united we stand
Life President⭐
To me this is the most logical reason, although clearly it’s still just a guess.It was thought that the loans were advances on the sale price of RH (hence the charges being against RH) and the assumption was , from those more knowledgeable of Large construction contracts, That Sainsburys termination of the contract would have incurred some compensation, and that the loans would get written of in lieu of compensation.
Now if the compensation was to be greater than the loans.....
This has to be done at some point.
As I said on another thread. It also might help with the council looking to rent then buy the flats to be built on roots hall.
They may have said the ground needs to be charge free to n order for them to vote on the idea.
Obviously the above is complete conjecture, and those with better knowledge are more than welcome to say that’s not how these things work.