Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 10, 2014 17:48:53 GMT
Its so funny that half the fans half taken this to mean uwe will happen and half that it wont. In truth we remain ignorant.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 10, 2014 17:59:41 GMT
Its so funny that half the fans half taken this to mean uwe will happen and half that it wont. In truth we remain ignorant. Personally I blame a lack of blood flow to the testicles
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 10, 2014 18:28:00 GMT
From KITR, a OTIB poster, who always has genuine info re. the planning issues:- I'm sure it's been mentioned previously but Sainsburys 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 amounts with BCC. This would have to go back through planning committee for the Councillors to agree to. Further delays likely but not sure it's necessarily an indication of cold feet on Sainsburys part - they are just trying to get themselves the best deal possible and are probably praying on the desperation of all involved to make the new store/stadium happen. Watch out tillys or the trash reincarnation tossers will be on the case.twat ITR is just another gloating ted who would laugh themselves stupid if the UWE goes tits up,info gleaned on the tearound probably.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 10, 2014 19:11:24 GMT
From KITR, a OTIB poster, who always has genuine info re. the planning issues:- I'm sure it's been mentioned previously but Sainsburys 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 amounts with BCC. This would have to go back through planning committee for the Councillors to agree to. Further delays likely but not sure it's necessarily an indication of cold feet on Sainsburys part - they are just trying to get themselves the best deal possible and are probably praying on the desperation of all involved to make the new store/stadium happen. Watch out tillys or the trash reincarnation tossers will be on the case.twat ITR is just another gloating ted who would laugh themselves stupid if the UWE goes tits up,info gleaned on the tearound probably. Such an informative line of drivel
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 10, 2014 19:22:50 GMT
Watch out tillys or the trash reincarnation tossers will be on the case.twat ITR is just another gloating ted who would laugh themselves stupid if the UWE goes tits up,info gleaned on the tearound probably. Such an informative line of drivel I bow to your superior intellect oh wise one.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 10, 2014 19:27:08 GMT
Such an informative line of drivel I bow to your superior intellect oh wise one. Accepted. Rise and go forth, to multiply.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 10, 2014 21:12:41 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. Where did Sainsbury's state anything to this effect? It appears now that they have doubts ?No evidence to support this, only conjecture on your part and that is why negotiations are so sensitive. Any reduction in the price offered again more guesswork obviously affects the new stadium viability which, to answer Henburys query on this thread, is why I suspect at least you've qualified your guesswork this time 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 why am I not surprised? , the legals may well be around whether the original offer was binding or not guess guess guess. As it stands my view this whole project hangs in the balance. Until a conclusion is reached that is pretty obvious. My responses above in blue. It's difficult to know how best to respond to your posts as even if there's no bad news you delight in creating some. I did find this though…. everydaylife.globalpost.com/respond-negative-elderly-person-13861.html
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 11, 2014 0:32:44 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. Where did Sainsbury's state anything to this effect? It appears now that they have doubts ?No evidence to support this, only conjecture on your part and that is why negotiations are so sensitive. Any reduction in the price offered again more guesswork obviously affects the new stadium viability which, to answer Henburys query on this thread, is why I suspect at least you've qualified your guesswork this time 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 why am I not surprised? , the legals may well be around whether the original offer was binding or not guess guess guess. As it stands my view this whole project hangs in the balance. Until a conclusion is reached that is pretty obvious. My responses above in blue. It's difficult to know how best to respond to your posts as even if there's no bad news you delight in creating some. I did find this though…. everydaylife.globalpost.com/respond-negative-elderly-person-13861.htmlIn May Mr Higgs told us that relegation would not affect the stadium project and it would proceed as planned, albeit allowing for the delays caused by the challenges to the planning approval. A little later he qualified this and said he hoped the project would commence later this year. Now Justin King tells us that in fact there are still legal issues to be resolved and the commerciality of the whole project is not yet agreed on his side. A couple of things we can take from this 1. Mr Higgs was blissfully unaware that there were still legal issues still outstanding when he made that statement, immediately after relegation, or... 2. Despite the celebrations and the announcements, the deal with Sainsburys was not legally binding and therefore the £29m price tag was not set in stone. What else sir would you conclude from Justin Kings statement?
|
|
|
Post by BishopstonBRFC on Jul 11, 2014 6:09:56 GMT
In May Mr Higgs told us that relegation would not affect the stadium project and it would proceed as planned, albeit allowing for the delays caused by the challenges to the planning approval. A little later he qualified this and said he hoped the project would commence later this year. Now Justin King tells us that in fact there are still legal issues to be resolved and the commerciality of the whole project is not yet agreed on his side. A couple of things we can take from this 1. Mr Higgs was blissfully unaware that there were still legal issues still outstanding when he made that statement, immediately after relegation, or... 2. Despite the celebrations and the announcements, the deal with Sainsburys was not legally binding and therefore the £29m price tag was not set in stone. What else sir would you conclude from Justin Kings statement? That he's keeping his cards close to his chest? When do you ever hear from companies with as many builds as Sainsburys talk about one specific site?
|
|
|
Post by Henbury Gas on Jul 11, 2014 6:55:55 GMT
In May Mr Higgs told us that relegation would not affect the stadium project and it would proceed as planned, albeit allowing for the delays caused by the challenges to the planning approval. A little later he qualified this and said he hoped the project would commence later this year. Now Justin King tells us that in fact there are still legal issues to be resolved and the commerciality of the whole project is not yet agreed on his side. A couple of things we can take from this 1. Mr Higgs was blissfully unaware that there were still legal issues still outstanding when he made that statement, immediately after relegation, or... 2. Despite the celebrations and the announcements, the deal with Sainsburys was not legally binding and therefore the £29m price tag was not set in stone. What else sir would you conclude from Justin Kings statement? hindsight is a wonderful thing on forums...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 11, 2014 7:20:33 GMT
In May Mr Higgs told us that relegation would not affect the stadium project and it would proceed as planned, albeit allowing for the delays caused by the challenges to the planning approval. A little later he qualified this and said he hoped the project would commence later this year. Now Justin King tells us that in fact there are still legal issues to be resolved and the commerciality of the whole project is not yet agreed on his side. A couple of things we can take from this 1. Mr Higgs was blissfully unaware that there were still legal issues still outstanding when he made that statement, immediately after relegation, or... 2. Despite the celebrations and the announcements, the deal with Sainsburys was not legally binding and therefore the £29m price tag was not set in stone. What else sir would you conclude from Justin Kings statement? hindsight is a wonderful thing on forums... Truth and openess in public announcements to your stakeholders is even more wonderful. BRFC could pick up a few tips from Justin King who, in sharp contrast, had no difficulty in making a statement.
|
|
|
Post by gasincider on Jul 11, 2014 9:11:40 GMT
It's basically a holding statement. Nothing more, nothing less. He places no bigger emphasis on commercial than he does on legal.
In fact there were o/s legal issues at Rovers end, which are now almost complete. With regard to commerciality, they know that in current circumstances they are paying top dollar for the site. But they also know its a premium site.
Oldie. You know no more now than you did before his statement. So basically he might as well have said nothing. Now perhaps you can see why NH has said nowt. He knows people like you will scour every word for every possible meaning and then give the most negative slant you can.
Why would he want to feed bullets for you to fire back at him. It's still going ahead. Chill out
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 11, 2014 14:45:46 GMT
It's basically a holding statement. Nothing more, nothing less. He places no bigger emphasis on commercial than he does on legal. In fact there were o/s legal issues at Rovers end, which are now almost complete. With regard to commerciality, they know that in current circumstances they are paying top dollar for the site. But they also know its a premium site. Oldie. You know no more now than you did before his statement. So basically he might as well have said nothing. Now perhaps you can see why NH has said nowt. He knows people like you will scour every word for every possible meaning and then give the most negative slant you can. Why would he want to feed bullets for you to fire back at him. It's still going ahead. Chill out Perfectly summarised, a very good post gic.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 11, 2014 17:30:20 GMT
It's basically a holding statement. Nothing more, nothing less. He places no bigger emphasis on commercial than he does on legal. In fact there were o/s legal issues at Rovers end, which are now almost complete. With regard to commerciality, they know that in current circumstances they are paying top dollar for the site. But they also know its a premium site. Oldie. You know no more now than you did before his statement. So basically he might as well have said nothing. Now perhaps you can see why NH has said nowt. He knows people like you will scour every word for every possible meaning and then give the most negative slant you can. Why would he want to feed bullets for you to fire back at him. It's still going ahead. Chill out Perfectly summarised, a very good post gic. But wrong I now know, contrary to the public statements by the board, that the control of the start date is not in their hands as Sainsburys have clearly stated 1. That there are legal issues still to be resolved - our BoD never stated that in May 2. The commerciality of the Sainsburys store at the Mem is not agreed and is subject to review. That would not matter if the contract between 1883ltd and Sainsburys was binding which, although not specifically stated, we were as stakeholders led to believe was the case, a done deal. Clearly not.
So, contrary to the output from the board, they actually have no control as to when this project will actually start, if at all, because Sainsburys hold all the cards.
We did not know that, did we? The answer just to help, is NO
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 11, 2014 18:30:49 GMT
I'm inclined to agree with Oldie.
If we could go ahead with the UWE there is no question in my mind that we would have done by now.
There is no way the BOD are holding this up now. You'd have to wonder how we got this far without a non binding contract. Id be surprised if we are not covered.
My hope is that Sainsburies are tied and this delay is just them wiggling for a better deal because they know we are desperate.
|
|
|
Post by newmarketgas on Jul 11, 2014 18:56:47 GMT
Only a couple of questions, all that Oldie says is a fact ? and all that others say, is guess work ?
|
|
|
Post by stevek192 on Jul 11, 2014 19:50:48 GMT
I have come to the conclusion that NO ONE on here has a clue what is going on and everything is guesswork. We all just have to wait until a concrete Yes or No comes from the people who actually matter.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 11, 2014 19:54:03 GMT
Only a couple of questions, all that Oldie says is a fact ? and all that others say, is guess work ? With respect Newmarket, it matters little what I say, but what does matter is the evidence out there. The fact remains that over the last couple of years since the proposed new stadium development was announced we have been told a number of things, and those that have announced these statements have basked in the glory, whilst at the same time taking the club out of the league. Now it is emerging that in fact those same people were not in control of events as they led us to believe. Justin King has really just confirmed that. My own speculation, and this is exactly what it is, the best we can hope for is a reduced offer for the Mem. Where that leaves the specification for the new stadium and claims that the club will be debt free is really quite obvious, if correct. Only 8 short weeks ago we were told that relegation would not affect the development and that other than the tedious challenges to the planning approval and resultant delays, the project was good to go. Clearly not. I ask you to think of one other potential issue. The BoD have a fiduciary responsibility to all shareholders not just the majority. Think about it.
|
|
|
Post by stevek192 on Jul 11, 2014 22:00:48 GMT
Oldie, The fact is that Sainsburys have always held the upper hand as without their money the UWE could not go ahead. There is nothing whatsoever to suggest that Sainsburys are negotiating a reduced price or pulling out. This is pure guess work due to the Silence. I do not understand why people keep speculating and just can't wait until the final decision comes out. If it doesn't go ahead there will be plenty of time to get angry and throw insults at the Board!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 11, 2014 22:27:09 GMT
Perfectly summarised, a very good post gic. But wrong (It doesn't support your viewpoint - that does not make it wrong). I now know, contrary to the public statements by the board, that the control of the start date is not in their hands as Sainsburys have clearly stated (I'm surprised it took you so long to catch on to this. Most people with any business experience or indeed a healthy dollop of common sense would understand that in any deal where a number of parties are involved then no one party is likely to have full control of events) 1. That there are legal issues still to be resolved - our BoD never stated that in May (There is a process to be followed and our BOD are no better at telling the future and foreseeing problems that may occur in advance than anyone else, obviously you think they should be!) 2. The commerciality of the Sainsburys store at the Mem is not agreed and is subject to review. (Good business people continually monitor commercial viability especially in an changing market - to be expected in the real world) That would not matter if the contract between 1883ltd and Sainsburys was binding which, although not specifically stated, we were as stakeholders led to believe (as you correctly observe this was not specifically stated so why would you believe otherwise?) was the case, a done deal. Clearly not. (Clear in your mind only!)
So, contrary to the output from the board, they actually have no control as to when this project will actually start, if at all, because Sainsburys hold all the cards. (They don't hold all the cards but they do hold some as do Rovers and UWE)
We did not know that, did we? (Future guarantees, hindsight etc.) The answer just to help, is NO (condescending and wrong as you would say!)
|
|