Sainsbury Situation

mrsblue said:

See my previous reply.

Click to expand...

Still dont see the logic.

The 2nd company you loan it to still have to pay back every penny. If you loan so much that they cant pay it back you are just as screwed as they are. The loan has to be affordable or its pointless.

13 pages and not one mention of that awful advert?!:winking:

londonblue said:

But Roots Hall isn't out of town. It's right in the middle of town. Building Sainsburys on FF would be out of town in the same was Waitrose is.

Click to expand...

It's not only the location but the size of the store. If they concentrate on food they don't need a large store or land the size of Roots Hall.

Ozzer said:

It's not only the location but the size of the store. If they concentrate on food they don't need a large store or land the size of Roots Hall.

Click to expand...

Unfortunately it does make sense, we use Tescos a fair bit as its our local store but I have never gone there looking for TV's or clothing, that business model does seem really dated.

Then again Walmarts in the states is even more broad in their products and I found that shop far more useful. Its the half baked attempt by the likes of Tesco and Sainsbury thats the problem, the "extra" part seems a small add on and not worth the effort.

mrsblue said:

The guy is a property developer so in essence he wants the club bust so he can build on the site new stadium built so he can develop Roots Hall allegedly ?

I think the loans work like this,another company which no doubt this guy is associated with lends a pile of cash which may or may not go into the club,the club are charged interest which is impossible to sustain BUT somebody somewhere takes a large chunk for probably borrowing nothing allegedly ?

If I owned a large house worth a million then remortgaged for 500k with the bank charging 10% per annum and I then lend the 500k to another source but charge them 50% per annum I then make a lot of cash without risk.

Click to expand...

Edited for accuracy.

Look, RM does not want SUFC to go bust. If he did he could have done that very easily about five years ago, then again four years ago, very easily again two years ago and again a year ago. In fact he could have done it any time and could still do it any time.

It is absolutely not in his interests for SUFC to go under because it would take him with it.

What he wants is for FF to be built and he will benefit from the rents the whole development generate for the rest of his life and then his family will continue to do so etc etc.

Further, when you lend money to companies you already won and charge high interest rates all you are doing is paying income tax on your own money. Unless there is other investment from another source, I can't see how it can help unless a loss making company is used to offset the profits of another company owned by the same bigger company. I'm happy to be corrected and educated though by people on here that know far more about accounting than I do.

I'm sorry, neither of your arguments have any commercial sense or logic.

fbm said:

Edited for accuracy.

Look, RM does not want SUFC to go bust. If he did he could have done that very easily about five years ago, then again four years ago, very easily again two years ago and again a year ago. In fact he could have done it any time and could still do it any time.

It is absolutely not in his interests for SUFC to go under because it would take him with it.

What he wants is for FF to be built and he will benefit from the rents the whole development generate for the rest of his life and then his family will continue to do so etc etc.

Further, when you lend money to companies you already won and charge high interest rates all you are doing is paying income tax on your own money. Unless there is other investment from another source, I can't see how it can help unless a loss making company is used to offset the profits of another company owned by the same bigger company. I'm happy to be corrected and educated though by people on here that know far more about accounting than I do.

I'm sorry, neither of your arguments have any commercial sense or logic.

Click to expand...

My post was aimed at the Bury owner not Ron who I consider our saviour:hilarious:

mrsblue said:

My post was aimed at the Bury owner not Ron who I consider our saviour:hilarious:

Click to expand...

Seriously?

Oh well, apologies then.

Apologies if this has already been covered, but can I confirm that its Ron (or one of his companies) that owns the freehold to RH? Was the freehold the FF ever purchased from the council?

Seriously when was the last time Ron Martin did an interview or answered any questions?

The man is a joke and should not be put in charge of a creche let alone a football club.

Tommy2holes said:

Seriously when was the last time Ron Martin did an interview or answered any questions?

The man is a joke and should not be put in charge of a creche let alone a football club.

Click to expand...

Every time he does an interview or answers questions he then gets accused of lying or breaking promises. It's fair enough that he's not telling us anything so that he doesn't get continually criticised.

It's also the case that not publicly revealing stuff is good for SUFC. Confidential and sensitive stuff in the public domain could damage the club, and so we need to put up with that if we want what's best for SUFC.

However - that's not to say that RM is immune from criticism and that the silence isn't really concerning. We all hope for RM to come out with some good news.

TJC said:

Apologies if this has already been covered, but can I confirm that its Ron (or one of his companies) that owns the freehold to RH? Was the freehold the FF ever purchased from the council?

Click to expand...

I think its SEL which own RH.

I don't think the freehold of FF has been purchased, there was a ransom strip many years ago too (owned by White Hill ??*) but I think that has been sorted for a while

* Edit, White hill doesn't sound right but I am struggling to think of the right name.

Edit again

It was sold to southend estates and resolved according to this thread

http://www.shrimperzone.com/vb/archive/index.php/t-40569.html

Pubey said:

Every time he does an interview or answers questions he then gets accused of lying or breaking promises. It's fair enough that he's not telling us anything so that he doesn't get continually criticised.

It's also the case that not publicly revealing stuff is good for SUFC. Confidential and sensitive stuff in the public domain could damage the club, and so we need to put up with that if we want what's best for SUFC.

However - that's not to say that RM is immune from criticism and that the silence isn't really concerning. We all hope for RM to come out with some good news.

Click to expand...

I think its probably a mixture of confidentiality and 'once bitten' - although, there are the odd quotes like on site by ... that slip out and slip by.
We must be near a time when all will be revealed as it can't go on like this much longer. Presumably as soon as Sainsburys confirm their plans we will find out more.

Are Ron's hands tied contractually to Sainsburys or could he be negotiating behind the scenes with other parties? I guess he can talk in private to others on the premise that its likely to fall through - at least I hope he is. If that's the case, I'm not surprised he would be keeping very tight lipped.
If he is tied to Sainsburys, I would assume there is a time limit after which he can opt to look elsewhere for a development partner?

Firestorm said:

I think its SEL which own RH.

I don't think the freehold of FF has been purchased, there was a ransom strip many years ago too (owned by White Hill ??*) but I think that has been sorted for a while

* Edit, White hill doesn't sound right but I am struggling to think of the right name.

Edit again

It was sold to southend estates and resolved according to this thread

http://www.shrimperzone.com/vb/archive/index.php/t-40569.html

Click to expand...

So the money that Sainsburys advanced to the club in order to bail us out of various court cases etc. What is that secured against? Theoretically, could they seize assets from SEL as we can't pay it back or was it all tied to them fulfilling their part of the deal - i.e. if they bail, they forfeit the advances.

TJC said:

I think its probably a mixture of confidentiality and 'once bitten' - although, there are the odd quotes like on site by ... that slip out and slip by.
We must be near a time when all will be revealed as it can't go on like this much longer. Presumably as soon as Sainsburys confirm their plans we will find out more.

Are Ron's hands tied contractually to Sainsburys or could he be negotiating behind the scenes with other parties? I guess he can talk in private to others on the premise that its likely to fall through - at least I hope he is. If that's the case, I'm not surprised he would be keeping very tight lipped.
If he is tied to Sainsburys, I would assume there is a time limit after which he can opt to look elsewhere for a development partner?

Click to expand...

Companies reveal 'sensitive' information as and when it suits them best. Sainsbury's shareholders have had a rough trot in the last year, seeing values drop from a high of 411.70 to a low of 224.80. That is a lot of dough difference. Despite recent, expected, announcements of a change in direction with regard store building, November has seen shares hold fairly steady around the 266 mark. Its lack of current fluctuation may suggest that markets are partly appeased by announcements but are not yet sure, until the devil pops out of the detail, whether it will have a positive or adverse effect on the company's future. Perhaps if anything they consider it to be a better than nothing action.

Possibly when we see greater detail as to where and when new developments will commence or be scrapped, indicating market share in specific regions etc, then we may see whether the markets are in support or not. Sainsbury's for their part will reveal the least possible, for as long as they can, that may have a detrimental effect on its share value. Sainsbury's are in turmoil at the moment and are in no rush to go public on various aspects just because a few Southend United supporters jump up and down.

Personally I think the RH development by Sainsbury's will go ahead. It is more a town supermarket than out of town one. When we say town with regard supermarkets we are rarely saying town centre or High Street, so yes RH is a town build.

Breaking News...........Sainsbury's announce 8 new mini stores planned for Roots Hall !

Serious question ( so serious answers please ).
I have asked this before but can't remember when or the answer. ( that's an age thing I think ).
But if RM were to pass away , what does that do to our situation as a club ?

TJC said:

So the money that Sainsburys advanced to the club in order to bail us out of various court cases etc. What is that secured against? Theoretically, could they seize assets from SEL as we can't pay it back or was it all tied to them fulfilling their part of the deal - i.e. if they bail, they forfeit the advances.

Click to expand...

This conjures up an image of Barry Corr fending off 4 bailiffs trying to seize him, whilst Jack Payne tries to escape between the legs of another.

dannypav said:

Serious question ( so serious answers please ).
I have asked this before but can't remember when or the answer. ( that's an age thing I think ).
But if RM were to pass away , what does that do to our situation as a club ?

Click to expand...

Why ? Are you saving up?

http://www.havocscope.com/black-market-prices/contract-killing/

More seriously, I wouldn't want to be the one sorting out his financial affairs in that situation !!!

Yorkshire Blue said:

This conjures up an image of Barry Corr fending off 4 bailiffs trying to seize him, whilst Jack Payne tries to escape between the legs of another.

Click to expand...

The twist is that Gary Deegan is one of the bailiffs

TJC said:

So the money that Sainsburys advanced to the club in order to bail us out of various court cases etc. What is that secured against? Theoretically, could they seize assets from SEL as we can't pay it back or was it all tied to them fulfilling their part of the deal - i.e. if they bail, they forfeit the advances.

Click to expand...

The Sainsbury money is an advance or deposit on the RH site , it is secured but there is no repayment plan and unless they ask for it back, which they may not be able to do contractually, then there is little or no chance of us defaulting and therefore losing RH.
I am sure this has been covered before....