The Wilsons are going under.

chucky

Mr.Brown wrote: »

Maybe they lost control a couple of years ago, or last year, or perhaps it will happen next year. I would say the chances are that they are going to go spectacularly bankrupt once the bank(s) are forced to take the hit.

Are they still looking for that Russian businessman who was apparently lined up to save them?

Couple of maths teachers. 800 houses.

You do the maths Chucky....

i did but it wasn't what people wanted to hear
from Thruglmeir's link they have a 25% Loan to Value :money:

Now they are selling up with an asking price of £180m for their property empire that is claimed to only hold £45m worth of debt against it.

http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/mortgages-and-homes/buy-to-let/article.html?in_article_id=491788&in_page_id=56#ixzz0fKhhGDoV

Mr.Brown_4

chucky wrote: »

i did but it wasn't what people wanted to hear
from Thruglmeir's link they have a 25% Loan to Value :money:

http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/mortgages-and-homes/buy-to-let/article.html?in_article_id=491788&in_page_id=56#ixzz0fKhhGDoV

Hmmm.

Now they are selling up with an asking price of £180m for their property empire that is claimed to only hold £45m worth of debt against it.

Asking price 180m. Claimed debt 45m.

How much did they realise in the end? That's right - no one wanted it!

No one.

Article dated 12/9/09. I bet a fair few Rich Tea biscuits have been eaten since then.

chucky

Mr.Brown wrote: »

Hmmm.

Now they are selling up with an asking price of £180m for their property empire that is claimed to only hold £45m worth of debt against it.

Asking price 180m. Claimed debt 45m.

How much did they realise in the end? That's right - no one wanted it!

No one.

Article dated 12/9/09. I bet a fair few Rich Tea biscuits have been eaten since then.

this is getting boring now - i don't care enough about the Wilsons

can we revert to normal and start on each other please :eek:

Thrugelmir

chucky wrote: »

maybe saying "that they lost control of their empire" is a bit of an exaggeration and even not actually true.

How would you explain a business, that was highly successful, having cashflow problems and unable to service its loan repayments. Normally its because the venture has become overextended. Grown faster than it should have done.

Like other investors got caught up in the property will rise for ever bubble. Though they will still walk away as very rich people.

chucky

Thrugelmir wrote: »

How would you explain a business, that was highly successful, having cashflow problems and unable to service its loan repayments. Normally its because the venture has become overextended. Grown faster than it should have done.

Like other investors got caught up in the property will rise for ever bubble. Though they will still walk away as very rich people.

i don't need to explain it but taking information from the link that you provided it seems that they will be just fine...

Now they are selling up with an asking price of £180m for their property empire that is claimed to only hold £45m worth of debt against it.

Mr.Brown_4

180m v. 45m - there is surely a good turn in there if anyone could negotiate a deal with them. How much do they really want / need to see them out? 10 million, 20 million? How much do you think they would 'fold' for? Is there no one out there with the ability to finance such a deal? Not even rich Russians?

I mean - 180m is surely peanuts to Abramovitch , etc. So for some reason it would seem that they can't, or haven't yet done a deal.

Finance unavailable or BTL busted as an investment or figures don't add up maybe? Unable to walk away because they didn't actually salt away a load of money during the good times?

Lot of hassle for a couple who are not getting any younger. I almost feel a bit sorry for them. Except for the few stories that have leaked out about how they treat people 'beneath' them.

Let's hope that when the hard negotiating is done, and the subsequent bankruptcy, that there is a TV crew to capture the moment.

bouche

Such a talking point - tsut - the Wilsons "going under"

Seems success is hated and the opposite celebrated!

I find if all quite bizzarre!

Had they done well, no doubt they'd had have attrracted not so much attention, as on this forum!

dopester

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Though they will still walk away as very rich people.

You can't know that for sure. It seems to me, from statements they've made since the beginning of the crunch, they were caught wholly unaware by the changing circumstances of the market.

If they haven't taken sufficient precautions in their business, if lenders have insisted on some basic sensible measures allowing them to claim against them if they were to fail, they could be in trouble.

If a failing business was to siphon off money at a late stage... creditor solicitors may well have powers to reclaim such monies. Otherwise, yes.. they could still come out with lots of money if lenders haven't protected themselves, which is possible.

It isn't like they are even mortgage free on their main home. I've seen it, checked the registry, and it's still got a mortgage on it. You don't have to be a genius to guess who the lender is. They extended recently (within the last few years), building 2 further nice homes at the back. 3 homes but the entire plot showing at the registry as one entire property, owned by one of them, still with at least 1 mortgage charge on it.

mystic_trev

Prices in Ashford seem to be heading South. I'm quite surprised bearing in mind they've now got the high speed rail link to London.Perhaps it's only the likes of the Wilsons who can afford it!

Harry_Powell

Thrugelmir wrote: »

What difference does putting capital assets into a Ltd Company framework make?

Corporation tax is akin to Income tax.

If they traded property then yes Corporation Tax would be payable. Though this was clearly what they didn't do. Their plan was long term.

Repayment of debt is not a tax deductible item. Capital repayment is effectively made from after tax income.

I would imagine that running an empire of 900 properties had signficant operational overheads. Employing staff for example.

It's much easier to reduce your corporation tax bill than it is to reduce your capitals gains tax bill. With capital gains, you can reduce your bill by offsetting your gains against losses you may have made. If you don't make any losses then you pay the full amount. With corporation tax, there are lots of ways to reduce your bill. You can pay profits into pensions, you can buy 'office' equipment, you can get work done on your other properties to increase their value, you can pay down company debt, etc.