Sorry that link went bad, it was an advert for a £16 million lease hold flat in Park Lane (on with Foxtons).
How is it very different? For the period of the lease as long as you pay the annual ground charge it is exactly the same.
"PS. And it goes without saying, it's far better to own than to lease."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Why?
Most residential flats are sold with a lease, as opposed to being freehold. There are flats which cost several times more than freehold houses. That doesn't make the title any less inferior. If it were, people wouldn't buy them.
Many businesses have leasehold properties. For that reason, commercial leases tend to be for hundreds of years, and with an option to renew. In many cases, big organisations rent their premises instead of owning them.
What myhammers said.
TBH it makes no difference.
mhammers talks rubbish at the best of times. To say a flat costs more than a house is ridiculous. Of course a flat in Park Lane would cost more than a house in Dagenham, but as on the whole, they dont come close.
Poor argument & quite literally, a load of bull.
The advantages of owning a property far, far, far, outweigh having a lease on one. I am baffled that this is even being debated on.
How though, in what specific ways does it "far, far, far outweigh".
As I said I have both owned one leasehold flat and two freehold houses and can't see any difference.
Also it is NOT just flats many, many houses are leasehold.
Oh and before you see that a negative may be restrictive terms in the lease, many freehold properties come with covenants preventing certain activities, for instance I'm not allowed to keep "livestock over than poultry", in my freehold home.
Ownership far outweighs a lease for inheritance purposes, credit entitlement, re-mortagage, equity, all sorts of reasons.
No, the only one of those even partly true in inheritance and as in this case we are talking a 200 year lease (I don't know if there is any option to extend) that will affect who, the two Davids' great, great, great, great, great, grand children perhaps?
Go to any loan or credit card site right now, they will ask if you are a home owner, they will not even be a box for whether you own free or leasehold because they don't care.
T K o T,
Go to any loan or credit card site right now, they will ask if you are a home owner
============================
And why do you think that is?
Its not because they dont care. If that was the case, the question wouldnt exist.
I'll give you an example, and this is a true story. When i was 18 & living with my parents i was sick & tired of getting credit card rejections because of credit scores, so i did something silly. Basically i lied on the form, instead of ticking the box "Renting" or "living with parents", i ticked "Owned my own house". And then low-and-behold, a Platinum credit card came through the post within days.
It was a silly thing to do because i got myself in £6k worth of debt by the time i was 19 & i didnt pay it off until i was 26, Silly Chicken.
Obviously the credit people are a bit wiser now than to simply take someone's word for it, but my point is that owning your own property helps you out massively where credit is concerned, hence the question still exists on forms.
"owning your own property helps you out massively where credit is concerned"
Yes it does, but your still failing to understand, owning a leasehold property counts as owning a property.
T K o T,
Yes it does, but your still failing to understand, owning a leasehold property counts as owning a property
===============================
Evidently not, judging by the credit card questionnaire you posted a few minutes ago.
As i said before, i cant believe we're even debating on whether its better to own or lease. You know as well as i do, its better to own, but you've gone back to your "argue for the shear hell of it" approach from a while back.
ok, let’s be more specific.
West Ham move to the Olympic Stadium and after ten years have averaged an attendance of 30,000 per home game (I know keeping my guess low will please you). Off they trot to the bank to borrow some money over say a thirty year period, now the bank will look at the attendance figures to work out how much West Ham can pay back, they will not care that the stadium lease will expire one hundred and sixty years after the debt is due to be paid off.
Honest not just for the hell of it. I really don't see that it matters that much, I don't think that freehold ownership has any advantage over leasehold ownership.
Perhaps in one hundred and seventy five years when West Ham (if football even still exists) start looking to renew the lease or find a new home it may matter,but not till then.
Well enough of this, time for me to stop work and go home.
Have a good evening Chicken
T K o T
Toodlepip.
Speak in the morning .
The only really important thing that matters about leasehold versus freehold is that Uefa have ruled that clubs that do not own the ground where they play (freehold and the structure) can not enter into a stadium naming rights deal without Uefa's authorisation.
WHL - owned
OS - rented
Spurs - owners
Wham - tenants
Thank you, DC5.
Another advantage to owning right there.
In your face, myhammers.
DC5: Are you saying that West Ham will not recoup the money from OS naming rights? Do you have a credible source for this, or is it just opinion?
"Uefa have ruled that clubs that do not own the ground where they play (freehold and the structure) can not enter into a stadium naming rights deal without Uefa's authorisation."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
That’s nice, so does anybody know what criteria UEFA will use in granting said authorisation?
Anyone.........
Anyone.........
No thought not, so pointless to bring it up really as for all we know it may be a pure rubber stamp exercise where a request to name will be passed on the payment of an ‘administration’ fee (UEFA do so hate the word bribe). Said fee costs would of course be passed on to any sponsor.
WHL - owned with 60 million debt, never mind the new stadium debt.
OS - 500 million stadium for FREE for 200 years..
DCease:
As per your logic, City shouldn't receive the money for stadium naming rights....
One more pointless argument.
"Uefa have ruled that clubs that do not own the ground where they play (freehold and the structure) can not enter into a stadium naming rights deal without Uefa's authorisation."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
That’s nice, so does anybody know what criteria UEFA will use in granting said authorisation?
Anyone.........
Anyone.........
No thought not, so pointless to bring it up really as for all we know it may be a pure rubber stamp exercise where a request to name will be passed on the payment of an ‘administration’ fee (UEFA do so hate the word bribe). Said fee costs would of course be passed on to any sponsor.
To return to the original question, I would guess it would be an "all star" ex West Ham 11, of the same sort that played in the Tony Carr game.
Sign in if you want to comment
Olympic Stadium - Whom shall we invite
Page 3 of 6
6
posted on 26/9/11
Sorry that link went bad, it was an advert for a £16 million lease hold flat in Park Lane (on with Foxtons).
How is it very different? For the period of the lease as long as you pay the annual ground charge it is exactly the same.
posted on 26/9/11
"PS. And it goes without saying, it's far better to own than to lease."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Why?
posted on 26/9/11
Most residential flats are sold with a lease, as opposed to being freehold. There are flats which cost several times more than freehold houses. That doesn't make the title any less inferior. If it were, people wouldn't buy them.
Many businesses have leasehold properties. For that reason, commercial leases tend to be for hundreds of years, and with an option to renew. In many cases, big organisations rent their premises instead of owning them.
posted on 26/9/11
What myhammers said.
TBH it makes no difference.
posted on 26/9/11
mhammers talks rubbish at the best of times. To say a flat costs more than a house is ridiculous. Of course a flat in Park Lane would cost more than a house in Dagenham, but as on the whole, they dont come close.
Poor argument & quite literally, a load of bull.
The advantages of owning a property far, far, far, outweigh having a lease on one. I am baffled that this is even being debated on.
posted on 26/9/11
How though, in what specific ways does it "far, far, far outweigh".
As I said I have both owned one leasehold flat and two freehold houses and can't see any difference.
posted on 26/9/11
Also it is NOT just flats many, many houses are leasehold.
Oh and before you see that a negative may be restrictive terms in the lease, many freehold properties come with covenants preventing certain activities, for instance I'm not allowed to keep "livestock over than poultry", in my freehold home.
posted on 26/9/11
Ownership far outweighs a lease for inheritance purposes, credit entitlement, re-mortagage, equity, all sorts of reasons.
posted on 26/9/11
No, the only one of those even partly true in inheritance and as in this case we are talking a 200 year lease (I don't know if there is any option to extend) that will affect who, the two Davids' great, great, great, great, great, grand children perhaps?
posted on 26/9/11
Go to any loan or credit card site right now, they will ask if you are a home owner, they will not even be a box for whether you own free or leasehold because they don't care.
posted on 26/9/11
T K o T,
Go to any loan or credit card site right now, they will ask if you are a home owner
============================
And why do you think that is?
Its not because they dont care. If that was the case, the question wouldnt exist.
I'll give you an example, and this is a true story. When i was 18 & living with my parents i was sick & tired of getting credit card rejections because of credit scores, so i did something silly. Basically i lied on the form, instead of ticking the box "Renting" or "living with parents", i ticked "Owned my own house". And then low-and-behold, a Platinum credit card came through the post within days.
It was a silly thing to do because i got myself in £6k worth of debt by the time i was 19 & i didnt pay it off until i was 26, Silly Chicken.
Obviously the credit people are a bit wiser now than to simply take someone's word for it, but my point is that owning your own property helps you out massively where credit is concerned, hence the question still exists on forms.
posted on 26/9/11
"owning your own property helps you out massively where credit is concerned"
Yes it does, but your still failing to understand, owning a leasehold property counts as owning a property.
posted on 26/9/11
T K o T,
Yes it does, but your still failing to understand, owning a leasehold property counts as owning a property
===============================
Evidently not, judging by the credit card questionnaire you posted a few minutes ago.
As i said before, i cant believe we're even debating on whether its better to own or lease. You know as well as i do, its better to own, but you've gone back to your "argue for the shear hell of it" approach from a while back.
posted on 26/9/11
ok, let’s be more specific.
West Ham move to the Olympic Stadium and after ten years have averaged an attendance of 30,000 per home game (I know keeping my guess low will please you). Off they trot to the bank to borrow some money over say a thirty year period, now the bank will look at the attendance figures to work out how much West Ham can pay back, they will not care that the stadium lease will expire one hundred and sixty years after the debt is due to be paid off.
posted on 26/9/11
Honest not just for the hell of it. I really don't see that it matters that much, I don't think that freehold ownership has any advantage over leasehold ownership.
Perhaps in one hundred and seventy five years when West Ham (if football even still exists) start looking to renew the lease or find a new home it may matter,but not till then.
posted on 26/9/11
Well enough of this, time for me to stop work and go home.
Have a good evening Chicken
posted on 26/9/11
T K o T
Toodlepip.
Speak in the morning .
posted on 26/9/11
The only really important thing that matters about leasehold versus freehold is that Uefa have ruled that clubs that do not own the ground where they play (freehold and the structure) can not enter into a stadium naming rights deal without Uefa's authorisation.
WHL - owned
OS - rented
Spurs - owners
Wham - tenants
posted on 26/9/11
Thank you, DC5.
Another advantage to owning right there.
In your face, myhammers.
posted on 26/9/11
DC5: Are you saying that West Ham will not recoup the money from OS naming rights? Do you have a credible source for this, or is it just opinion?
posted on 26/9/11
"Uefa have ruled that clubs that do not own the ground where they play (freehold and the structure) can not enter into a stadium naming rights deal without Uefa's authorisation."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
That’s nice, so does anybody know what criteria UEFA will use in granting said authorisation?
Anyone.........
Anyone.........
No thought not, so pointless to bring it up really as for all we know it may be a pure rubber stamp exercise where a request to name will be passed on the payment of an ‘administration’ fee (UEFA do so hate the word bribe). Said fee costs would of course be passed on to any sponsor.
posted on 26/9/11
WHL - owned with 60 million debt, never mind the new stadium debt.
OS - 500 million stadium for FREE for 200 years..
DCease:
As per your logic, City shouldn't receive the money for stadium naming rights....
One more pointless argument.
posted on 26/9/11
Posh
posted on 27/9/11
"Uefa have ruled that clubs that do not own the ground where they play (freehold and the structure) can not enter into a stadium naming rights deal without Uefa's authorisation."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
That’s nice, so does anybody know what criteria UEFA will use in granting said authorisation?
Anyone.........
Anyone.........
No thought not, so pointless to bring it up really as for all we know it may be a pure rubber stamp exercise where a request to name will be passed on the payment of an ‘administration’ fee (UEFA do so hate the word bribe). Said fee costs would of course be passed on to any sponsor.
To return to the original question, I would guess it would be an "all star" ex West Ham 11, of the same sort that played in the Tony Carr game.
posted on 28/9/11
IPSWICH + ALDERSHOT.
Page 3 of 6
6