Lidl buy Prospects site

[united we stand]

Well I am not blaming Bates over the saga of Sainsburys reneging on the purchase but the ridiculous business of him wanting to take legal action over a petty comment is lamentable. It makes Bates appear quite pathetic. Furthermore, he states the sale was for 1.2 million less than had been agreed with Sainsburys and then goes on to suggest he does all he can in the best interests of the charity. I wonder if they would have got more, with the original offer in mind, had he waited for a further offer or a CPO? Sad and questionable decisions.

I would expect that there is a lot more to it than this. ie. Prospects received x hundreds of thousands in down payments from Sainsburys (can't recall figures but it was hundreds of thousands) so its not really 1.2 million less in terms of money received. On top of this maybe he felt that on the basis that Sainsburys had already not completed x times that they would try and renegotiate to take into account the amount they had already paid. He theoretically could have held out for the CPO , but maybe sainsburys were already paying more than market value so the CPO would have been a lower figure. In other words the college was never going to get a further £1.2 million. None of us have the details so all we can do is speculate

 

[onceknownasrab]

I would expect that there is a lot more to it than this. ie. Prospects received x hundreds of thousands in down payments from Sainsburys (can't recall figures but it was hundreds of thousands) so its not really 1.2 million less in terms of money received. On top of this maybe he felt that on the basis that Sainsburys had already not completed x times that they would try and renegotiate to take into account the amount they had already paid. He theoretically could have held out for the CPO , but maybe sainsburys were already paying more than market value so the CPO would have been a lower figure. In other words the college was never going to get a further £1.2 million. None of us have the details so all we can do is speculate

Prospects have played hardball all along. They would not have cared an iota how much they have received for the site to date and not dropped the asking price to compensate for it. why should they? Its value was its value.

The money they got from Sainsburys meant the site was not 'eating or drinking' anything in real terms and so cost them nothing to retain the site longer.

bates, like many, may have decided sainsburys were no longer in the running but if I had been in his position I would of held on a little longer to find out what might replace that plan as it may be more in the charity's interest.

A reduced payment from a new party that ruins the plans at RH does not sound like good business or considered business but it does lend understanding as to why Longley made his statement.

 

[united we stand]

Prospects have played hardball all along. They would not have cared an iota how much they have received for the site to date and not dropped the asking price to compensate for it. why should they? Its value was its value.

The money they got from Sainsburys meant the site was not 'eating or drinking' anything in real terms and so cost them nothing to retain the site longer.

bates, like many, may have decided sainsburys were no longer in the running but if I had been in his position I would of held on a little longer to find out what might replace that plan as it may be more in the charity's interest.

A reduced payment from a new party that ruins the plans at RH does not sound like good business or considered business but it does lend understanding as to why Longley made his statement.

You state that they would not have taken into account down payments received, and would not have dropped the asking price yet they ahve actually sold for a reduced asking price . Inst that a total contradiction ?

yes they could have held on ------ and in a year they may still have received £ zero with no buyers on the horizon. At which point Mr Bates would have had to explain why he didn't take Lidells money when he had the opportunity .

As I said earlier none of us have the details, we can only guess . Common sense says you don't write something down from £2 million to £800,000 without good reason.

 

[Jam_Man]

Think after 7 years its understandable to get rid of it and I cant imagine he sees there being much likelihood of him getting a sale in the next 5 years or so, if at all.

 

[ooh-andy-ansah]

When the Echo contacted Mr Longley, he was in Poland looking for cheap labour to help erect a dome thingy for a mate of his :smile:

 

[onceknownasrab]

Well United we Stand and JamMan you may both be right. I personally have my suspicions but of course thats all it can be. They may have had to hold onto it for seven years but I seriously expect the value of the land to have inflated in that time and its value is higher depending on the size of the project. He has taken a smaller amount from a smaller operator and put paid to to almost anything but housing at RH. Or the site will be repurchased at a higher price, the one Bates could of got, in order to facilitate the bigger project.

Sitting on land is little different for Lidl or Prospects with the view to a bigger payday later on.

 

[Beefy]

I would expect that there is a lot more to it than this. ie. Prospects received x hundreds of thousands in down payments from Sainsburys (can't recall figures but it was hundreds of thousands) so its not really 1.2 million less in terms of money received.

I'm sure that it was £500,000 that was written off the first time Sainsburys failed to complete. I'd always assumed that each subsequent deposit was for the same amount, although obviously it could well not have been.

Either way it is no wonder that Mr Bates was so annoyed that Sainsburys didn't want to renew this year. It was quite the Golden Goose for Prospects.

 

[THE SEVENTIES NORTH BANK]

If Mr Bates wants to rant on about the councillor, and also mention figures, perhaps he should not just mention money lost as in the echo, but money gained as well. Each default by Sainsbury's may have been a massive windfall for Prospects. Let him tell us how much Prospects received in total for defaults. It's only now that Sainsbury's started pulling out of projects like the Southend one that he decided to sell elsewhere. I think they did very well out of Sainsbury's defaulting, thank you very much, all of which was not included in that echo report.

 

[Mick]

Once again people are pontificating on the rights and wrongs of what's happened without recourse to the full facts. Newspaper half quotes and second hand pub conversations are repeated as if gospel.

Equally Councillor Longley (who I would put only just above that cretin from Basildon in a list of people I would like to represent me) was way out of order with his comments. Assuming at least the basics are true, why on earth should the manager of a charity be expected to wait after being let down so many times?

Maybe he has got lucky from Sainsbury's failure to complete, maybe not. Maybe Ron has similarly got lucky?

We just don't know ... and as for half-informed posters suggesting how the charity manager should operate his multi-million pound portfolio, show us your successes in this field and I'll be more convinced of your arguments.

 

[Jam_Man]

Well United we Stand and JamMan you may both be right. I personally have my suspicions but of course thats all it can be. They may have had to hold onto it for seven years but I seriously expect the value of the land to have inflated in that time and its value is higher depending on the size of the project. He has taken a smaller amount from a smaller operator and put paid to to almost anything but housing at RH. Or the site will be repurchased at a higher price, the one Bates could of got, in order to facilitate the bigger project.

Sitting on land is little different for Lidl or Prospects with the view to a bigger payday later on.

They are big corporations, he runs a charity.

He may well need the money more than they do.

 

[Beefy]

We just don't know ... and as for half-informed posters suggesting how the charity manager should operate his multi-million pound portfolio, show us your successes in this field and I'll be more convinced of your arguments.

LOL. If the same sentiment is extended to Ron Martin or Phil Brown then we're not going to have much to talk about on here.

 

[THE SEVENTIES NORTH BANK]

Once again people are pontificating on the rights and wrongs of what's happened without recourse to the full facts. Newspaper half quotes and second hand pub conversations are repeated as if gospel.

Equally Councillor Longley (who I would put only just above that cretin from Basildon in a list of people I would like to represent me) was way out of order with his comments. Assuming at least the basics are true, why on earth should the manager of a charity be expected to wait after being let down so many times?

Maybe he has got lucky from Sainsbury's failure to complete, maybe not. Maybe Ron has similarly got lucky?

We just don't know ... and as for half-informed posters suggesting how the charity manager should operate his multi-million pound portfolio, show us your successes in this field and I'll be more convinced of your arguments.

We certainly don't know the facts, but instead of Mr Bates coming out and saying how hard done by prospects was, he only mentioned the negative stuff. Mr Bates has played monopoly with the big boys and won in my view. Perhaps we have done well out of it as well regarding defaults. I just don't like it when they come out in a newspaper saying how hard done by they are, and why they sold to someone else, but forget to mention any large default chunks of money they receive.

 

[Jam_Man]

We certainly don't know the facts, but instead of Mr Bates coming out and saying how hard done by prospects was, he only mentioned the negative stuff. Mr Bates has played monopoly with the big boys and won in my view. Perhaps we have done well out of it as well regarding defaults. I just don't like it when they come out in a newspaper saying how hard done by they are, and why they sold to someone else, but forget to mention any large default chunks of money they receive.

To be fair he didn't come out and say anything until the Councilor slagged him off in public.

Neil from Prospects has complained about lack of progress in the past, and rightly so, he has been messed around for years.

 

[onceknownasrab]

To be fair he didn't come out and say anything until the Councilor slagged him off in public.

Neil from Prospects has complained about lack of progress in the past, and rightly so, he has been messed around for years.

Actually the councilor made a small remark that expressed how events could be perceived by some. Bates and his response with regard speaking to his legal bods with a mind to sue are an embarrassment to himself and I suspect the charity. Very OTT gesture.

 

[Jam_Man]

Actually the councilor made a small remark that expressed how events could be perceived by some. Bates and his response with regard speaking to his legal bods with a mind to sue are an embarrassment to himself and I suspect the charity. Very OTT gesture.

Its hardly a small remark. Insinuating he could kill Southend United, which bearing in mind Prospects have been screwed for 7 years and have wanted to sell all along, is rather harsh.

I dont see the councilor slagging off the pizza man who hasnt even agreed to sell....

 

[EastStandBlue]

To be fair he didn't come out and say anything until the Councilor slagged him off in public.

He might've not come out and said anything until the Echo rang him up to do a follow-up...

 

[onceknownasrab]

Its hardly a small remark. Insinuating he could kill Southend United, which bearing in mind Prospects have been screwed for 7 years and have wanted to sell all along, is rather harsh.

I dont see the councilor slagging off the pizza man who hasnt even agreed to sell....

Well if thats how you see it RM should be in line for a windfall of millions for far worse things leveled at him. Its a mountain out of a molehill and Bates needs to get a thicker skin because if he persists with the action he is going to become unpopular.

 

[Smiffy]

The price Prospects agreed with Sainsbury in the last agreement which expired in Jan 14 was £1.2m LESS than the price they agreed with them and RHL in 2008. The price Prospects agreed with the current purchasers is better than the last price agreed with Sainsbury.

Over the 7 years Sainsbury have only ever lost one deposit. This deposit did not cover the holding costs of the building over the last 4 years. Every month it is unsold, costs the charity thousands of pounds.

 

[Southend Pier]

Well if thats how you see it RM should be in line for a windfall of millions for far worse things leveled at him. Its a mountain out of a molehill and Bates needs to get a thicker skin because if he persists with the action he is going to become unpopular.

Not if the club is going under ?????????? Why would Neil wish to take the blame for that. Dome?? Don't hold your breath. Ron playing " i'm the good guy in all this row" card. Likely also to be a good news story to get fans to part with their hard earned cash to renew season tickets. believe this dome if you see it being built. like with stadium . Brown still not signed his deal and encouraging bids for dan in jan despite wanting to keep him. Everything rosy now then ? war chest found?? peculiar ways of showing it I must say

 

[Southend Pier]

Actually the councilor made a small remark that expressed how events could be perceived by some. Bates and his response with regard speaking to his legal bods with a mind to sue are an embarrassment to himself and I suspect the charity. Very OTT gesture.

if you were in neil's position or In that position yourself , would you still think the same if that comment was aimed at your head ??