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

    • Exactly what I said, that Corbyn's group of univeristy politics far-left back benchers would have been a disaster during Covid if they had won the election. Here you go:  BBC News - Ex-union boss McCluskey took private jet flights arranged by building firm, report finds https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cp3kgg55410o The 2019 result was considered one of the worst in living memory for Labour, not only for big swing of seats away from them but because they lost a large number of the Red-wall seats- generational Labour seats. Why? Because as Alan Johnson put it so succinctly: "Corbyn couldn't lead the working class out of a paper bag"! https://youtu.be/JikhuJjM1VM?si=oHhP6rTq4hqvYyBC
    • Agreed and in the meantime its "joe public" who has to pay through higher prices. We're talking all over the shop from food to insurance and everything in between.  And to add insult to injury they "hurt " their own voters/supporters through the actions they have taken. Sadly it gets to a stage where you start thinking about leaving London and even exiting the UK for good, but where to go????? Sad times now and ahead for at least the next 4yrs, hence why Govt and Local Authorities need to cut spending on all but essential services.  An immediate saving, all managerial and executive salaries cannot exceed and frozen at £50K Do away with the Mayor of London, the GLA and all the hanging on organisations, plus do away with borough mayors and the teams that serve them. All added beauracracy that can be dispensed with and will save £££££'s  
    • The minimum wage hikes on top of the NICs increases have also caused vast swathes of unemployment.
    • Exactly - a snap election will make things even worse. Jazzer - say you get a 'new' administration tomorrow, you're still left with the same treasury, the same civil servants, the same OBR, the same think-tanks and advisors (many labour advisors are cross-party, Gauke for eg). The options are the same, no matter who's in power. Labour hasn't even changed the Tories' fiscal rules - the parties are virtually economically aligned these days.  But Reeves made a mistake in trying too hard, too early to make some seismic changes in her first budget as a big 'we're here and we're going to fix this mess, Labour to the rescue' kind of thing . They shone such a big light on the black hole that their only option was to try to fix it overnight. It was a comms clusterfuck.  They'd perhaps have done better sticking to Sunak's quiet, cautious approach, but they knew the gullible public was expecting an 24-hour turnaround miracle.  The NIC hikes are a disaster, I think they'll be reversed soon and enough and they'll keep trying till they find something that sticks.   
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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