SARC January report & additional documents

mtj,

Thank you for your daft remarks. As for being naive I am sorry but you could not be further from the truth.

Now I will repost my earlier polite posting

your suppostion is self defeating, as there would be no point doing a deal with a company to build the infra structure, if you then did not have the land to build the properties on. As for you trying to discover commercially sensitive information on an open forum I feel that you will not meet with much sucess.

I note that you have taken Sue's suggestion and started your own thread, which, I must admit I am surprised you did not do some time ago. Personally I am slightly suspicious of your motives. Some people have tried to screw up deals that HdT are doing to get SADM on the right track and when doing this they needed to know who to approach to try to scupper any deal. Therefore, I think you have very little chance of getting the information you ask.

All the best

Tony

Hi to all ,

I think that what mtj with good reason is trying to ascertain is if SJ/HdT are trying to off load assets in return for work  or other services ( probably to a company in the SJ group )  . This would seem to be the case  , and if so it is a serious worry to anyone who wants their house or their money returned be it in 5 years or at all  .

Swapping assets for work is a loop hole in the admin law although far from good practise  it is not illegal however  certainly  not in the best interest of creditors.I am seriously worried about the implications this has on any of us ever getting anything   .So perhaps Tony (SARC) are being quite naive in this instance . I certainly believe that SARC  are being detrimental and obstructive to a good out come and so do my solicitors .

Supporting this action or not  comes down to whether or not you trust  SJ/HdT   .I am  unfortunately 100% sure I do not . 

I also have severe reservations about what was said in the SARC report about El Pinet .I have recently spent 4 weeks there and know for sure what SARC reported is absolutely wrong and incorrect .

I am sorry Tony but you and your merry band of followers are indeed very  very naive .You seem to be hearing only  what you want to believe . 

This message was last edited by Rason on 20/02/2011.

I do not consider my comments to be daft remarks, so will post again.

From the first paragraph, without meaning to offend, your naivety is quite unbelievable.
Obviously you have no experience in business, business practice or business laws andnd conditions of contracts.
Why is the information comercially sensitive. Even for 'secret' Government contracts the contractors are known.
You may be suspicious of my motive, but you have no reason to be. It is a pity that you were not more suspicious of the motives of others.
Scupper a deal, why?
What would be the benefit of that to me.
There could be a miracle one day and properties are seen on the site, but not in 5 years time.
Your comments make me wonder even more why the name of a contractor to be used and its directors, need to be kept such a secret.
Will it get to the stage that the tradesmen will have to be vetted by the secret service do you think?

mtj

I am pleased to see that you have started a new thread, because if you are going to get an answer from anyone that would be the best place for them to post it - plus everyone will be able to see the reply.

As regards the discussion below, I am sure that once a contract has been signed for the infrastructure the name of the contractor will be revealed.  I was reading in the Sunday paper about the contracts for Corvera airport, and it was stated that the director is negotiating with 15 companies, however the names won't be revealed until agreements have been signed.  Isn't this a similar situation? Of course, being the press, they were speculating that this would include Ryanair, Easyjet etc......   By the way, in case anybody is interested, they are expecting commercial flights to begin in the summer of 2012, so watch this space this time next year!

Also, we must remember that there are 966 live contracts, which specify which plots people are buying, and there are plans showing the plots, the commercial areas, roads, golf course, clubhouse etc which have been agreed with the Ayuntamiento when the initial licence was granted and which will be used when (if, for the cynics!) the building licence is issued.  My understanding is that the company who will be doing the infrastructure could be paid in cash rather than giving them land anyway, however if it is land it can't be land that has already been allocated for building.  I hope that may allay some of your concerns.

Of course, you did mention that you have been reading the forum for a long time, but due to my advanced years I sometimes forget things!!!  Thanks for reminding me.

Sue

When the contract is signed, it is too late. Stable, door, horse!!!!
The Corvera airport is not one you should be using as a comparison. They are not holding your money or that of numerous individuals and if it is Government funded, all contractors will have been fully vetted and have to prove track records and funding ability prior to tenders being accepted and approved. It is the way that Government and large companies work.
Normally, there would also have to be a performance bond in place in the event that the works were not completed or sub-standard.
I am sure that if the contractor who was awarded the contract for the airport had as a director or shareholder a Government Minister or Mayor, then something would not be right. Batting for both sides.
Construction contracts are normally staged payments based on valuation of works completed.
Would just a strip of land be given over for the first phase of works, then another, then another and so on, or would the conveyancing of the land (as payment) be carried out before works commence.
If the developer finds that he is in financial difficulty, the contractor walks away with his payment (the land). So who would benefit?
The contractor and its directors.
You say that it can't be land that has already been allocated for building. Why not, couldn't the contractor who had received the land in lieu of cash then develop on the site themselves (for building)?
I came on here with simple, genuine and sincere questions. Shoot me down for asking if you wish, I am not here to argue or squabble and it seems I am not going to get answers for whatever the reason.
Isn't a forum a place where people should ask questions?
Perhaps I should bow out now as I am not asking the questions which are allowed.

Perhaps MTJ you are asking people who don't know the answers.

Seem valid to me but perhaps you should direct these directly to HDT or via a solicitor if you are using ?

mtj

rjmderry is quite right: I, for one, certainly don't know the answers!  However I would like to make a few points that I feel are relevant.

1.  Maybe I used a bad example in quoting Corvera airport, however I still think that the principles are the same.  While contracts are in the process of negotiation, until they have actually been signed, surely the information has to be confidential?  I may not know be an expert in contractual law so far as big businesses and Government contracts are concerned, but i do know something about employment law.  Until an individual had actually accepted a job offer and signed the contract, we never revealed who had been offered the job. It's a matter of trust.  Once HdT have signed a contract with a company to complete the infrastructure, I too would like to have the details.

2.  HdT may offer the contractor cash rather than land and I suspect that will be part of the negotiation process, however to some extent their hands are tied.  They CANNOT give them land that is designated for phases 1 - 3 of SADM, as their plans (which are available on the SARC website) have been agreed both with Jumilla Ayuntamiento and with the administrators and judge at the court in Alicante. 

3.  I know HdT have made mistakes in the past, and they have admitted to this, however I cannot see their Finance Director handing over any land as payment before the infrastructure has been completed.  I also cannot see the Finance Director paying (whether in cash or in kind) for the infrastructure unless he has finance in place to complete at least phase 1 of the development.  Who would want the infrastructure without the buildings?

You are quite right in saying that this forum should be about asking questions and getting answers, however if the questions are a bit premature, you have to be patient and wait until the answers are available.  I don't think anybody would try to censor the questions or shoot somebody down.  As a long time reader, if not poster, you must have seen that there have been lively debates on here in the past and no doubt in the future too.  There have been times when it has become too personal and aggressive, but hopefully those times are behind us.

Sue

My comments are just my opinion and from the little knowledge I have.

rjmderry is quite right: I, for one, certainly don't know the answers!  However I would like to make a few points that I feel are relevant.

1. The airport, no way can it be compared.
Why cannot contractors named be announced at tender stage. It happens all the time. In Government, Local Government and most major contracts.
How can you compare a job offer (employment law) to a construction contract.
Not even a similarity.
Too late once signed.

2.  So why can't they take over the contracts for the remaining phases?
That is just simple documentation and unlikely to breach any consents granted.

3.  Why is a question premature, when its too late to do anything about?

not sure if this can be confirmed yet, but i have it on good source that the families from

my big fat gypsy wedding have been awarded the contracts for the roads.

I think the only thing we can all go on is passed experience .

Sue makes a few really good points but going on passed experience of this company ,they are off loading assets once again via the back door.All they will say later on is they disposed of land in return for building and the contract fell through sorry this was not our fault etc etc etc 

No harm done cause the company receiving the land asset and not providing the build is another company in  the group .No harm done except to creditors ie us .

Sorry I do not trust SJ  any  further than I could throw them . ( ps can we all agree now that SJ are HdT and that HdT are SJ and that there is no need anymore for the SJ/HdT  shit all the time it is all the same ) I have never seen a company wriggling and writhing  out of every single obligation like this lot .Astounding .

Sorry Sue ,Tony and all who have tried to work with them for a good result but you have all been hood winked .This lot just want to walk and are using all of you to smooth their path .  Sorry but this is my opinion  and none of you supporting  and validating these crooks will ever change my mind  .

Hi Rason,

I must point out to you and make this very very clear that niether Sue, myself or any SARC committee member are supporting or trying to vaildate the activities of HDT. We are supporting our members and the project, with the aim of properties being delivered to those who want them and money back to those who do not want a property.

Out of interest where is your plot on SADM? I know that you are at el Pinet did you buy at SADM as well?

Wishing you all the best

Tony R17 18

Why is it you insist on asking confidential information from contributors. Do you realise that giving such information could back-fire on writers. I am sure that there may be reasons the person does not wish to divulge, like myself, otherwise he/she and I would have volunteered it.
It could well be that the developer would love to know who is for them and who is against. Ever given that a thought.
Good luck with your efforts and you go your way and leave others to do as they see fit.

Hi MTJ,

This is an open forum and we have had people posting who are not purchasers at SADM and trying to influence the outcome of the administration process. There are some who, for what ever reason, do not wish for SADM to go ahead and may try to exert influence on purchasers or cause them undue concern with their postings.

Many purchasers have identified their plots as a means of demonstrating that they are a genuine SADM purchaser and doing so does not assist HdT. ( I am sure that from the solcitors, meetings and questionaire they have a very good idea of our collective opinions allready) Please understand that none of this is about being for or against HdT, and SARC are only for purchasers, whether they want a property or money.

Wishing you all the best

Tony  

This message was last edited by TonyMal on 11/03/2011.

As it is an 'open' forum, doesn't that mean that anyone, be they purchasers or not, can contribute, and as an 'open' forum, purchasers do not have to identify the plot or plots they tried to purchase.
How can a non-purchaser influence the administration process when they have nor right of say or vote?
They may wish to make a comment or statement and it is up to the purchasers to believe what they want. Surely a purchaser is not gong to belive blindly what is written on an open forum?
Regarding influencing purchasers, if a person is so naive to believe without questioning what is read on a forum, they need guidance from both the 'fors' and 'against'.
The undue concern comment, I think the concern that purchaser have experienced to date far exceeds what non-purchasers may try to influence them with.
Always best to look at both sides of a story or argument in any case.
Many purchasers may have identified their plots and many haven't which they are entitled to.
Are you saying that on behalf of the developer, you can and are authorised to confirm that purchaser stating their plot number in no way assist HdT.
You see, they may have a good idea of our collective opinion already (sorry, they should not have a good idea, they should know), but they are unaware of individual actions at this moment in time and forwarned can make forearmed, as I am certain you will agree.