Quote:
Originally Posted by cheswick
I have a family member whos a higher up in business banking and pretty much puts the blame solely on Skinners for not having a better lease with right of first refusal. That is common practice in the industry and something Skinners obviously didn't negotiate into their previous leases.
|
Leases usually have renewal clauses, but they don't last forever. There may have been previous renewal clauses under the original lease that have been used up.
Whether you like Skinners or hate it, it is a matter of personal preference. Same as any restaurant. The location didn't survive by accident for 30 years. There has been a demand for their products. That will be understandable to some of you and boggle the minds of the rest of you. Some of you dislike the food, others like it. I don't understand the ad hominem attacks people make on each other on this board when they disagree over the quality of a particular restaurant. We ALL are entitled to our opinions. We may have to agree to disagree. The fact Skinners wanted to stay suggests the business was still viable.
As has been pointed out by others, we only have one side of the story. Assuming the version we have heard is 100% true, it is a bit of a PR disaster for the Forks. It leaves existing businesses to wonder what will happen to their business at the Forks. There is also the backlash of the "little guy" being pushed out against his will. The concept that will take over the space may be successful or fail. Who knows? In the long run the Forks may rue not continuing with Skinners. Time will tell
Threaded Mode