So retailers just stop paying rent ...yep billions in profits but can't afford 1 months rent

bone said:
That’s right. Look at Cheesecake Factory. They spent over $400M in cash in 2018/19 buying out a restaurant chain. Now they say they can’t pay rent on their stores :rolleyes:
More...



And what's this?????


The Cheesecake Factory announced this week that it has received a $200 million investment from Roark Capital. This comes just a few weeks after the chain informed its landlords it would be unable to pay its rent for April.
 
How about flipping the question around. Are the landlords so broke that they can't survive without one month of rent? And what does it say about a landlord who demands full payment knowing damn well the foot traffic in the tenant's store is non-existent because of factors outside anyone's control?
 
That’s why the 2008 Investment Bank bailout was so insidious. A corrupt industry got bailed out of their own gambling losses because they knew they had both political parties bought and paid for.

And now, when government edicts shuts down most of the economy, and therefore the government does have an obligation to help - the big corporations get helped and the small businesses are left to die.

Harvard, sitting on billions of endowment dollars, originally said it was going to keep $9M in bailout funds because “they needed it” - but got shamed into rejecting it because Stanford and Princeton rejected it. o_O

S2007S said:
Fu$k it, let's just pay our rent, our mortgages, car payments and insurance, just don't pay anything. During a crisis they should just let everyone live for free. Right? Free handouts, free money, free food.
More...
 
Scataphagos said:
We should not forget.... years ago stock buybacks were considered "market manipulation" (DUH!)... and were illegal.
More...
Way back when? The way I remember is that buyback has always been seen by the public as a sign of good faith, ie. the company believes in its future growth.

Anyway, I get your point. Lately, these idiotic companies bought their own stocks at taxpayers' expense thanks to no other than the Helicopter Fed.
 
I think that SunTrader brought up an excellent point about “Force Majeur” lease provisions.

Baron said:
How about flipping the question around. Are the landlords so broke that they can't survive without one month of rent? And what does it say about a landlord who demands full payment knowing damn well the foot traffic in the tenant's store is non-existent because of factors outside anyone's control?
More...
 
Baron said:
How about flipping the question around. Are the landlords so broke that they can't survive without one month of rent? And what does it say about a landlord who demands full payment knowing damn well the foot traffic in the tenant's store is non-existent because of factors outside anyone's control?
More...
Are you talking about the landlord in lower Manhattan or one in some boondock Kentucky? ;)
 
Baron said:
How about flipping the question around. Are the landlords so broke that they can't survive without one month of rent? And what does it say about a landlord who demands full payment knowing damn well the foot traffic in the tenant's store is non-existent because of factors outside anyone's control?
More...


The landlord has obligations just as the tenant does as well.

I'm shocked that some here Believe its okay for these billion dollar corporations to skimp on paying their rent....

probably most here are for student loan forgiveness as well!!!!!!
 
Scataphagos said:
As a more clear example.. let's say the mall landlord voluntarily closed it to foot traffic. Should the leasees of space still be required to pay rent?
More...

That's a very clear example.
The landlord did NOT close it to foot traffic. The government did. So the landlord cannot be blamed for that. He made an agreement with a renter to put a space at the disposition for the renter. The landlord did what he was obliged to do by contract.

If one of the two parties that signed the contract does not meet his obligations, he is guilty. So not paying the rent is against the signed agreement.
 
Last edited:
virtusa said:
That's a very clear example.
The landlord did NOT close it to foot traffic. The government did. So the landlord cannot be blamed for that. He made an agreement with a renter to put a space at the disposition for the renter. The landlord did what he was obliged to do by contract.

If one of the two parties that signed the contract does meet his obligations, he is guilty. So not paying the rent is against the signed agreement.
More...



There you go. Thank you for clearing that up.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top