Jump to content

Recommended Posts

As the Woolwich and Barclays are within 300m of each other one of them was due to close.


The Land Registry doesn't yet have the price paid for 68-70 Lordship Lane.


It's an interesting site as it's the first suitable site in Lordship Lane (is it?) to have been sold since the change in the planning zone criteria which means it can be redeveloped as a four storey building.

The actual Barclay's building has been revamped inside - when my teenage son went in to open an account a few weeks ago he was told that the Woolwich would close and some staff would be moving across to join the Braclay's team. Barcalys & Woolwich are defintely merging in some form - I keep getting junk mail about it.

Nice little mystery here.


So which site is closing?


Could it be the Woolwich are temporarily in Barclays while the Woolwich is being refurbished and then Barclays will be vacated?.


Why would La'pec buy a site they can't redevelop?


68-70 Lordship Lane would be a large wine bar!

i think the sale of the Barclays unit was a 'for sale - business not affected' transaction - basically a property investor buying the site to add to his 'portfolio' having a blue chip client like Barclays will add value enabling him / her / them to borrow against the site - the same principle as the sale of Canary Wharf skyscrapers (but on a smaller scale)
My understanding was that the freehold interest of the barclay's site was sold at auction (and the purpose for buying the freehold is probably what mikese22 says above). If this is the case though, whoever bought it wouldnt terminate barclay's lease as they are probably very good tenants - unless of course barclays decided to quit themselves.... the plot thickens....
I'm reliably informed by a HSBC business manking manager that the Woolwich are dfinately moving into the Barclays building. HSBC were interested in relocating to the Woolwich building and having a dedicated business banking section upstairs. However, I am now led to believe that HSBC will not be moving after all. So the usual aweful cramped 45 minute wait in there applies as usual.

SeanMacGabhann Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Thanks Mike - informative, probably accurate,

> intersesting... and yet, mildly disappointing news

> (ie not a 4-floor

> sushi-lap-dancing-gayfriendly-nightclub then?)


sorry was a bit dull wasn't it!


i'm still trying to get my head round th sushi lap dancing - would the girls be holding sushi whilst gyrating or would the punter be eating the sushi whilst watching - would be somthing to do with the hands anyway and ensure that the 'look don't touch' rule was obeyed ;-)

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • I do hope NOT, wouldn't trust Farage as far as I could throw him, Starmer & co.  He's backed by GB News which focus's predominantly on immigration while the BBC focus predominantly on the Israel - Gazza conflict.   
    • Everyone gets the point that Corbynites try to make with the "total number of votes cast" statistic, it's just a specious one.  In 2017, Corbyn's Labour got fewer votes than May's Tories (both the percentage of votes and aggregate number of votes). In 2019, Corbyn's Labour fewer votes than Johnson's Tories (both the percentage of votes and aggregate number of votes); and he managed to drop 2.7 million votes or 6.9% of vote share between the two elections. I repeat, he got trounced by Boris F***ing Johnson and the Tories after the Brexit omnishambles. It is not true that a "fairer" electoral system would have seen Labour beat the Tories: Labour simply got fewer votes than the Tories. Corbyn lost twice. There is no metric by which he won the general election. His failure to win was a disaster for the UK, and let Johnson and Truss and Sunak into office. Corbynites have to let go of this delusion that Corbyn but really won somehow if you squint in a certain way. It is completely irrelevant that Labour under Corbyn got more votes than Labour under Starmer. It is like saying Hull City was more successful in its 2014 FA Cup Final than Chelsea was in its 2018 FA Cup Final, because Hull scored 2 goals when Chelsea only scored 1. But guess what - Chelsea won its game and Hull City lost. Corbyn's fans turned out to vote for him - but an even larger group of people who found him repellant were motivated enough to show up and vote Tory.
    • I guess its the thing these days to demonstrate an attitude, in this instance seemingly of the negative kind, instead of taking pride in your work and have standards then 🤷‍♀️
    • Nope, I'd just get on with my day and forget about it. And I wouldn't report them on the basis that they might spill my coffee in the future.  However the OP seems to think that this young woman is deliberately pushing her bell, slamming her gate etc, having repeatedly been asked not to. I'd wager the woman is a bit pee'd off and there's a bit of a stand-off going on. Best course of action is to go out, take the parcel, smile sweetly, say hello, tell her you hope she's having a nice day / staying cool etc, in a way that comes across as genuine and not pass-agg,  and to let it diffuse. Might find it calms down a bit.  But I like the girl hate the idea of her being denigrated on here when she works so hard. 
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...