mike208 Posted June 4, 2013 Share Posted June 4, 2013 (edited) The Hammerson Sevenstone website has the following email address: sheffieldsevenstone@weare2020.com. 2020 is it then? http://www.sevenstone.co.uk/ Not sure if you were just joking or not, but in case others don't realise, "weare2020" is just the name of the marketing company running the digital marketing campaign. It's nothing to do with the Sevenstone completion date. They are actually now called "Jaywing" but have kept the "weare2020" domain. Edited June 4, 2013 by mike208 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dosxuk Posted June 4, 2013 Share Posted June 4, 2013 Even the most hardened council appologist cannot surely try to defend the councils failure to inform the public about this one? The council have set a deadline of 31st of May and either the developer has met that deadline or according to the council they will be terminated and a new developer sought. It is perfectly reasonable to expect the council to announce which of those is the case when their deadline expired. No, it is perfectly reasonable to expect the council to announce which of those is the case when their deadline expired and a strategy for moving forward has been decided. A press release by the council stating "Hammerson's have committed to a completion date. Talks are continuing" or "Hammerson's have not committed to a completion date. Talks are continuing" is of no benefit to anyone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hots on Posted June 4, 2013 Share Posted June 4, 2013 The whole thing is a farce, but Labour aren't worried, they know their re-election is assured. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andygardener Posted June 4, 2013 Share Posted June 4, 2013 No, it is perfectly reasonable to expect the council to announce which of those is the case when their deadline expired and a strategy for moving forward has been decided. A press release by the council stating "Hammerson's have committed to a completion date. Talks are continuing" or "Hammerson's have not committed to a completion date. Talks are continuing" is of no benefit to anyone. The council asked Hammerson to commit to an acceptable completion date by close of play May 31st or be removed from the project. Either they did or they did not, the council created the deadline and the scope of the deadline, it's not unreasonable to update the people who pay them as to which outcome was forthcoming. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mapleboy Posted June 4, 2013 Share Posted June 4, 2013 (edited) The council asked Hammerson to commit to an acceptable completion date by close of play May 31st or be removed from the project. Either they did or they did not, the council created the deadline and the scope of the deadline, it's not unreasonable to update the people who pay them as to which outcome was forthcoming. So either: 1) Hammerson have replied and it's a "Yes, we'll start at a quoted date, sorry for dicking you around". In which case, you'd expect SCC to trumpet their "success" immediately. They haven't, so... 2) Hammerson have replied "No". In which case SCC are now trying to come up with some sort of face saving announcement or other Plan B. But why not have this sorted out before the deadline expired. To delay makes them look foolish and/or arrogant and/or incompetent. Or... 3) Hammerson haven't replied at all. In which case SCC's reaction should be as 2 above, with an added "Hammerson are the bad guys" flavour to their response, again as a face saving move. Whatever has happened, a deafening silence from SCC makes them look foolish and/or arrogant and/or incompetent. This will be even more the case if it's 2 or 3 above that has happened. On balance, the more time that passes, I can't see any way SCC are going to come out of this smelling of roses. Edit: Possibly SCC thought that by setting a deadline, they'd force Hammerson into a decision. The longer the silence, the more likely it seems that Hammerson have called SCC's bluff and SCC don't have a backup plan worked out. So foolish, arrogant and incompetent then. Edited June 4, 2013 by mapleboy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andygardener Posted June 4, 2013 Share Posted June 4, 2013 So either: 1) Hammerson have replied and it's a "Yes, we'll start at a quoted date, sorry for dicking you around". In which case, you'd expect SCC to trumpet their "success" immediately. They haven't, so... 2) Hammerson have replied "No". In which case SCC are now trying to come up with some sort of face saving announcement or other Plan B. But why not have this sorted out before the deadline expired. To delay makes them look foolish and/or arrogant and/or incompetent. Or... 3) Hammerson haven't replied at all. In which case SCC's reaction should be as 2 above, with an added "Hammerson are the bad guys" flavour to their response, again as a face saving move. Whatever has happened, a deafening silence from SCC makes them look foolish and/or arrogant and/or incompetent. This will be even more the case if it's 2 or 3 above that has happened. On balance, the more time that passes, I can't see any way SCC are going to come out of this smelling of roses. As you say, 1 is very unlikely as SCC would have been rushing to the media to trumpet their triumph. I think the most likely is Hammerson have either not responded or responded that an arbitrary "deadline" issued by Mothersole has no contractual basis and they'll decide if and when they bother with sevenstone as and when they please. The council have put all their eggs in a basket that doesn't exist and they have no means of making exist. They're no doubt desperately trying to spin this latest humiliation as a victory for their "tough negotiating stance", expect yet another "final deadline" set for 2 months hence, which will come and go like this one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mapleboy Posted June 4, 2013 Share Posted June 4, 2013 As you say, 1 is very unlikely as SCC would have been rushing to the media to trumpet their triumph. I think the most likely is Hammerson have either not responded or responded that an arbitrary "deadline" issued by Mothersole has no contractual basis and they'll decide if and when they bother with sevenstone as and when they please. The council have put all their eggs in a basket that doesn't exist and they have no means of making exist. They're no doubt desperately trying to spin this latest humiliation as a victory for their "tough negotiating stance", expect yet another "final deadline" set for 2 months hence, which will come and go like this one. ...and all the while the city centre continues its downward spiral to oblivion, with SCC doing nothing to stop it. Come on planner1, tell me I'm wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BoroB Posted June 4, 2013 Share Posted June 4, 2013 Not sure if you were just joking or not, but in case others don't realise, "weare2020" is just the name of the marketing company running the digital marketing campaign. It's nothing to do with the Sevenstone completion date. They are actually now called "Jaywing" but have kept the "weare2020" domain. I thought 2020 was a little ambitious for Sevenstone to be started. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mapleboy Posted June 4, 2013 Share Posted June 4, 2013 I thought 2020 was a little ambitious for Sevenstone to be started.A little?! Given to understatement are you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MJbayley Posted June 4, 2013 Share Posted June 4, 2013 Did no one see this press release a few days after the one issued on the 20th (the supposed deadline given to Hammerson). Seems that the deadline was removed, with Hamerson given more time http://www.thestar.co.uk/news/business/sevenstone-deadlock-set-to-continue-after-failure-of-talks-1-5708316 Sheffield Council’s ‘crunch’ talks with Hammerson have failed to break deadlock over the planned Sevenstone scheme. The Star understands officials led by council chief executive John Mothersole and cabinet member for business, skills and development Coun Leigh Bramall met with the developer on Tuesday. Hammerson was set to be asked at the meeting to proceed – and give a completion date – or step aside so another company could be found for the scheme. But the company has now been given more time by the council to ‘thrash out’ how it aims to make the £600 million project a reality. The sticking point is whether the council or Hammerson would bear the risk of borrowing £30 million against future tax receipts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts