|
Post by baggins on Mar 10, 2019 14:55:25 GMT
Is this the same Higgs whos legal team couldn't put a contract together with Sainsburys? And I dread to think about the deal Higgs did with UWE. I doubt there are many legal teams who could put a favourable contract together with Sainsburys. Others have tried and failed too, such as Southend IIRC. They got out of their commitment due to small print that any decent Lawyer would have had sewn up. Higgs' lawyer team missed it. Then billed us for it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 10, 2019 14:58:05 GMT
Negotiated terms. There's your clue right there. To match the ALQs expectations and desires should I hasten to add. A poster above was correct. They wanted to add hotels and other revenue streams to the site and even had plans drawn for it. IF that is true is it any wonder it failed? I can't say I would blame the UWE for not wanting a university campus to start turning into a commercial premises akin to an out of town strip mall.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 10, 2019 15:04:55 GMT
I doubt there are many legal teams who could put a favourable contract together with Sainsburys. Others have tried and failed too, such as Southend IIRC. They got out of their commitment due to small print that any decent Lawyer would have had sewn up. Higgs' lawyer team missed it. Then billed us for it. Depends what you mean by 'sewn up' - one can only assume that any alterations we proposed would have been rejected and Sainsburys would have walked away. Do you think Sainsburys would even take on a legal obligation where they felt they could come out worse? We would have saved ourselves a few quid but had to go back to the drawing board. Like I say, Sainsburys seem to have form for this, so Higgs is only as foolish as everyone else. The issue is that Higgs (and others) trusted that Sainsburys were as good as their word when their contracts seem to be designed with the express intention to allow them to easily bail out as and when they feel like it.
|
|
|
Post by baggins on Mar 10, 2019 15:07:41 GMT
They got out of their commitment due to small print that any decent Lawyer would have had sewn up. Higgs' lawyer team missed it. Then billed us for it. Depends what you mean by 'sewn up' - one can only assume that any alterations we proposed would have been rejected and Sainsburys would have walked away. Do you think Sainsburys would even take on a legal obligation where they felt they could come out worse? We would have saved ourselves a few quid but had to go back to the drawing board. Like I say, Sainsburys seem to have form for this, so Higgs is only as foolish as everyone else. The issue is that Higgs (and others) trusted that Sainsburys were as good as their word when their contracts seem to be designed with the express intention to allow them to easily bail out as and when they feel like it. And after 'form' Higgs still trusted them? We can argue the point for hours and neither of us will be any wiser. We've moved on, lets just leave it at that.
|
|
|
Post by Topper Gas on Mar 10, 2019 19:51:15 GMT
Depends what you mean by 'sewn up' - one can only assume that any alterations we proposed would have been rejected and Sainsburys would have walked away. Do you think Sainsburys would even take on a legal obligation where they felt they could come out worse? We would have saved ourselves a few quid but had to go back to the drawing board. Like I say, Sainsburys seem to have form for this, so Higgs is only as foolish as everyone else. The issue is that Higgs (and others) trusted that Sainsburys were as good as their word when their contracts seem to be designed with the express intention to allow them to easily bail out as and when they feel like it. And after 'form' Higgs still trusted them? We can argue the point for hours and neither of us will be any wiser. We've moved on, lets just leave it at that. To be fair to NH they only got "form" after Aldi & Lidl started taking their market share. Although surely contract law is for the club's lawyers to worry about not a layman.
|
|
|
Post by lpgas on Mar 10, 2019 21:21:29 GMT
Where's your proof that's the case given that nobody else on the forum seems to have a clue why talks finally failed? Do you have any evidence that the UWE didn't keep moving the goalposts to make the deal unattractive? I'm inclined to believe the latter. Higgs said it was a 125year lease
|
|
|
Post by lpgas on Mar 10, 2019 21:23:01 GMT
They got out of their commitment due to small print that any decent Lawyer would have had sewn up. Higgs' lawyer team missed it. Then billed us for it. Depends what you mean by 'sewn up' - one can only assume that any alterations we proposed would have been rejected and Sainsburys would have walked away. Do you think Sainsburys would even take on a legal obligation where they felt they could come out worse? We would have saved ourselves a few quid but had to go back to the drawing board. Like I say, Sainsburys seem to have form for this, so Higgs is only as foolish as everyone else. The issue is that Higgs (and others) trusted that Sainsburys were as good as their word when their contracts seem to be designed with the express intention to allow them to easily bail out as and when they feel like it. As do Tesco, they absolutely wrecked Dartford High street
|
|
|
Post by wertongas on Mar 10, 2019 23:03:19 GMT
I'm inclined to believe the latter. It's far more likely the inverse, Higgs and the UWE seemed to have reached an agreement and there was no changing of goalposts there. Then the Al Qadi's get involved and then it all goes tits up. Siwss Gas alluded to them wanting to build hotels and such which obviously wasn't in the original spec. Either way, there was a deal in place when they turned up and now there isn't so the onus is on them in the first instance to explain what happened-- not that they ever will because confidetiality. Tend to agree with this I met the UWE Chancellor in Bristol Cathedral when my daughter graduated, at the time he was very enthusiastic about working with Rovers on the project. Enter AQs who brought in Stadium experts, did a feesability study which appears to have indicated the project was not feasible and so tried to re-negotiate, couldn't get what they wanted and pulled out. . I told supporters in the Dunford lounge the April before the leak that the stadium may not happen and we would be staying at the Mem with improvements to amenities , fans didn't believe me at the time, the rest is history . Problem is AQ want to have a stadium that will make money, until that happens things will stagnate, which is why we have the colony waistland and improve ments at the Mem paid for by corporate advertising.
|
|
|
Post by Midsomer Murderer on Mar 11, 2019 0:16:18 GMT
That's what we need ~ another stadium thread
|
|
|
Post by Henbury Gas on Mar 11, 2019 2:28:43 GMT
To match the ALQs expectations and desires should I hasten to add. A poster above was correct. They wanted to add hotels and other revenue streams to the site and even had plans drawn for it. IF that is true is it any wonder it failed? I can't say I would blame the UWE for not wanting a university campus to start turning into a commercial premises akin to an out of town strip mall. Plenty of room down in the Avonmouth Development Zone to do that........ Just Sayin'
|
|
|
Post by Icegas on Mar 11, 2019 5:20:36 GMT
After UWE falling through I now believe a redeveloped Mem is in fact the best and most deliverable option for us. - Has low planning risk as evidenced by the fact that we have previously achieved planning consent. - Can be done in phases avoiding the need for us to find a temporary home and allows us to expand in stages as the club and it's support grows. - A community stadium would be something the community would support and if done in the right way could provide reasonable non match day revenue to the club. - The location is good (not perfect) but at least it's in the city and surrounded by other facilities and most importantly dense residential properties which can provide the potential for expanding the fan base. Just wish we would stop faffing around and get on with it tbh. City eventually learnt the hard way and whatever we think of them I think we would all jump at the chance to have a stadium of that size, quality and facilities at the Mem. For me the Mem feels like our home so let's just accept that and turn it into something we can be proud of! "A community stadium would be something the community would support.." Are you sure about that? They have never done this before!with Sainburys etc..Always the opposite in fact.They have always hated our club being there dispite that our spirtual home is only a mile down the road.This is Horfield ffs?!! Alot of people around that top end area of glos rd are middle adged and wealthy, or are leftie toffs not born in Bristol... and unless your a student they dont care! I grow up in Horfield, the lockleaze side tho so saw this for years.No way would anyone unless your a gashead would they want to help us with building at the mem there. Our best bet (DREAM scenario 😄😂) would be if a rich business man brought eastville back off Ikea and built us a 30/40k stadium there and re wrote the wrongs of 50 years ago when we sold it to the dog company.. but thats like me growing a 5inch penis when Im living with only 3... (just a dream 😆) The mem is our best bet, and Im sure if the money could be found then a stadium along same size as Ashton gates rebuild could fit into the mems footprint.The roads and parking will always be the problem at the mem tho so I bet we will end up with something like Blackpools got,which wouldnt really be big enough for us to ever push on and grow and tap into the potential our clubs got.
|
|
|
Post by baggins on Mar 11, 2019 5:41:41 GMT
I'm inclined to believe the latter. Higgs said it was a 125year lease I meant I believe the latter point about UWE moving the posts every time, not us.
|
|
|
Post by Henbury Gas on Mar 11, 2019 6:23:33 GMT
The bunch of idiots that run the UWE are a load of dildo's and should be treated as such, Just ask the farmers they stole the land off in the first place
|
|
|
Post by CheshireGas on Mar 11, 2019 10:33:58 GMT
Negotiated terms. There's your clue right there. To match the ALQs expectations and desires should I hasten to add. A poster above was correct. They wanted to add hotels and other revenue streams to the site and even had plans drawn for it. If that is the case and the owners have no attachment to the Gas as many people keep saying, why then hold on to it? There are few true businesses I know that keep failed opportunities to save face. Why not sell unless they are looking to do something else? If what you say is correct they could sell and move on... Not defending the Board's apparent inaction but if there is such a golden opportunity why doesn't the ex-director we keep hearing about do something about it and put together a consortium to buy up the club and progress UWE if they are still so interested and it is such a good deal? Far better than simply going around spreading rumour and conjecture.... If the AQs have no plans then surely they would sell to get their money back. I have seen a number of deals fail or fall away and companies sell up land, buildings, companies to get out of deals or projects often at a loss and move on. So I am sure if the AQs aren't going to do anything then they would welcome getting their money back on a "failed project". Higgs was happy to get his money back... That's what logic and business sense would say, but then what do I know?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 11, 2019 10:38:05 GMT
IF that is true is it any wonder it failed? I can't say I would blame the UWE for not wanting a university campus to start turning into a commercial premises akin to an out of town strip mall. Plenty of room down in the Avonmouth Development Zone to do that........ Just Sayin' Yeah, but spend eight hours down there and you glow in the dark for the next two weeks !
|
|