How do Sainsbury's view the latest events?

[CC51DAS]

OK, so £2.1 m is a drop in the ocean to Sainsbury's but they wouldn't have put it in unless they were sure the project would go ahead - would they ?

If I've understood correctly, the development of RH can't go ahead until the new stadium is built at FF.

Presumably therefore Sainsbury's were satisfied in November that RM would have the wherewithall to deliver FF, bearing in mind recent comments suggest that the sale of RH will not provide the full funding for the FF project.

But where do they stand now ?

Maybe they just 'popped' a couple of million to take potential competitors out of the equation, in which case do they need to put any more in ?

Or did they feel that in the event that the club ceased to exist that they could overturn the covenant and build on RH, come what may ?

RM assures us that all will be well but it would be nice if he could shed some more light on this situation.

 

[A Century United]

OK, so £2.1 m is a drop in the ocean to Sainsbury's but they wouldn't have put it in unless they were sure the project would go ahead - would they ?

If I've understood correctly, the development of RH can't go ahead until the new stadium is built at FF.

Presumably therefore Sainsbury's were satisfied in November that RM would have the wherewithall to deliver FF, bearing in mind recent comments suggest that the sale of RH will not provide the full funding for the FF project.

But where do they stand now ?

Maybe they just 'popped' a couple of million to take potential competitors out of the equation, in which case do they need to put any more in ?

Or did they feel that in the event that the club ceased to exist that they could overturn the covenant and build on RH, come what may ?

RM assures us that all will be well but it would be nice if he could shed some more light on this situation.

The PP was varied to allow the development of the Supermarket to start on the carpark while we are still playing at Roots Hall, with the Council offering the civic Centre car park for club use on match days in the interim.

However, I don't think things can start at RH before we are on site at FF.

 

[cockles is back]

and if the money isnt paid back then sainsburys become the highest share holders as I believe, I dont think they could give a feck if the FF comes off, because either way they will end up with roots hall

 

[C C Csiders]

Sainsbury's view will be where to stick the wines, beers and spirit's aisle.

 

[fredheim_holm]

As cockles says, if Southend go out of business then Sainsburys probably own Roots Hall anyway, so it's probably not much of a risk either way.

 

[Firestorm]

From the land Registry for Roots Hall

(28.11.2007) UNILATERAL NOTICE in respect of a conditional Sale
and Purchase Agreement dated 5 November 2007 made between (1)
Roots Hall Limited and (2) Sainsbury's Supermarkets Ltd

(28.11.2007) BENEFICIARY: Sainsbury's Supermarkets Ltd of 33
Holborn, London EC1N 2HT.

(03.09.2008) The land has the benefit of the rights reserved by
but is subject to the rights granted by a Transfer of other land
dated 18 July 2008 made between (1) Roots Hall Limited and (2)
Sainsbury's Supermarkets Limited .

Sainsbury's have been in this for some while it seems

 

[Yorkshire Blue]

OK, so £2.1 m is a drop in the ocean to Sainsbury's but they wouldn't have put it in unless they were sure the project would go ahead - would they ?

If I've understood correctly, the development of RH can't go ahead until the new stadium is built at FF.

Presumably therefore Sainsbury's were satisfied in November that RM would have the wherewithall to deliver FF, bearing in mind recent comments suggest that the sale of RH will not provide the full funding for the FF project.

But where do they stand now ?

Maybe they just 'popped' a couple of million to take potential competitors out of the equation, in which case do they need to put any more in ?

Or did they feel that in the event that the club ceased to exist that they could overturn the covenant and build on RH, come what may ?

RM assures us that all will be well but it would be nice if he could shed some more light on this situation.

Sainsburys lending the money has nothing to do with their being certain that the project was going forward, but everything to do with sufficient security being provided. This appears to include (but I'd be surprised if it was limited to) Martin Dawn's shareholding in SUFC.

From the land Registry for Roots Hall

(28.11.2007) UNILATERAL NOTICE in respect of a conditional Sale
and Purchase Agreement dated 5 November 2007 made between (1)
Roots Hall Limited and (2) Sainsbury's Supermarkets Ltd

(28.11.2007) BENEFICIARY: Sainsbury's Supermarkets Ltd of 33
Holborn, London EC1N 2HT.

(03.09.2008) The land has the benefit of the rights reserved by
but is subject to the rights granted by a Transfer of other land
dated 18 July 2008 made between (1) Roots Hall Limited and (2)
Sainsbury's Supermarkets Limited .

Sainsbury's have been in this for some while it seems

Hmm, I'm guessing the Sale and Purchase won't be made publicly available. This is a shame, as I think this document is the reason why RM is so keen to avoid administration because I think this might be an event of default entitling Sainsburys to withdraw.

What is the land transferred in the 18 July 2008 agreement?

 

[ibwiajwa]

The guy behind me at Roots Hall tells me that he's heard at work that building work starts in RH in the summer and that we need to sort out a ground share fast. Gillingham nearest as the crow flies. Make of that what you will.

 

[Homer]

The guy behind me at Roots Hall tells me that he's heard at work that building work starts in RH in the summer and that we need to sort out a ground share fast. Gillingham nearest as the crow flies. Make of that what you will.

why would we need to do that we dont play football in the car park, that is where the building will start,so there is no need to ground share especially with the Gills

 

[GNH]

why would we need to do that we dont play football in the car park

Have you seen some of Simon Francis' clearances?

 

[Col U visitor]

The guy behind me at Roots Hall tells me that he's heard at work that building work starts in RH in the summer and that we need to sort out a ground share fast. Gillingham nearest as the crow flies. Make of that what you will.

Boggy marshland anyone ? 42 miles Southend to Col

47 miles to Gills plus the Toll AND the unpredictable queue.

Naff parking at Priestfield, Shuttle Bus from Col Station to Stadium - easy.

 

[Firestorm]

I heard about a groundshare some weeks back

http://www.shrimperzone.com/vb/showthread.php?t=57773&highlight=groundshare

Gills and Col U were dismissed. Orient or Daggers were the two mentioned

 

[CC51DAS]

From the land Registry for Roots Hall

(28.11.2007) UNILATERAL NOTICE in respect of a conditional Sale
and Purchase Agreement dated 5 November 2007 made between (1)
Roots Hall Limited and (2) Sainsbury's Supermarkets Ltd

(28.11.2007) BENEFICIARY: Sainsbury's Supermarkets Ltd of 33
Holborn, London EC1N 2HT.

(03.09.2008) The land has the benefit of the rights reserved by
but is subject to the rights granted by a Transfer of other land
dated 18 July 2008 made between (1) Roots Hall Limited and (2)
Sainsbury's Supermarkets Limited .

Sainsbury's have been in this for some while it seems

Good find this, methinx.

So this would effectively throw out my supposition that Sainsbury's 'bought in' with their £2.1 as they had clearly been in the driving seat for some time.

That said, what was all that bit about from RM in one of his offerings (iirc) that he had been placed in an unfavourable position by HMRC's actions prior to the first Court hearing in November that made it harder for him to negotiate the deal ?

 

[OldBlueLady]

That said, what was all that bit about from RM in one of his offerings (iirc) that he had been placed in an unfavourable position by HMRC's actions prior to the first Court hearing in November that made it harder for him to negotiate the deal ?

I think this has relevance to a comment made somewhere that contracts that were negotiated around that time had lapsed due to the combined contrivance of the Government's calling in the application and the worldwide financial situation. I didn't think it was news that Sainsburys were involved back then?

 

[CC51DAS]

Sainsburys lending the money has nothing to do with their being certain that the project was going forward, but everything to do with sufficient security being provided. This appears to include (but I'd be surprised if it was limited to) Martin Dawn's shareholding in SUFC.

Not sure I follow your line of thought here YB. I would have thought that the 'security' would have needed to include the development of FF if that was material to their own plans proceeding. In my simple mind, if the ground development is conditional on FF being completed, then there is no security in owning the development rights for RH if the FF project can't get off the ground though a lack of finance.

If as ACU suggests some concession has been made with regard to the car park being developed, is this likely to provide sufficient comfort to Sainsbury's, I wonder ?


Hmm, I'm guessing the Sale and Purchase won't be made publicly available. This is a shame, as I think this document is the reason why RM is so keen to avoid administration because I think this might be an event of default entitling Sainsburys to withdraw.

What is the land transferred in the 18 July 2008 agreement?

I agree it would be nice to have detailed information on this point, although there is a distinct possibility that it may all go over my head.

But wouldn't administration perhaps make it easier for Sainsbury's to proceed with the development of RH without having to wait for FF to be completed?

 

[CC51DAS]

I think this has relevance to a comment made somewhere that contracts that were negotiated around that time had lapsed due to the combined contrivance of the Government's calling in the application and the worldwide financial situation. I didn't think it was news that Sainsburys were involved back then?

I am getting lost I'm afraid - what needed to be negotiated if the deal relating to the ownership of the land had already been done, as Gary's post suggests ?

And although there were rumours of Sainsbury's interest back then, was it public knowledge that things had progressed that far ?

 

[CC51DAS]

Sainsburys lending the money has nothing to do with their being certain that the project was going forward, but everything to do with sufficient security being provided. This appears to include (but I'd be surprised if it was limited to) Martin Dawn's shareholding in SUFC.[/quote

Not sure I follow your line of thought here YB. I would have thought that the 'security' would have needed to include the development of FF if that was material to their own plans proceeding. In my simple mind, if the ground development is conditional on FF being completed, then there is no security in owning the development rights for RH if the FF project can't get off the ground though a lack of finance.

If as ACU suggests some concession has been made with regard to the car park being developed, is this likely to provide sufficient comfort to Sainsbury's, I wonder ?


Apologies - this didn't come out right the last time

 

[Yorkshire Blue]

Sainsburys lending the money has nothing to do with their being certain that the project was going forward, but everything to do with sufficient security being provided. This appears to include (but I'd be surprised if it was limited to) Martin Dawn's shareholding in SUFC.

Not sure I follow your line of thought here YB. I would have thought that the 'security' would have needed to include the development of FF if that was material to their own plans proceeding. In my simple mind, if the ground development is conditional on FF being completed, then there is no security in owning the development rights for RH if the FF project can't get off the ground though a lack of finance.

If as ACU suggests some concession has been made with regard to the car park being developed, is this likely to provide sufficient comfort to Sainsbury's, I wonder ?


Apologies - this didn't come out right the last time

Security doesn't have to be anything linked to Sainsburys' plans.

To continue the poker analogy, RM is out of money, so he asks the other player to lend him the money. They say why should I lend you anything? So RM says, because I'll pay you back double. They say, but what if you lose and can't pay me back? So RM says, trust me I'm good for the money. Sainsburys then laugh, so RM offers to put his watch up for security. Sainsburys takes a look at the watch and they reckon its worth a few quid. If he wins fine, he keeps his watch and takes the winnings but if he loses and can't pay Sainsburys back, they'll sell his watch and take what they are owed from the proceeds.

FWIW we knew about the November 2007 agreement for Sainsburys to buy, but I don't know what the 2008 transfer relates to.

 

[Yorkshire Blue]

I am getting lost I'm afraid - what needed to be negotiated if the deal relating to the ownership of the land had already been done, as Gary's post suggests ?

And although there were rumours of Sainsbury's interest back then, was it public knowledge that things had progressed that far ?

The deal was done, but it was conditional - this will almost certainly relate to planning permission, but could include other conditions such as securing vacant possession of the whole site, and possibly stuff relating to Fossetts being ready.

There will however be a long-stop date on how long the parties have got to meet all the conditions. If conditions aren't met, the party benefiting from that clause can waive it - ie if RM had insisted on a clause saying nothing can happen until a new stadium is built, he can say to Sainsburys, forget about that bit. If you want to move in now you can do so.

Even when all conditions are met, things won't happen immediately, as Sainsburys are likely to require a minimum amount of time to stump up the cash (even they won't have a spare £10m lying down the back of the sofa/in petty cash) and will want time to arrange for their contractors to come on site etc.

 

[CC51DAS]

Security doesn't have to be anything linked to Sainsburys' plans.

To continue the poker analogy, RM is out of money, so he asks the other player to lend him the money. They say why should I lend you anything? So RM says, because I'll pay you back double. They say, but what if you lose and can't pay me back? So RM says, trust me I'm good for the money. Sainsburys then laugh, so RM offers to put his watch up for security. Sainsburys takes a look at the watch and they reckon its worth a few quid. If he wins fine, he keeps his watch and takes the winnings but if he loses and can't pay Sainsburys back, they'll sell his watch and take what they are owed from the proceeds.

FWIW we knew about the November 2007 agreement for Sainsburys to buy, but I don't know what the 2008 transfer relates to.

Yes that is a good analogy. And yes the 2007 bit is an agreement in principle which I think 'we' heard about , but the 2008 events are new to me. Maybe someone could raise this for clarification on Monday as I will not be able to get there ?