• Welcome to the ShrimperZone forums.
    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which only gives you limited access.

    Existing Users:.
    Please log-in using your existing username and password. If you have any problems, please see below.

    New Users:
    Join our free community now and gain access to post topics, communicate privately with other members, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and free. Click here to join.

    Fans from other clubs
    We welcome and appreciate supporters from other clubs who wish to engage in sensible discussion. Please feel free to join as above but understand that this is a moderated site and those who cannot play nicely will be quickly removed.

    Assistance Required
    For help with the registration process or accessing your account, please send a note using the Contact us link in the footer, please include your account name. We can then provide you with a new password and verification to get you on the site.

Indeed, and I'd accept it as fact however it is hardly surprising that anyone without access to such priviledge knowledge would have come to a different conclusion (that subsequent failures to complete would have also led to deposits being forfeited) and those who had come to that conclusion in good faith shouldn't have their opinions written off as being "tripe" because they have an opinion which doesn't suit the anti-Ron Martin agenda.

At the end of the day if there's no financial incentive for Sainsburys to complete then Prospects should be free to sell to whoever they like and more importantly to whoever is actually going to give them the money.

Indeed without any inside information people will have doubts, and there is still a chance that what Smiffy heard is incorrect.

Either way whatever the details are Prospects have waited a long time for a sale to go through which is no longer going to happen so the obvious thing to do is to sell to someone else.

Prospects are making a business decision on what they know, and they certainly have the information they need to do so.

Not even sure its anything to do with being Ant-Ron or not, seems like a straightforward decision on Prospects part if Sainsbury have pulled out, whoever you want to lay the blame for it getting to that decision.
 
Don't understand the animosity toward Prospects here - as Smiffy has already explained, they held on for far longer than any reasonable organisation would be expected to in any other property deal, and, at the end of the day, they are a charity haemorrhaging money on a monthly basis.
If you are looking to point the finger (not that this is in any way constructive), then Sainsburys is the guilty party here - they have been tagging the Club along for 6 years on the understanding that this site was a priority development. For once, I don't lay the blame fully at RM's door.
 
Don't understand the animosity toward Prospects here - as Smiffy has already explained, they held on for far longer than any reasonable organisation would be expected to in any other property deal, and, at the end of the day, they are a charity haemorrhaging money on a monthly basis.
If you are looking to point the finger (not that this is in any way constructive), then Sainsburys is the guilty party here - they have been tagging the Club along for 6 years on the understanding that this site was a priority development. For once, I don't lay the blame fully at RM's door.

you don't think Sainsbury's failed to complete the purchase of prospects because they didn't trust and lost patience with ron martin ???
 
you don't think Sainsbury's failed to complete the purchase of prospects because they didn't trust and lost patience with ron martin ???

This is why you have contracts - as long as you have express legal recourse you don't need to like or trust the developer you are buying from.
 
This is why you have contracts - as long as you have express legal recourse you don't need to like or trust the developer you are buying from.

Depends whether you want to get the job done or spend your life battling in the courts for "recourse".
 
The basic fact is that Prospects had to move because of the redevelopment and agreed a sale.

7 years on and that sale no longer exists so they sold to someone else.

Not everyone is in a position to hold on to property as an investment and I dont see why Prospects would take that risk. If they held on to it when Sainsbury have pulled out there is no guarantee whatsoever that a) Roots Hall will ever be developed and b) if it is that Prospects would even be needed as part of it.

They have held on for 7 years I think that's far more than they could or should have.



If Smiffy says thats the case Id believe him due to people he knows...

That's one of the silliest things you have ever come out with. Just because he knows people doesn't mean to say he knows the ins and outs of the contracts and the default payments. That sort of thing you could only get from Ron Martin, Mr Bates or Sainsbury's. I doubt if any of those would be telling Smiffy. It's pretty secret stuff, even the echo can't find out. From anyone else would be hearsay and guesswork.
 
That's one of the silliest things you have ever come out with. Just because he knows people doesn't mean to say he knows the ins and outs of the contracts and the default payments. That sort of thing you could only get from Ron Martin, Mr Bates or Sainsbury's. I doubt if any of those would be telling Smiffy. It's pretty secret stuff, even the echo can't find out. From anyone else would be hearsay and guesswork.

It's only silly if it turns out Smiffy's contact isnt a good one, and I believe it is. Down to you whether to disbelieve him.
 
That's one of the silliest things you have ever come out with. Just because he knows people doesn't mean to say he knows the ins and outs of the contracts and the default payments. That sort of thing you could only get from Ron Martin, Mr Bates or Sainsbury's. I doubt if any of those would be telling Smiffy. It's pretty secret stuff, even the echo can't find out. From anyone else would be hearsay and guesswork.

It's only silly if it turns out Smiffy's contact isnt a good one, and I believe it is. Down to you whether to disbelieve him.

I have to side with Seventies North Bank. Without seeing the evidence in black and white there's no way to know for sure. Smiffy's contact, no matter how 'good', doesn't give any credence to the FACTS of the contract. Who is the contact? Who's agenda does it serve giving the info to Smiffy?

Also, another question, it appears here that everyone is taking it as fact that Sainsburys had/has pulled out of the project. Does anybody KNOW that as a fact? As far as I've seen, it has not been taken off their list of future developments.
 
Hi....I'm here! :hilarious:

Anyway, errrrm the info was given to me by someone shall we say who should know the "ins and outs" of the whole deal. Whether I or anyone else choses to believe the info is up to the individual.

Short of getting a copy of the contracts, not sure what else anyone can do.

Same old story on here isn't it. People demand info, some info is then given. Then people demand to see said info written in blood on a huge banner stuck on the moon, which of course is on a stick.

If I am given bits of info from "sources" who are happy for me to pass on, I will. As I said above, its then for the individual to decide for themselves whether they believe it or not.

That for me is the end of my involvement in this discussion. Its a no win situation.
 
Having been inside Ron's office I noticed a one man tent erected with a piece of a4 glued to the outside stating "smiffy's contact"

Make of that what you will.
 
Smiffy, all due respect but I am an old cynic.

If Neal Bates himself came on here and said the same I'd treat him with the same cynical disbelief as I'd treat Ron Martin coming on here with his stadium news. THere's no such thing as an unbiased story where money is involved. The more inflated the money, the more inflated the story.
 
Hi....I'm here! :hilarious:

Anyway, errrrm the info was given to me by someone shall we say who should know the "ins and outs" of the whole deal. Whether I or anyone else choses to believe the info is up to the individual.

Short of getting a copy of the contracts, not sure what else anyone can do.

Same old story on here isn't it. People demand info, some info is then given. Then people demand to see said info written in blood on a huge banner stuck on the moon, which of course is on a stick.

If I am given bits of info from "sources" who are happy for me to pass on, I will. As I said above, its then for the individual to decide for themselves whether they believe it or not.

That for me is the end of my involvement in this discussion. Its a no win situation.

please continue to post, for every person that chooses to ignore/ disbelief/require proof etc there are others such as myself who would prefer to continue to receive tit bits of information as better than nothing. As you state, we can choose to believe/disbelieve using our our prejudices, intellect and opinions.
 
Back
Top