maurice wrote:
Feeling something is fair and actually being fair are two different things. As joint tenants of the council you should have the same terms, its not a double glazing salesman selling one 4x4 window to number 26 and half the price to number 32. The fact the council may have allowed this to happen is disgusting imo and if true the soccer club should be made to pay the equivalent rates backdated imo, or the amendment made to level things up
As said I am a Leigh fan, but wish Fax all the best in this matter and find the pontificating of some Soccer fans on here amusing and hypocritical to say the least
When in glass houses do not throw stones.
I have no idea how much the football club pay, and never enquired about how much the rugby club pay until it emerged it wasn't being paid, as I couldn't have given a fig until that point. I never asked how much the rent was, it just came out as the amount mentioned on the final notices issued.
If anyone on here thinks it's unfair then find out what the difference is and ask why. If this has been such a major issue I'm surprised this hasn't been done already.
It has been mentioned on the Town forum that the football club pay less as they don't have use of an office or shop. I have no idea whether or not this is true. However the council are happy with the amount paid as the previously mentioned FOI say the football club don't have rent arrears.
In your example if number 26 has an extension then why would number 32 pay the same amount for less windows? A businessman would understand this so could have queried it with CMBC in the past, too.
I'm not arguing with you about fairness as I have no idea if the rent is different or why; just explaining that this is public information and you can investigate it if you're not happy.
