Messageboard
Notes and QueriesÌý permalink
Why are Pat and Tony still tenant farmers?
This discussion has been closed.
-
Message 1.Ìý
Posted by Rusters (U4756220) on Friday, 11th January 2008
I seem to recall that some years ago Peggy turned down Pat and Tony's request for help in buying the freehold of their farm. Is this so and, if so, why did she refuse?
It's not as if she was short of money, or that they are feckless. She and her other children are wealthy not by dint of hard work but by marryiing wealthy men (come to think of it though, I would find it hard work if I was married to Brian).
RustyLink to this forum: Why are Pat and Tony still tenant farmers?
-
Message 2
Posted by RosieT (U2224719) on Friday, 11th January 2008
why did she refuse?
Ìý
Why not? It's her money!
And actually, I seem to recall the Estste were asking such a hge amount, Pat and Tony decided the debts would be too large, and if they continued renting, they still were able to pass on the tenancy to their offspring.Link to this forum: Why are Pat and Tony still tenant farmers?
-
Message 3
Posted by Rusters (U4756220) on Friday, 11th January 2008
Thanks, Rosie T.
Of course Peggy had the right to refuse. I was just thinking that if I could well afford it I wouldn't hesitate in her position.
However, it seems the situation was a lot more complicated than I rememberd.
RustyLink to this forum: Why are Pat and Tony still tenant farmers?
-
Message 4
Posted by Reggie Trentham (U2746099) on Friday, 11th January 2008
I suspect that Peggy's refusal and their fear of debt was a device by the SWs to keep them as tenant farmers, they are the only ones in the programme since the Grundys were swindled out of Grange farm.
It will be interesting to see what happens when Peggy finally pops her clogs. If she lasts longer than Jack, which seems likely, she will leave not only her own fortune but the better part of Jack's. Even if it is divided into three equal inheritances there should be enough for them to buy their farm.
Incidentally what will happen to the village shop and Keepers Cottage after the death of Jack and Peggy? Will the Grundys have bought the latter off of Jack at some previous unspecified date just like Doris with Glebe Cottage?Link to this forum: Why are Pat and Tony still tenant farmers?
-
Message 5
Posted by RosieT (U2224719) on Friday, 11th January 2008
Or will they both have been swallowed by the Digestor (or digestive)?
Link to this forum: Why are Pat and Tony still tenant farmers?
-
Message 6
Posted by Rusters (U4756220) on Friday, 11th January 2008
Yes, when Peggy has gone, Pat and Tony should be very comfortable indeed.
Maybe Will would consider buying Keeper's Cottage using (most or part of) his inheritance. His parents could rent from him and when they are gone it and he has retired, he could move there or sell it. He has a tied cottage at the moment, convenient for his job, so doesn't need to buy for himself at the moment.
RustyLink to this forum: Why are Pat and Tony still tenant farmers?
-
Message 7
Posted by Mr Snowy (U2260171) on Friday, 11th January 2008
Or will they both have been swallowed by the Digestor (or digestive)?
Ìý
Many more episodes as tedious as last night's (Thursday) and I'll be in the possee feeding them to the digestor
And as Jack's money, what about Hazel's share?Link to this forum: Why are Pat and Tony still tenant farmers?
-
Message 8
Posted by Rusters (U4756220) on Friday, 11th January 2008
In RL I should have thought that between them Peggy and Lilian would have drawn up a legal document for Hazel to sign when they paid her off, so that she doesn't have any legal claim to Jack's money.
In TA, I expect it will be a big story when poor old Jack shuffles off this mortal coil.
RustyLink to this forum: Why are Pat and Tony still tenant farmers?
-
Message 9
Posted by Mr Snowy (U2260171) on Friday, 11th January 2008
Rusty: I think that they paid Hazel a relatively small amount to get her to leave Ambridge (not forgetting they were blackmailing her by threatening to snitch on her to Jack) I didn't see it as anything like the megabucks that would have been needed to buy her out of her share of Jack's fortune.
In RL (well me and Mrs S - it is a second marriage too for both of us) we have similar will's which say in essence that the surviving spouse is allowed to continue living in the house but apart from that all our assets (including our share of the house in due course) go to our children and not our stepchildren. In addition we are each in pension schemes that that has a widow/er's pension and that should provide for the surviving partner's continuing needs. Simple, relatively clean cut and (according to our solicitor) commonplace in our circumstances.
Why on earth would Jack or Peggy do anything different (unless they want to disinherit any of their offspring)Link to this forum: Why are Pat and Tony still tenant farmers?
-
Message 10
Posted by RosieT (U2224719) on Friday, 11th January 2008
And as Jack's money, what about Hazel's share?
Ìý When the false Hazel returned to try that daring trick of pretending she was married (gasp!) when she wasn't (another gasp), and Jack found out (wheeze), he said he was going to leave his "what I'd always intended Hazel to have" in his will. He refused to consider leaving her Grey Gables, as he told Peggy, "I want YOU to have Grey Gables, Peggy - that's what I want for your security!" so I'd imagine when he sold it that his solicitor made adjustments in his will, wouldn't you think?
They are hardly likely to sell £20, 000,000 (or however much it is worth) of real estate, and "forget" to remind Jack that it's willed to someone else. are they? Or are there high-powered solicitors who would do that?
And shortly after, he signed the Power of Enduring attorney (I think it is) over to Peggy.Link to this forum: Why are Pat and Tony still tenant farmers?
-
Message 11
Posted by Reggie Trentham (U7102122) on Friday, 11th January 2008
I thought Hazel got a one off payment of £250,000 and was told to sling her hook ie not to expect any more from her (adopted) father either while he was alive or after he was dead.
Of course my memory may be playing me false again.Link to this forum: Why are Pat and Tony still tenant farmers?
-
Message 12
Posted by RosieT (U2224719) on Friday, 11th January 2008
Well, my recollection is, False Haze asked for a million AND Grey Gables AND no death duties: when that feeble "Oh, you are not maried so I will tell Jack" was put to Hazel, and she collapsed like a deck of cards, Peg said "Here is a Very Large Cheque from my Personal Account, you will get what Jack originally left you in his will, now go Away." And Keri did say what he *imagined* her cheque to be, but no figures were given On Air, so mere speculation on his part. Will try and find the synopsis.
Link to this forum: Why are Pat and Tony still tenant farmers?
-
Message 13
Posted by Mr Snowy (U2260171) on Friday, 11th January 2008
So it all boils down to what Jack originally left her. And given that he was always dotty about her....
Still Tony ought not to moan at the prospect in time of a third of what they got for Grey Gables. But he probably will anyway.Link to this forum: Why are Pat and Tony still tenant farmers?
-
Message 14
Posted by RosieT (U2224719) on Friday, 11th January 2008
I was wrong about the timing of Power of attorney, but right about Peggy paying from her own money:
Monday 19th September 2005
Hazel steps up her display of daughterly affection by giving him a photograph of her step-children. The gesture is rather spoilt by Jack's failure to know who they are. She then sows further seeds by suggesting that The Lodge is too big for Peggy and Jack; maybe he should think about a house with a granny flat for when
she brings Carl and the children to Ambridge. She takes him to lunch at Grey Gables where they can sign the papers for her Power of Attorney in private.
Wednesday 21st September
Even if Hazel has got Power of Attorney, she's still got to share it with Peggy.
Thursday 22nd September
Peggy decides to tackle Hazel, and to her surprise it's rather easier than she expected. When she tells Hazel to go back to America, she agrees - at a price. She wants half a million, paid into her account before she leaves.
If Peggy thought Hazel's terms were steep, she's got another shock coming. Hazel callously says that as Jack may not live for seven years, she'll be taxed on the half million. One of her demands is that any tax should be paid from his estate. And in addition ... she wants Grey Gables. Peggy can scarcely believe what she's hearing, and says Hazel can't love Jack much if all she wants is his money. Icily, Hazel accuses her of marrying Jack for his money. If Peggy can't give her what she's asking for, she'll stay in Ambridge.
Friday 30th September
Lilian has been doing some more research on Hazel's business. Peggy and Lilian confront her with what they've found out. When Lilian called Carl's office, his WIFE answered the phone. She was never married and she never had any stepchildren. It was all an excuse to get money out of Jack. The game is up. She can forget all about their arrangement. Peggy pays her off out of her own money and Hazel agrees to go. Peggy is very relieved it's been sorted out without it costing Jack a penny but it's very important that Jack never finds out. Hazel will soon be back on the plane to America.Link to this forum: Why are Pat and Tony still tenant farmers?
-
Message 15
Posted by RosieT (U2224719) on Friday, 11th January 2008
I remember Tony complaining furiously when Godfrey Wendover was courting Peggy, about Captain Pugwash being after her money, "... and it's my inheritance from Dad and the Bull, Mum." She icily drew herself to her full height (no mean feat on a radio, let me tell you) and said, frostily, "It. Is. MY. Money, Tony!" snd swep out.
Link to this forum: Why are Pat and Tony still tenant farmers?
-
Message 16
Posted by cath (U2234232) on Friday, 11th January 2008
Agree Rosie that Tony has been rather forward. But.
When the estate was sold they (who were they? can't remember) were asking £125k for the freehold of Bridge Farm. Tony was desperate to go for it. Pat was against. She wanted to spend £6k on the dairy.
Tony talked it through with John who in turn persuaded Pat that it would be a good idea to go for the freehold but by the time she agreed it was too late, the estate had been sold on (to Cameron Fraser?).
At the time £125k was /quite/ a lot of money- say close to 50% above the cost of an average house, so it was a good deal. If they tried to buy the freehold now I guess it would be somewhat higher relatively as the first tenancy (Tony/Pat's) is not far off expiry - but there are two more generations to go - through to the demise of Helen's or Tom's offspring.Link to this forum: Why are Pat and Tony still tenant farmers?
-
Message 17
Posted by pahnda (U6794915) on Saturday, 12th January 2008
Sorry to be a bit thick about this but who does own Bridge Farm now? Borchester Land? Is there potential for a story-line here if Pat opposes the poo-machine?
Link to this forum: Why are Pat and Tony still tenant farmers?
-
Message 18
Posted by cath (U2234232) on Sunday, 13th January 2008
Hello pahnda, you're right, BL owns the freehold of Bridge Farm. Pat and Tony have a pre [1994?] agricultural tenancy which gives the right to rent the the land for three generations. P&T are the first generation so the tenancy will end only on the death of Helen/Tom's child (whoever ends up with the 3rd generation tenancy).
BL couldn't force Pat and Tony to do anything in particular with their land - without seeing the tenancy agreement I assume Pat and Tony have to keep the land in good order etc and they may have to get permission to construct certain buildings but otherwise it's theirs to farm as they choose.
There's an interesting SL coming up with deciding what happens to the 2nd generation, Helen, Tom, or both.Link to this forum: Why are Pat and Tony still tenant farmers?
-
Message 19
Posted by ExTAlistener (U3058291) on Sunday, 13th January 2008
< If she lasts longer than Jack, which seems likely>
Not necessarly the case - like a multitude of other unpaid carers she is under enormous and sustained stress....Link to this forum: Why are Pat and Tony still tenant farmers?
-
Message 20
Posted by RosieT (U2224719) on Sunday, 13th January 2008
cath, didn't Pat and Tony let the Estate know when they went organic, if only as a courtesy?
Link to this forum: Why are Pat and Tony still tenant farmers?
-
Message 21
Posted by cath (U2234232) on Sunday, 13th January 2008
Yes I think they did Rosie. And I think they also informed them about the dairy. But I think how far they needed permission depends on what their tenancy agreement says.
Perhaps Keri could get us a copy of it for your Mbers calendar.Link to this forum: Why are Pat and Tony still tenant farmers?
-
Message 22
Posted by RosieT (U2224719) on Sunday, 13th January 2008
I may need to consult you about the financial details of this, cath, if I am going to be able to produce it as next year's offering.
~:')Link to this forum: Why are Pat and Tony still tenant farmers?
-
Message 23
Posted by cath (U2234232) on Sunday, 13th January 2008
Arf arf, I think it depends on how far Keri is willing to accommodate us Rosie - and in terms of priorities I think the Brokefailed info is more important!
Link to this forum: Why are Pat and Tony still tenant farmers?
About this Board
Welcome to the Archers Messageboard.
or Ìýto take part in a discussion.
The message board is currently closed for posting.
This messageboard is now closed.
This messageboard is .
Find out more about this board's
Search this Board
Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú iD
Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú navigation
Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú links
Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú © 2014 The Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.
This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.