Another Falling Out

[Garawa]

The other thing is if they were not happy with the contract when they took it over in 2011 why did they sign it?

That is the only relevant question in my eyes. The club could promise 11,000 sell-outs every game with everybody attending buying 2 items each but the supplier would still be at fault. It is THEIR responsibility to carry out adequate due diligence to ensure the contract would be profitable and to remove their exposure to risk. It is more likely they simply took over an existing proposal before realising what sort of revenue is actually realistic at this level. I remember when they took over we were promised all sorts and the deal sounded too good to be true. Clearly now it was but I can't see how anyone other than Centreplate are at fault here.

[sotongill]

The other thing is if they were not happy with the contract when they took it over in 2011 why did they sign it?

That is the only relevant question in my eyes. The club could promise 11,000 sell-outs every game with everybody attending buying 2 items each but the supplier would still be at fault. It is THEIR responsibility to carry out adequate due diligence to ensure the contract would be profitable and to remove their exposure to risk. It is more likely they simply took over an existing proposal before realising what sort of revenue is actually realistic at this level. I remember when they took over we were promised all sorts and the deal sounded too good to be true. Clearly now it was but I can't see how anyone other than Centreplate are at fault here.

The BBC report would appear to suggest that they took over another company , and hence a number of contracts , not just ours . Some will be profitable , some won't .

Three years on they were looking to work with the unprofitable customers to see what could be done to change the situation . We appear to have taken the stance that there's a contract so tough luck , honour it , rather than working to see if there's any middle ground - they have corporate catering experience , we don't , which is why it was all out-sourced . And if memory serves Gary , the promises about the benefits of the deal go back to when we first out-sourced the catering a number of years back , not when Centreplate took over the contract .

[Garawa]

Ahh, ok thanks, I vaguely remembered something! I don't think they can simply wash their hands of it though. Imagine you have a vital supplier who simply ditches because they only want to keep the good bits. No company with lucrative contracts would sell out, only ones with a part failing business or with unprofitable parts. You can restructure but can't just screw up a contract. This is a game, we know they can't walk away and they know we can't afford them to! These inevitably either end up in last minute deals or court, the latter seems the most likely. Rimshot I fully agree we have had too many cases but would you take the side of a company who ditch a contract of your business? I'm not sure anyone would.

[Rimshot]

Guys, none of us has any idea of what the contract states; you are assuming that all the 'deliverables' are down to Centreplate. I've never seen or signed a contract that only contained obligations on one party. I'm sure no catering business would undertake to provide a range of services at fixed prices, for example, without some guarantees of footfall. Catering is very volume dependant.

Ok, so I am probably pre-judging Scally but on the basis of a long and infamous history of disputes.