Is Ramsay inc down the sink. Oh F**K

Conrad

When it's reported he's 'worth' £60m, take it with a big pinch of salt. That worth will take business goodwill into account, which, is a transient beast but probably ignores all the MEWing he would have done to expand fast.

Same is true of those BBC2 Dragons, I bet someone like Peter, could easily go under, as you will find a lot of entangled debt under the bonnet there.

These people that supposedly build empires rapidly, in the end take exceptional risks, which, more often than not are built upon debt and risk.

Imagine for example you owned a succesful pastie shop that made £60,000 net profit (I looked at a franchise for this).

To get the next shop you need to have about £20,000 for a refit including signs etc. About £20,000 in rent put by, + wages etc etc.

So all your profit from shop 1 feeds shop 2 initially, and possibly for an indefinite period.

Lets say shop 2 now makes £20k pa (less than the flagship founder made as the employed staff haven't got her edge), but now you really want to expand quickly. £19k was the average profit for a chain coffee shop btw (2007).

There is only rapid expansion method (unless you inherit wealth) and that is too take massive debt risk, sign up to years of rent contracts, and also you get additional ancilary costs such as needing HR people and lawyers and your staff costs rocket what with maternity pay, health and safety etc - stuff you didn't bother with so much in shop 1 as you were there to manage it all yourself.

I've witnessed first hand how in the boom this model can work, but all you need is a modest downturn to completely take the wheels off a business like this.

I admire the 'keep it small and profitable' model, and don't for a minute think these Dragons and high profile entrepeneurs are anything special, they just have a higher risk tollerence and perhaps slightly more selfish - if thier kids lose thier home, too bad.

Go to any market town and you will find single outlet business' run by cautious hard working individuals, whcih, over years have made the owner considerable wealth. They don't go in for the flash expansion model, but day after day they quietly build wealth.

One such chap I know owns several investment properties with no debt. He did all from one tiny sports shop, nothing flash, nothing special.

WTF?_2

Conrad wrote: »

Same is true of those BBC2 Dragons, I bet someone like Peter, could easily go under, as you will find a lot of entangled debt under the bonnet there.

I love the way that the various Dragons are being dragged out onto serious news programmes and presented as an authoritative figure in economic discussions.

I'm sure that they are quite capable but it smacks a little of "here's that famous bloke off the telly, he must know what he's talking about". Their forte is taking the right risks in business, not matters of the economy and global finance.

Surprised they haven't had Carol Vorderman on the main news to give a breakdown of the numbers.......Mind you, she might not be so popular after flogging people secured loans.

purch

I love the way that the various Dragons are being dragged out onto serious news programmes and presented as an authoritative figure in economic discussions

They had that Peter Jones 'bloke' on the Chris Moyles show on Radio 1 this morning.

"Dumb Britain" it certainly was !!!!!!!!

pickledpink

torontoboy45 wrote: »

so gordy got all al a george michael, denied all carnal knowledge but still accepted a police caution.

in another age this would have nailed his career before it even got started.

pity.

It's been 'Common' knowledge for a long time that Gordy doesn't just enjoy a Tart - he also likes a nice sausage!¬:grouphug:

Lotus-eater

purch wrote: »

They had that Peter Jones 'bloke' on the Chris Moyles show on Radio 1 this morning.

"Dumb Britain" it certainly was !!!!!!!!

IIRC when Mr Moyles had the LLL pair on his program, he mentioned that he had been talking to Peter Jones and had been told that this house price crash was a short run thing. I did wonder at the time that someone who was so sure about money could seem to be so wrong.

How long ago was that? A few months maybe.

Kez100

Generali wrote: »

Unfortunately a lot of British people prefer to eat at Harvester than at Claridges.

No, a lot of people cannot afford to eat at Claridges but can afford to eat at Harvester. It's nothing to do with preference.

Generali

Kez100 wrote: »

No, a lot of people cannot afford to eat at Claridges but can afford to eat at Harvester. It's nothing to do with preference.

Well the posts here show GBP20 for a meal at Harvester of GBP30 for a meal at Claridges.

Several central London hotels will sell you a fantastic meal for little more than the cost of a badly cooked steak at the local chain restaurant at lunch time.

IME, English people would rather eat chain restaurant MRM with a few pints of lager than a decent meal. It's a shame.

Kez100

Generali wrote: »

Well the posts here show GBP20 for a meal at Harvester of GBP30 for a meal at Claridges.

Several central London hotels will sell you a fantastic meal for little more than the cost of a badly cooked steak at the local chain restaurant at lunch time.

IME, English people would rather eat chain restaurant MRM with a few pints of lager than a decent meal. It's a shame.

£30 is the set lunch. Dine in the evening (most peoples choice) and it's £70.

To compare like with like a Harvester lunch from their set menu is £2.50 starter £5-6 main and £3.50 average for pudding. So, £12 maximum - a third of the Claridges lunch price.

Evening is a tad more at Harvester and could be £20 for three courses but then compare with the evening Claridges price!

Also, drinks will be very much more expensive at Claridges. A 10% associated tip will also be more due to the underlying cost.

I don't eat at either but I get annoyed at people who do not compare like with like to try and prove their point.

I don;t go to London very much but the best meal I have ever had was at Olives (in Browns Hotel). What we noticed was how cheap food actually was but we were charged £6 for a bottle of water and £19.50 for a wine, not a quality wine, one which we know from the supermarket. We also had a similar situation with food on the Strand at one of the hotels - quite cheap £12.50 for two pre-theatre courses but £20 for the bottle of wine and £4.50 for water. At least with Harvester people know what hey are letting themselves in for.

Generali

Kez100 wrote: »

£30 is the set lunch. Dine in the evening (most peoples choice) and it's £70.

To compare like with like a Harvester lunch from their set menu is £2.50 starter £5-6 main and £3.50 average for pudding. So, £12 maximum - a third of the lunch price. Evening is a tad more and could be £20 for three courses but then compare with the evening Claridges price!

Also, drinks will be very much more expensive at Claridges. A 10% associated tip will also be more due to the underlying cost.

The food at Harvest (IME) is terrible. The food at Claridges is fantastic. Yer pays yer money.....

Kez100

Generali wrote: »

The food at Harvest (IME) is terrible. The food at Claridges is fantastic. Yer pays yer money.....

I'm not arguing with that. I am saying the difference is not a tenner. The difference is three times (and probably more with drink).