Wilsons Selling Up. The Lot. All 700 Houses.

bluey890

Cleaver wrote: »

God, does every issue have to come down to some weird 'bull / bear' deal?

I think he got PPR'd last week.

Really2

Cleaver wrote: »

God, does every issue have to come down to some weird 'bull / bear' deal?

On here apparently yes (it is my main bugbear about some users ). I am beginning to think for some it is a religion.

I caught one praying to this the other day.


While choking a chicken! Apparently.

JonnyBravo

Joeskeppi wrote: »

I think you know full well the answer to that.

You gotta love a man who tries though!

Good luck Cleaves!

bo_drinker

Maybe Grant Bovey could buy them ???

Graham_Devon

Cleaver wrote: »

So, to ask again, is it a real moral issue with their business practice that you extend to all other areas of your life? Or is it "I want a cheap house, they push up the price of houses, I hate them" kinda deal?

Genuine question.

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.

Out,_Vile_Jelly

I know them from their antics in the horse racing world- they enter hopelessly outclassed nags in prestigious races like the Derby and Gold Cup in order to enjoy a jolly as owners. It's not of course against the rules of racing to do so, but is considered crass and unhelpful to the image of the sport- thankfully there have as yet been no accidents/injuries due to their no-hopers being over-exerted or hampering others.

I didn't know they made their money through BTL- if they were so rich I can't understand why they don't buy some half-decent horses.

hoggums

It's a



Probably forced at the hands of their creditors.

No BTL'er is going to pay full price on a house when there are 699 others in the same area for sale.

Another genius move by the Wilsons.

Cleaver

Graham_Devon wrote: »

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.

Nice post Graham. So, as per the orginal question, do you extend your moral values and the obvious knowledge you have about their business pratices and ethics in to other avenues of your life? For example, did you research how your bank operates before joining them?

As I said before, I ask from a curious point of view. I invest in a fund that has shares in BAE Systems and Imperial Tobacco, which doesn't really sit very easily with me, so I'm not being judgemental.

Cleaver

lostinrates wrote: »

I haven't bought cadburys (or green and black) for ages, but I hardly was a chocolate purchasing power anyway, so it makes little difference, and I bet I buy other same owned things unthinkingly.:o

My one thing is not shopping at Tescos, but for lots of reasons: ethical ones certainly, but just as much because I find the whole indentikit shops and services business plan highly irritating and false.

lostinrates

Cleaver wrote: »

My one thing is not shopping at Tescos, but for lots of reasons: ethical ones certainly, but just as much because I find the whole indentikit shops and services business plan highly irritating and false.

I'm really lucky that (while I do use supermarkets for some things) we have a couple of independant ''supermarkets'' and really fantstic local shops and suppliers. A mega supermaket - its a tesco- is a significant drive from me here, so its rarely useful, and for the normal stuff I can get better elsewhere. I do do a (roughly) weekly supermarket shop though. Mainly I try and time supermaket shops with needing petrol. So this last month could have gone just once (but went twice myself and took our houseguests a third time.). Not tescos though.:o