:37:49 GMT
Now the ruling Labour party who voted this in at the council are backing it. Along with the heavyweights likes Dawn p . Also the good work by c. Lesley and the P.M in support. It would make sense for any shortfall to meet from the £200 million plus from Private and central government coming to greater Bristol. These projects uwe / Sainsburys / Housing on both sites are estimated at £200 million plus. What is 5% of that re-distributed back to Sainsburys if they get a hard deal.
I mean we need a bit of common sense hear. The two major parties are backing these projects with NO in-fighting and BIG money is coming to Bristol. Perhaps this second round of £80 million on Monday from government had some conditions. If it means job creation and investment for North Bristol and supporting our youth back into work. Then I would support any intervention from PM even though I am left...
|
|
intheknow
Archie Stephens
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 232
|
Post by intheknow on Jul 10, 2014 20:50:03 GMT
No. I just suggested the move to Twerton as a means of Sainsburys getting the Mem on time. You can see from this thread why the board say jack sh*t until they have a definitive statement to make. People resort every time to picking out 'a word' for Christ sake and then we have a whole thread discussing it. Never mind the sh*thead and what he says. Sainsburys know the 106 requirements are peanuts. They aren't happy with the price they agreed for the Mem, which, incidentally is higher than has been mooted on here., but are tied in contractually. The choice they would have is either pay (guess) about £5-6m in penalties or not worry about reducing the cost of the site by a couple of million. But this isn't the problem either. As I understand it there were legal problems which are now just about resolved. £29 million was the price
|
|
basel
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 3,064
|
Post by basel on Jul 10, 2014 20:53:52 GMT
Do you think they just popped those extra words in for a laugh? Exactly, I spent several years writing press releases telling people want they wanted to hear, yet also factually correct (which was what they didn't want to hear). Oops.
|
|
basel
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 3,064
|
Post by basel on Jul 10, 2014 20:56:24 GMT
Kid in the Riot posted this today on otib..... ......."Sainsbury's aren't happy with the contributions they have to make as part of the agreed section 106 agreement and so they are trying to renegotiate the amount with BCC." "This would have to go back through planning committee for the Councillors to agree to.Further delays likely bit it's not necessarily an indication of cold feet on Sainsbury's part- they are just trying to get themselves the best deal possible and probably praying on the desperation of all involved to make the new store/stadium happen." I don't know if this is old news or even true from 'Kid in the Riot',but there you have his latest on the subject on otib. I agree with that and also believe Sainsburys will not proceed unless BCC agree to the extended hours that were turned down. If this whole shebang is stopped because of the 'opening hours' issue or that somekind of compromise can't be found then i'll be very surprised and disappointed. Another delay may well cause more problems I assume,£ problems.
|
|
|
Post by Topper Gas on Jul 10, 2014 21:15:00 GMT
Now the ruling Labour party who voted this in at the council are backing it. Along with the heavyweights likes Dawn p . Also the good work by c. Lesley and the P.M in support. It would make sense for any shortfall to meet from the £200 million plus from Private and central government coming to greater Bristol. These projects uwe / Sainsburys / Housing on both sites are estimated at £200 million plus. What is 5% of that re-distributed back to Sainsburys if they get a hard deal. I mean we need a bit of common sense hear. The two major parties are backing these projects with NO in-fighting and BIG money is coming to Bristol. Perhaps this second round of £80 million on Monday from government had some conditions. If it means job creation and investment for North Bristol and supporting our youth back into work. Then I would support any intervention from PM even though I am left... I thought the £200m investment related to the development around the UWE development, if so, surely that's mostly on S Glos land. If not, surely the Mem/UWE developments are not triggering around £400/450m of developments? As far as the extended opening hours given the issues already with Trash I think BCC would be pushing things a bit too far if they now agreed to the extending the hours. Although no doubt once the store has been open a year or so they will be seeking to extend the opening hours and no doubt getting permission.
|
|
|
Post by Curly Wurly on Jul 10, 2014 21:39:31 GMT
Kid in the Riot posted this today on otib..... ......."Sainsbury's aren't happy with the contributions they have to make as part of the agreed section 106 agreement and so they are trying to renegotiate the amount with BCC." "This would have to go back through planning committee for the Councillors to agree to.Further delays likely bit it's not necessarily an indication of cold feet on Sainsbury's part- they are just trying to get themselves the best deal possible and probably praying on the desperation of all involved to make the new store/stadium happen." I don't know if this is old news or even true from 'Kid in the Riot',but there you have his latest on the subject on otib. Sod Kid in th Riot. He's just a snivelling office boy who manages to get about 50% of his information right. Mind you the way some people hang on his every word, I think he'd be a good bet for the next Rovers chairman - what with his excellent communication skills and all that! He's loving the notoriety, but he and his fellow s***heads will come down a peg or two when the deal is done and work starts at the UWE. (Either that or we'll be the laughing stock again) Even a stopped clock is right twice a day.
|
|
aghast
David Williams
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 395
|
Post by aghast on Jul 10, 2014 22:08:58 GMT
I see nothing positive at all in the Sainsbury's statement.
To me, it says: "We support Bristol and we want our customers to support us in the city. We cannot make any commitment to Horfield at the present time since we are still negotiating terms with BRFC and UWE. We know this project is important, but commercial and legal decisions have still to be made".
Hardly a ringing endorsement, and very far from encouraging. But maybe the first offical announcement that the build will not go ahead in the near future or in the form we were led to believe it would?
This to me is a typical corporate PR announcement that things have changed, shrouded in positive management-speak about the wider customer base, but with veiled words that do nothing at all to suggest the project is on track.
If anybody wanted to read a statement from Sainsbury's that confirms the stadium will be able to proceed later this summer, then this is not the one.
|
|
|
Post by Curly Wurly on Jul 10, 2014 22:37:26 GMT
I see nothing positive at all in the Sainsbury's statement. To me, it says: "We support Bristol and we want our customers to support us in the city. We cannot make any commitment to Horfield at the present time since we are still negotiating terms with BRFC and UWE. We know this project is important, but commercial and legal decisions have still to be made". Hardly a ringing endorsement, and very far from encouraging. But maybe the first offical announcement that the build will not go ahead in the near future or in the form we were led to believe it would? This to me is a typical corporate PR announcement that things have changed, shrouded in positive management-speak about the wider customer base, but with veiled words that do nothing at all to suggest the project is on track. If anybody wanted to read a statement from Sainsbury's that confirms the stadium will be able to proceed later this summer, then this is not the one. Jeeeeeessussss, are you oldie's twin brother? Btw, I agree that this is just a corporate holding statement, but at least the deal is not dead.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 11, 2014 0:10:17 GMT
I see nothing positive at all in the Sainsbury's statement. To me, it says: "We support Bristol and we want our customers to support us in the city. We cannot make any commitment to Horfield at the present time since we are still negotiating terms with BRFC and UWE. We know this project is important, but commercial and legal decisions have still to be made". Hardly a ringing endorsement, and very far from encouraging. But maybe the first offical announcement that the build will not go ahead in the near future or in the form we were led to believe it would? This to me is a typical corporate PR announcement that things have changed, shrouded in positive management-speak about the wider customer base, but with veiled words that do nothing at all to suggest the project is on track. If anybody wanted to read a statement from Sainsbury's that confirms the stadium will be able to proceed later this summer, then this is not the one. Jeeeeeessussss, are you oldie's twin brother? Btw, I agree that this is just a corporate holding statement, but at least the deal is not dead. No but he is right though, as has been said many times on this thread. What people are also forgetting is how the little bits of information that are dribbling out incouding this statement by Justin King contrasts with what Mr Higgs pronounced in May. Perhaps our illustrious chairman was completely unaware of the "legal issues" still outstanding at the time. Which of course beggars belief.
|
|
|
Post by swissgas on Jul 11, 2014 0:41:58 GMT
Jeeeeeessussss, are you oldie's twin brother? Btw, I agree that this is just a corporate holding statement, but at least the deal is not dead. No but he is right though, as has been said many times on this thread. What people are also forgetting is how the little bits of information that are dribbling out incouding this statement by Justin King contrasts with what Mr Higgs pronounced in May. Perhaps our illustrious chairman was completely unaware of the "legal issues" still outstanding at the time. Which of course beggars belief. Legal issues is a term which can be used to cover almost anything. We don't hear much about UWE's insistence on Rovers being debt free these days but that was something the Chairman seemed very proud to talk about three years ago. You can understand UWE not wanting a struggling football club with an unmanageable debt burden on their campus as it would ruin everything the flagship project was designed to bring them. So it would seem logical that they should do whatever they could to make sure Rovers were properly capitalised and had their business plan fully costed. Equally Sainsburys would take all measures necessary to protect themselves against being associated with a huge high profile failure. In the last year the story has changed from Rovers being "debt free" to "there will be no debt attached to the stadium" and whilst that has been nodded through without much thought by Rovers fans I wonder how the two partners view it ? There have been many debates on the forums about the amount of cash needed to complete the project properly and the amount of cash needed to build a footballing structure fit for a stadium like the UWE but no one has ever discovered where the extra cash is coming from. Quite a few people misguidedly think the "revenue streams" will start spouting cash from day one. Some think the Rovers board already have someone lined up to buy them out once construction starts. The majority rely on the old chestnut of "the board are successful businessmen so they must know what they are doing " What if they don't, and Sainsburys and the UWE have found out ?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 11, 2014 0:52:42 GMT
No. I just suggested the move to Twerton as a means of Sainsburys getting the Mem on time. You can see from this thread why the board say jack sh*t until they have a definitive statement to make. People resort every time to picking out 'a word' for Christ sake and then we have a whole thread discussing it. Never mind the sh*thead and what he says. Sainsburys know the 106 requirements are peanuts. They aren't happy with the price they agreed for the Mem, which, incidentally is higher than has been mooted on here., but are tied in contractually. The choice they would have is either pay (guess) about £5-6m in penalties or not worry about reducing the cost of the site by a couple of million. But this isn't the problem either. As I understand it there were legal problems which are now just about resolved. Knowing you, Brian, I expect you have some good sources so should we expect an early announcement about starting at the UWE? 12 hours ago lulworthgas said: The start date for the build will be announced on the morning of the open fans forum! Read more: gasheads.org/thread/548/sainsburys?page=2#ixzz377Ih7mlF
|
|
Peter Parker
Global Moderator
Richard Walker
You have been sentenced to DELETION!
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 4,920
|
Post by Peter Parker on Jul 11, 2014 5:29:31 GMT
Kid in the Riot posted this today on otib..... ......."Sainsbury's aren't happy with the contributions they have to make as part of the agreed section 106 agreement and so they are trying to renegotiate the amount with BCC." "This would have to go back through planning committee for the Councillors to agree to.Further delays likely bit it's not necessarily an indication of cold feet on Sainsbury's part- they are just trying to get themselves the best deal possible and probably praying on the desperation of all involved to make the new store/stadium happen." I don't know if this is old news or even true from 'Kid in the Riot',but there you have his latest on the subject on otib. Sod Kid in th Riot. He's just a snivelling office boy who manages to get about 50% of his information right. Mind you the way some people hang on his every word, I think he'd be a good bet for the next Rovers chairman - what with his excellent communication skills and all that! He's loving the notoriety, but he and his fellow s***heads will come down a peg or two when the deal is done and work starts at the UWE. (Either that or we'll be the laughing stock again) Even a stopped clock is right twice a day. Well that makes as much, or more correct than some of what we have been told by other posters on here about, good news, takeovers etc
|
|
Peter Parker
Global Moderator
Richard Walker
You have been sentenced to DELETION!
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 4,920
|
Post by Peter Parker on Jul 11, 2014 5:47:04 GMT
Jeeeeeessussss, are you oldie's twin brother? Btw, I agree that this is just a corporate holding statement, but at least the deal is not dead. No but he is right though, as has been said many times on this thread. What people are also forgetting is how the little bits of information that are dribbling out incouding this statement by Justin King contrasts with what Mr Higgs pronounced in May. Perhaps our illustrious chairman was completely unaware of the "legal issues" still outstanding at the time. Which of course beggars belief. Exactly, we were desperate to start in May after the TRASH JR, but suddenly Carstairs and a few week later legal issues seem to have cropped up. I know there is no rush to move in from a playing side, but once built we are told it will make money even if we cant move in mid season
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 11, 2014 6:15:49 GMT
No but he is right though, as has been said many times on this thread. What people are also forgetting is how the little bits of information that are dribbling out incouding this statement by Justin King contrasts with what Mr Higgs pronounced in May. Perhaps our illustrious chairman was completely unaware of the "legal issues" still outstanding at the time. Which of course beggars belief. Legal issues is a term which can be used to cover almost anything. We don't hear much about UWE's insistence on Rovers being debt free these days but that was something the Chairman seemed very proud to talk about three years ago. You can understand UWE not wanting a struggling football club with an unmanageable debt burden on their campus as it would ruin everything the flagship project was designed to bring them. So it would seem logical that they should do whatever they could to make sure Rovers were properly capitalised and had their business plan fully costed. Equally Sainsburys would take all measures necessary to protect themselves against being associated with a huge high profile failure. In the last year the story has changed from Rovers being "debt free" to "there will be no debt attached to the stadium" and whilst that has been nodded through without much thought by Rovers fans I wonder how the two partners view it ? There have been many debates on the forums about the amount of cash needed to complete the project properly and the amount of cash needed to build a footballing structure fit for a stadium like the UWE but no one has ever discovered where the extra cash is coming from. Quite a few people misguidedly think the "revenue streams" will start spouting cash from day one. Some think the Rovers board already have someone lined up to buy them out once construction starts. The majority rely on the old chestnut of "the board are successful businessmen so they must know what they are doing " What if they don't, and Sainsburys and the UWE have found out ? Swiss Your comments summarise doubts many had regardless of the recent delays and now prevarication by Sainsburys. They also sum up some of the fans attitude as well.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 11, 2014 6:20:41 GMT
Kid in the Riot posted this today on otib..... ......."Sainsbury's aren't happy with the contributions they have to make as part of the agreed section 106 agreement and so they are trying to renegotiate the amount with BCC." "This would have to go back through planning committee for the Councillors to agree to.Further delays likely bit it's not necessarily an indication of cold feet on Sainsbury's part- they are just trying to get themselves the best deal possible and probably praying on the desperation of all involved to make the new store/stadium happen." I don't know if this is old news or even true from 'Kid in the Riot',but there you have his latest on the subject on otib. I agree with that and also believe Sainsburys will not proceed unless BCC agree to the extended hours that were turned down.and they will review it when the store opens - like they did with Tesco at Golden Hill which was extended at that time I can also confirm BCC have no outstanding issues with the planning application
|
|
|
Post by Topper Gas on Jul 11, 2014 7:35:59 GMT
No but he is right though, as has been said many times on this thread. What people are also forgetting is how the little bits of information that are dribbling out incouding this statement by Justin King contrasts with what Mr Higgs pronounced in May. Perhaps our illustrious chairman was completely unaware of the "legal issues" still outstanding at the time. Which of course beggars belief. Legal issues is a term which can be used to cover almost anything. We don't hear much about UWE's insistence on Rovers being debt free these days but that was something the Chairman seemed very proud to talk about three years ago. You can understand UWE not wanting a struggling football club with an unmanageable debt burden on their campus as it would ruin everything the flagship project was designed to bring them. So it would seem logical that they should do whatever they could to make sure Rovers were properly capitalised and had their business plan fully costed. Equally Sainsburys would take all measures necessary to protect themselves against being associated with a huge high profile failure. In the last year the story has changed from Rovers being "debt free" to "there will be no debt attached to the stadium" and whilst that has been nodded through without much thought by Rovers fans I wonder how the two partners view it ? There have been many debates on the forums about the amount of cash needed to complete the project properly and the amount of cash needed to build a footballing structure fit for a stadium like the UWE but no one has ever discovered where the extra cash is coming from. Quite a few people misguidedly think the "revenue streams" will start spouting cash from day one. Some think the Rovers board already have someone lined up to buy them out once construction starts. The majority rely on the old chestnut of "the board are successful businessmen so they must know what they are doing " What if they don't, and Sainsburys and the UWE have found out ? Perhaps that's the issue and NH has said to Sainsbury's/UWE we're £?m short if you want a £50m superstore & £200m of developments to go ahead one, or both, of you will have to stump up the extra cash as relegation menas Rovers can't afford the move.
|
|
|
Post by phillistine on Jul 11, 2014 7:44:28 GMT
Legal issues is a term which can be used to cover almost anything. We don't hear much about UWE's insistence on Rovers being debt free these days but that was something the Chairman seemed very proud to talk about three years ago. You can understand UWE not wanting a struggling football club with an unmanageable debt burden on their campus as it would ruin everything the flagship project was designed to bring them. So it would seem logical that they should do whatever they could to make sure Rovers were properly capitalised and had their business plan fully costed. Equally Sainsburys would take all measures necessary to protect themselves against being associated with a huge high profile failure. In the last year the story has changed from Rovers being "debt free" to "there will be no debt attached to the stadium" and whilst that has been nodded through without much thought by Rovers fans I wonder how the two partners view it ? There have been many debates on the forums about the amount of cash needed to complete the project properly and the amount of cash needed to build a footballing structure fit for a stadium like the UWE but no one has ever discovered where the extra cash is coming from. Quite a few people misguidedly think the "revenue streams" will start spouting cash from day one. Some think the Rovers board already have someone lined up to buy them out once construction starts. The majority rely on the old chestnut of "the board are successful businessmen so they must know what they are doing " What if they don't, and Sainsburys and the UWE have found out ? Perhaps that's the issue and NH has said to Sainsbury's/UWE we're £?m short if you want a £50m superstore & £200m of developments to go ahead one, or both, of you will have to stump up the extra cash as relegation menas Rovers can't afford the move. At present Rovers attendances have not been hit and the shortfall in monies that they receive from the League will not have materialised. They have released a great deal of money that would otherwise have had to be spent on players wages through the close season and going forward the wage bill has been savaged. We are due to get Lamberts money which will make up the shortfall in the League money and if the attendances hold up- which they may do IF we have a winning team then it might not be such a Financial nightmare in the short term!!
|
|
Cheshiregas
Global Moderator
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 2,151
|
Post by Cheshiregas on Jul 11, 2014 7:52:06 GMT
The start date for the build will be announced on the morning of the open fans forum! Really,for sure? 21st July. The various dates that leak out from "those in the know" remind me of the Jehovah' Witnesses prophecies about the end of the world. As each prophesised date passes they simply come out with a new one and a lame excuse why it wasn't "this" time. I truly want the UWE to be started but this constant speculation about announcements and start dates is driving me nuts......!
|
|
|
Post by PessimistGas on Jul 11, 2014 8:11:26 GMT
If it is going ahead it seems likely that the board will announce it at the fans forum. It will immediately diffuse a potentially hostile atmosphere and negate the need to answer some very difficult questions regarding the loss of our league status.
|
|