Grand designs "eco house" won't sell, so they're having a lottery.

dannyboycey

HelpWhereIcan wrote: »

Now if you are stupid enough to spend £2500 that you cannot afford on tickets expecting to win - that is a different matter.

And if you spend the same amount expecting to lose? Catch 22.

rizla01

Who won the 2008 Cheltenham Gold Cup????




Damn. I KNEW there'd be a catch.

I don't keep up with cricket.

WTF?_2

HelpWhereIcan wrote: »

So, if I understand correctly, those who criticize the whole thing as a scam do so on the basis that the vendors will be making some money over and above the stated transfer value of the house.

Tom's quick breakdown of costs etc gives a figure of approx £88,000 'left over' to pay for 'marketing and things'.

Even assuming that the cost of marketing is minimal (which it is hardly likely to be) and the admin costs and the value of the fixtures & fittings included etc all only come to £38,000 the vendors make £50,000 more than we think they are entitled to so it is a scam.

Big deal, if they can make the money then fair enough. You have all been able to pick the scam apart because they have set the details out in writing - a fairly upfront scam if you ask me.

If I pay £25 for a ticket and win the house or a lump sum significantly in excess of the cost of my ticket, I do not care what the vendors make.

If a 1 in 46,000 chance is something you are willing to risk £25 or £25,000 on what does it matter what the vendors get out of it?

Now if you are stupid enough to spend £2500 that you cannot afford on tickets expecting to win - that is a different matter.

Here's how I see these schemes:

Make unrealistic valuation of house price based on what you'd like to earn.

Fail to sell it because it's just too pricey for the market.

Come up with scheme whereby you convince people to part with £25 for a chance to 'win a house'.

If you get enough tickets to reach the price you tried and failed to sell the house on the open market for, take the cash andProfit!

If you don't get enough ticket sales to make that amount of profit, give the schmuck who wins a portion of the entry fees and keep a huge chunk of cash ('administration fees') for yourself - Profit!


If people do want to raffle their house in such a way, they should be forced to give the house to the winner regardless of how many tickets they sell.

Otherwise it's just a way to entice some mugs in and make a healthy stack of cash for yourself.

moanymoany

skap7309 wrote: »

Sorry but i far from agree. Why, if it was a scam would they promote it the way they do? I am getting quite sick of hearing how peple do not believe in it. Why cant people just accept it as a novel way of selling your house. Millions of mugs play the national lottery week in, week out and do not question it. I have bought a ticket for this house and the Oldborough retreat and i am not expecting to win but i have a DAMN sight better chance of winning than the lottery.

Odds of winning the average jackpot of £2 million? 1 IN 14 MILLION.
Odds of winning the two properties valued at around £2 million? 1 IN 92,000.

I am aware it is 25 x the cost and the 'valuation' of thse two properties does not count for much but the chances of winning are still much greater. Also the lottery jackpot will always be split if say, 5 people won it.

Good luck, I hope you win.

HelpWhereIcan

dannyboycey wrote: »

And if you spend the same amount expecting to lose? Catch 22.

Pretty much what most people do when entering a raffle/lottery of any kind.

Tommorow I'll enter the club raffle at rugby, 2 weeks ago I paid for my son to have an entry into the half time raffle at Hull City.

Expecting to lose, but hoping to win is what they are all about - if you can afford to lose your stake.

!!!!!!? wrote: »

Here's how I see these schemes:

Make unrealistic valuation of house price based on what you'd like to earn.

Fail to sell it because it's just too pricey for the market.

Come up with scheme whereby you convince people to part with £25 for a chance to 'win a house'.

If you get enough tickets to reach the price you tried and failed to sell the house on the open market for, take the cash andProfit!

If you don't get enough ticket sales to make that amount of profit, give the schmuck who wins a portion of the entry fees and keep a huge chunk of cash ('administration fees') for yourself - Profit!


If people do want to raffle their house in such a way, they should be forced to give the house to the winner regardless of how many tickets they sell.

Otherwise it's just a way to entice some mugs in and make a healthy stack of cash for yourself.

Whether the house is over-valued or not is largely irrelevant as someone taking a punt with money they can afford to lose is no worse off than they would be with any other raffle, game of skill or whatever.

If the game of skill was guessing its market value and earning the right to buy it at that price then fair enough.

This board is likely to be against this and will stomp all over it because it is a house that some feel is over-valued and because it appeared on a TV show which makes some people keen to say that it could never be sold the traditional way.

Say rather than selling it, I decided to raffle my car (57 Reg CR-V EX Manual 2.2 CDti Diesel with upgraded alloys) by selling tickets at £5 each.

I want to sell 7,000 tickets raising £35000 before I consider it worth my while operating the raffle and parting with the car. I set that as the minimum number of tickets for the car to be handed over.

I think the car is worth £23,000 cos I'm biased, but the savvy Car Expert knows it is worth no more than say £20,000, I spend 5,000 advertising the raffle, setting it up etc etc.

I sell 4000 tickets raising £20000 - I deduct my take of 35% (£7000) - the winner gets £ 13,000 for what might have been a £5 stake, I cover my £5000 costs and keep £2,000 and my car to try and sell or trade in. All happy.

I sell 9000 tickets raising £45000 - the winner gets my car, I get £45000 which gives me the £20,000 my car is worth and another £20,000 - all happy. I've made more than I would have done by selling the car on the open market, the winner has won a £20,000 car for a £5 stake (or however much they decided they could afford to stake).

Who have I ripped off? Yes, I've made more money than some thing I am entitled to and some think I should be forced to sell it at the lowest possible price, but I want to get as much as possible for an asset that I think is valuable and may well be emotionally attached to (she is beautiful really)

WTF?_2

HelpWhereIcan wrote: »

Who have I ripped off?

The prize is touted as a house worth xxxxxx amount, hence the expensive tickets.

In reality, the house is valued by the market as considerably less and if the people running the lottery don't sell enough tickets then anyone winning won't even get the house. They'll get whatever was raised through ticket sales minus a healthy slice that the organisers keep.

That could be almost any amount, down to zero.


If you sell a ticket for 25 quid to 'win a house worth a million quid' or whatever, that house should go to the winner and the house should have been proven to be worth whatever they are saying it is worth (multiple independent valuations).

mewbie_2

A friend of mine bought a couple of tickets on the very first one of these and WON!!!! When I saw him and congratulated him on his good fortune he seemed a bit down. "What on earth's the matter?", I asked. "I just don't know why I bought this other ticket", he said.

Ashamed to admit this, but thanks to Reader's Digest for this very old joke.

HelpWhereIcan

The stated valuation of the house is the main issue for most on here it seems, but that is IMO largely irrelevant.

!!!!!!? wrote: »

if the people running the lottery don't sell enough tickets then anyone winning won't even get the house. They'll get whatever was raised through ticket sales minus a healthy slice that the organisers keep.

That could be almost any amount, down to zero.

But what they actually say http://www.winthecheltenhamhouse.com/terms.aspx is

Closing the competition

1. If the sum of 95% of the Maximum Number of Entries to the Competition is not equal to the sum number of entries received as at the closing date, the Competition will close and the proceeds of the Competition will be determined using the formula “number of tickets sold x ticket price” (“the Entry Fees”);
2. The Winner of the Competition will then be determined in accordance with the method described in clause 35 above;
3. The Promoters will be entitled to retain up to 35% of the Entry Fees to cover administration and marketing expenditure. The remaining balance following deduction of this sum is “the Prize Fund”. The Prize Fund will then be distributed to the winning Entrant;
4. The Promoter will donate 10% of the gross ticket price to one or more charities which will be listed from time to time on the Website.

So the winner would never get zero. For me to be in a chance of winning say £1000, the prize fund needs to be around £1900. At £25 per ticket that's 76 tickets that need to be sold.

They have sold 1316 so far = £32,900

10% to charity = £ 3,290
35% for the owners = £ 11,515

The winner gets = £ 18,095

Not an £895,000 house granted, but still not a bad return.

tomstickland

skap7309 wrote: »

Millions of mugs play the national lottery week in, week out and do not question it. I have bought a ticket for this house and the Oldborough retreat and i am not expecting to win but i have a DAMN sight better chance of winning than the lottery.

Odds of winning the average jackpot of £2 million? 1 IN 14 MILLION.
Odds of winning the two properties valued at around £2 million? 1 IN 92,000.

Lottery for mugs. House raffle for mugs.

tomstickland

Whether the house is over-valued or not is largely irrelevant as someone taking a punt with money they can afford to lose is no worse off than they would be with any other raffle, game of skill or whatever.

It affects the price of the tickets and/or the odds due to the inflated valuation.