Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 21, 2017 7:47:11 GMT
Crikey! It's taken a year for somebody to put together a comprehensive yet non committal explanation.
Thanks.
|
|
|
Post by Topper Gas on Feb 21, 2017 8:53:17 GMT
I have no inside knowledge but have been involved in complex commercial negotiations so have some inside knowledge on how these things work...... Firstly neither party will put much if anything out into the public domain as it immediately gives away your commercial position as the other party will know where your weaknesses or thoughts are and how to play you. Secondly I've been involved in negotiating a £50m IT contract and a £1.4bn Business deal - both took substantial time to go through ever line of the contract, ensure every aspect was clear, understood, any ambiguity was removed and both parties were agreed. In fact on the £50m deal it took us 2 months to agree the exact wording on terms contained in 4 lines ..... We had a joint negotiating party covering both sides of 12 people - a mixture of lawyers, company officials, experts in particular fields and whilst we didn't work only one day a week, we couldn't commit to full time 5/6 days a week on the deal due to people having over commitments as we all had our day jobs to do too. The £50m deal took over a year to negotiate start to finish and we were sat round the negotiating table 8 plus hrs per day when we were there and that averaged 3 days per week.... So I'm fairly relaxed about what's going on at the moment and I think this is all happening in a pretty standard timescale for the complexity of the deal. All the BS about there being a Mexican standoff is exactly that - you both go to the table with terms and negotiate to a healthy compromise. We know the areas were happy to concede and what our red lines are and so will UWE and from my experience, there is rarely any stand offs or walkouts - in fact all the deals I've been involved with the parties have been really happy with progress, the deals that have been done and the terms. It's always been parties trying to do the best for both sides together without compromising the commercial and financial health for either party. CGH - I appreciate your views but you do appear to like to unnecessarily scaremonger or twist things on a subject where you don't appear to have much knowledge on process (apologies if i am wrong). My view is that obtaining agreement by Aug/Sep 2017 is very achievable and it wouldn't surprise me if we weren't close now. You always get everything agreed in principle by the negotiating party and then there is the approvals process whereby those who have legal authority then physically sign the contract (and normally wet signatures are required). This second bit always takes longer than expected and again my experience has seen this take at least a month - 6 weeks. So so to sum up - if you think about what the board has had on their plate since they took over - the players contracts, Darrell's contract and approach from Leeds, the training ground, the day to day running of the club, the small improvements to the mem, other smaller contracts then the time spent so far isn't unreasonable! At last someone who is actually in the know to how these kind of negotiations actually pan out and what is actually involved and in all fairness went a long way to answer my original question as opposed to the other non-effort. Rome wasn't built in a day and nor will the UWE but I get the vibe that things are definitely progressing behind the scenes and it's a sit tight and wait game. Hardly in the know when the OP suggests we are basically just agreeing the small print with the UWE but Wael still seems to be talking about deciding whether they go down the lease or purchase route? That sounds to me as though we're still at the early stages of trying to agree a suitable deal.
|
|
|
Post by Henbury Gas on Feb 21, 2017 9:53:31 GMT
At last someone who is actually in the know to how these kind of negotiations actually pan out and what is actually involved and in all fairness went a long way to answer my original question as opposed to the other non-effort. Rome wasn't built in a day and nor will the UWE but I get the vibe that things are definitely progressing behind the scenes and it's a sit tight and wait game. Hardly in the know when the OP suggests we are basically just agreeing the small print with the UWE but Wael still seems to be talking about deciding whether they go down the lease or purchase route? That sounds to me as though we're still at the early stages of trying to agree a suitable deal. How far down the line do we go before we start to discuss changes to the stadium with South Glos ?
|
|
|
Post by stuart1974 on Feb 21, 2017 10:12:21 GMT
Not necessarily Topper, the 'small print' are the fine details and by definition will be the difficult and time consuming part. You wouldn't agree and then work it out, you would see what the offer was and then agree. I took Weal's comments as a way of not answering a direct question which I suspect he felt would not be helpful to the negotiations were he to do so.
|
|
|
Post by stuart1974 on Feb 21, 2017 10:21:00 GMT
Hardly in the know when the OP suggests we are basically just agreeing the small print with the UWE but Wael still seems to be talking about deciding whether they go down the lease or purchase route? That sounds to me as though we're still at the early stages of trying to agree a suitable deal. How far down the line do we go before we start to discuss changes to the stadium with South Glos ? I did wonder myself, and also for the training ground (as I was surprised they didn't have outline plans already to go and are only now looking at other training facilities - hopefully that won't take too long). I guess it depends on whether (a) are there any changes (b) will the changes be needing permission before construction (c) will the changes need permission at all (d) do revised plans require a full permission or sign off by the case officer or (e) can the initial build be started while new permission is sought with the back up of building to the original plan if not granted. Maybe your council contact could shed some light on what would be permissible without a full resubmission. A sliding roof perhaps ;-)
|
|
|
Post by Topper Gas on Feb 21, 2017 11:28:10 GMT
Not necessarily Topper, the 'small print' are the fine details and by definition will be the difficult and time consuming part. You wouldn't agree and then work it out, you would see what the offer was and then agree. I took Weal's comments as a way of not answering a direct question which I suspect he felt would not be helpful to the negotiations were he to do so. I took it Wael was just giving an honest answer, like he usually seems to do when asked questions by GT!
|
|
|
Post by Henbury Gas on Feb 21, 2017 11:47:01 GMT
How far down the line do we go before we start to discuss changes to the stadium with South Glos ? I did wonder myself, and also for the training ground (as I was surprised they didn't have outline plans already to go and are only now looking at other training facilities - hopefully that won't take too long). I guess it depends on whether (a) are there any changes (b) will the changes be needing permission before construction (c) will the changes need permission at all (d) do revised plans require a full permission or sign off by the case officer or (e) can the initial build be started while new permission is sought with the back up of building to the original plan if not granted. Maybe your council contact could shed some light on what would be permissible without a full resubmission. A sliding roof perhaps ;-) Its my understanding that Rovers still going with the same basic design but with a few changes to bring it in line with the latest planning requirements re stadium design I was thinking more along the lines of the extra land they are trying to procure from the UWE... What are the family planning to do with that and have they had any discussions with South Glos planning about that..........
|
|
|
Post by stuart1974 on Feb 21, 2017 11:57:14 GMT
I did wonder myself, and also for the training ground (as I was surprised they didn't have outline plans already to go and are only now looking at other training facilities - hopefully that won't take too long). I guess it depends on whether (a) are there any changes (b) will the changes be needing permission before construction (c) will the changes need permission at all (d) do revised plans require a full permission or sign off by the case officer or (e) can the initial build be started while new permission is sought with the back up of building to the original plan if not granted. Maybe your council contact could shed some light on what would be permissible without a full resubmission. A sliding roof perhaps ;-) Its my understanding that Rovers still going with the same basic design but with a few changes to bring it in line with the latest planning requirements re stadium design I was thinking more along the lines of the extra land they are trying to procure from the UWE... What are the family planning to do with that and have they had any discussions with South Glos planning about that.......... That was my understanding too, I just misinterpreted your post to suggest changes to the stadium. In answer to that perhaps they Have held some informal discussions. Are they actually looking to buy the extra land or is that just a rumour which has gained traction?
|
|
|
Post by baggins on Feb 21, 2017 12:12:36 GMT
Its my understanding that Rovers still going with the same basic design but with a few changes to bring it in line with the latest planning requirements re stadium design I was thinking more along the lines of the extra land they are trying to procure from the UWE... What are the family planning to do with that and have they had any discussions with South Glos planning about that.......... That was my understanding too, I just misinterpreted your post to suggest changes to the stadium. In answer to that perhaps they Have held some informal discussions. Are they actually looking to buy the extra land or is that just a rumour which has gained traction? I don't think anybody really knows do they? Well, apart from the Board and I can't see them letting info slip can you?
|
|