DS Forums

 
 

Who owns the Rovers?


Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 02-07-2015, 08:27
davads
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 5,403

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?
davads is offline   Reply With Quote
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
Old 02-07-2015, 08:31
emay
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)?
emay is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-07-2015, 10:07
Corabal
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 2,009
I could be wrong, but doesn't Carla own half (Liz's share) and Tony own the other half (Steve's share)?
Carla probably changed her mind when the ruse became clear.
Corabal is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-07-2015, 10:18
jsmith99
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.
jsmith99 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-07-2015, 10:56
craig_25
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.
craig_25 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-07-2015, 11:17
Harlowe
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?
Harlowe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-07-2015, 11:42
Jazbaa1
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?
Jazbaa1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-07-2015, 11:48
ayrshire lass
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
ayrshire lass is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-07-2015, 12:33
kitkat1971
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 23,466
I'm a bit confused Steve owned Tony 10k but sold he half for how much to pay him off?
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.
kitkat1971 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-07-2015, 13:28
Mattehhhftw
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 6,687
I'm glad Carla owns it
Mattehhhftw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-07-2015, 13:53
Conall Cearnach
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 831
Surely Steve has a fair claim over Tony that he acquired the Rovers by deception.
Conall Cearnach is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-07-2015, 13:57
tobykim
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.
tobykim is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-07-2015, 14:19
Belligerence
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Ghosts Forge
Posts: 39,016
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.
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.
Belligerence is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-07-2015, 14:53
Harlowe
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 14,370
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.
Yeah none of it seems to make sense, why couldn't they remortgage or get a loan? Steve share would be worth more then ten grand.
Harlowe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-07-2015, 16:12
callumfreeman
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Mawdsley Street, Weatherfield
Posts: 8,702
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
I don't think the writers remember. Some stuff seems to have been forgotten recently.
callumfreeman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-07-2015, 16:51
Janet Plank
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.
Janet Plank is offline Follow this poster on Twitter   Reply With Quote
Old 02-07-2015, 18:02
kitkat1971
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 23,466
Surely Steve has a fair claim over Tony that he acquired the Rovers by deception.
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.
kitkat1971 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-07-2015, 18:06
kitkat1971
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 23,466
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.
Yes, that's right - bet had owned the lease prior to that and couldn't afford to buy it outright.

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.
kitkat1971 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-07-2015, 19:29
Conall Cearnach
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 831
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.
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.
Conall Cearnach is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-07-2015, 19:36
craig_25
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 2,952
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.
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.
craig_25 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-07-2015, 19:36
J-B
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.
J-B is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-07-2015, 20:00
jsmith99
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 19,936
I'm a bit confused Steve owned Tony 10k but sold he half for how much to pay him off?
He paid tony his 10K from the proceeds. How much he sold his share for wasn't, I think, disclosed. And din't he have a mortgage which has been totally forgotten about?

Surely Steve has a fair claim over Tony that he acquired the Rovers by deception.
What deception would that be?
jsmith99 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-07-2015, 20:07
kitkat1971
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 23,466
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.
They could but I think it would be wasted money. He hasn't actually extorted money from them, he's got back what he loaned them originally. As for making out his legs would be broken, well that is just one person lying to people close to them, you can't sue or prosecute somebody over that, it is not actually a crime to lie to a friend, lover or even business partner. If it was every person that commits infidelity would be in the dock.

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.
kitkat1971 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-07-2015, 20:10
kitkat1971
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 23,466
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.
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.
kitkat1971 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-07-2015, 20:13
craig_25
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 2,952
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.
Exactly, they would be laughed out of court, and told to do their homework next time. They sold with their heart and not with their head. Whilst Tony's actions were dubious of course, they were not in any way illegal.
craig_25 is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply




 
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 12:32.