Planner1 Posted July 17, 2013 Share Posted July 17, 2013 Surely it's not as simple as just booting Hammerson off the project. They've surely made enough financial investments in the project for Hammerson to come right back with legal action? 'GET RID OF HAMMERSON' just sounds a bit, naive, frankly, as far as solutions go? I could be wrong, happy for someone in the know to correct me. No, it isn't that simple. Both parties have entered into a development contract. I undertand that the contract includes protocols / processes to follow if either party wishes to cancel the contract. Once the contract is terminated, SCC would, I understand have a time period in which they could, if they wished, buy back any property sold to Hamerson as part of the project. That would mean that substantial amounts of money would need to be found for this. Also, once the decision was made, SCC would need to look at whether they want to seek another partner for the same type of development, or to have a rethink and go for something a bit different, possibly split it up into more deliverable components. That's a lot of work adn it all takes time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truman Posted July 17, 2013 Share Posted July 17, 2013 Hammerson do not own Sheffield . I think they own enough of it to make kicking them off the project very expensive for SCC... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonny5 Posted July 17, 2013 Share Posted July 17, 2013 I think they own enough of it to make kicking them off the project very expensive for SCC...Especially if they don't have another developer lined up to buy the land & buildings. Which they won't have. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Penistone999 Posted July 17, 2013 Share Posted July 17, 2013 I can't see that there is any problem in setting reasonable deadlines. As I understand it there are agreed protocols to go through if there is to be a contractual "divorce". Neither party would want to be seen to be acting in bad faith until such times as that were finalised. Granted, setting reasonable deadlines is acceptable , but totally useless when the people setting the deadlines completely back down once the deadline arrives. ---------- Post added 17-07-2013 at 21:20 ---------- No, it isn't that simple. Both parties have entered into a development contract. I undertand that the contract includes protocols / processes to follow if either party wishes to cancel the contract. Once the contract is terminated, SCC would, I understand have a time period in which they could, if they wished, buy back any property sold to Hamerson as part of the project. That would mean that substantial amounts of money would need to be found for this. Also, once the decision was made, SCC would need to look at whether they want to seek another partner for the same type of development, or to have a rethink and go for something a bit different, possibly split it up into more deliverable components. That's a lot of work adn it all takes time. So What happened to the money the council made when selling the property to Hammerson in the first place then , ? Squandered on the councils pet projects i assume. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andygardener Posted July 17, 2013 Share Posted July 17, 2013 No, it isn't that simple. Both parties have entered into a development contract. I undertand that the contract includes protocols / processes to follow if either party wishes to cancel the contract. Once the contract is terminated, SCC would, I understand have a time period in which they could, if they wished, buy back any property sold to Hamerson as part of the project. That would mean that substantial amounts of money would need to be found for this. Also, once the decision was made, SCC would need to look at whether they want to seek another partner for the same type of development, or to have a rethink and go for something a bit different, possibly split it up into more deliverable components. That's a lot of work adn it all takes time. It's probably time these contracts were made public. The clear implication of the councils actions is they failed to enter into a solid contract in the first place. Cancellation agreements which cost the taxpayer money are fine to protect a developer against a no-fault cancellation brought on by, say, a change of political control. However the original contract was to build a thing in a certain timescale and in the absence of council interfering to say no, don't build that thing, or not comp purchasing the relevant land (all of which has been done) it is reasonable to assume the original contract had penalty clauses if the developer then fails to fulfill their end of the bargain to, well, develope. Which they have. Completely. So if the council wallahs who drafted the contract had any ability we should surely be in for a nice payout? Unless they signed a spineless one side contract where the taxpayer would always be the loser if either the council or the developer renaged on their agreement? Do FOI requests apply to commercial contracts like this when they have clearly not fulfilled their stated public purpose? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hackey lad Posted July 17, 2013 Share Posted July 17, 2013 I can't see that there is any problem in setting reasonable deadlines. As I understand it there are agreed protocols to go through if there is to be a contractual "divorce". Neither party would want to be seen to be acting in bad faith until such times as that were finalised. reasonable deadlines , surely you are now taking the p s Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Planner1 Posted July 17, 2013 Share Posted July 17, 2013 Granted, setting reasonable deadlines is acceptable , but totally useless when the people setting the deadlines completely back down once the deadline arrives. Neither you nor I know what was said in the discussions which took place, so anything you say on this is pure speculation and therefore pretty meaningless. So What happened to the money the council made when selling the property to Hammerson in the first place then , ? Squandered on the councils pet projects i assume. You don't know how these things work do you? The Council serve compulsory purchase orders on the property owners and buy them up. then they sell them to the developer, who gives them back what it cost. If indeed Hammerson are dropped, SCC get the option to buy back the property at MARKET price. Market price is now well below what Hammerson paid them for it, so SCC potentially stand to come out of it quite well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andygardener Posted July 17, 2013 Share Posted July 17, 2013 Neither you nor I know what was said in the discussions which took place, so anything you say on this is pure speculation and therefore pretty meaningless. You don't know how these things work do you? The Council serve compulsory purchase orders on the property owners and buy them up. then they sell them to the developer, who gives them back what it cost. If indeed Hammerson are dropped, SCC get the option to buy back the property at MARKET price. Market price is now well below what Hammerson paid them for it, so SCC potentially stand to come out of it quite well. So let's just be clear. You were saying yesterday that the council have to be very careful in these commercially sensetive negotiations. Today you are leaking a very commercially sensitive fact if it is indeed such about a commercial contract that "SCC get the option to buy back the property at MARKET price" which has not previously been in the public domain. I appreciate the leak but you would agree you're lacking a lot of consistency lately surely? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Planner1 Posted July 17, 2013 Share Posted July 17, 2013 It's probably time these contracts were made public. The clear implication of the councils actions is they failed to enter into a solid contract in the first place. Cancellation agreements which cost the taxpayer money are fine to protect a developer against a no-fault cancellation brought on by, say, a change of political control. However the original contract was to build a thing in a certain timescale and in the absence of council interfering to say no, don't build that thing, or not comp purchasing the relevant land (all of which has been done) it is reasonable to assume the original contract had penalty clauses if the developer then fails to fulfill their end of the bargain to, well, develope. Which they have. Completely. So if the council wallahs who drafted the contract had any ability we should surely be in for a nice payout? Unless they signed a spineless one side contract where the taxpayer would always be the loser if either the council or the developer renaged on their agreement? Do FOI requests apply to commercial contracts like this when they have clearly not fulfilled their stated public purpose? It will be commercially sensitive, so I can't imagine it would be available on FOI. I have never seen one of these contracts or been involved in negotiations around one. I imagine you haven't either. How can any of us then infer what it is reasonable to include in such a contract or what is reasonable to expect in the subsequent negotiations? Hammerson had a reputation for producing good quality developments, so would have been a good bet as a development partner. At the time the contract was concluded, no-one could have reasonably foreseen the effects of the recession or that these long delays would happen. We don't know the terms of the contract and we aren't likely to, so what's the point in speculating? ---------- Post added 17-07-2013 at 23:13 ---------- So let's just be clear. You were saying yesterday that the council have to be very careful in these commercially sensetive negotiations. Today you are leaking a very commercially sensitive fact if it is indeed such about a commercial contract that "SCC get the option to buy back the property at MARKET price" which has not previously been in the public domain. I appreciate the leak but you would agree you're lacking a lot of consistency lately surely? It's not a leak. I've mentioned it several times before. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andygardener Posted July 17, 2013 Share Posted July 17, 2013 It will be commercially sensitive, so I can't imagine it would be available on FOI. I have never seen one of these contracts or been involved in negotiations around one. I imagine you haven't either. How can any of us then infer what it is reasonable to include in such a contract or what is reasonable to expect in the subsequent negotiations? Hammerson had a reputation for producing good quality developments, so would have been a good bet as a development partner. At the time the contract was concluded, no-one could have reasonably foreseen the effects of the recession or that these long delays would happen. We don't know the terms of the contract and we aren't likely to, so what's the point in speculating? ---------- Post added 17-07-2013 at 23:13 ---------- It's not a leak. I've mentioned it several times before. Do make your mind up dear chap. In the same post you claim to have knowledge of a vital commerical part of the contract regarding repurchase prices and at the same time say "We don't know the terms of the contract and we aren't likely to, so what's the point in speculating?" Which is it? Do you claim to know this one specific part of the contract but not the rest of it and if so why is this vital part not commercially sensitive but the rest is? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts