Nabarro heads east with City HQ move confirmed

  • Print
  • Comments (15)

Readers' comments (15)

  • Out of the frying pan, into the fire. So Nabarro have finally managed to exit the (completely duff) management decision to move from the west end in 1999 to land in the total dump that is Theobalds Rd. But to go where? Another dump. "Outstanding Property"? Who are you kidding Mr Johnston? JP Morgan exited this second hand space years ago and no-one in the market would touch it. And in the middle of the worst recession in a generation, where most savvy tenants are stealing great deals, that so called 'leading property firm' Nabarro have managed to overpay by a mile. £46 a foot? Good deal? Do me a favour. This firm will not survive in its current form.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • I see the disgruntled former employee that posts under every single Nabarro article with negative comments has had his say. I was waiting for that one. Next...

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Even those of us who have never worked for Nabarro can clearly see that this building is hideous, badly located and hardly cheap.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Nabarro PR machine needs to do better than that. Not a particularly robust defence. The points havent been dealt with.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • They could have done a lot better than that... They looked at this building as alternate to Lacon House. Having said that they are next door to Linklaters and Slaughter and May who both occupy equally dreary buildings and unlike most of the firms who located to swanky new offices they will not be desperately to offload space to account for the new realities

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • How is being close to Links and Slaughters relevant? They have excellent buildings and took them years ago at a smart/low rent (and Link recently re-geared their lease on the same basis). There are council flats not much more than a stone's throw from Eaton Square - but I dont want to live in one of them (although at least I'd be paying a sensible rent). The point is, Nabarro had a vast array of buildings to look at, and chose an expensive dog. What does that say about the decision makers there? Why not choose a building you might actually want to (and can afford to) stay in for 20 rather than 10 years?

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • A departing Partner (and therefore one who might have a negative view of things) told me he had looked at the terms and that it was a sensible move being made on good terms.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • So you wanted them to go for a swankier building, but for less money? Well I'm sure they never thought of any of these things and just plumped for the nearest available space... And you also think they should be looking longer term, but have in previous articles complained about their lack of merger? Your opinion is clearly uninformed and driven by bitterness or boredom. Trolling, some call it.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Were Nabarros lured east by the promise of a cat cafe?

    http://now-here-this.timeout.com/2013/01/04/meow-thats-a-good-idea-cat-cafe-to-open-in-east-london/

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Never thought of that. Hey, Anon at 0:12 - why so prickly? Get some sleep instead of being so grumpy (blogging after midnight is clearly not good for you). No-one suggested 'swanky or expensive', just a decent building in a good location at a sensible rent in the current market. Who recommend a building that achieved none of these? So you didnt take a 20 year lease because you want to be attractive to a merger partner? Good luck with that.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • If this debate were informed by knowledge of:-
    i) the length of the rent free period Nabarros negotiated;
    ii) the fit out contribution Nabarros is to receive;and
    iii) the number of tenant's breaks operable before 2025
    then one could make an informed judgment about the commercial terms.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Ha,ha,ha, this thread is becoming more like mumsnet every day.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • A headline rent of £46 psf is not a bad rent in the current market.
    Due to market conditions there has been very little development recently (except for the tower developments, and they will be significantly more expensive than £46) and that lack of development has had an impact on the supply and demand dynamic i.e. there is very limited supply.
    There are no suitable buildings with rents below £40 in todays market.
    I still think Nabarro is a firm in desperate trouble trying to find it's place in the world, and I'm not sure if it has one, but on pure economics this is not a bad deal.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • The move to Theobalds Road was done on very favourable terms and the building was a huge improvement on the frankly awful conditions in Stratton Street. I was there for both and the location in Theobalds was never a real issue - people just got on with it and there was a real noticeable lift in confidence after we had moved in.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • The "lift in confidence" the last poster speaks of didn't last long. All soon realised the shiny new building was located in a barren wilderness. The firm never grasped the opportunities that the boom times of 2002-2007 presented. Barely any growth, zero direction, poor leadership. 10+ years on, new management, where is the firm going? Well we know the location, but as to direction, maybe the Nabarro stalwarts can tell us. Even if the rent is acceptable (a question better answered by others) what is new management's game plan to arrest the slide and move into positive territory.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

Have your say

Mandatory Required Fields

Mandatory

Comments that are in breach or potential breach of our terms and conditions in particular clause 8, may not be published or, if published, may subsequently be taken down. In addition we may remove any comment where a complaint is made in respect of it. These actions are at our sole discretion.

  • Print
  • Comments (15)