Whatever we take will no doubt go towards cutting the £8m losses down to £4m. Don’t get excited thinking it will fund a forward who can actually score goals
Whatever we take will no doubt go towards cutting the £8m losses down to £4m. Don’t get excited thinking it will fund a forward who can actually score goals
I don't know if it's been published. But how much do you think the tenants of the Valley when the owner of the Valley decided to allow someone else to use the stadium that Charlton don't own?
I don't know if it's been published. But how much do you think the tenants of the Valley when the owner of the Valley decided to allow someone else to use the stadium that Charlton don't own?
I don't know if it's been published. But how much do you think the tenants of the Valley when the owner of the Valley decided to allow someone else to use the stadium that Charlton don't own?
Not sure I understand your point.
If Charlton have got a lease on the ground and are paying rent then we may not own the freehold but that doesn't mean the landlord can just let it out to anyone else when we're not using it.
My guess would be the lease allows us to sublet the ground and use it for whatever we like, in return for the annual rent. But to know for sure you would have to look at the exact terms of the lease.
I don't know if it's been published. But how much do you think the tenants of the Valley when the owner of the Valley decided to allow someone else to use the stadium that Charlton don't own?
Not sure I understand your point.
If Charlton have got a lease on the ground and are paying rent then we may not own the freehold but that doesn't mean the landlord can just let it out to anyone else when we're not using it.
My guess would be the lease allows us to sublet the ground and use it for whatever we like, in return for the annual rent. But to know for sure you would have to look at the exact terms of the lease.
Ha ha. Read the freeholder old agreement have you?
My guess is that any agreement is with the leaseholder rather than the freeholder. Roland wouldn’t meet with people that wanted to give him millions for the club, I doubt he’d meet with people that wanted to give him a few grand for a days hire, even if it was his call (which it wouldn’t have been).
I don't know if it's been published. But how much do you think the tenants of the Valley when the owner of the Valley decided to allow someone else to use the stadium that Charlton don't own?
Not sure I understand your point.
If Charlton have got a lease on the ground and are paying rent then we may not own the freehold but that doesn't mean the landlord can just let it out to anyone else when we're not using it.
My guess would be the lease allows us to sublet the ground and use it for whatever we like, in return for the annual rent. But to know for sure you would have to look at the exact terms of the lease.
Ha ha. Read the freeholder old agreement have you?
No, that's why I said it was my "guess" and that you would need to look at the exact terms of the lease to know for sure.
However, I've reviewed thousands of commercial leases over the years and, in my experience, it's very rare for a landlord to grant a lease to a tenant - in this case Charlton - AND still retain the right to also let the property to other third parties. Not impossible, but unlikely.
Comments
If Charlton have got a lease on the ground and are paying rent then we may not own the freehold but that doesn't mean the landlord can just let it out to anyone else when we're not using it.
My guess would be the lease allows us to sublet the ground and use it for whatever we like, in return for the annual rent. But to know for sure you would have to look at the exact terms of the lease.
However, I've reviewed thousands of commercial leases over the years and, in my experience, it's very rare for a landlord to grant a lease to a tenant - in this case Charlton - AND still retain the right to also let the property to other third parties. Not impossible, but unlikely.