Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 28, 2014 18:47:45 GMT
Why does it always seem that the WHOLE thing hinges on one particular snag? For the last X years there have been minor snags and each one has felt like the ultimate thing to do us in. I am not bowled over by this writ/contract wrangle as it's just the next thing in a long line and once again everybody is getting into the weeds of it. We will only be fed what they want to feed us. One thing I have always been certain of is that this plan was never set in stone, so I never got as excited as many. The showing off at the teds was cringeworthy to say the least. The pictures in the Supporters bar are an insult to fans, while the silence/smugness from our BoD regarding this stadium fiasco has not resembled the behaviour of a leader whose bread and butter is in the industry of construction and it's associated hurdles. Once again this club seems to have been caught with it's pants around it's ankles without a backup plan. Look over the river for an example of how to get sh!t done. Embarrassed, frustrated and angry. We still seem to have the redevelopment of the Mem as a backup plan, just a pity we don't have Pantsdown's deep pockets to now pay for it! Although having seen Bradford's rise from the bottom of Div 2 while we've been floundering I do wonder why we ever needed Sainsbury's & the UWE in the first place. We still have planning for the Mem? That does surprise me. |
|
|
|
Post by Henbury Gas on Aug 28, 2014 19:08:44 GMT
and all we need to go our way is for us to win the appeal, its as simple as that
|
|
|
|
Post by brovers90 on Aug 28, 2014 19:10:49 GMT
It always seems to be the case that one party in a deal like this is more powerful than the other, I'll leave it to you to decide who's who. I'm sure that this clause was only ever in the contract to give Sainsburys a back door exit if they wanted it, it seems clear that this condition could never be met, if Sainsburys were keen to carry on they would have waived it as they did with the other 2 conditions that haven't been met however it always has given them an out if ever they wanted to take it.
I hope that we can achieve the result we want in the appeal or in our application and the QC who gives us a 60% chance gives me hope but I believe that we were subject to whether Sainsburys wanted this to happen or not and unfortunately they have pulled the rug from under us.
I for one do not blame Higgs for any of this, as above, we were always the little fish and this was only ever going to happen with the 100% backing of all parties from the start through to the conclusion
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 28, 2014 19:11:37 GMT
and all we need to go our way is for us to win the appeal, its as simple as that I wonder if BCC will give the go ahead knowing Sainsbury won't build anyways. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 28, 2014 19:13:24 GMT
and all we need to go our way is for us to win the appeal, its as simple as that I wonder if BCC will give the go ahead knowing Sainsbury won't build anyways. Except BCC won't be the ones making the decision. |
|
|
|
Post by lulworthgas on Aug 28, 2014 19:14:40 GMT
Maybe bcc will actually rule in our favour at the appeal. Yes it may pee off a few residents but they may see that as collateral damage in the grand scheme of things. Clearly the £200 million worth of redevelopment is in S Glos but BCC have so much to gain from this as well especially with the train route taking traffic off their roads.
My only worry is that even if the council overturn their original decision, will sainsbury be open to another JR?
|
|
|
|
Post by lulworthgas on Aug 28, 2014 19:15:59 GMT
I wonder if BCC will give the go ahead knowing Sainsbury won't build anyways. Except BCC won't be the ones making the decision. Who does mate? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 28, 2014 19:17:04 GMT
Except BCC won't be the ones making the decision. Who does mate? Not sure of the correct title but a government planning inspector. |
|
|
|
Post by Henbury Gas on Aug 28, 2014 19:17:53 GMT
Except BCC won't be the ones making the decision. Who does mate? The planning inspectorate - these are planning inspectors taken from other local authorities, like South Glous  |
|
|
|
Post by BishopstonBRFC on Aug 28, 2014 19:20:45 GMT
Why does it always seem that the WHOLE thing hinges on one particular snag? For the last X years there have been minor snags and each one has felt like the ultimate thing to do us in. I am not bowled over by this writ/contract wrangle as it's just the next thing in a long line and once again everybody is getting into the weeds of it. We will only be fed what they want to feed us. One thing I have always been certain of is that this plan was never set in stone, so I never got as excited as many. The showing off at the teds was cringeworthy to say the least. The pictures in the Supporters bar are an insult to fans, while the silence/smugness from our BoD regarding this stadium fiasco has not resembled the behaviour of a leader whose bread and butter is in the industry of construction and it's associated hurdles. Once again this club seems to have been caught with it's pants around it's ankles without a backup plan. Look over the river for an example of how to get sh!t done. Embarrassed, frustrated and angry. We still seem to have the redevelopment of the Mem as a backup plan, just a pity we don't have Pantsdown's deep pockets to now pay for it! Although having seen Bradford's rise from the bottom of Div 2 while we've been floundering I do wonder why we ever needed Sainsbury's & the UWE in the first place. Valley Parade is 10 times the stadium the Mem is, plus they average gates well over 10,000. |
|
|
|
Post by Quartermaster on Aug 28, 2014 19:35:13 GMT
Sainsbury's have obviously played a blinder and slipped a clause into the contract that gives them the perfect escape plan should they so wish. What I don't understand is that there must have been many conversations between NH and our lawyers and during the contract negotiations NH must at some stage have said to our lawyers "now please tell me this is water-tight, they can't get out of this on some technicality..."
Makes you wonder about the lawyers advising us...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 28, 2014 19:41:11 GMT
Sainsbury's have obviously played a blinder and slipped a clause into the contract that gives them the perfect escape plan should they so wish. What I don't understand is that there must have been many conversations between NH and our lawyers and during the contract negotiations NH must at some stage have said to our lawyers "now please tell me this is water-tight, they can't get out of this on some technicality..." Makes you wonder about the lawyers advising us... Unless they warned that there were clauses to be concerned about? |
|
|
|
Post by aghast on Aug 28, 2014 20:32:02 GMT
Not saying I disbelieve you but is this information in the public domain? And if not then may I ask how you know? Its in the public domain. The writ directly refers to clauses in the contract which confirms the point that Manc is making. The local rag seems to sum up the sequence of events pretty well. There was always a show-stopper hidden away, and it was never watertight, it appears. www.bristolpost.co.uk/events-unfolded/story-22818770-detail/story.htmlBut these things are common in big planning applicaions. An applicant submits a plan which is not the ideal solution for them, but judges that it will get them past the planning hurdle and get the thing built. Once approved and built, they then submit a post-planning application for just a teeny amendent to one small clause of the whole deal, which is much easier to manage and get approval for. I imagine they told NH this (at the stage when they actually wanted the thing built), and assured him it would be dealt with whilst we were playing our way to the Championship on the silky UWE turf. But just to cover themselves, in case things went t*ts-up, or they just changed their minds about the whole thing at some unforeseeable later date, they included the store-onerous clauses. Very wise of them. Oops for us. |
|
|
|
Post by Topper Gas on Aug 28, 2014 20:58:47 GMT
and all we need to go our way is for us to win the appeal, its as simple as that I wonder if BCC will give the go ahead knowing Sainsbury won't build anyways. Even if the Inspectorate went along with view what happens if Sainsbury's then decided to go ahead with the store, as at the moment it's only the writ suggesting they don't want to build? |
|
|
|
Post by peterparker on Aug 29, 2014 5:47:33 GMT
Its in the public domain. The writ directly refers to clauses in the contract which confirms the point that Manc is making. The local rag seems to sum up the sequence of events pretty well. There was always a show-stopper hidden away, and it was never watertight, it appears. www.bristolpost.co.uk/events-unfolded/story-22818770-detail/story.htmlBut these things are common in big planning applicaions. An applicant submits a plan which is not the ideal solution for them, but judges that it will get them past the planning hurdle and get the thing built. Once approved and built, they then submit a post-planning application for just a teeny amendent to one small clause of the whole deal, which is much easier to manage and get approval for. I imagine they told NH this (at the stage when they actually wanted the thing built), and assured him it would be dealt with whilst we were playing our way to the Championship on the silky UWE turf. But just to cover themselves, in case things went t*ts-up, or they just changed their minds about the whole thing at some unforeseeable later date, they included the store-onerous clauses. Very wise of them. Oops for us. What i cant accept though is the club telling us everything is fine and proceeding when sainsburys have told us for months they dont want to build and a big condition of the contract hasnt even been met |
|
|
|
Post by Henbury Gas on Aug 29, 2014 6:15:09 GMT
The local rag seems to sum up the sequence of events pretty well. There was always a show-stopper hidden away, and it was never watertight, it appears. www.bristolpost.co.uk/events-unfolded/story-22818770-detail/story.htmlBut these things are common in big planning applicaions. An applicant submits a plan which is not the ideal solution for them, but judges that it will get them past the planning hurdle and get the thing built. Once approved and built, they then submit a post-planning application for just a teeny amendent to one small clause of the whole deal, which is much easier to manage and get approval for. I imagine they told NH this (at the stage when they actually wanted the thing built), and assured him it would be dealt with whilst we were playing our way to the Championship on the silky UWE turf. But just to cover themselves, in case things went t*ts-up, or they just changed their minds about the whole thing at some unforeseeable later date, they included the store-onerous clauses. Very wise of them. Oops for us. What i cant accept though is the club telling us everything is fine and proceeding when sainsburys have told us for months they dont want to build and a big condition of the contract hasnt even been metAt the moment... |
|
|
|
Post by mumbles on Aug 29, 2014 6:54:14 GMT
What i cant accept though is the club telling us everything is fine and proceeding when sainsburys have told us for months they dont want to build and a big condition of the contract hasnt even been metAt the moment... Please Henbury stop it with the insinuation. you are always trying to make out that you know something that we don't. Numerous past examples would suggest you don't. Its clear that these conditions will never be met in a residential setting - that's why JSS put them in there! I think it's time we smelt the coffee and reassessed. It's clear the supermarket is dead in the water. But there are still some positives to work with. We still have the Mem which has planning for both a stadium (lapsed?) and a supermarket. I don't know how much that's worth once JSS are off the scene but its surely enough to pay off the clubs debts and fund a good chunk of the UWE. We also have a supportive council who need a new stadium to fulfil their local development plan objectives. If we can strip the UWE back to its bare bones without effecting its earning potential surely it's still possible to find the additional funding - from the council, UWE, the fans or an outside investor - to get the UWE off the ground? |
|
|
|
Post by Henbury Gas on Aug 29, 2014 6:58:15 GMT
At the moment... Please Henbury stop it with the insinuation. you are always trying to make out that you know something that we don't. Numerous past examples would suggest you don't. Its clear that these conditions will never be met in a residential setting - that's why JSS put them in there! I think it's time we smelt the coffee and reassessed. It's clear the supermarket is dead in the water. But there are still some positives to work with. We still have the Mem which has planning for both a stadium (lapsed?) and a supermarket. I don't know how much that's worth once JSS are off the scene but its surely enough to pay off the clubs debts and fund a good chunk of the UWE. We also have a supportive council who need a new stadium to fulfil their local development plan objectives. If we can strip the UWE back to its bare bones without effecting its earning potential surely it's still possible to find the additional funding - from the council, UWE, the fans or an outside investor - to get the UWE off the ground? No insinuation intended. i know nothing ! But if BRFC win the appeal and there is a very good chance of that after what i was told last night, then do Sainsbury have any legs left to stand on ?? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 29, 2014 7:12:51 GMT
Please Henbury stop it with the insinuation. you are always trying to make out that you know something that we don't. Numerous past examples would suggest you don't. Its clear that these conditions will never be met in a residential setting - that's why JSS put them in there! I think it's time we smelt the coffee and reassessed. It's clear the supermarket is dead in the water. But there are still some positives to work with. We still have the Mem which has planning for both a stadium (lapsed?) and a supermarket. I don't know how much that's worth once JSS are off the scene but its surely enough to pay off the clubs debts and fund a good chunk of the UWE. We also have a supportive council who need a new stadium to fulfil their local development plan objectives. If we can strip the UWE back to its bare bones without effecting its earning potential surely it's still possible to find the additional funding - from the council, UWE, the fans or an outside investor - to get the UWE off the ground? No insinuation intended. i know nothing ! But if BRFC win the appeal and there is a very good chance of that after what i was told last night, then do Sainsbury have any legs left to stand on ?? And there you go again, who told you what last night? Because unless the Planning Inspector told you well in advance of the decision, I suspect its just another opinion of someone not involved in the decision making process. |
|
|
|
Post by peterparker on Aug 29, 2014 7:16:54 GMT
Please Henbury stop it with the insinuation. you are always trying to make out that you know something that we don't. Numerous past examples would suggest you don't. Its clear that these conditions will never be met in a residential setting - that's why JSS put them in there! I think it's time we smelt the coffee and reassessed. It's clear the supermarket is dead in the water. But there are still some positives to work with. We still have the Mem which has planning for both a stadium (lapsed?) and a supermarket. I don't know how much that's worth once JSS are off the scene but its surely enough to pay off the clubs debts and fund a good chunk of the UWE. We also have a supportive council who need a new stadium to fulfil their local development plan objectives. If we can strip the UWE back to its bare bones without effecting its earning potential surely it's still possible to find the additional funding - from the council, UWE, the fans or an outside investor - to get the UWE off the ground? No insinuation intended. i know nothing ! But if BRFC win the appeal and there is a very good chance of that after what i was told last night, then do Sainsbury have any legs left to stand on ?? Id like to know a good chance based on what exactly 5-12 on a Sunday seems excessive and i would hope in the real world unreasonable to everyone. It has already been rejected, so what can reasonably be done to get it through. Errecting massive fences doesnt seem like it. We all know the area. Imagine a massive lorry rattling past Filton Ave at 5 on a Sunday Morning. I dont want it to fail, just dont see how anyone would find that acceptable |
|
