I'm unhappy (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Grendel
- Start date
That's a bit of a low blow , but I see we're your coming from .
Delboycov
Active Member
Surely you would have had the nouse to know you were paying over the odds in the 1st place and must have at least enquired about the rent they were charging????? common sense really....Or did you lose your job then realise you couldn't afford it then refused to pay anything? Did you then go back to your missus and tell them your landlord had agreed to cut the rent by 2/3 but she told you no way...feck 'em we're getting this house for nothing? No sympathy for you mate....no use closing the stable door after the horse has bolted you should've done something about it years ago! I hear Northampton's good for cheap shitholes!
Last edited:
letsallsingtogether
Well-Known Member
Fooking Squatter another law you've broken you should get rent for free at her Majesties Pleasure!!
Sky Blue Dal
Well-Known Member
My mate who living in Aston and the other in Leicester are doing ok... still living in a mansion. Sadly my mate,
living in Coventry, who seems to be an arsehole with the landlord has now ended up living in an allotment shed which he bought from B&Q.
Some people are beyond help :facepalm:
L
longjohnskyblue
Guest
But surely when you first moved in you were offered to buy the mansion outright! Why didn't you buy it then? when you wanted to sell it on in a hurry, you didn't want to be tied down with an expensive mortgage - but when the ffp change, the business model changed. Hence rent was never an issue before. Also talking about dodgy loans it's a bit rich. What about the £70 million debt you injected into the club?
And what about the broken lawnmower? when you rent a furnished property, you have to pay for any breakages. Oh how wonderful it must be to live in laa laa land.
sisu out
And what about the broken lawnmower? when you rent a furnished property, you have to pay for any breakages. Oh how wonderful it must be to live in laa laa land.
sisu out
Last edited by a moderator:
stupot07
Well-Known Member
The rent was always an issue, along with the wage bill, and other outgoing costs, hence why we have been making annual losses, since before Sisu took over.
They should have dealt with it at the beginning, along with cutting the wage bill an other costs.
L
longjohnskyblue
Guest
If that were true, then the losses would solely be the cost of the additional rent! In reality a business does not like to tie up capital in buildings if they can avoid it. It messes the cashflows and is generally bad news (which is why there are so many rented units down bayton road and the office blocks are generally let rather than bought).
Sisu simply didn't want to tie up their money in a mortgage, as their plan was a quick turnaround and sell on, taking out a mortgage would be insane if you intend to hold on to the business for 5 years or less. Problems arose, when they paniced, changed the business plan, sold the top players for peanuts to cover losses. Even then this wasn't a problem until ffp came into force. Only then, when they couldn't get away with renting (and hence writing off the costs for tax purposes) all of a sudden the rent was an issue.
Do you seriously think, knowing how ruthless sisu have been throughout, they would have accepted the high rent unchallenged if it was a problem for them? Sisu do not do long term, but because of woeful mismanagement, short-sighted appointments and downright incomopetence, they were left with a club very difficult to move on, hence distressing ACL to get the arena on the cheap. They even admit this as they said they were going to do it with the council and only complained when the council took the mortgage alone!