Morrisons coming to Stafford?

c0tt0nt0p

c0tt0nt0p

Well-Known Forumite
alphagamma said:
View attachment 3324 View attachment 3324
Click to expand...

percentage-of-unnecesary-graphs-2.png
 
A

alphagamma

Well-Known Forumite
V confusing. Will Morrisons now be able to negotiate a better deal with the new owner, and what effect will this have on all the other LXB businesses, like the offshoot responsible for the shopping centre?
 
wizzard

wizzard

Well-Known Forumite
alphagamma said:
V confusing. Will Morrisons now be able to negotiate a better deal with the new owner, and what effect will this have on all the other LXB businesses, like the offshoot responsible for the shopping centre?
Click to expand...

I doubt it as Morrisons seem to have paid to get out of the lease.
 
Gramaisc

Gramaisc

Forum O. G.
alphagamma said:
Yes, but none of the major supermarkets seem to know what they're doing since LIDL and ALDI arrived.
Click to expand...
Living on a legacy of the past and customer inertia can work for a while, but you should use the time to respond adequately.

To be fair to Morrisons' management, their current situation is largely a result of the actions of people who are even in the business now.
 
G

Gareth

Well-Known Forumite
Can I just say LXB held the leasehold interest and had the right as the short term occupiers of the land to develop and lease to a third party. As effectively temporary owners of the land they granted a lease to morrisons, their right to do so.

this making LXB landlord and morrisons the tenant

The freehold in interest will now be taken up by the new jersey company after their purchase from LXB.


Morrisons, B&M and Just for pets now have their leases with the new company.

of course as one poster did allude too, depending on the contract and lease negotiation this might put them in a position to renegotiate if they wish, or they can simply accept the contract with the new freehold interest party.

selling on by developers is a common theme in the UK as it can see investors see a quick return on their investment. LXB are not a letting agent nor want to wait years for a return.

Quick buck earn't then onto the next development.

if that wording should be taken at face value that is the bottom line. However, as mentioned slightly ambiguous and poorly worded leading to an understandable mixed interpretation.
 
Last edited:
zebidee

zebidee

Well-Known Forumite
Exactly Gareth I'm glad you came on here to say that because it is ambiguous and people are all too happy to jump to their conclusions. If LXB held the control of the leasehold interest then it would have to be surrendered to *someone* for the someone to pay the leasehold to the freeholder. The freeholder would have been LXB? but is now Triple Jersey?

Furthermore, and I'm happy to be filled in on this as I know nothing about it, it states there are proceeds from the two transactions. Logically this points to the leasehold being *bought* by someone else. Would Morrisons have to pay to surrender the leasehold back? Or is it more likely they're paying to receive it from LXB - the company that is surrendering it?

But my main point was the wording. "Its" in this sentence could be taken to refer to either of the two mentioned parties. I tried to remember how to write syntax trees to prove my point but it's been 9 years since I studied grammar and I can't be arsed to relearn it. This is poor grammar or deliberate winding up of Stafford forum ;)

Edit: apologies for my autocorrect gaffe "it's" was intended as "its," obviously.
 
Last edited:
C

Confused

Well-Known Forumite
Gareth said:
Can I just say LXB held the leasehold interest and had the right as the short term occupiers of the land to develop and lease to a third party. As effectively temporary owners of the land they granted a lease to morrisons, their right to do so.

this making LXB landlord and morrisons the tenant

The freehold in interest will now be taken up by the new jersey company after their purchase from LXB.


Morrisons, B&M and Just for pets now have their leases with the new company.

of course as one poster did allude too, depending on the contract and lease negotiation this might put them in a position to renegotiate if they wish, or they can simply accept the contract with the new freehold interest party.

selling on by developers is a common theme in the UK as it can see investors see a quick return on their investment. LXB are not a letting agent nor want to wait years for a return.

Quick buck earn't then onto the next development.

if that wording should be taken at face value that is the bottom line. However, as mentioned slightly ambiguous and poorly worded leading to an understandable mixed interpretation.
Click to expand...

The plot thickens.

Surely Morrison's held the leasehold interest, having signed several years ago, LXB are the freeholder? Although you being in the trade may understand the lingo better than me.

A very poorly worded communication from someone from LXB that should be hired for their communication skills. Inexcusable.

I'm quite prepared to put my tee-shirt back in the wardrobe if Morrison's do open. Just the wall of silence has been deafening from them for months.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top