trespass are holding a closing down...

[tek-monkey]

Back to Tresspass- I believe they use the "Closing Down" trick as a negotiation tool for a lease renewal with a landlord. There appear to be quite a few "closing down" at the moment with dates near to the end of the year. I am sure they wait to the last minute and if the landlord hasn't found a new tenent then they screw him to the floor on price- and if he has- they shrug their shoulders and either pay the new lease costs or close as advertised

Having looked at retail rents in Staffod it seems a fair practice to me, some of them are extortionate! If you can negotiate better then do so, but as LLFC said on another thread the rental agreement should be mutually beneficial to both parties. Places like Chambers for example will never be rented out again if prices don't fall, IIRC the shop occupied by Terraces costs 1k a week! Many landlords are greedy, and would rather see a shop empty than risk letting someone have it for less than they might have paid. Thats the real issue Stafford has, most retail units are owned by people that don't live here and don't care. They are just sitting on the properties hoping they increase in value naturally without having to bother with tenants.

 

[Gareth]

Really might be right, millets twice and burtons/DP have done this in the last 5 years

 

[alphagamma]

We know that the Guildhall is owned by someone a long way away, but I wonder who owns all the other properties and shops?

 

[proactive]

I understand what you are saying, my OH runs her own business and can't afford staff so she does it all herself apart from a saturday girl. She pays that saturday girl the proper wage for someone much older though because she thinks its bullshit expecting a 16 year old to get paid half what a 21 year old does for the same job. The fact is she's very aware that if she can't pay her staff properly she won't have them, as its not fair. It means she works very long hours for little reward when weighed up, but that is her problem and not the people she asks to work for her. She provides a better service than a lot of the bigger firms, but they probably make a lot more money than her. She has principles though.

The fact is you still can't work on the new 'living wage', they simply took away the tax credits that balanced the wages and still left you with too little. I still see this as a good thing though, why am I subsidising companies that pay the lowest wage possible with my taxes?

EDIT: Just to add I'd happily work less hours for the same money, much better than working more hours for it!

My wife owns a shop. Not in Stafford, but not a million miles away. Apart from the person who is her deputy manager, who is paid higher than the other staff, none of the others, including the Saturday girl, get less than £10 per hour and that is due to increase by inflation plus 2% in September as it does every year. She decided to implement the pension business 12 months ago. The shop is still going and doing well, the world has not ended.

Pay the staff peanuts and you'll get second rate monkeys (which is nothing more than you deserve). Pay them a decent wage and pension and you'll likely get people taking more pride in their work because they feel valued. That, ultimately, is in my wife's and her customers' interests.

 

[littleme]

sorted it

Or, we could just remove the cause of inequity in the first place....

 

[Jonah]

The only thing about that solution is that three people are watching a match for free that other people are paying to watch. But that's probably not the point of the solution.

 

[jpphotography]

Was in yesterday and all the closing down signs had disappeared. Apparently they have renewed their lease last week, but they are a little worried that the new shopping centre might have an impact on footfall at the top end of town. I hope it doesn't as I really do like their shop.