04-10-2024, 02:40 PM
I don't think we should read too much into council poking their noses into lease contracts. I'm sure they were flooded with emails asking them to save the climbing gym, and now they're just paying lip service to appear sympathetic.
One detail I did find interesting was that the gym is on a 5 year lease. I'm not incredibly familiar with how these sorts of real estate deals are handled, but 5 years seems super short. The gym would have projected their income against the up front costs of setting up the new space and would have realized that the payback period was fairly long (I'm assuming years). I wouldn't be surprised if they're only breaking even after this 5 year lease ends. And if they were only offered a 5 year lease option, wouldn't that have been a red flag? Especially considering they're being forced out of their existing space for the exact same reason? I know I'm rambling here, but it certainly appears that the gym weren't totally diligent when signing to take over this space.
One detail I did find interesting was that the gym is on a 5 year lease. I'm not incredibly familiar with how these sorts of real estate deals are handled, but 5 years seems super short. The gym would have projected their income against the up front costs of setting up the new space and would have realized that the payback period was fairly long (I'm assuming years). I wouldn't be surprised if they're only breaking even after this 5 year lease ends. And if they were only offered a 5 year lease option, wouldn't that have been a red flag? Especially considering they're being forced out of their existing space for the exact same reason? I know I'm rambling here, but it certainly appears that the gym weren't totally diligent when signing to take over this space.