Wilsons Selling Up. The Lot. All 700 Houses.

bo_drinker

Rupert_the_Bear wrote: »

The Wilsons may be low-life but you can't knock their snazzy dress sense. I wonder where their sartorial influence comes from exactly?

Mary Poppins?????

Really2

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Who's actually championed Tesco's?

Graham I won't post links just in case you accuse me of anything.

So Posts 41 perhaps and 65.

I think their is a real failure to see the point.

But cleaver I get you.:beer:

Really2

Rupert_the_Bear wrote: »

The Wilsons may be low-life but you can't knock their snazzy dress sense. I wonder where their sartorial influence comes from exactly?

Why can't any one keep a user name ( well apart from AD and broders obviously)

Cleaver

ruggedtoast wrote: »

ALSO I have a family discount from Tesco so I got my laptop EVEN CHEAPER than it would have been. I'll bet that makes you even more mad!:money:

ruggedtoast wrote: »

In the meantime people who need and want to buy homes to live in are assessed on their actual tangible income and savings and have no hope of competing with the Wilsons and their ilk.

This is pretty much the hypocrisy I was referring to this morning. On the one hand you have a very moralistic and ethical stance on the Wilson's business (a stance on which I agree with in many ways) and then another post saying that Tesco's business plan, which is very similar in terms of morals and ethics, gets you a cheap laptop so you're all in favour of it and couldn't give a monkeys whether it puts local shops out of business.

I wouldn't dream of moralising where you should buy anything. But you must see the basic irony of your two posts?

MissMoneypenny

"Mr Wilson, 61, estimates that the summer bounce in prices in the area has added about £1 million to the value of their portfolio."


Property bee says no.



"Values in Ashford, where many of their properties are, have risen as a result of the opening of the high-speed rail service to London."



House prices in Ashford rose steeply years ago when the plans for Ashford to be the centre of fast link trains to Paris, Belgium and London became known. People rushed to buy second homes there. Prices dropped when those plans were changed and Ebbsfleet became the centre.



"The Wilsons, who live in Maidstone, also own properties in their home town and in Shepway and Hawkinge near by"


Four or five years ago an EA whose area covered Hawkinge, told me the Wilsons owned half of Hawkinge. Property bee today showing 88 houses for sale in Hawkinge. It will be interesting to see if these numbers jump significantly in a few months time.

Graham_Devon

Really2 wrote: »

Graham I won't post links just in case you accuse me of anything.

So Posts 41 perhaps and 65.

I think their is a real failure to see the point.

But cleaver I get you.:beer:

Hardly championing tescos. It's a response to cleaver. It could have been Morrisons, B&Q etc for all I care.

If this is championing, and "arguing black is white":

Graham_Devon wrote: »

I can't agree, I'm sorry.

As on the flip side of the coin, Tesco's gives millions of pounds to councils each year and also helps charities out with millions of pounds each year.

They give 100's of families jobs in the areas that they are in.

They are not eroding away the small shops, WE are. WE choose to shop there, tesco's do not force us to shop there etc. They do not buy up all the small shops to provide us with no choice.

Whereas the wilsons are forcing people to rent homes if they want to live in Ashford as they ARE eroding all the homes by buying all the FTB properties up before anyone else gets a chance.

The two scenarios are completely different. I do realise people do have a problem with big business however, so could see different sides of the fence dependant on how they see big corporate business.

I personally see that I have a choice. I can either shop in Tescos, Morrisins, my local high street, my local farm shop, or my very local corner shop.

If I went to live in ashford as a FTB, my choice would have been completely eradicated by two people who have forced that choice onto the people living there.

Then I seriously wonder what on earth your doing is classed as.

It's a response to a debate point. Hardly championing. What cleaer said was not true about forcing others out. Closing other shops down. WE choose where we shop. Not tescos.

Really2

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Hardly championing tescos. It's a response to cleaver. It could have been Morrisons, B&Q etc for all I care.

If this is championing, and "arguing black is white":

They give 100's of families jobs in the areas that they are in.


Then I seriously wonder what on earth your doing is classed as.

Read the italics. You really don't see it do you! (clue, how many jobs are lost "creating" those jobs?)

You are a marketing persons dream Graham I will give you that.

PasturesNew

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Right, what I didn't like about their business practice was:

- The way they would actively, and knowingly gazump FTB's in the area to get that house. Not giving a damn that the FTB family will lose all their money they have put into it. This was something he actively boasted about on a TV programme on an obscure home programme I saw once. He would then have the cheek to get the estate agents to offer the rental to them.

- The way they treated their tennants. They would come down extremely heavy handed for things such as picture hooks in the walls. They wanted the tennants, they wanted the highest rental income. However, what they didnt want was their tennants actually living. To them, tennants were not people, or families, they were cash cows to fund the payments on their investments. They took some very heavy handed approaches against tennants should they leave some marks for instance on the walls, as seen recently with the cistern cover episode.

- The way they had estate agents "on their side", and the estate agent would ring them direct to tell them a new property has arrived, without offering it to anyone else. Unfair advatnage to all the families in the area.

- The way they didnt seem to understand the risks, but wanted all the rewards. I.e. the risk of a breakage in their home they didnt quite understand and would moan and persue it. BUT they wanted the rental money and wanted the equity.

I remember seeing him on another programme also, talking about how he employs people to carry out jobs on these houses. The disregard he had for these people he employs was really quite shocking. He would only take on self employed so he never had problems with employment. But he would then put them up against each other, forcing them to reduce costs to a complete minimum. I remember him saying "we got one chap who now works for us on Saturdays for free to keep his contract, and thats how you run a profit".

I know it's business, I know you can't mix business with personal life. But these two couldn't give two hoots about family values, what they were doing to Ashford, or anything else. All they cared about was themselves and equity. And it's for that reason, their morals, people have such a loathing for them.

Can I please request that everybody goes back and makes sure they thank this informed and extensive post that gives more specific instances against this couple than I have ever seen in one coherent spot at any one time.

Thank you.
(Tip: there's a link at the start of the quote that takes you back to the posting itself, in case you didn't know - the blue arrow)

Cleaver

Graham_Devon wrote: »

What cleaer said was not true about forcing others out. Closing other shops down. WE choose where we shop. Not tescos.

Just be clear Graham, you don't feel that after looking at the evidence out there that Tesco's business plans and general objectives are not aimed to shut down other businesses and suppliers and become monopolostic?

Looking at is as 'we chose where to shop' is looking at the issue in an extremely simplistic way. The evidence is that Tesco has practices to shut other businesses down and this reduces choice. The argument of 'well, you could go to Morrisons' (which I hope you don't respond with) is not viable reasoning.

Graham_Devon

Really2 wrote: »

Read the italics. You really don't see it do you! (clue, how many jobs are lost "creating" those jobs?)

You are a marketing persons dream Graham I will give you that.

I have absolutely no idea what you are on. It's a simple point. They create jobs. Simples.

With ALL job creation, other jobs will go, that is life.

Jeez, this is getting absolutely ridiculous.

I agree with you Cleaver.

I agree with you Really2.

There. Good grief.