Adrian Stott wrote: > Will Chapman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > >> Adrian Stott wrote: >> >>> Most of BW's property that is held for income is let on long-term >>> (typically 25 year) commercial leases. Such leases do normally have >>> periodic rent reviews, but these are usually specified as being >>> "upward-only" so the rent can never fall. This means that BW's >>> property income has probably reduced very little in the last year or >>> two, and isn't likely to. >>> >> How is it then that it dropped from £63.2 million in 2005/6 to >> £59.56 million in 2006/7? > > I haven't had the chance to review BW's accounts. Could be due to a > number of reasons, such as: > > - Sale of some properties previously being rented > - Withdrawal of some properties from lease to allow them to be > redeveloped > - Rent-free periods on new tenancies > etc. etc. >
You are stating the obvious Adrian. What I am challenging is your statement that BW's >>> property income has probably reduced very little in the last >>> year or two, and isn't likely to. It clearly has - by £3.8 million and I would suspect that BW feels itself lucky that no one asked the question at the Annual Meeting. Cheers -- Will Chapman Save Our Waterways www.SaveOurWaterways.org.uk
