- This topic has 258 replies, 40 voices, and was last updated 1 year, 4 months ago by
.
-
2 users thanked author for this post.
“If an existing tenant lets all or part of their property to someone else, known as a subtenant, then they must have the written permission from the landlord to do so, even if this is implied in the tenancy agreement.”
1 user thanked author for this post.
Now that makes sense.
1 user thanked author for this post.
‘In the short term, he hopes we remain at Glanford park. This is where it gets confusing and to be honest I can’t explain it well; he is sub letting the ground from himself’
Very confusing. How can a tenant sub-let to himself; a place he doesn’t even own? Makes no sense. Unless there are examples of it happening elsewhere?
It sounds like some rent to rent scheme (an individual agrees to rent a property for an amount and then re-lets it at a higher price). Obviously he can only do that with the permission of the freeholder.
1 user thanked author for this post.
So the reality is probably, ‘not a leg to stand on’ I would assume.
1 user thanked author for this post.
And that’s assuming Swann will accept £20k a month. He thinks he’s going to accept £240k over 12 months? Really?
1 user thanked author for this post.
‘Stop, Look, Listen’, The Ģreen X Code Man. Never got run over!
1 user thanked author for this post.
All this criticism about the forum. I didn’t hear it last night by those that were there. I heard plenty of applause. Perhaps all those present are naive or didn’t have the courage to speak and be so negative. Maybe we’re all idiots and the intelligent critics didn’t attend.
1 user thanked author for this post.
Regardless of who is to blame for the situation, I am amazed at the positivity from some. The reality is we face a risk of being homeless and this new stadium won’t be ready for a while. Two years is wildly optimistic, and that’s assuming it doesn’t get hiccups or falls through like the last new ground plan.
1 user thanked author for this post.
I think the reality was we nearly didn’t have a club.
If we have to ground share then so be it. Or should we just hand over of fist pay up. Does that sit well with all?
The only positivity atm is we have a club and a fan base anything extra that comes our way is a bonus.
Buckle up because we are in for some turbulence how severe is an unknown.
1 user thanked author for this post.
I think the reality was we nearly didn’t have a club.
If we have to ground share then so be it. Or should we just hand over of fist pay up. Does that sit well with all?
The only positivity atm is we have a club and a fan base anything extra that comes our way is a bonus.
Buckle up because we are in for some turbulence how severe is an unknown.
There are a lot of assumptions over what is a reasonable valuation and we are only hearing on side of the story. I am yet to be convinced Hilton can afford a new stadium if he can’t afford GP, and I am not convinced that Swann is in the wrong over any negotiations falling apart.
He came in during January claiming ground and all had been saved, yet we’re supposed to be happy with potentially sharing a ground, while making no money off home games?
1 user thanked author for this post.
This all sounds pie in the sky to me. I can’t see Swann agreeing to anything now with Hilton as Hilton said they aren’t speaking. Swann said he wanted the Club, stadium and land all sold as complete and now I would imagine he is very angry as it looks like the payment will not be made by the 24th. If Hilton is playing cat and mouse with our Club he is playing a dangerous game. Why would Swann do as Hilton says as he has always put himself before our Club anyway. Can’t see any if this happening.
2 users thanked author for this post.
I think the reality was we nearly didn’t have a club.
If we have to ground share then so be it. Or should we just hand over of fist pay up. Does that sit well with all?
The only positivity atm is we have a club and a fan base anything extra that comes our way is a bonus.
Buckle up because we are in for some turbulence how severe is an unknown.
There are a lot of assumptions over what is a reasonable valuation and we are only hearing on side of the story. I am yet to be convinced Hilton can afford a new stadium if he can’t afford GP, and I am not convinced that Swann is in the wrong over any negotiations falling apart.
He came in during January claiming ground and all had been saved, yet we’re supposed to be happy with potentially sharing a ground, while making no money off home games?
Would anyone believe the other side of the story?
We’ve got be happy with the hand we’ve got atm. It’s not our money to criticise who’s doing what with their money.
2 users thanked author for this post.
We have no reason to believe either side of the story. We shouldn’t blindly trust Hilton because Swann failed and put as at risk.
” It’s not our money to criticise who’s doing what with their money.”
That’s what was said with Swann and look at what happened under him.
1 user thanked author for this post.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.