Cyclone   10 #145 Posted November 12, 2014 I was under the impression that it was an investment fund that was buying them, and that he was a minor investor in this fund. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
DanWhite1 Â Â 10 #146 Posted November 12, 2014 people sound surprised. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
ECCOnoob   1,053 #147 Posted November 12, 2014 I was under the impression that it was an investment fund that was buying them, and that he was a minor investor in this fund.  That's correct. In fact the majority of the estate is owned by an investment fund. But hey, this is Sheffield Forum. Facts will never get in the way of a good tory bashing thread. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
Stan Tamudo   10 #148 Posted November 12, 2014 That's correct. In fact the majority of the estate is owned by an investment fund. But hey, this is Sheffield Forum. Facts will never get in the way of a good tory bashing thread.  I agree, we do enjoy a bit of Tory bashing on here. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
taxman   12 #149 Posted November 12, 2014 Without wading through the whole thread...why was housing bequeathed to "social housing" sold off to a multinational hedge fund? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
Stan Tamudo   10 #150 Posted November 12, 2014 Without wading through the whole thread...why was housing bequeathed to "social housing" sold off to a multinational hedge fund?  Opportunity Knocks for these entrepreneurs. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
Lotusflower   10 #151 Posted November 13, 2014 Solved with an eviction order for none payment of rent which will make it much harder for the tenants to acquire an new property.  Sorry to pee on your parade old chap.   http://www.newburytoday.co.uk/2014/newbury-mps-family-firm-pull-out-of-new-era-estate-following-eviction-row   As Bart Simpson might have said...EAT MY SHORTS! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
Cyclone   10 #152 Posted November 13, 2014 Without wading through the whole thread...why was housing bequeathed to "social housing" sold off to a multinational hedge fund?  Because no bequeathing was involved AFAIK. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
Bonzo77 Â Â 13 #153 Posted November 13, 2014 That's correct. In fact the majority of the estate is owned by an investment fund. But hey, this is Sheffield Forum. Facts will never get in the way of a good tory bashing thread. Â Irrelevant. It's still wrong. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
ECCOnoob   1,053 #154 Posted November 13, 2014 (edited) Irrelevant. It's still wrong.  I think you will find its very relevant. The whole focus and title of this thread totally misleading.  The MP in question is NOT forcing people out of their homes. Private rent is charged at a rate for a set period. When that period expires the rate may either go up, go down or remain the same. As a tenant its your decision how you deal with it. Private RENTAL means just that. RENTAL - its not yours. You have no claim on it. You have no ownership of it. How many more times do I have to say this. If you cannot afford to stay there anymore - move.  The MP in question has a stake in a company which itself has a small stake in the properties concerned. A piddle amount of actual personal control (if any whatsoever) as to what happens to the business interests of the property. But of course he is the one being put under the witch hunt because he happens to be an MP. Its bullying.  90% that's 90% is owned by an investment group which has nothing whatsoever to do with the MPs business thus nothing to do whatsoever with the MP being subjected to this stupid thread.  If you have a 1/10 stake in something - how much actual power and decision making do you really think you have?  Shame on the council for selling these buildings to private owenership in the first place - YES  Shame on the complaining residents for reaping the rewards for years of massively subsidised rates when their neighbours have had to pay full whack - YES  Shame on attention seeking, hypocrite, multi millionaire, multi property owners like Band for sticking their beak into an issue which they neither knows about or have any involvement with causing a predictable tabloid poo stir and unnecessary attacks on an individual and business for doing exactly what businesses and investment groups are supposed to do - YES  Care to actually bother to flesh why you insist, despite the alleged irrelevance that its "still wrong" ?? Edited November 14, 2014 by ECCOnoob Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
lines   10 #155 Posted November 14, 2014 Some people "constantly" use over generalisations and such!  All bankers! All corporations! All Politicians! All parties! etc, etc, etc  They even don't exist on any political spectrum they are soooo special! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
Bonzo77 Â Â 13 #156 Posted November 14, 2014 I think you will find its very relevant. The whole focus and title of this thread totally misleading. Â The MP in question is NOT forcing people out of their homes. Private rent is charged at a rate for a set period. When that period expires the rate may either go up, go down or remain the same. As a tenant its your decision how you deal with it. Private RENTAL means just that. RENTAL - its not yours. You have no claim on it. You have no ownership of it. How many more times do I have to say this. If you cannot afford to stay there anymore - move. Â The MP in question has a stake in a company which itself has a small stake in the properties concerned. A piddle amount of actual personal control (if any whatsoever) as to what happens to the business interests of the property. But of course he is the one being put under the witch hunt because he happens to be an MP. Its bullying. Â 90% that's 90% is owned by an investment group which has nothing whatsoever to do with the MPs business thus nothing to do whatsoever with the MP being subjected to this stupid thread. Â If you have a 1/10 stake in something - how much actual power and decision making do you really think you have? Â Shame on the council for selling these buildings to private owenership in the first place - YES Â Shame on the complaining residents for reaping the rewards for years of massively subsidised rates when their neighbours have had to pay full whack - YES Â Shame on attention seeking, hypocrite, multi millionaire, multi property owners like Band for sticking their beak into an issue which they neither knows about or have any involvement with causing a predictable tabloid poo stir and unnecessary attacks on an individual and business for doing exactly what businesses and investment groups are supposed to do - YES Â Care to actually bother to flesh why you insist, despite the alleged irrelevance that its "still wrong" ?? Â I've told you many times on this thread why it's wrong. I still stand by those reasons. Regardless of the amount of share interest he holds, or the other family members that are involved. He's part of the consortium, he's involved, he's wealthy enough to make other investments, ones that aren't at the cost of other people's living standards. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...