Although the current system is still unfair, really should be a lottery system every couple of years, I’ve seen these rented on Airbnb and you would recoup the 3k per year in less than a month
Ah a false money maker. The sort that looks good immediately in the short term but actually ends up bad.
So the council owns the SPV.
The SPV is “buying” all the huts from the council in one single go.
This SPV is getting the money to do this from a third party. So some form of Asset finance.
In which case the actual owners well be the third party not the SPV
This third party collects the value plus some interest over the period. They are also devoid of pretty much all liability and maintenance in almost all asset finance agreements.
If it’s one that’s allowing the option to have ownership at the end it is or one of the similar products to a hire purchase agreement.
So the council gets an immediate injection of cash from a third party.
The third party well actually end up as the owners for the entire duration and be charging the SPV for the use(though these charges are normally known up front for the entire duration)
The SPV has the make the money of the loan and the additional charges from renting these else risk default.
The SPV bears the costs of maintenance;damage and liability still.
And this is somehow going to be good for the public and the council.
Tl;dr more money to rich friends in a business less money effectively to the council long run; more costs to the users. Oh it’s a tory council of course it is.
All capitalism is based on casino rules – i.e. rigged against the ordinary punters and for the owners.
4 comments
Selling off the family silver once again.
Although the current system is still unfair, really should be a lottery system every couple of years, I’ve seen these rented on Airbnb and you would recoup the 3k per year in less than a month
Ah a false money maker. The sort that looks good immediately in the short term but actually ends up bad.
So the council owns the SPV.
The SPV is “buying” all the huts from the council in one single go.
This SPV is getting the money to do this from a third party. So some form of Asset finance.
In which case the actual owners well be the third party not the SPV
This third party collects the value plus some interest over the period. They are also devoid of pretty much all liability and maintenance in almost all asset finance agreements.
If it’s one that’s allowing the option to have ownership at the end it is or one of the similar products to a hire purchase agreement.
So the council gets an immediate injection of cash from a third party.
The third party well actually end up as the owners for the entire duration and be charging the SPV for the use(though these charges are normally known up front for the entire duration)
The SPV has the make the money of the loan and the additional charges from renting these else risk default.
The SPV bears the costs of maintenance;damage and liability still.
And this is somehow going to be good for the public and the council.
Tl;dr more money to rich friends in a business less money effectively to the council long run; more costs to the users. Oh it’s a tory council of course it is.
All capitalism is based on casino rules – i.e. rigged against the ordinary punters and for the owners.
Most corrupt council in the country, apparently;
https://westcountryvoices.co.uk/is-bcp-the-most-corruptible-council-in-england/