|
||||||||
Who owns the Rovers? |
![]() |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|
#1 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 5,403
|
Who owns the Rovers?
Coronation Street Blog have been asking this...
http://coronationstreetupdates.blogspot.co.uk/2015/07/who-owns-rovers-return.html?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=facebook&m=1 Can anybody remember? |
|
|
|
|
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
|
|
|
#2 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: May 2015
Location: Underworld
Posts: 23
|
I could be wrong, but doesn't Carla own half (Liz's share) and Tony own the other half (Steve's share)?
|
|
|
|
|
|
#3 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 2,009
|
Quote:
I could be wrong, but doesn't Carla own half (Liz's share) and Tony own the other half (Steve's share)?
|
|
|
|
|
|
#4 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 19,936
|
We don't actually know that the split in ownership is 50/50. All we know is that liz "put some money in" when steve bought it. We don't know how much, whether it was a loan, a gift or an investment, or what proportion of the pub she was given in exchange.
Of course, I think the phrase "two halves" is used in some parts of the country as a synonym for "two parts", with no suggestion that the halves are equal. Trechnically, steve sold to a company, which is totally owned and run by tony. I understand that a limited company can now be registered in the name of one person, when it used to be a minimum of two. So far as I can see, the only point in this is to avoid responsibility for debts should the business fail. |
|
|
|
|
|
#5 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 2,952
|
I think the assumption is that the Rovers is now equally owned by Liz & Travis Ltd (aka Tony) but as others have said, it hasn't really been established what percentage is owned by each party.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#6 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 14,370
|
I'm a bit confused Steve owned Tony 10k but sold he half for how much to pay him off?
|
|
|
|
|
|
#7 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 285
|
Carla and Tony, I believe.
I remember Liz and Tony were on their way to the solicitors when Carla and Michelle arrived and stopped them. Carla had already had a meeting with her bank manager to make sure she could afford to buy into the Rovers which she explained to Liz. Tony then went to break the news to Tracy while, Liz, Carla, Michelle and Steve celebrated in the Rovers. Remember Liz was then all set to go to Spain with Tony? |
|
|
|
|
|
#8 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 2,961
|
Has Carla forgotten she owns half the pub, she never mentions it or shows any interest in it,? Also, why is she living at Roys dingy flat when she could have a room in her own pub, there always seems to be room for other people to stay there
|
|
|
|
|
|
#9 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 23,466
|
Quote:
I'm a bit confused Steve owned Tony 10k but sold he half for how much to pay him off?
I think it must be 50/50, otherwise what was the point in Carla buying it rather than the 'Travis Group' as it was done so Liz, Michelle, Steve would still have some say or control. If they are minority share holders they would very little control, Carla could always be outvoted. |
|
|
|
|
|
#10 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 6,687
|
I'm glad Carla owns it
|
|
|
|
|
|
#11 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 831
|
Surely Steve has a fair claim over Tony that he acquired the Rovers by deception.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#12 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 522
|
I thought the brewery owned it, that's usually the case otherwise it would be a "free house". When they talk about owning it, it's usually the lease that's being discussed, landlords usually buy the lease from the brewery and also pay a monthly rent, that's why smaller amounts are discussed because they don't actually own the building.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#13 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Ghosts Forge
Posts: 39,016
|
Quote:
I thought the brewery owned it, that's usually the case otherwise it would be a "free house". When they talk about owning it, it's usually the lease that's being discussed, landlords usually buy the lease from the brewery and also pay a monthly rent, that's why smaller amounts are discussed because they don't actually own the building.
Bet was given first refusal, but she couldn't stump up the cash. Hence why she had that row with Rita and left. |
|
|
|
|
|
#14 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 14,370
|
Quote:
Yes, i know it is ridiculous. No way would Steve's share, which must be at least 50 per cent equate to only 10k.
I think it must be 50/50, otherwise what was the point in Carla buying it rather than the 'Travis Group' as it was done so Liz, Michelle, Steve would still have some say or control. If they are minority share holders they would very little control, Carla could always be outvoted. |
|
|
|
|
|
#15 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Mawdsley Street, Weatherfield
Posts: 8,702
|
Quote:
Has Carla forgotten she owns half the pub, she never mentions it or shows any interest in it,? Also, why is she living at Roys dingy flat when she could have a room in her own pub, there always seems to be room for other people to stay there
![]() |
|
|
|
|
|
#16 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 5,175
|
I thought Newton and Ridley still held the freehold, as that is the only beer on sale there, and only the goodwill is owned by the licencee. I had forgotten about Carla buying a half share. and so has she it seems.
|
|
|
|
|
#17 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 23,466
|
Quote:
Surely Steve has a fair claim over Tony that he acquired the Rovers by deception.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#18 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 23,466
|
Quote:
The brewery sold rights two decades ago. Not just the license but the premises.
Bet was given first refusal, but she couldn't stump up the cash. Hence why she had that row with Rita and left. IIRC, Jack and Vera bought it, then Alec Gilroy, then a partnership of Fred Elliot, Dougie Ferguson and Mike Baldwin (?), then just Fred for a while and then I think the McDonald's got in there, then Stella, then McDonald's again. Despite all these sales and the contracts and deed checks that must have been involved, they still expected us to believe that Betty had owned it all the time after Annie 'left' it to her - even though it wasn't hers to leave. |
|
|
|
|
|
#19 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 831
|
Quote:
Not really as they sold to a limited company. If they didn't bother to try and find out who owned it that is down to them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#20 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 2,952
|
Quote:
I know but he let on he was going to get his legs broken unless they stumped up some cash for him. Surely they'd at least seek legal advice over it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#21 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Winter is coming.
Posts: 13,323
|
I'm sure I won a share in it after winning a bet with some long haired blonde bloke. Liz McMutton I think his name was.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#22 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 19,936
|
Quote:
I'm a bit confused Steve owned Tony 10k but sold he half for how much to pay him off?
Quote:
Surely Steve has a fair claim over Tony that he acquired the Rovers by deception.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#23 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 23,466
|
Quote:
I know but he let on he was going to get his legs broken unless they stumped up some cash for him. Surely they'd at least seek legal advice over it.
The only thing they might be able to get him on is paying those lads (i assume he paid them) to threaten Liz but how they'd prove that. |
|
|
|
|
|
#24 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 23,466
|
Quote:
It doesn't really matter how Tony manipulated Liz and Steve into selling to 'Travis Ltd' they did so without following due diligence and would therefore have no leg to stand on legally.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#25 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 2,952
|
Quote:
Exactly. Tony didn't actually do anything illegal in the sale. It is not illegal to set up a limited company. It is not illegal to use it to buy a property you already have a connection to. He did not put a gun to their heads to make them sell, forge their signatures or anything like that. He didn't even suggest they should sell. He just said he needed the money he had lent them back urgently and they took it from there.
|
|
|
|
![]() |
|
|
All times are GMT. The time now is 12:32.



