----- Original Message ----- From: Paul Cundell > I would agree if we were the owners of the stadium or were borrowing the money to buy the stadium. Why would you go into debt to renovate someone else's property?
It's a commercial property so needs a different mindset to that of thinking about a house and home. Commercial property may be "owned" by somebody else but that somebody else does not want to ever enjoy vacant possession or take up occupation themselves, and in reality just wants the income stream. They don't really want the property - it is just a vehicle or means to an end. They will never want to "live" in it. That's the last thing they want. The occupier has long term possession rights and makes long term business use of the premises in order to carry out their business/make a profit. Investing in the property they occupy in the long term can make perfect business sense and frequently does. Even looking at the domestic picture, if you were renting an unfurnished and unimproved property and you were guaranteed to be living there for the next, say 15 years, you might well borrow to put in an inside bathroom and new kitchen or insulate it to keep your bills down, or put in an electric power shower that sort of thing. If you wanted your friends to visit you might even decorate it at your own expense. Of course you would need a contract that says that the rent is not increased even by one penny because the property is now better than it was. That is the commercial property reality. My point is that this argument does not hold water or not at least by means of the logic being used. Taking it further though, just because it can be seen as being normal commercial expenditure only makes it even more clever if what you are improving with the right hand is a property which you own by the left. Now, the first points are "normal" thinking whereas the second points are Ken Bates thinking (which I assume is what the good Doctor is getting at). It is never what you assume it to be. Even more interesting is the fact that it is obviously now possible for the club to arrange facilities of millions of pounds with no obvious security. Where does that put the buyback of Thorp Arch when TA itself could be used as security ? You could say the same for the ground of course. _______________________________________________ Leedslist mailing list Info and options: http://mailman.greennet.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/leedslist To unsubscribe, email [email protected] PETE CASS (1962 - 2011) Rest In Peace Mate
