A client wants a master lease on three units, with no experience being the tenant

Take an operator whose crew has been doing turns and light maintenance for a couple of small landlords for three years. One of those landlords also owns a 12 unit near a regional headquarters, and a company staffing that headquarters asks whether the operator can provide three furnished 1 beds on a rolling basis for rotating staff. The staffing company doesn't want to deal with the landlord directly. It wants one contract, one invoice, and the ability to swap who occupies a unit without a new lease each time. The shape of the deal: lease three units from the owner at $1,300 each, unfurnished, on 24 month terms. Furnish them, roughly $8,500 a unit. Carry utilities and internet, roughly $230 each. Bill the staffing company $2,450 per unit per month while occupied. Occupied is the whole question. A letter like this typically says the company expects "substantially continuous" need without committing to a minimum, which leaves the operator on the hook for $3,900 a month in rent whether anyone shows up or not, plus $25,500 in furniture sitting in units still being paid for. The right ask in that position is a minimum term or a take-or-pay on at least two of the three units. That isn't an unreasonable request in master lease negotiations of this kind, it's standard risk allocation, and asking for it doesn't read as inability to handle the business. Before signing anything with a company known only through email, it's worth checking the staffing company's own financial standing and how long its contract with the underlying employer runs, since that contract's stability is what actually backs the occupancy promise.