You didn't really answer my question though. I find the comparison to a residential lease a weak one that's all.
Not amongst the council tenants I know. Most see their tenancies as a long term thing, and down South even more so as properties for cheaper rents are as rare as hens teeth.
Well it’s one SuperTyke argued a couple of days ago and as I was answering him I thought it was relevent to use same argument .
Obviously the owners do as they were actively looking . I was using Supertykes debate with you other day .
You've massively lost me here. The below is obviously an opinion you believe/support, right? 'I don’t know what the owners are gonna do but I wouldn’t spend money doing my council house up for the people who own it to take the rent as neither would you.' I asked f your council house has a significant revenue stream attached to it and paying customers to take care of it. I'm assuming it hasn't? If it did, I'm sure you would spend some money maintaining a certain level of standard.
But you accept that doing up your shop is your responsibility right? You're the only person who's defending this mob. Have you considered why that is?
No CEO can ever really be blamed for anything. Let's be right they are never anything more than yes men sheep who do as they are told and the final decision on absolutely anything falls on the owners, so any rubbish decision made by a CEO would get knocked back once the owner found out and it wouldn't happen if they didn't agree with it.
Maybe red Helen can remember as she gave you same reason as she’s given me about being in it a long time which of course she’s right .
You've well and truly lost me. For clarity though, comparing a commercial lease to a residential lease will lead to incorrect examples. Which ultimately leads you to an opinion that is easily challenged.
Easily challenged ? Weren’t t the owners actively looking for shared premises because of a dispute with their rented premises ?
I think at that point we didn't know the ins and outs as to the owners/renters obligations regarding the tenancy. Now we do I fail to see how anyone can still make excuses for the 80% not to do what they contractually agreed regarding the stadium. And quite frankly anyone who supports building a new stadium would plunge our club into massive debt as not one penny of it would come from the 80% , it would all be massive loans that the club would be liable for, plus no doubt having to pay way more than 150 000 per annum for decades to come.