|
|
Post by Topper Gas on Nov 9, 2014 6:35:49 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by cookinongas on Nov 9, 2014 8:22:22 GMT
That looks like the complete opposite to what we want. This is going to be interesting
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 9, 2014 8:24:34 GMT
It isn't watertight if we can spend £3m on progressing it for Sainburies to be able to pull out if they can't get patheticlly anti social delivery hours. All rests on Bristol City Council
|
|
|
|
Post by phillistine on Nov 9, 2014 9:13:25 GMT
The request for a Judicial review by Trash effectively may have cost the city a new stadium with a knock on effect that it so badly needs.
Everyone accepted their democratic rights to do so and yet now we find that their actions have prejudiced the chance of the city having a new stadium it so badly needs, 2 building projects which would have meant work for many people and a possible viability problem for Charlotte Leslies dream of a railway line fron North Bristol to Avonmouth which will bring potential work to an area deprived of fresh employment.
With democracy however comes responsibility and to my mind Trash abused the system. If you carry a legal case forward without any real prospect of success then you will have costs awarded against you . Without this however , Trash had nothing to lose but in so doing have almost certainly deprived thousands of people - enjoyment, work and even a basic ability to travel around our city and make use of the .
|
|
|
|
Post by Gas Go Marching In on Nov 9, 2014 11:46:25 GMT
They've just opened a big store up in Portishead last week.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 9, 2014 12:03:43 GMT
"becoming more in touch with its customers through a re-allocation of resources from a lower cost base with constrained capital outflows and potentially lower dividend flows"
i'm not entirely confident that I understand that fully....
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 9, 2014 12:19:19 GMT
They have already told Higgs and Watola that they have no intention of building a new store at The Mem so there is nothing new here. The future is about how "watertight" the contract is.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 9, 2014 15:50:39 GMT
Yawn doom and gloom yawn...................................
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 9, 2014 16:18:05 GMT
"becoming more in touch with its customers through a re-allocation of resources from a lower cost base with constrained capital outflows and potentially lower dividend flows"
i'm not entirely confident that I understand that fully....  I love how that statement involves getting 'more in touch with their customers' whilst using a load of economic jargon, classic! So basically, Sainsburys are saying we're going to spend less and somehow that will benefit the customer. Not sure I have the business acumen to decipher that fully, but someone correct me if I'm wrong! |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 9, 2014 16:58:59 GMT
"becoming more in touch with its customers through a re-allocation of resources from a lower cost base with constrained capital outflows and potentially lower dividend flows"
i'm not entirely confident that I understand that fully.... I love how that statement involves getting 'more in touch with their customers' whilst using a load of economic jargon, classic! So basically, Sainsburys are saying we're going to spend less and somehow that will benefit the customer. Not sure I have the business acumen to decipher that fully, but someone correct me if I'm wrong! to be fair this didn't come from Sainsbury, it came from mr black a financial expert who was trying to explain to us what Sainsbury were trying to do.... i'll put things into laymans terms for you mr black; what the fook are you talking about.... |
|
|
|
Post by Topper Gas on Nov 9, 2014 17:21:43 GMT
"becoming more in touch with its customers through a re-allocation of resources from a lower cost base with constrained capital outflows and potentially lower dividend flows"
i'm not entirely confident that I understand that fully.... I love how that statement involves getting 'more in touch with their customers' whilst using a load of economic jargon, classic! So basically, Sainsburys are saying we're going to spend less and somehow that will benefit the customer. Not sure I have the business acumen to decipher that fully, but someone correct me if I'm wrong! Basically by spending less on store builds they are going to be able to pass the savings on to customers with bigger discounts. So instead of shopping at a nice new store at the Mem customers will get cheaper food in an older store like Filton. |
|
|
|
Post by oldgas on Nov 9, 2014 17:45:25 GMT
Lets all hope that in a couple of weeks time Sainsburys will be the proud owners of a valuable piece of city real estate to do with what they will, whilst N.Higgs esq. is booking the diggers for the UWE site for the following Monday.
|
|
|
|
Post by alftimebovril on Nov 10, 2014 11:30:35 GMT
They have already told Higgs and Watola that they have no intention of building a new store at The Mem so there is nothing new here. The future is about how "watertight" the contract is. please could you reveal when & where Sainsburys said this exactly |
|
|
|
Post by aghast on Nov 10, 2014 14:31:21 GMT
They have already told Higgs and Watola that they have no intention of building a new store at The Mem so there is nothing new here. The future is about how "watertight" the contract is. please could you reveal when & where Sainsburys said this exactly This contains the full writ issued in July. Specifically on page 9 paragraph 19 and page 10 paragraph 23, Sainsbury's confirm they wish to withdraw from the deal. |
|
