Jump to content

Cathouse. New 'owner' screwed?


Yehtmae

Recommended Posts

Stick,

 

"There are some big boy lawyers involved (i.e. Western lawyers, based in Bangkok, who charge what are basically Western fees)."

 

Hahahaha. Well, this sounds like a good way to get it all screwed up with no one but the lawyers making out in the long run! Jeezus, what a cock-up. I've always believed that buying a bar in Thailand is the surest way to start having migraines and ulcers as anything I know of. Especially gogo bars and beer bars. Rather be a patron than an owner. :D After all the crap we all read about and heard about with the problems that happened with the Titty Twister bar I'd be extremely leery of buying a bar in Nana that's for sure!

 

Cent

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 127
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Ah, with all the lack of real info, the speculation is pretty intriguing. So how about this for a scenario: new owner sublets from Top Cat, only to find Boss Hog up the chain of owners does not allow it. Top Cat has the cash and says to new owner, "your problem is between you and Boss Hog, we have our agreement". Boss Hog says no dice. New owner now has no cash and no bar and everyone claims no wrong doing has occurred, alas the inevitable end to buying a business in Thailand. New owner needs to look at the bright side, maybe someone will buy the movie rights from him, but of course he'll probably just deal with 4 levels of agents and wonder why that didn't work either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My hunch is that no one - buyer or seller - thought about the subletting issue when the bar was sold, which is typical for Thailand. Trying to resolve this through the Thai courts is absolutely insane, particularly for Farangs.

 

If everyone would agree - which is probably a pipe dream - it would be best to get everyone around a table to try to negotiate a compromise solution. If they cannot agree, find some fair minded neutral person whom everyone respects to mediate a compromise. No one will get everything they want (that is what a compromise means), but everyone will probably come out better off than if the matter is litigated here. Of course, this requires everyone to act reasonably.

 

I went back and took a look at the original thread about the bar being for sale. I didn't bother to read the whole thread, but I noticed that one guy did pick up on the lease issue. From Bibblies: "You'd have to check the lease, etc..."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My hunch is that no one - buyer or seller - thought about the subletting issue when the bar was sold, which is typical for Thailand.

 

Hi Gadfly:

 

Just had a look at that original thread since i remembered commenting on the sunbelt ad. I would say Topcat and sunbelt were well aware of the sublease issues and stated so in that thread, here are some excerpts:

 

Poster: SunbeltAsia:

Subject: Re: CatHouse in NanaPlaza

 

 

Quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

ND,

Right. The million dollar question is.. how much will the next lease cost?

 

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

 

 

In my humble opinion, it will be around 20% higher. Of course you are not going to sublease without meeting the true landlord. You would have a new agreement that the increase would be a predetermined % in 30 months. The landlord in my opinion is a honest guy and will be happy to give you the formula he will use to determine the rent increase. This happens before money changes hands. Not in 30 months!

 

Mailuk said:

 

According to the sunbelt ad quoted in T's post, the seller wants to *sublease* the *business*. It does not say he wants to sublease the *location* AND sell you the business.

 

 

Quote from the ad:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

the bar has a lease that runs for another 30 months, and the owner wishes to sublet the business, complete with the name and alcohol licenses, for the remaining period of the lease for 1,500,000 baht, plus 190,000 baht refundable deposit.

 

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

 

 

Since the bar grosses 6.5 million, it seems unlikely that it would be sold for 1.5 million. So its safe to assume that the word sublease was not used in error. You invest the 1.5 mil and walk away at the end of the 30 months.

 

If i have it wrong then maybe the ad should be cleaned up. Anyway, as SG mentioned don't bars have two sets of books? There may be some more income that won't be discussed in black and white so better to talk with the seller.

 

Here is the important part. Topcat said:

 

etrang,

 

At the end of 30 months my lease with my landlord expires and the sublessee gets their deposit back from me. I take what belongs to me (sound system, stools, refrigerators, etc) and leave. It would be up to the sublessee and my landlord if they wanted to execute a new agreement. Whatever happens I am out of the formula unless................

 

terranova,

 

No key money on this lease. Only a two months rent deposit. No idea what they will be looking for in 30 months.

 

Mai Luk,

 

It is a sublease. Since I have paid the rent promptly every month for 4 years the Lessor probably won't let me transfer the lease. He wants to keep me on the hook.

 

Not to split hairs but I am leasing from somebody who is leasing from somebody who is leasing from the management company who is leasing from the owners of Nana Plaza. Fairly typical for the plaza.

 

It seems impossible that the seller would have been unaware from whom he had to get permission before the transfer.

 

This deal was not ordinary to begin with based on the ad. Someone was to pay 1.5 million baht for the privilige of:

1. Having to work full time at a bar

2. Earning 80,000 baht net a month (based on past earnings)

3. For 30 months

4. And at the end of 30 months the buyer doesn't even keep the business equipment and has only the right to bargain for a new lease.

 

 

Any buyer on a deal like that would have to be a little strange. Maybe just wanted to be able to say he owned a bar no matter the cost. People with more money than sense will not hesitate to spend another pile on lawyers so TC may have a big headache.

 

Bottom line though is that a seller who sells to a naive buyer without getting the consents from the lessors and sublessors is running a scam by anybody's version of business ethics. Yes its buyer beware but does not change the fact that it is a scam when the buyer gets nothing for his money.

 

Not saying that TC scammed anyone we don't have the facts just some reports and TC sure as hell was upfront in that other thread. Maybe boss hog reneged on a verbal OK?

 

Side question: Are TC and bosshog buddies?

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Neo,

 

Well, in that scenario you propose I guess I'd have to say the new leasee didn't do his homework and research in depth what the gig was and how to ensure he protected himself and his investment. Amazing. I guess it goes to show he isn't (in your scenario) much of a businessman and was dazzled by the lure of owning his own piece of Nana Plaza and his idea of heaven.

 

Cent

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...