JA
The first two paragraphs are basically the opposite of the truth. They aren't moving in, because they're already there, and they aren't taking on a 56 year lease, they're getting out of it by buying the place! The Drum's editor must think it's Opposites Day! 
Article on The Drum:
http://www.thedrum.com/news/2013/01/28/itv-takes-56-year-freehold-london-television-centre
Don't bother reading it though - pretty much every paragraph is wrong! I don't think I've ever seen a rehash of a press release done so badly.
http://www.thedrum.com/news/2013/01/28/itv-takes-56-year-freehold-london-television-centre
Don't bother reading it though - pretty much every paragraph is wrong! I don't think I've ever seen a rehash of a press release done so badly.
IS
Not really, 'ITV Studios' despite the name is a production business, it's got nothing to do with the actual physical studios.
This purchase isn't really anything to do with the ITV Studios side of the business, a lot of 'ITV Studios' programmes don't even use a studio let alone ones in that building. If they were concentrating mostly on that they'd just rent some random cheap office space to produce programmes out of.
It makes sense for them at the moment - their business seems to be increasingly focused on ITV Studios rather than ITV the broadcaster.
Not really, 'ITV Studios' despite the name is a production business, it's got nothing to do with the actual physical studios.
This purchase isn't really anything to do with the ITV Studios side of the business, a lot of 'ITV Studios' programmes don't even use a studio let alone ones in that building. If they were concentrating mostly on that they'd just rent some random cheap office space to produce programmes out of.
BL
Why bother posting it then!?
Good to know that it's future is safe, well for a few years at least. They were rumoured to be leaving it a few years back.. With economy how it is, I wonder if they made much of a profit from the sale and buy back? If it was sold in the early 2000's then that was the top of the market
I don't place much faith in that newspaper article. Just because the owner of the building's freehold may change it never meant that ITV had to move out. The article is really quite speculative.
LWT never owned the building at any stage, and neither has ITV until now. Quite where the story about sale and leaseback comes from is a mystery.
Article on The Drum:
http://www.thedrum.com/news/2013/01/28/itv-takes-56-year-freehold-london-television-centre
Don't bother reading it though - pretty much every paragraph is wrong! I don't think I've ever seen a rehash of a press release done so badly.
http://www.thedrum.com/news/2013/01/28/itv-takes-56-year-freehold-london-television-centre
Don't bother reading it though - pretty much every paragraph is wrong! I don't think I've ever seen a rehash of a press release done so badly.
Why bother posting it then!?
Good to know that it's future is safe, well for a few years at least. They were rumoured to be leaving it a few years back.. With economy how it is, I wonder if they made much of a profit from the sale and buy back? If it was sold in the early 2000's then that was the top of the market
I don't place much faith in that newspaper article. Just because the owner of the building's freehold may change it never meant that ITV had to move out. The article is really quite speculative.
LWT never owned the building at any stage, and neither has ITV until now. Quite where the story about sale and leaseback comes from is a mystery.
:-(
A former member
So who did built Kent house then? why did LWT do this in the first place?
BL
Technically, the constructors were 'Higgs and Hill'. When LWT won their franchise they announced pretty soon afterwards (in 1968/9?) that they were going to move to a new complex on the South Bank, that is why they only rented the Wembley site from day one.
Of course LWT were involved in the design of the purpose built building they had agreed to lease. But it was the Coal board pension fund that paid for it to be built and it is they who have always owned the freehold. The land on which it was built was (is I believe) owned by the local council - Lambeth - so it must be them who receive the ground rent. Being very much a purpose built building it's no wonder the pension fund insisted on a no-break lease. It also insisted on two independent occupants, initially LWT and the tax man.
Edit: And if you've seen that footage of the topping out ceremony, you will note that John Freeman actually thanks the coal board pension fund.
So who did built Kent house then? why did LWT do this in the first place?
Technically, the constructors were 'Higgs and Hill'. When LWT won their franchise they announced pretty soon afterwards (in 1968/9?) that they were going to move to a new complex on the South Bank, that is why they only rented the Wembley site from day one.
Of course LWT were involved in the design of the purpose built building they had agreed to lease. But it was the Coal board pension fund that paid for it to be built and it is they who have always owned the freehold. The land on which it was built was (is I believe) owned by the local council - Lambeth - so it must be them who receive the ground rent. Being very much a purpose built building it's no wonder the pension fund insisted on a no-break lease. It also insisted on two independent occupants, initially LWT and the tax man.
Edit: And if you've seen that footage of the topping out ceremony, you will note that John Freeman actually thanks the coal board pension fund.
:-(
A former member
So LWT had no spare money to pay for it upfront? When Did the Tax man leave? Did anyone else rent office space?
IS
Of course, the lease doesn't get cancelled when ownership changes (if it did many of us would be homeless!). However that doesn't mean they weren't thinking of giving up the South Bank and moving. I'd imagine the incentives for a big company like ITV to take move in there were quite enticing, as well as the cheaper rent.
I was just going on what WillPS posted, not the article
I don't place much faith in that newspaper article. Just because the owner of the building's freehold may change it never meant that ITV had to move out.
Of course, the lease doesn't get cancelled when ownership changes (if it did many of us would be homeless!). However that doesn't mean they weren't thinking of giving up the South Bank and moving. I'd imagine the incentives for a big company like ITV to take move in there were quite enticing, as well as the cheaper rent.
Quote:
LWT never owned the building at any stage, and neither has ITV until now. Quite where the story about sale and leaseback comes from is a mystery.
I was just going on what WillPS posted, not the article
TR
Lease back is exactly what is going on with TV Centre or at least part of it. The BBC own it (freehold of land and building) lease it to Stanmore who spend money redeveloping it then the BBC lease back the bit they want plus payments for any uprating for the rest of the site. It's A neat way of downsizing whilst making money - in the short term - if you are an accountant.