Partnership agreements..

Post by Peter Withey
How do they work?
Once again we hear Alistair saying that he has to buy Anisha out.
As a layman I would have thought the boot was on the other foot.
Anisha wants out of the partnership not Alistair. Surely she should
have to buy her way out of it. not him buy her out.
What about the improvements to the practice, the new equipment etc.
mainly suggested by her iirc. I'm obviously being naive but if she
wants out shouldn't Alistair be billing her for her share of those
costs?

Not actually heard the latest episode but all partnership agreements
will have predefined exit arrangements (I have recently been told about
an equity partnership being terminated because the partner concerned had
not driven enough new business - despite being pretty busy with existing
customers).

Anyway with only two partners the clauses in the agreement would (if
properly drawn up) probably have a form of pre-emption whereby Alastair
(as it was his practice originally) would be able to buy out Anisha in
preference to her selling her share and he becoming lumbered with a
partner he does not like.

The loan was used to buy assets and undertake building work. In that
sense the partnership is worth no more and no less than it was before
the work started but the high profile equine clients brought into the
business will not stay if the appropriate partner departs.

Consequently if Anisha paid £x for her share of the partnership it is
probably only worth £x/4 of that amount - so if she wants out she will
lose a good chunk of her money. If she is expecting return of her
original investment then hard luck.

Alastair only rents space at the Stables from Shula - unless she put the
property in joint names. If she did and then wants a divorce it is
going to cost Shula a lot of money as she will have to buy him out. He
probably has an unbreakable tenancy on the spaces used by the practice,
so he will get a huge payout from Shula, pay a pittance to Anisha and
then sell the entire practice so will walk away quite rich. Works out
well in my opinion for him as he gets rid of two objectionable women and
gets paid well for it.

I doubt if that is what the writers have written.

--
Kosmo Richard W
www.travelswmw.whitnet.uk
https://tinyurl.com/KRWpics

Vicky Ayech

2018-07-17 11:04:51 UTC

Not actually heard the latest episode but all partnership agreements
will have predefined exit arrangements (I have recently been told about
an equity partnership being terminated because the partner concerned had
not driven enough new business - despite being pretty busy with existing
customers).
Anyway with only two partners the clauses in the agreement would (if
properly drawn up) probably have a form of pre-emption whereby Alastair
(as it was his practice originally) would be able to buy out Anisha in
preference to her selling her share and he becoming lumbered with a
partner he does not like.
The loan was used to buy assets and undertake building work. In that
sense the partnership is worth no more and no less than it was before
the work started but the high profile equine clients brought into the
business will not stay if the appropriate partner departs.
Consequently if Anisha paid £x for her share of the partnership it is
probably only worth £x/4 of that amount - so if she wants out she will
lose a good chunk of her money. If she is expecting return of her
original investment then hard luck.
Alastair only rents space at the Stables from Shula - unless she put the
property in joint names. If she did and then wants a divorce it is
going to cost Shula a lot of money as she will have to buy him out. He
probably has an unbreakable tenancy on the spaces used by the practice,
so he will get a huge payout from Shula, pay a pittance to Anisha and
then sell the entire practice so will walk away quite rich. Works out
well in my opinion for him as he gets rid of two objectionable women and
gets paid well for it.
I doubt if that is what the writers have written.

They are in mediation instead of using lawyers. I don't think it
sounded as if the mediator was an experienced lawyer, and anyway,
they'd need one each. The mediator was saying how much cheaper this
way is than the legal route. I think Snappy needs to go back and take
legal advice.

Btms

2018-07-17 11:14:25 UTC

Post by Vicky Ayech

Not actually heard the latest episode but all partnership agreements
will have predefined exit arrangements (I have recently been told about
an equity partnership being terminated because the partner concerned had
not driven enough new business - despite being pretty busy with existing
customers).
Anyway with only two partners the clauses in the agreement would (if
properly drawn up) probably have a form of pre-emption whereby Alastair
(as it was his practice originally) would be able to buy out Anisha in
preference to her selling her share and he becoming lumbered with a
partner he does not like.
The loan was used to buy assets and undertake building work. In that
sense the partnership is worth no more and no less than it was before
the work started but the high profile equine clients brought into the
business will not stay if the appropriate partner departs.
Consequently if Anisha paid £x for her share of the partnership it is
probably only worth £x/4 of that amount - so if she wants out she will
lose a good chunk of her money. If she is expecting return of her
original investment then hard luck.
Alastair only rents space at the Stables from Shula - unless she put the
property in joint names. If she did and then wants a divorce it is
going to cost Shula a lot of money as she will have to buy him out. He
probably has an unbreakable tenancy on the spaces used by the practice,
so he will get a huge payout from Shula, pay a pittance to Anisha and
then sell the entire practice so will walk away quite rich. Works out
well in my opinion for him as he gets rid of two objectionable women and
gets paid well for it.
I doubt if that is what the writers have written.

The two are not incompatible. What is cheaper is to explore the financial
issues before involving a lawyer.

--
BTMS - Equine Advisor Extraordinaire.

Clive Arthur

2018-07-17 16:19:10 UTC

On 17/07/2018 12:04, Vicky Ayech wrote:
<snip>

Post by Vicky Ayech
They are in mediation instead of using lawyers. I don't think it
sounded as if the mediator was an experienced lawyer, and anyway,
they'd need one each. The mediator was saying how much cheaper this
way is than the legal route. I think Snappy needs to go back and take
legal advice.

He should use Usha!

Cheers

--
Clive

Btms

2018-07-17 16:34:54 UTC

Post by Clive Arthur
<snip>

He should use Usha!
Cheers

Only if she specialises in matrimonial law. There’s not much money in it.
Most solicitors prefer to specialise in other areas. Perhaps someone in
the practice deals with it?

--
BTMS - Equine Advisor Extraordinaire.

Clive Arthur

2018-07-17 16:40:09 UTC

Post by Clive Arthur
<snip>

He should use Usha!
Cheers

Only if she specialises in matrimonial law. There’s not much money in it.
Most solicitors prefer to specialise in other areas. Perhaps someone in
the practice deals with it?

I reckon Usha would do it pro bono. [1]

[1] Come on Mike, you know you want to. I suppose there would be a
certain sting in it.

Cheers

--
Clive

BrritSki

2018-07-17 17:41:28 UTC

Post by Clive Arthur
<snip>

He should use Usha!
Cheers

Only if she specialises in matrimonial law. There’s not much money in it.
Most solicitors prefer to specialise in other areas. Perhaps someone in
the practice deals with it?

I reckon Usha would do it pro bono.

Only dogs work for Bonios...

Mike

2018-07-17 18:02:06 UTC

Post by Clive Arthur
<snip>

He should use Usha!
Cheers

Only if she specialises in matrimonial law. There’s not much money in it.
Most solicitors prefer to specialise in other areas. Perhaps someone in
the practice deals with it?

I reckon Usha would do it pro bono. [1]
[1] Come on Mike, you know you want to. I suppose there would be a
certain sting in it.
Cheers

Wot? Pay her in dog biscuits???!!!

--
Toodle Pip

Paul Herber

2018-07-17 20:19:50 UTC

Post by Mike

Post by Clive Arthur
<snip>

He should use Usha!
Cheers

Only if she specialises in matrimonial law. Theres not much money in it.
Most solicitors prefer to specialise in other areas. Perhaps someone in
the practice deals with it?

I reckon Usha would do it pro bono. [1]
[1] Come on Mike, you know you want to. I suppose there would be a
certain sting in it.
Cheers

Wot? Pay her in dog biscuits???!!!

Winalot Legal Beagles.
We sue those who won't play ball.

--
Regards, Paul Herber
http://www.paulherber.co.uk/

Btms

2018-07-17 19:34:19 UTC

Post by Clive Arthur
<snip>

He should use Usha!
Cheers

Only if she specialises in matrimonial law. There’s not much money in it.
Most solicitors prefer to specialise in other areas. Perhaps someone in
the practice deals with it?

I reckon Usha would do it pro bono. [1]
[1] Come on Mike, you know you want to. I suppose there would be a
certain sting in it.
Cheers

But is Usha a specialist in matrimonial law? Its all specialists now.

--
BTMS - Equine Advisor Extraordinaire.

Btms

2018-07-17 11:11:52 UTC

Not actually heard the latest episode but all partnership agreements
will have predefined exit arrangements (I have recently been told about
an equity partnership being terminated because the partner concerned had
not driven enough new business - despite being pretty busy with existing
customers).
Anyway with only two partners the clauses in the agreement would (if
properly drawn up) probably have a form of pre-emption whereby Alastair
(as it was his practice originally) would be able to buy out Anisha in
preference to her selling her share and he becoming lumbered with a
partner he does not like.
The loan was used to buy assets and undertake building work. In that
sense the partnership is worth no more and no less than it was before
the work started but the high profile equine clients brought into the
business will not stay if the appropriate partner departs.
Consequently if Anisha paid £x for her share of the partnership it is
probably only worth £x/4 of that amount - so if she wants out she will
lose a good chunk of her money. If she is expecting return of her
original investment then hard luck.
Alastair only rents space at the Stables from Shula - unless she put the
property in joint names. If she did and then wants a divorce it is
going to cost Shula a lot of money as she will have to buy him out. He
probably has an unbreakable tenancy on the spaces used by the practice,
so he will get a huge payout from Shula, pay a pittance to Anisha and
then sell the entire practice so will walk away quite rich. Works out
well in my opinion for him as he gets rid of two objectionable women and
gets paid well for it.
I doubt if that is what the writers have written.

Interesting. I was wondering what your thoughts are. What do you mean
about an unbreakable tenancy? Is this something which is standard
practice?

--
BTMS - Equine Advisor Extraordinaire.

krw

2018-07-17 12:37:56 UTC

Post by Btms
What do you mean
about an unbreakable tenancy? Is this something which is standard
practice?

The Vet practice moved into the Stables some years ago. I assume the
practice entered into a commercial tenancy which (given that Shula owned
the Stables and they were a couple) was probably structured for the rest
of the Alastair's working life; pre-2000 or thereabouts a commercial
lease was 25 years and may have had a break clause once during the life
of the lease.

The only way out of such leases was to find another tenant willing to
take on the remaining life of the lease and the original lessee becomes
liable if a Maxwell owned company goes bust whilst in residence (my
employer experienced this).

Post-2000 commercial leases tended to be a little more practical for
tenants - periods of 10 years and later 5 years. However not always
with a break clause.

For a vet practice having a solid lease would be important - he would be
investing in getting it suitable for clients and would not want the cost
of relocating. He moved there about 2000 I think. So could easily have
had a 10 year lease which was probably renewed for a further 10 years.
Indeed as part of the new partnership agreement with Anisha her
solicitor might have insisted on a lease extension to ensure the
practice had a secure place from which to work for a good number of
years ahead - as may the bank who would not have wanted to lend money to
the new partnership without being sure that the investment was made into
a site from which the partnership could trade for a good number of years
to ensure the investment had a chance to pay back the loans.

I doubt if a commercial tenancy can have a break clause dependent on the
marital status of the contracting parties.

And the mediation is of course part of the divorce and not the sorting
out of the lease for premises which would continue, except that Alastair
as part owner landlord of his rented premises will lose the income he
was paying himself. (If you get my drift).

--
Kosmo Richard W
www.travelswmw.whitnet.uk
https://tinyurl.com/KRWpics

Btms

2018-07-17 13:13:04 UTC

Post by Btms
What do you mean
about an unbreakable tenancy? Is this something which is standard
practice?

The Vet practice moved into the Stables some years ago. I assume the
practice entered into a commercial tenancy which (given that Shula owned
the Stables and they were a couple) was probably structured for the rest
of the Alastair's working life; pre-2000 or thereabouts a commercial
lease was 25 years and may have had a break clause once during the life
of the lease.
The only way out of such leases was to find another tenant willing to
take on the remaining life of the lease and the original lessee becomes
liable if a Maxwell owned company goes bust whilst in residence (my
employer experienced this).
Post-2000 commercial leases tended to be a little more practical for
tenants - periods of 10 years and later 5 years. However not always
with a break clause.
For a vet practice having a solid lease would be important - he would be
investing in getting it suitable for clients and would not want the cost
of relocating. He moved there about 2000 I think. So could easily have
had a 10 year lease which was probably renewed for a further 10 years.
Indeed as part of the new partnership agreement with Anisha her
solicitor might have insisted on a lease extension to ensure the
practice had a secure place from which to work for a good number of
years ahead - as may the bank who would not have wanted to lend money to
the new partnership without being sure that the investment was made into
a site from which the partnership could trade for a good number of years
to ensure the investment had a chance to pay back the loans.
I doubt if a commercial tenancy can have a break clause dependent on the
marital status of the contracting parties.
And the mediation is of course part of the divorce and not the sorting
out of the lease for premises which would continue, except that Alastair
as part owner landlord of his rented premises will lose the income he
was paying himself. (If you get my drift).

Yes, drift got. Very interesting and jogged my memory of something to do
with commercial leases way back. Due diligence was not a phrase which I
think was in use back then..

--
BTMS - Equine Advisor Extraordinaire.

Serena Blanchflower

2018-07-17 13:07:27 UTC

Post by krw
Alastair only rents space at the Stables from Shula - unless she put the
property in joint names. If she did and then wants a divorce it is
going to cost Shula a lot of money as she will have to buy him out. He
probably has an unbreakable tenancy on the spaces used by the practice,
so he will get a huge payout from Shula, pay a pittance to Anisha and
then sell the entire practice so will walk away quite rich. Works out
well in my opinion for him as he gets rid of two objectionable women and
gets paid well for it.

I'm pretty sure that, last night, they told the mediator that all the
premises were jointly owned. Shula is planning to buy Alistair out of
his share of the house but nothing was said about what they were
planning to do about ownership of the stables and veterinary buildings.

--
Best wishes, Serena
I cannot always control what goes on outside. But I can always control
what goes on inside. (Wayne Dwer)

Btms

2018-07-17 13:18:26 UTC

Mediation gives the partners questionnaire’s on finance to collect the
data. No idea if there are penalties for lying or producing fraudulent
data. Proof if fraud might be challenging to expose. I would have
expected the capital assets to be part of the questionnaire.

--
BTMS - Equine Advisor Extraordinaire.

krw

2018-07-17 13:25:19 UTC

No recent personal experience but did have some insight from daughter's
divorce. She did it herself and she only took 50% - I reckon she should
have got more because of gson.

--
Kosmo Richard W
www.travelswmw.whitnet.uk
https://tinyurl.com/KRWpics

Serena Blanchflower

2018-07-17 14:20:46 UTC

I'm sure it would have been. They didn't take us through every box on
the forms though; there was just a comment along the lines of "you say
that both businesses are run from jointly owned premises".

--
Best wishes, Serena
They told me I had type-A blood, but it was a typo

krw

2018-07-17 13:24:11 UTC

Post by Serena Blanchflower
I'm pretty sure that, last night, they told the mediator that all the
premises were jointly owned. Shula is planning to buy Alistair out of
his share of the house but nothing was said about what they were
planning to do about ownership of the stables and veterinary buildings.

Not at all surprised at joint ownership (more surprised that jenny is
not on the title deeds at Home Farm). I would expect the house and
stables and outbuildings to be a single land registry plot. No reason
why that cannot be split up - but if I was Alastair I don't think I
would want Shula as joint owner of the vet practice buildings and
conversely I doubt that Shula wants Alastair to jointly own the stables
property. But I doubt if the sws have got that detail!

--
Kosmo Richard W
www.travelswmw.whitnet.uk
https://tinyurl.com/KRWpics

Serena Blanchflower

2018-07-17 14:24:03 UTC

I agree. When you compare it to Home Farm though, one important
difference is that Alistair and Shula bought The Stables a few years
after they married. I think Brian already owned Home Farm when he met,
and married, Jenny - or should I be adding egg whites to this evening's
Tesco delivery?

--
Best wishes, Serena
Q. What was the tortoise doing on the motorway?
A. About 1 mph.

krw

2018-07-17 14:57:57 UTC

When you compare it to Home Farm though, one important difference is
that Alistair and Shula bought The Stables a few years after they
married.

I had forgotten that it was in that order. So less of a surprise.

I think Brian already owned Home Farm when he met, and

married, Jenny - or should I be adding egg whites to this evening's
Tesco delivery?

Entirely correct but I owned this house when I married the current wofe
and the next time it was remortgaged after we married and so I was in
contact with solicitors it was re-registered in joint names and I am a
little surprised given the shenanigans in which Brian has indulged that
Jenny did not at some point want her name on the title deeds!

--
Kosmo Richard W
www.travelswmw.whitnet.uk
https://tinyurl.com/KRWpics

Chris McMillan

2018-07-19 17:16:10 UTC

Have you heard tonight’s yet, Serena?

Sincerely Chris

Serena Blanchflower

2018-07-19 18:38:56 UTC

Have you heard tonight’s yet, Serena?

Um, yes, but I don't think there was any mention of Shula and Alistair,
unless I was dreaming. Or yesterday, come to that.

--
Best wishes, Serena
I hope to God the doctor finds something wrong with me because I'd hate
to feel like this if I was well! (Anon)

Sally Thompson

2018-07-19 20:12:08 UTC

Have you heard tonight’s yet, Serena?

Um, yes, but I don't think there was any mention of Shula and Alistair,
unless I was dreaming. Or yesterday, come to that.

No there wasn't. I listened twice to yesterday's because of a suggestion on
Facebook about why the pickers were ill and I wanted to check. Certainly
no Shula, Alistair or Anisha.

--
Sally in Shropshire, UK

Mike

2018-07-20 07:39:30 UTC

Post by Sally Thompson

Have you heard tonight’s yet, Serena?

Um, yes, but I don't think there was any mention of Shula and Alistair,
unless I was dreaming. Or yesterday, come to that.

No there wasn't. I listened twice to yesterday's because of a suggestion on
Facebook about why the pickers were ill and I wanted to check. Certainly
no Shula, Alistair or Anisha.

Freddy’s ‘safe pills’ get around....

--
Toodle Pip

p***@never.here

2018-07-21 09:54:50 UTC

Post by Sally Thompson

Have you heard tonights yet, Serena?

Um, yes, but I don't think there was any mention of Shula and Alistair,
unless I was dreaming. Or yesterday, come to that.

No there wasn't. I listened twice to yesterday's because of a suggestion on
Facebook about why the pickers were ill and I wanted to check. Certainly
no Shula, Alistair or Anisha.

Freddys safe pills get around....

I' surprised nobody has mentioned that before - I'm sure that's where
that storyline is going...

--
Pete

Chris McMillan

2018-07-21 11:52:02 UTC

Have you heard tonight’s yet, Serena?

Um, yes, but I don't think there was any mention of Shula and Alistair,
unless I was dreaming. Or yesterday, come to that.

I was referring to the epi where they talk to the mediator and (sorry all
um-cats reading this) lots of you were let loose from bags. But can’t
remember which night that was.

Sincerely Chris

Serena Blanchflower

2018-07-21 12:56:27 UTC

Have you heard tonight’s yet, Serena?

Um, yes, but I don't think there was any mention of Shula and Alistair,
unless I was dreaming. Or yesterday, come to that.

I was referring to the epi where they talk to the mediator and (sorry all
um-cats reading this) lots of you were let loose from bags. But can’t
remember which night that was.

That was the discussion which I had been referring to in my earlier post
("I'm pretty sure that, last night...")

--
Best wishes, Serena
Life is what happens to you when you're making other plans (Betty Talmadge)

Chris McMillan

2018-07-17 20:16:01 UTC

Not actually heard the latest episode but all partnership agreements
will have predefined exit arrangements (I have recently been told about
an equity partnership being terminated because the partner concerned had
not driven enough new business - despite being pretty busy with existing
customers).
Anyway with only two partners the clauses in the agreement would (if
properly drawn up) probably have a form of pre-emption whereby Alastair
(as it was his practice originally) would be able to buy out Anisha in
preference to her selling her share and he becoming lumbered with a
partner he does not like.
The loan was used to buy assets and undertake building work. In that
sense the partnership is worth no more and no less than it was before
the work started but the high profile equine clients brought into the
business will not stay if the appropriate partner departs.
Consequently if Anisha paid £x for her share of the partnership it is
probably only worth £x/4 of that amount - so if she wants out she will
lose a good chunk of her money. If she is expecting return of her
original investment then hard luck.
Alastair only rents space at the Stables from Shula - unless she put the
property in joint names. If she did and then wants a divorce it is
going to cost Shula a lot of money as she will have to buy him out. He
probably has an unbreakable tenancy on the spaces used by the practice,
so he will get a huge payout from Shula, pay a pittance to Anisha and
then sell the entire practice so will walk away quite rich. Works out
well in my opinion for him as he gets rid of two objectionable women and
gets paid well for it.
I doubt if that is what the writers have written.

You need last night and tonight’s epis ......

Sincerely Chris

Btms

2018-07-17 11:04:17 UTC

Ianal but was once a solicitor’s clerk and later a bank clerk (way back in
the last century). Partnership agreements varied with regard to T&Cs.
Banks didn’t like them because they were problematic when they ended as
they were often drawn up badly. I am guessing it was different with
professions like solicitors, doctors etc., where buying into a partnership
was long established & probably had fairly standard agreements. I would
think this might apply to veterinary practices and might cover the points
you raise. As I say, my knowledge is low level and anchored in the days
when banks sought to look after the customer’s financial interests.*

I would expect Anisha’s share of the partnership to be sold and any added
value since she joined would benefit her on a sort of percentage
calculation. However, her leaving will have a negative affect on revenue
surely? As you say capital purchases will be a factor inmho.

*customers often failed to recognise this when the bank would not agree
with what a customer wanted.

--
BTMS - Equine Advisor Extraordinaire.

krw

2018-07-17 12:43:06 UTC

Ianal but was once a solicitor’s clerk and later a bank clerk (way back in
the last century). Partnership agreements varied with regard to T&Cs.
Banks didn’t like them because they were problematic when they ended as
they were often drawn up badly. I am guessing it was different with
professions like solicitors, doctors etc., where buying into a partnership
was long established & probably had fairly standard agreements. I would
think this might apply to veterinary practices and might cover the points
you raise. As I say, my knowledge is low level and anchored in the days
when banks sought to look after the customer’s financial interests.*
I would expect Anisha’s share of the partnership to be sold and any added
value since she joined would benefit her on a sort of percentage
calculation. However, her leaving will have a negative affect on revenue
surely? As you say capital purchases will be a factor inmho.
*customers often failed to recognise this when the bank would not agree
with what a customer wanted.

Unlike the last 15 years the banks have decided that it is important to
not only lend money profitably for the bank but also to ensure that it
can be repaid (which means that like in the good old days they are far
more concerned how the customer will be able to pay it back - something
they forgot for too many years). For £0.25m to do up the practice and
buy new kit the lending control team which the bank hides in a sound and
vision proof bunker to whom customers may not speak there would have
been conditions on the content of the partnership agreement so Anisha
and Alastair could not walk away, conditions on the tenancy agreement so
that Alastair (or Shula) could not (as part owner of the freehold)
prevent the partnership from continuing to trade profitably and probably
requirements to report regularly on business trading and cash flow.

--
Kosmo Richard W
www.travelswmw.whitnet.uk
https://tinyurl.com/KRWpics

Btms

2018-07-17 13:13:04 UTC

Ianal but was once a solicitor’s clerk and later a bank clerk (way back in
the last century). Partnership agreements varied with regard to T&Cs.
Banks didn’t like them because they were problematic when they ended as
they were often drawn up badly. I am guessing it was different with
professions like solicitors, doctors etc., where buying into a partnership
was long established & probably had fairly standard agreements. I would
think this might apply to veterinary practices and might cover the points
you raise. As I say, my knowledge is low level and anchored in the days
when banks sought to look after the customer’s financial interests.*
I would expect Anisha’s share of the partnership to be sold and any added
value since she joined would benefit her on a sort of percentage
calculation. However, her leaving will have a negative affect on revenue
surely? As you say capital purchases will be a factor inmho.
*customers often failed to recognise this when the bank would not agree
with what a customer wanted.

Ah yes! Even with my low level knowledge of finance the crash was
predictable. The timing less so. Its reassuring to learn the banks have
had a reality check. Though I doubt the nation’s credit card bills bear
too much examination. How we laughed at the interest rates on a free
Barclaycard. We woz naive and didn’t appreciate how uninformed folk were
(still are?).

--
BTMS - Equine Advisor Extraordinaire.

Fenny

2018-07-17 17:05:45 UTC

Post by Btms
Ah yes! Even with my low level knowledge of finance the crash was
predictable. The timing less so. Its reassuring to learn the banks have
had a reality check.

Elder Adorable Niece has just graduated and is going to work for a
City firm who review loan applications to see whether they are a good
prospect for the lending banks.

--
Fenny

Btms

2018-07-17 19:34:19 UTC

Post by Fenny

Post by Btms
Ah yes! Even with my low level knowledge of finance the crash was
predictable. The timing less so. Its reassuring to learn the banks have
had a reality check.

Elder Adorable Niece has just graduated and is going to work for a
City firm who review loan applications to see whether they are a good
prospect for the lending banks.

There’s probably an app for that now.

--
BTMS - Equine Advisor Extraordinaire.

Chris McMillan

2018-07-19 17:16:10 UTC

Ianal but was once a solicitor’s clerk and later a bank clerk (way back in
the last century). Partnership agreements varied with regard to T&Cs.
Banks didn’t like them because they were problematic when they ended as
they were often drawn up badly. I am guessing it was different with
professions like solicitors, doctors etc., where buying into a partnership
was long established & probably had fairly standard agreements. I would
think this might apply to veterinary practices and might cover the points
you raise. As I say, my knowledge is low level and anchored in the days
when banks sought to look after the customer’s financial interests.*
I would expect Anisha’s share of the partnership to be sold and any added
value since she joined would benefit her on a sort of percentage
calculation. However, her leaving will have a negative affect on revenue
surely? As you say capital purchases will be a factor inmho.
*customers often failed to recognise this when the bank would not agree
with what a customer wanted.

I think you would be able to explain to the numpties (me, with absolutely
no idea) how well this side of the financial,plot is being written, krw.
Last night and tonight.

Sincerely Chris

BrritSki

2018-07-19 17:36:43 UTC

Ianal

AIAOU IRTA something that needs a heart symbol after the first letter ?

OK, please yourselves, and I don't myself anyway. NTTAWWABCA

krw

2018-07-19 17:41:24 UTC

Post by Chris McMillan
I think you would be able to explain to the numpties (me, with absolutely
no idea) how well this side of the financial,plot is being written, krw.
Last night and tonight.

I am behind again and tomorrow is packing day with departure on Saturday
afternoon for two weeks, so not sure when I will catch up as I will
probably not be able to download.

--
Kosmo Richard W
www.travelswmw.whitnet.uk
https://tinyurl.com/KRWpics

krw

2018-07-20 08:37:28 UTC

Post by Chris McMillan
I think you would be able to explain to the numpties (me, with absolutely
no idea) how well this side of the financial,plot is being written, krw.
Last night and tonight.

I am behind again and tomorrow is packing day with departure on Saturday
afternoon for two weeks, so not sure when I will catch up as I will
probably not be able to download.

It is clear that Snappy ain't taking it lying down any more.

Shula needed reminding about the cheap treatment - which probably
offsets the extra mortgage interest.

"Bad Leaver" clause in a partnership agreement is when one partner
(usually) is dismissed. But Anisha just handed an ultimatum to Snappy -
did not give the usual notice period and wanted her money. I reckon
Snappy is right to treat her as a bad leaver and follow the terms of the
agreement - she has not played fair as a partner and this is exactly
what should happen.

--
Kosmo Richard W
www.travelswmw.whitnet.uk
https://tinyurl.com/KRWpics

Btms

2018-07-20 16:15:12 UTC

Post by Chris McMillan
I think you would be able to explain to the numpties (me, with absolutely
no idea) how well this side of the financial,plot is being written, krw.
Last night and tonight.

I am behind again and tomorrow is packing day with departure on Saturday
afternoon for two weeks, so not sure when I will catch up as I will
probably not be able to download.

It is clear that Snappy ain't taking it lying down any more.
Shula needed reminding about the cheap treatment - which probably
offsets the extra mortgage interest.
"Bad Leaver" clause in a partnership agreement is when one partner
(usually) is dismissed. But Anisha just handed an ultimatum to Snappy -
did not give the usual notice period and wanted her money. I reckon
Snappy is right to treat her as a bad leaver and follow the terms of the
agreement - she has not played fair as a partner and this is exactly
what should happen.

And she had the cheek to claim she could have it sorted according to her
prefence because they are friends!!!!!

--
BTMS - Equine Advisor Extraordinaire.

krw

2018-07-20 20:23:23 UTC