3 ms·
I think you’re being overly generous. These shops are very very prevalent on Oxford Street, to the point of there being ten to twelve in the course of several
by Tsiklon 4y ago
I think you’re being overly generous.
These shops are very very prevalent on Oxford Street, to the point of there being ten to twelve in the course of several hundred meters. They all have cheap signage, incredibly expensive stock and, other than tourists, very little footfall. They all look quite sketchy.
- gilleain 4y agoOnly one point is 'off' though: 1) "cheap signage" - so they are minimising costs? 2) "expensive stock" - maximising profits 3) "low footfall" - this does seem odd I still think that they get some deal on the rent, but they could also be dodgy at the same time. Would be nice if they were replaced by better shops.
- dataengineer56 4y agoThe way it works (generalising, read links for better info) is: 1. The landlord loses his long-standing tenant during lockdown because they can't afford rent anymore. 2. Instead of letting the shop go empty, the landlord creates their own separate sweet shop company and effectively pays rent to themselves. 3. Towards the end of the tax year, the shop is declared bankrupt. The landlord can take some tax benefits for having a failed tenant who can't pay the bills. 4. Typically the shop would have to auction everything they own (signage, shelves, tills, products) to claim back money, but no one wants to buy American sweets at a business auction. 5. The landlord puts the sweets into storage (they have long expiry dates and don't take up much space) and repeats the same trick next year.
- teddyh 4y agoI meant “these” as in “dubious trading, maybe even money laundering”, not “candy stores”. Post edited to clarify.