Wilsons - The buy-to-let gurus' empire crumbles

carolt

Malcolm. wrote: »

If I could have tied her up the 10% of the time, the relationship would have been fine. She was extremely moody, nothing you do is right, any acts treated with total contempt. She was also tall and a bit of a tomboy (liked getting dirty, climbing trees e.t.c.), could probably give someone a good thump if they annoyed her. Her best friend was a lesbian, and she went to gay bars with her, although she claimed to not be that way inclined, she didn't take me up on the tongue-in-cheek :grouphug:suggestion.

That's really why you're peeved, isn't it.

This 90/10 stuff's just a cover.

Malcolm.

lostinrates wrote: »

wow. I liked dungarees when I was three. I was a tomboy. I wore only dungarees, dressing up clothes or bikini bottoms. It drove my mother to despair. I had First holy communion and to my mothers horror she realised as I walked down the aisle I'd swapped the shoes we'd gone on two planes each way to buy, for an old pair of her evening shoes from the early sixties, clunk, clunk, clunk through the church. (and I wore some mickey mouse sunglasses. )

I like the imagary in your post lostinrates. Do you ever still wear dungarees, they've always looked quite pratical to me, and a little sexy too, but then I am a little strange.

lostinrates

Malcolm. wrote: »

I like the imagary in your post lostinrates. Do you ever still wear dungarees, they've always looked quite pratical to me, and a little sexy too, but then I am a little strange.

No. No dungarees now.

I do have a boiler suit, but I just couldn't stand it....it wasn't a sort of fashion feminist thing, it was a proper boiler suit to keep my clothes clean....

Malcolm.

carolt wrote: »

That's really why you're peeved, isn't it.

This 90/10 stuff's just a cover.

It seems good in theory, in practice her friend would have been far more interested in my girlfriend than me.
Plus since I was little I've known that I don't share particularly well.

chucky

Mr.Brown wrote: »

The Wilsons are discussing offloading them - very much on Fergus's tiny little mind. Apparently he has several buyers lined up. Or was that last year? Maybe he's getting confused with the other "B" word.. bankruptcy.

actually no - in your tiny little obsession about me you failed on that one.
that was never mentioned by me, Doperster nor FCS. not in this discussion.

that was a little bump for Mr Dopester to put his thoughts on the subject.

MissMoneypenny

chucky wrote: »

i've looked at Kent's LR values and they're currently at mid-2004 house prices.
so yes let's go with that they bought the bulk in these two years.
these guys didn't do flats and bought terrace properties and maybe some semis.

According to this article dated 13 Septemebr 2009 they have 30 flats.
http://property.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/property/buying_and_selling/article6831386.ece

It also states that the Wilsons were still buying in June 2009.

On the buyers they were hoping to get, it says

"Fergus says several Russian buyers have emerged as frontrunners to buy all 700, for which they want £175m-£180m. “How serious they are, I don’t know,” he says. “There’s also a Bulgarian, a Saudi,one from China, one from Japan and one from India. We’re just sitting back and waiting to see who comes forward.”

chucky

MissMoneypenny wrote: »

According to this article dated 13 Septemebr 2009 they have 30 flats.
http://property.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/property/buying_and_selling/article6831386.ece

fair enough - i was going by his comment of only 'poor people live in or buy flats'.

MissMoneypenny wrote: »

It also states that the Wilsons were still buying in June 2009.

this where i disagree with the notion that they were in trouble.

if they were in trouble where would they be getting the finance and why would you be getting involved in more debt.

unless they're stupid of course.

MissMoneypenny wrote: »

"Fergus says several Russian buyers have emerged as frontrunners to buy all 700, for which they want £175m-£180m. “How serious they are, I don’t know,” he says. “There’s also a Bulgarian, a Saudi,one from China, one from Japan and one from India. We’re just sitting back and waiting to see who comes forward.”

if their going to sell the lot they're going to have to sell at a decent discount.
has anyone looked at their company accounts to see what kind of figures they disclose?

dopester

Chucky I'm not deliberately avoiding further discussion from the points you've raised, but am having a not-think-too-much-about-the-Wilsons type of day, today.

chucky wrote: »

this where i disagree with the notion that they were in trouble.

if they were in trouble where would they be getting the finance and why would you be getting involved in more debt.

unless they're stupid of course.

if their going to sell the lot they're going to have to sell at a decent discount.
has anyone looked at their company accounts to see what kind of figures they disclose?

Stupid would get my vote. My previous research shows they do have links to companies, but I've not bothered with any attempts to get deeper information about those companies.

a) GREENFIELDS (ASHFORD) LIMITED
b) GREENFIELDS (BOUGHTON MONCHELSEA) LIMITED
c) GREENFIELDS (CHART SUTTON) LIMITED
d) GREENFIELDS (KENT) LIMITED
e) GREENFIELDS (LINTON) LIMITED
f) GREENFIELDS (LYDD) LIMITED
g) GREENFIELDS (MAIDSTONE) LIMITED

dopester

Actually I'd be tempted to believe those GREENFIELD companies are no longer up and running. a) and b) have the most info at link below, with their records showing last accounts filed in 2003.

c) to g) doesn't have any date records of accounts being filed since incorporation, from the source I checked with.

https://www.ukdata.com/company-listings/Gr-159.html

a) GREENFIELDS (ASHFORD) LIMITED
Registered Number: 03450349 - Registered at Companies House on 15/10/1997
Company Status: Dissolved ?
Last Accounts Filed: For the period ending 31/03/2003

b) GREENFIELDS (BOUGHTON MONCHELSEA) LIMITED
Registered Number: 03450350 - Registered at Companies House on 15/10/1997
Company Status: Dissolved ?
Last Accounts Filed: For the period ending 31/03/2003

carolt

lostinrates wrote: »

No. No dungarees now.

I do have a boiler suit, but I just couldn't stand it....it wasn't a sort of fashion feminist thing, it was a proper boiler suit to keep my clothes clean....

LIR - I thought you might be interested in this from the Guardian:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2010/feb/23/return-of-dungarees

I expect you knew anyway, you trend-sttter, you.