• 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.

Lidl buy Prospects site

Forums New posts
ooh-andy-ansah said:
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:
Click to expand...

probably in our twin town Sopot or whatever it's called - having a jolly up ----- on council business of course :smile:
 
Mr Bates has, throughout this whole process in my opinion, tried to make himself appear far more important than he (or Prospects) actually was, or, indeed, is.
 
Oh, I dunno ! I think waiting 7 years for Uncle R and Sainsburys to complete the deal was plenty long enough
 
Smiffy said:
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.
Click to expand...


Now that makes a lot more sense .

cheers Smithy
 
OldBlueLady said:
Mr Bates has, throughout this whole process in my opinion, tried to make himself appear far more important than he (or Prospects) actually was, or, indeed, is.
Click to expand...

Or to paraphrase - he is doing his job properly. You go into negotiations looking as strong as possible- basic business. But more importantly can you explain how Prospects is less important to the project than Mr Bates has ever said it was? can we proceed with the current plans without Prospects ? We all know the answer to that , its not even an opinion
 
Any blame levelled at Bates is ridiculous. The only persons who should be held accountable for this are Ron Martin and Sainsbury's. Though there is no need for legal action, that's just a childish threat.
 
How many years ago was it when there was a picture of a stadium with a slogan "we are on our way" or words to the effect?Vic was chairman and I was a teenager..
 
OldBlueLady said:
Mr Bates has, throughout this whole process in my opinion, tried to make himself appear far more important than he (or Prospects) actually was, or, indeed, is.
Click to expand...

I find it hard to understand the antipathy towards Mr Bates and Prospects. It is quite clear he and his charity have been victims of the Ron/Sainsburys lack of progress, even indolence.

Why anyone thinks he should continue to hemorrhage (charitable) funds keeping the building unsold on the slightest off chance that Sainsbury's finally complete at the eighth time of asking is completely beyond me.
 
Smiffy said:
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.
Click to expand...

Interesting but still not the entire story for sure. Alas stats are not facts and facts are genuinely one sided. They sold Prospects for 1.2 m less than the offer received from Sainsburys in 2008. Why? 2014 prices have recovered considerably since the collapsed markets of 2008. So either there is an unnecessary and surprising drop in the price or they were expecting Sainsburys to pay over the top just because it was part of a bigger plan. Acceptable business against Sainsburys yes but why so cheap now?

You say the place cost Prospects thousands every month that it was empty. Thats usual but you neglect to say how many thousands. £500,000, the deposit they gained, equates to nearly £7,000 a month for the period in question. Was it more than that? How much more? If it were more the amount should be offset by the amount of increase the land made since 2008 but oddly not asked for.
 
OldBlueLady said:
Mr Bates has, throughout this whole process in my opinion, tried to make himself appear far more important than he (or Prospects) actually was, or, indeed, is.
Click to expand...

kay,i realise obviously SUFC means a lot to people, not least yourself and your good other half. lots of emotion is involved I understand that but Neil is not to blame in this .he is being used as a pawn in the scheming strategy belonging to 1 person. sainsburys couldn't trust that person. why they didn't go ahead with purchasing prospects. in addition to my first post in this thread, if the club collapses, that 1 person is to blame. Ron Martin. don't totally buy into his good news stories either as hopes that were raised are likely to be dashed
 
onceknownasrab said:
So either there is an unnecessary and surprising drop in the price or they were expecting Sainsburys to pay over the top just because it was part of a bigger plan.
Click to expand...

You really don't like him/them do you ?

What they were expecting Sainsbury's to pay was the price they agreed with Sainsbury's not once, not twice but six times.
 
Mick said:
You really don't like him/them do you ?

What they were expecting Sainsbury's to pay was the price they agreed with Sainsbury's not once, not twice but six times.
Click to expand...


I think that was the original line to the Commodores big hit of the 70's until Lionel had a rethink.
 
Mick said:
You really don't like him/them do you ?

What they were expecting Sainsbury's to pay was the price they agreed with Sainsbury's not once, not twice but six times.
Click to expand...

I neither like nor dislike him. I certainly do not know him. I am merely trying to present an alternative picture with the supposed 'facts' supplied. They do read in a way that engenders questioning.
 
Smiffy said:
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.
Click to expand...


How do you know it's only one deposit? Have you seen the contracts?
 
onceknownasrab said:
I neither like nor dislike him. I certainly do not know him. I am merely trying to present an alternative picture with the supposed 'facts' supplied. They do read in a way that engenders questioning.
Click to expand...

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.

THE SEVENTIES NORTH BANK said:
How do you know it's only one deposit? Have you seen the contracts?
Click to expand...

If Smiffy says thats the case Id believe him due to people he knows...
 
Jam_Man said:
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...
Click to expand...

I do get the point JamMan. You are yet again jumping to the defence of Bates. No need. Its not an attack on him in the first place. It is the asking of questions particularly when it is not as crystal clear to everyone as it seemingly is to you Jam. I also do not doubt Smiffy reports what he has heard but it does not make his 'facts' right or necessarily balanced. I could sit down for coffee with David Cameron but know he has told me what he wants me to think or know and not always what is correct.

Two sides JamMan to everything.
 
There are two sides to everything yet you seem to want to ignore one of them completely, the common sense one. (To be honest Im not even sure what the other side is, other than he should keep a property he doesnt need for some reason).

I dont defend Neil, I dont agree with most of the stuff he says and Ive never been impressed with how he acts, but he has a property that he agreed to sell 7 years ago that the buyer no longer wants that he has now sold to someone else. Seems very straightforward decision to me.

He has more information than you or I and he made a business decision, Im not sure why you feel you are in a position to dismiss it as wrong.
 
Jam_Man said:
There are two sides to everything yet you seem to want to ignore one of them completely, the common sense one. (To be honest Im not even sure what the other side is, other than he should keep a property he doesnt need for some reason).

I dont defend Neil, I dont agree with most of the stuff he says and Ive never been impressed with how he acts, but he has a property that he agreed to sell 7 years ago that the buyer no longer wants that he has now sold to someone else. Seems very straightforward decision to me.

He has more information than you or I and he made a business decision, Im not sure why you feel you are in a position to dismiss it as wrong.
Click to expand...

That's your mistake not mine. I have questioned the sale and figures. I have not said he was wrong. The only thing I said Bates was wrong for is the suggested legal action over Longleys comment.
 
Jam_Man said:
If Smiffy says thats the case Id believe him due to people he knows...
Click to expand...

Indeed, and I'd accept it as fact however it is hardly surprising that anyone without access to such privileged 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.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

.



Club News
Fixtures and Results
League Table
SUFC Ticket Stats
Shrimpers Trust
SoccerBase
SUEPA (Ex Players)
Shrimperzone on Facebook
Shrimperzone on Twitter
Shrimperzone on Instagram
SUFC Exiles


ShrimperZone Sponsors

FFM MSPFX Foreign Exchange Services

Zone Advertisers MFF2

Zone Advertisers Zone Advertisers

ShrimperZone - Player Sponsorship


Southend United Away Travel


All At Sea Fanzine


Back
Top