Wilsons Selling Up. The Lot. All 700 Houses.

Graham_Devon

Cleaver wrote: »

Just as a note, I did thank it as it was a great post. I just find it strange that Graham can draw no parallels between the business the Wilson's run, which he critiqued very succinctly and accurately, and a myriad of other businesses out there in the UK which fall in to many of the same ethical and moral pitfalls that he mentioned in his post.

Ok, one last effort.

Wilsons run everything for their own pocket. Trample over an entire, localised area to do this. Trample over the families there who they want to occupy their investments. Trample over the workers there who they want to keep their investments up to scratch. They have artificially tried to increase HPI to keep more families out of owning, and more in their investments as they buy even more. The residents have no choice of where they shop for their homes, as it were. It's the Wilsons, or no where.

It is the wilsons against families, with the wilsons trying to extract money in terms of rental income and HPI, and low pay for those they employ while putting them up against each other so the wilsons get the best possible outcome regardless of work ethics as they keep them self employed so they have none of those issues to abide by.

They rely totally on debt to keep their business model alive. They have no wealth, they have MASSES of debt. They have assets, which they hoped would outstrip their debt.

It is totally localised, wiping out all competition in the area to provide one single point of entry for home rental in that sector in Ashford. They can control rentals and push their own rental prices up as they wish because of this.

The tescos comparison just does not stack up in any way, shape, or form.

This isn't personal. It's just a debate, but it appears to have been taken a little out of context again and got personal.

It's not a religion, championing, or whatever else really wants to make up. It's an explanation in a debate. And I wish he would stop doing this and ruining all debate.

PasturesNew

Cleaver wrote: »

Just as a note, I did thank it as it was a great post. I just find it strange that Graham can draw no parallels between the business the Wilson's run, which he critiqued very succinctly and accurately, and a myriad of other businesses out there in the UK which fall in to many of the same ethical and moral pitfalls that he mentioned in his post.

I don't give a squirrel's chuff... the whole Tesco/other businesses debate's boring me rigid

JonnyBravo

PasturesNew wrote: »

What's the tax situation when they sell? Presumably everything's in a Ltd company... what would the tax implications be if they sold it as one lot?

Tax implications?

Most people seem to be suggesting they won't be able to sell or won't get what they paid for them etc etc. Tax on that = nothing.
If they make a profit then they pay tax.

carolt

Cleaver wrote: »

Thanks.

I just really love the irony of basically "who cares if Tesco isn't ethical? It's cheap so I shop there. Who cares?"

Which is fine. But these people posting this and lambasting the Wilsons miss the irony that 99.9% of the population would say about the Wilsons, "they bought a load of houses to rent that people wanted to rent off them. Supply and demand. Who cares"?

It seems that people only care about the cause that they have a vested interest in.

I'm now officially giving up.

I don't think that's true. I think 99.9% of the population think that the Wilsons are greedy vultures. 700 houses. Who needs that?

Doesn't benefit anyone else. Sorry - I think the Tesco argument is entirely irrelevant.

Really2

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Ok, one last effort.

They rely totally on debt to keep their business model alive. They have no wealth, they have MASSES of debt. They have assets, which they hoped would outstrip their debt.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/retailandconsumer/2794931/Tesco-seeks-500m-from-sale-of-stores.html

News of Tesco's latest deal will be welcomed by shareholders, a number of which have expressed disquiet about the debts.

Do you really think business's operate without debts.

I think the article is very interesting for this discussion (sold to a pension fund:))

"But the joint venture structure of Tesco's deals allows it to retain control and flexibility over its portfolio and also to benefit from any future rental increases. "

Graham_Devon

Really2 wrote: »

Do you really think business's operate without debts.

Stop it!!!

Did I ever say that!?!

Please, really, stop it. You seem to just want to drag me into arguments, yesterday it was posting my picture out of the blue for no reason, today it's taking things out of context no matter what I say.

I'm asking politely, please stop it.

JonnyBravo

Cleaver wrote: »

Thanks.

I just really love the irony of basically "who cares if Tesco isn't ethical? It's cheap so I shop there. Who cares?"

Which is fine. But these people posting this and lambasting the Wilsons miss the irony that 99.9% of the population would say about the Wilsons, "they bought a load of houses to rent that people wanted to rent off them. Supply and demand. Who cares"?

It seems that people only care about the cause that they have a vested interest in.

I'm now officially giving up.

Don't blame you.

FWIW I do agree with your argument but unfortunately I do not join your crusade by forgoing Tesco's.

I can see what I'm doing doesn't really help the situation. I shop at Tesco and perpetuate the closure of small businesses and the extinction of small farms because as carolt says for me the benefit outweighs the negative ie I get cheaper food. Not morally the right decision but one I can live with.

Similarly I rent out a house. Now whilst clearly I have no hold over a town with one house I do realise the many people doing this can help to keep houses prices high. Again I do this simply because it benefits me. Again this is is probably not the morally correct thing to do but something I can live with.

So what is the right level of competition for Tesco? That's as easy to answer as How many houses should one be able to buy to rent out? ie It's not easy and has no definitive answer in my mind.

The problem with seeing the world in black and white as Graham seems to be portraying here is it is very easy to be seen as inconsistent.

Really2

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Stop it!!!

Did I ever say that!?!
.

I did not say you did, but you hinted tesco did not bas a business on debts.

Graham_Devon wrote:

They rely totally on debt to keep their business model alive. They have no wealth, they have MASSES of debt. They have assets, which they hoped would outstrip their debt.

No real reason to go off on one.

it is just what I read into your post.

As for the other points

a)Your picture was a joke because i said i don't do insults as I have a dart board (eg your picture on a dart board) you picture was off a lin bo drinker put on this forum.
b) you have been trolling me for days going on about "ABUSE"

If I cant debate with you either perhaps you need to put me on ignore as you seem to have a problem with me.

chucky

Really2 wrote: »

I did not say you did, but you hinted tesco did not bas a business on debts.



No real reason to go off on one.

it is just what I read into your post.

best you leave it there Really

we don't want him getting upset (again) and telling us he's leaving (again), going to HPC (again) and never coming back to this forum (again)

Cleaver

JonnyBravo wrote: »

Don't blame you.

FWIW I do agree with your argument but unfortunately I do not join your crusade by forgoing Tesco's.

I can see what I'm doing doesn't really help the situation. I shop at Tesco and perpetuate the closure of small businesses and the extinction of small farms because as carolt says for me the benefit outweighs the negative ie I get cheaper food. Not morally the right decision but one I can live with.

Similarly I rent out a house. Now whilst clearly I have no hold over a town with one house I do realise the many people doing this can help to keep houses prices high. Again I do this simply because it benefits me. Again this is is probably not the morally correct thing to do but something I can live with.

So what is the right level of competition for Tesco? That's as easy to answer as How many houses should one be ale to buy to rent out? ie It's not easy and has no definitive answer in my mind.

The problem with seeing the world in black and white as Graham seems to be portraying here is it is very easy to be seen as inconsistent.

Entirely the point I was trying to make. The Wilsons aren't exactly like Tesco or any other business, and that wasn't the point I was trying to make. I was trying to just ask the initial question that when we buy a product or service we have to make some difficult decisions about morals, ethics and whether we want to use the company involved. I'm coming across as some left wing, green crusader today which would be a false picture as not going in to Tesco (mainly because it bores me) is pretty much as far as I go. Most of my moralising goes on at home on the sofa and gets forgotton for the sake of convenience or laziness as one other poster pointed out.

But I still maintain that anyone saying that businesses including large supermarkets, banks and other coporations don't share any intrinsic values and traits with people such as the Wilsons are completely niave.

Right, I'm off with my clubcard to get a £2 t-shirt that was made by a child in Cambodia at gunpoint. God, no wonder I stick to gags and random posts on here, real debate is so stressful.