Please log in to use all the site's facilities
at 22:48 7 Aug 2018
Why is the completion of the 'Shrews' deal reliant on the Waghorn deal?
I would have thought it and the transfer fees spent so far were covered by the Webster transfer and the wage savings from Didz and the other exits.
I'd assumed that Waghorn's exit is being driven by him otherwise why unload him after just one year.
Our strategy is to develop youth and pick up bargains. What's the point though if we sell them after just a year.
I'm very optimistic about this season and we've done well to retain Bart but if we are really going for promotion in a few seasons it's odd that we seem to be accepting that Waghorn is gone without offering a new competitive contract and that Jonas and Garner may go.
It's not that we really needed to completely rebuild the team.
And what happened with ME's promised statement about our academy products being lured away?
|...in the next couple of weeks!!!|
at 22:18 27 Dec 2017
They'll look at what areas of the squad might need strengthening in the next couple of weeks?
Jesus H that beggars belief.
|Any legal bods familiar with the Landlord and Tenants Act 1954|
at 11:18 7 Nov 2017
My business tenancy has latterly been by a 'Fixed Term Licence' of 6 months, the license fee being payable monthly (there's been a series of these for some years). A 'Notice' paragraph states that 'This license is for a fixed term definite for the period and upon expiry the License Agreement shall absolutely cease forthwith."
The term expired some months ago but I've continued to occupy the space. There's been no further formal agreement but the landlords knew I was still there so they have been continuing to bill me on a monthly basis (which I've paid of course).
There are new owners of the business centre who have been trying to get new more punitive tenancy agreements signed which I in common with several other tenants have been resisting.
A few weeks ago the site manger of the centre told me (verbally only) that he had been instructed to tell tenants that if they didn't sign new agreements by the end of the month they would be locked out of their units so I've taken the opportunity to vacate the space as I've been meaning to anyway.
The landlord is claiming that even though the license has expired, because I've still been occupying the premises, I have to give 3 months rental as notice under Section 27 of the above act. I researched it and Section 27 refers to continuations of tenancy after contractual expiry by virtue of Section 24 of this act. I can't seem to find any info on Section 24 that I can understand so my question is does Section 24 and thence 27 apply in this case.
|Forum Votes: ||45|
|Comment Votes: ||2|
|Prediction League: ||0|