Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Twitter Sued for Nonpayment of Rent on San Francisco Office

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 250 posts

Re: Twitter Sued for Nonpayment of Rent on San Francisco Office

#191

Post by woodruffw »

phpisthebest wrote: post #182
woodruffw wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree that plenty of devs in TN would happily take an SFBA paycheck without moving. But why in the world would any company, much less Musk’s Twitter, offer such a massively out of band salary? The entire point of moving to states like TN is to pay less for developers, not the same amount.

>>The entire point of moving to states like TN is to pay less for developers, that is a consideration, but I would not even put that in the top 10 reasons to move out of SF, or CA. Hell he could have to pay devs MORE than in SF and it will still be a good business choice to get the hell away from there

I'm not a Californian and I don't particularly want to live in the Bay Area, but I don't understand this reasoning: it doesn't matter how many reasons there are to leave a particular state (of which there are always plenty) if the single biggest reason to stay remains in place. Specifically: the people who live in the SFBA live there because they want to live there, especially if they're still there after the last 3 years.

Unless we're speculating that Musk plans to gut the entire company, it's very hard to sell hundreds of people on relocating across the country.

Re: Twitter Sued for Nonpayment of Rent on San Francisco Office

#192

Post by DoesntMatter22 »

iancmceachern wrote: post #190

One thing is for sure, if Twitter ever is looking for new space they will have trouble finding a commercial landlord willing to lease to them. Perhaps a smaller space in the same area as a larger space they had but closed, this behavior makes it more difficult to do business int he future for them.

Lol no they won't. They are desperate for anyone they can get

Re: Twitter Sued for Nonpayment of Rent on San Francisco Office

#193

Post by nickthegreek »

DoesntMatter22 wrote: post #177
amalcon wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The fact that Twitter currently has loan payments in excess of last year's profits could be a factor. Delaying means they will be more likely to be entangled in a bankruptcy and potentially get a worse outcome if they are. Even a low probability bankruptcy would encourage some urgency.

They aren't going to go bankrupt. But they have been a money losing operation 14 of 15 years

They now have $1b in debt interest due every year.

Re: Twitter Sued for Nonpayment of Rent on San Francisco Office

#194

Post by nickthegreek »

butlerm wrote: post #181
plorkyeran wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No one involved thought Twitter was worth anywhere close to $44 billion when it was sold.

At least one person did, or it would not have sold for that amount.

That one person tried not to buy it almost instantly after the ink was dry. Seems like even they didn’t think it was worth it.

Re: Twitter Sued for Nonpayment of Rent on San Francisco Office

#195

Post by mtnGoat »

butlerm wrote: post #181
plorkyeran wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No one involved thought Twitter was worth anywhere close to $44 billion when it was sold.

At least one person did, or it would not have sold for that amount.

He may have thought it was when he made the offer(given it was even genuine to begin with), but not when it closed. Hence the lawsuit trying to back out. Musk has also said publicly that he over paid.

Re: Twitter Sued for Nonpayment of Rent on San Francisco Office

#196

Post by kibwen »

DoesntMatter22 wrote: post #192
iancmceachern wrote: post #190

One thing is for sure, if Twitter ever is looking for new space they will have trouble finding a commercial landlord willing to lease to them. Perhaps a smaller space in the same area as a larger space they had but closed, this behavior makes it more difficult to do business int he future for them.

Lol no they won't. They are desperate for anyone they can get

It's true that commercial landlords are desperate, but even the most desperate landlord isn't making any money if their tenant isn't paying. That is, unless the business model is "rent to Elon Musk, then make a profit on the lawsuit when he inevitably stiffs you".

Re: Twitter Sued for Nonpayment of Rent on San Francisco Office

#197

Post by butlerm »

nickthegreek wrote: post #194
butlerm wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At least one person did, or it would not have sold for that amount.

That one person tried not to buy it almost instantly after the ink was dry. Seems like even they didn’t think it was worth it.

I would say he certainly did think it was worth that, just not for very long.

Re: Twitter Sued for Nonpayment of Rent on San Francisco Office

#198

Post by gamblor956 »

93po wrote: post #142
drc37 wrote: post #138

My biggest question is: who cares? Lot’s of people in this community (and the media) love to pounce on people and companies who don’t think the same as them. These people/groups talk about being inclusive right up and until the others don’t share their points of view. It’s exhausting There are 1,000s of companies across the country do this very same thing without any fan fare. Just stop it!!!

You see the same thing when a Tesla car catches fire after an accident. It's front page international news. I saw an F150 on fire on the side of the highway a few weeks ago. I'm sure there's a large public outcry about Ford as well.

F150s have gasoline, which is known to catch fire. In fact, that's kind of the whole point of gasoline: it it flammable. With a car fire, it is simply that the fire has escaped the part of the vehicle where the fire is supposed to be contained.

EVs are not supposed to catch fire, thus it is news when they do.

Re: Twitter Sued for Nonpayment of Rent on San Francisco Office

#199

Post by dragonwriter »

nrp wrote: post #104

It’s not made obvious by the article, but this lawsuit is for non-payment on a lease of one floor of 650 California St, not for non-payment on the 1355 Market St headquarters. They are also not paying rent at the latter, so presumably another lawsuit is coming. My assumption though is that they have already vacated the now extraneous space at 650 California and will settle with the landlord to break the lease.

Not the only, or biggest, nonpayment lawsuit they are facing:

https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/Bay-Area-softwar...

Post reply on HN