Is it just me or is something not adding up here?

I was under the impression the idea was:

repeat
buy a house
do it up
sell it for a profit
take said profit and add original capital
until repeated seven times and you flog your 1 million pound house

My quick totting up last night suggested they had to date made just over
60 grand from their previous houses combined. Add the original 100k and
use it to purchase a place for 625k.....

Sponsored by dodgy self cert mortgage deals 'R' us by any chance?

Although to be fair to the drama queens, they did do a cracking job of
that place - sympathetic to the property and actually targeted at a
likely buyer. Would not mind the house myself although the prospect of
paying over 800k for a semi does make the mind boggle a bit!

--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

"John Rumm" wrote in message
...
Is it just me or is something not adding up here?

Not much adds up in their programs
Get survey done, buy house for half a million,
house has dry rot ????

Last week they went for the half a million plus figure
completely forgeting that the stamp duty hike at that level
would severely limit offers

I was under the impression the idea was:

repeat
buy a house
do it up
sell it for a profit
take said profit and add original capital
until repeated seven times and you flog your 1 million pound house

What about paying 40% capital gains tax ?

My quick totting up last night suggested they had to date made just over
60 grand from their previous houses combined. Add the original 100k and
use it to purchase a place for 625k.....

Sponsored by dodgy self cert mortgage deals 'R' us by any chance?

Although to be fair to the drama queens, they did do a cracking job of
that place - sympathetic to the property and actually targeted at a
likely buyer. Would not mind the house myself although the prospect of
paying over 800k for a semi does make the mind boggle a bit!

--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

"John Rumm" wrote in message
...
Is it just me or is something not adding up here?

I was under the impression the idea was:

repeat
buy a house
do it up
sell it for a profit
take said profit and add original capital
until repeated seven times and you flog your 1 million pound house

this is indeed how it was sold to the viewer.

It is (as you have noticed) glaringly obviously not meeting this claim:

Quite why the Beeb even started with the mis-advertising is a mystery
as IMHO each individual program is quite instructive in what to
do (and not to do) and it stands alone without the fictional claims

tim


My quick totting up last night suggested they had to date made just over
60 grand from their previous houses combined. Add the original 100k and
use it to purchase a place for 625k.....

Sponsored by dodgy self cert mortgage deals 'R' us by any chance?

Although to be fair to the drama queens, they did do a cracking job of
that place - sympathetic to the property and actually targeted at a
likely buyer. Would not mind the house myself although the prospect of
paying over 800k for a semi does make the mind boggle a bit!

--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

In article , tim
writes
Is it just me or is something not adding up here?

I was under the impression the idea was:

repeat
buy a house
do it up
sell it for a profit
take said profit and add original capital
until repeated seven times and you flog your 1 million pound house

this is indeed how it was sold to the viewer.

It is (as you have noticed) glaringly obviously not meeting this claim:

Quite why the Beeb even started with the mis-advertising is a mystery
as IMHO each individual program is quite instructive in what to
do (and not to do) and it stands alone without the fictional claims

Last night was the first time they mentioned adding 'additional investment'
to improve the properties, I've been listening out for that. It is indeed a
complete con.
--
fred

In message , John Rumm
writes
I was under the impression the idea was:

repeat
buy a house
do it up
sell it for a profit
take said profit and add original capital
until repeated seven times and you flog your 1 million pound house

My quick totting up last night suggested they had to date made just
over 60 grand from their previous houses combined. Add the original
100k and use it to purchase a place for 625k.....

No doubt at the end of the last programme, they will declare from the
rafters, or from a solicitors table, that they have done it!!

If somebody came into my office and danced on my expensive board room
table, (if I had one), I would chuck them out!

The programme is a joke, and actually misleadingly encourages people to
think they can do something which they can't.

--
Richard Faulkner

"John Rumm" wrote in message
...
Although to be fair to the drama queens, they did do a cracking job of
that place - sympathetic to the property and actually targeted at a
likely buyer. Would not mind the house myself although the prospect of
paying over 800k for a semi does make the mind boggle a bit!

807K for a semi with a derelict "other half" whose owner said he would do
something about the dry rot?
Whatever the polish on the place, if next door is a dump would you be
happy to stay there?

I wonder if the 480K purchase price (or thereabouts) was reasonable though -
at the
asking price of 340K (or so) with all the work that was needed you'd think
you could
buy it cheaper.
Hey, but what do I know? In fact, beyond dressing a room, what do the boys
know?

Still, it is entertaining telly, watching how the 'easy money' is not that
easy.

Mungo

On Thu, 11 Dec 2003 21:08:47 -0000, "Chris Oates" none wrote:


"John Rumm" wrote in message
...
Is it just me or is something not adding up here?

Not much adds up in their programs
Get survey done, buy house for half a million,
house has dry rot ????

Last week they went for the half a million plus figure
completely forgeting that the stamp duty hike at that level
would severely limit offers


The Independent reported yesterday that the Inland Revenue is taking a
very keen interest in the £500K sale, plus the ten grand for "fixtures
and fittings". I began to get turned off from these two after the
first programme. Last night, when Justin walked up and down on top of
the Scottish solicitor's nicely polished table, I thought, what a
complete prat.

Why couldn't they have bought a number of terraced houses in need of
work for around £70K each (plenty around the country), spent £10K
doing each one up, then sold for £90K? They would be able to churn the
houses out like a sausage machine after a while.

But that would not be "good TV", I suppose. Actually, I am now of the
opinion that the series was a waste of time.

MM

On Thu, 11 Dec 2003 22:18:11 +0100, "tim"
wrote:


"John Rumm" wrote in message
...
Is it just me or is something not adding up here?

I was under the impression the idea was:

repeat
buy a house
do it up
sell it for a profit
take said profit and add original capital
until repeated seven times and you flog your 1 million pound house

this is indeed how it was sold to the viewer.

It is (as you have noticed) glaringly obviously not meeting this claim:

Quite why the Beeb even started with the mis-advertising is a mystery
as IMHO each individual program is quite instructive in what to
do (and not to do) and it stands alone without the fictional claims

tim


My quick totting up last night suggested they had to date made just over
60 grand from their previous houses combined. Add the original 100k and
use it to purchase a place for 625k.....

Sponsored by dodgy self cert mortgage deals 'R' us by any chance?

Although to be fair to the drama queens, they did do a cracking job of
that place - sympathetic to the property and actually targeted at a
likely buyer. Would not mind the house myself although the prospect of
paying over 800k for a semi does make the mind boggle a bit!

--
Cheers,

John.

So is the BBC giving them the money for each house?

And why not cut out the previous 73 houses - they'd have made more
money for a damn site less work with just the one. ;-)

Mark S.

On Thu, 11 Dec 2003 20:46:41 +0000, John Rumm
wrote:

Is it just me or is something not adding up here?

I was under the impression the idea was:

repeat
buy a house
do it up
sell it for a profit
take said profit and add original capital
until repeated seven times and you flog your 1 million pound house

My quick totting up last night suggested they had to date made just over
60 grand from their previous houses combined. Add the original 100k and
use it to purchase a place for 625k.....

Sponsored by dodgy self cert mortgage deals 'R' us by any chance?

Although to be fair to the drama queens, they did do a cracking job of
that place - sympathetic to the property and actually targeted at a
likely buyer. Would not mind the house myself although the prospect of
paying over 800k for a semi does make the mind boggle a bit!


I think they have so far made £171,000 Profit

And have had 'funds' of £422,000

Richard Faulkner wrote:


The programme is a joke, and actually misleadingly encourages people to
think they can do something which they can't.

Actually, I think it aptly demonstrates that it takes more than a couple

of hairdressers to make ANYTHING from property improvement.


Their profit would not actually cover rheir living expenses so far..

Mike Mitchell wrote:

On Thu, 11 Dec 2003 21:08:47 -0000, "Chris Oates" none wrote:


"John Rumm" wrote in message
.. .

Is it just me or is something not adding up here?

Not much adds up in their programs
Get survey done, buy house for half a million,
house has dry rot ????

Last week they went for the half a million plus figure
completely forgeting that the stamp duty hike at that level
would severely limit offers



The Independent reported yesterday that the Inland Revenue is taking a
very keen interest in the £500K sale, plus the ten grand for "fixtures
and fittings".


The money program on radio 4 said that yu can get away with it if its
reasonable.

I began to get turned off from these two after the
first programme. Last night, when Justin walked up and down on top of
the Scottish solicitor's nicely polished table, I thought, what a
complete prat.

Why couldn't they have bought a number of terraced houses in need of
work for around £70K each (plenty around the country), spent £10K
doing each one up, then sold for £90K? They would be able to churn the
houses out like a sausage machine after a while.

But that would not be "good TV", I suppose. Actually, I am now of the
opinion that the series was a waste of time.


Its amusing tho.



MM

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
Mike Mitchell wrote:

On Thu, 11 Dec 2003 21:08:47 -0000, "Chris Oates" none wrote:


"John Rumm" wrote in message
.. .

Is it just me or is something not adding up here?

Not much adds up in their programs
Get survey done, buy house for half a million,
house has dry rot ????

Last week they went for the half a million plus figure
completely forgeting that the stamp duty hike at that level
would severely limit offers



The Independent reported yesterday that the Inland Revenue is taking a
very keen interest in the £500K sale, plus the ten grand for "fixtures
and fittings".


The money program on radio 4 said that yu can get away with it if its
reasonable.

Which it obviously wasn't as they conspired to defraud as soon as they were
told that the stamp duty hike at 500k existed.
They told the viewers exactly what they were doing !

In message , The Natural Philosopher
writes
Richard Faulkner wrote:


The programme is a joke, and actually misleadingly encourages people
to think they can do something which they can't.

Actually, I think it aptly demonstrates that it takes more than a
couple

of hairdressers to make ANYTHING from property improvement.


Their profit would not actually cover rheir living expenses so far..

The attraction of the program is that you want to see them fail big time

Unfortunately, if they had done so, it wouldn't have gone out would it
--
geoff

"geoff" wrote in message
...

Their profit would not actually cover rheir living expenses so far..

The attraction of the program is that you want to see them fail big time
Unfortunately, if they had done so, it wouldn't have gone out would it

Unless the BBC bailed them out big time and took care of the
listed building fiasco.

I still wan't to know why they are not paying
capital gains tax on 'non main residences'

In message , geoff
writes
In message , The Natural Philosopher
writes
Richard Faulkner wrote:


The programme is a joke, and actually misleadingly encourages people
to think they can do something which they can't.

Actually, I think it aptly demonstrates that it takes more than a
couple

of hairdressers to make ANYTHING from property improvement.


Their profit would not actually cover rheir living expenses so far..

The attraction of the program is that you want to see them fail big time

Unfortunately, if they had done so, it wouldn't have gone out would it

I would actually like to see them do it for real.


--
Richard Faulkner

Graeme wrote:


I think they have so far made £171,000 Profit

With last nights addin 100k plus - that sounds about right.....

And have had 'funds' of £422,000

Which begs the question - if you have that sort of slush fund then why
not forget doing the 100k terrace - wade straight in on something big
enough to be able to return a decent profit like last nights.

--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

Chris Oates wrote:

"geoff" wrote in message
...


Their profit would not actually cover rheir living expenses so far..


The attraction of the program is that you want to see them fail big time
Unfortunately, if they had done so, it wouldn't have gone out would it


Unless the BBC bailed them out big time and took care of the
listed building fiasco.

I still wan't to know why they are not paying
capital gains tax on 'non main residences'



I am sure that they are. But that happens towards the end of the year
following the year in which profits are made.

Such profits as there may be.

Lets face it, they are being bankrolled big time, and the Beeb will get
whatever profits accrue to get back what they spend. Each step up in
propery - if you were doing it for real - would justify a slightly
larger loan to do it. Of course the interest on such would be deducted
from the profit...

It's about as one finds. Making money out of property development is a
big gamble and a fine balance between being a paste over it cowboy, and
a proper stucturally aware builder.

You have to be autely aware of what adds a perceived premum value to
aproperty, and what is expensive, nice, but doesn't get a potential
purchaser reaching for the cheque book.

"John Rumm" wrote in message ...
: Is it just me or is something not adding up here?
:
: I was under the impression the idea was:
:
: repeat
: buy a house
: do it up
: sell it for a profit
: take said profit and add original capital
: until repeated seven times and you flog your 1 million pound house
:
This was how they sold it, but from a few programmes in it was obvious that they are doing all the houses in parallel, presumbly
because of time constraints. Looks like it was done all last winter, there have been no summer shots. Damn I was looking forward
to seeing your typical builder topless and showing some "cleavage".

I reckon because of the length of time to offload some of the houses that it would have taken around 4 years to do it. They have
been doing other crap morning DIY makeover shows/ spots for the 2 years previous to this, so I doubt they were doing this show then.

Suzanne

"Mark S." wrote in message
...

So is the BBC giving them the money for each house?


http://media.guardian.co.uk/overnigh...104912,00.html

"....has been widely criticised in the press because the state of the
property market has meant the pair have needed new injections
of cash from the BBC."


MH.

In article , Chris
Oates none@?.? writes
I still wan't to know why they are not paying
capital gains tax on 'non main residences'
Owned by a business so no tax on profits until end of a financial year?;
with tax payable 8mths later.
--
fred

On Fri, 12 Dec 2003 01:38:38 +0000, geoff wrote:

In message , The Natural Philosopher
writes
Richard Faulkner wrote:


The programme is a joke, and actually misleadingly encourages people
to think they can do something which they can't.

Actually, I think it aptly demonstrates that it takes more than a
couple

of hairdressers to make ANYTHING from property improvement.


Their profit would not actually cover rheir living expenses so far..

The attraction of the program is that you want to see them fail big time

Unfortunately, if they had done so, it wouldn't have gone out would it

Well, I don't know that they HAVEN'T failed! I mean, I don't quite see
how this series so far can be seen as a SUCCESS, and the opposite of
success is, well, you know what it is. To me now, in hindsight, it
looks increasingly like the product of a hip, flip, cool, young
production team Somewhere In London, which cooked up the idea to have
two excitable young things (in Colin's case, at least) swan their way
through seven properties and Make A Million. Consider: Two luvvies,
one down-to-earth builder bloke; the magic number seven (not 23, 18,
or, more realistically, 100); the even more magic number "one million"
(shades of Chris Tarrant here); loads of aggro; fantastic end results
in terms of the actual design work; fantastic rolling advertisement
for Justin and Colin.

The most interesting stories about this programme would be from the
behind-the-scenes planning. A story of how the programme was conceived
and made, warts and all, would be far more rivetting than the actual
episodes. For example, what was the real reason the builder bloke
pulled out? Did he just get sick and tired of the two boys throwing
their toys out of the pram? I would have jacked it in after the first
one if I were him. Why did the producers wait until the episode in
which he pulled out to tell us he was off? (Okay, we were given a
brief "taster" in the trailer the previous week.)

As these programmes progress through their allotted hour, one can see
the producers' - and scriptwriters' - minds at work. All such
programmes comprise deliberate peaks and troughs, the most blatant of
which currently is the "No Going Back" series on Channel 4. It is
almost laughable how one can predict with uncanny accuracy when the
next ad break (on ITV/Five/Channel 4) is coming up, as there will be a
sudden downturn in the family's fortunes. And then the ads are over,
and, magically, the problem is solved! Everything is once again
sweetness and light, and the intrepid family are now marching onward
and upward on the sunlit uplands of progress... yada yada yada.

Another 15 minutes and boom! Another calamity, another ad break. And
to think that there will be many thousands of viewers all lapping it
up and nodding sagely into their cardigans, "How brave, how very, very
brave..."

MM

On Fri, 12 Dec 2003 02:01:45 +0000, Richard Faulkner
wrote:

I would actually like to see them do it for real.

They'd probably have to go off and have a good cry. They are far too
emotional a pair to be let anywhere near something as technically
demanding as modern construction work, building regs and so on. As
designers their work looks fantastic, but as builders or renovators I
do not think they have a clue. I would have been much more interested
in a programme with Nigel showing us how to do a bog-standard
renovation without these two flibbertigibbets getting in the way all
the time. It was really a programme about two talented drama queens.

MM

Chris Oates wrote:

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...

Mike Mitchell wrote:


On Thu, 11 Dec 2003 21:08:47 -0000, "Chris Oates" none wrote:



"John Rumm" wrote in message
.. .


Is it just me or is something not adding up here?


Not much adds up in their programs
Get survey done, buy house for half a million,
house has dry rot ????

Last week they went for the half a million plus figure
completely forgeting that the stamp duty hike at that level
would severely limit offers



The Independent reported yesterday that the Inland Revenue is taking a
very keen interest in the £500K sale, plus the ten grand for "fixtures
and fittings".


The money program on radio 4 said that yu can get away with it if its
reasonable.


Which it obviously wasn't as they conspired to defraud as soon as they were
told that the stamp duty hike at 500k existed.
They told the viewers exactly what they were doing !



Its not illegal.
The stamp duty is on the land and the property. Not on 'demountable
objects' or indeed furniture. However the revenue takes a dim view of a
500 grand house with 300 grand of fitted carpets and curtain rails. But
will accept maybe 10k.

Up till now no one has really made a point of separating the two. Now
there is a point, so people will...as much as they can get away with.

Its legal and its only the fact that a stupid law that allows untaxed
transactions below 500k and taxes them at full whack at a penny over
that makes it a thing to be done.

If OTOH they simply taxed the residue ABOVE 500k at a small percentage,
then it wouldn';t be woth the bother of fiddling around with accounting.

Its a stupid tax in its implementation, it reduces the liquidity of the
market, and will be repealed as soon as tony and the boys get shoved
into the nether darkenss whence they came.

"Chris Oates" none wrote in message ...
"geoff" wrote in message
...

I still wan't to know why they are not paying
capital gains tax on 'non main residences'

Well, it was made clear at the outset that any profit they make after
paying back the Beeb, with interest, would be going to Children In
Need. So it's not as if it's either their own cash they are playing
with, or their own pockets they are lining - they are only TV
presenters. I don't know what the CGT rules are for this rather
unusual scenario; maybe the charity element will provide an exemption?

Have they actually made enough profit yet to worry about CGT anyway?
;-)

I think the issue of avoiding stamp duty is a biggie; I'm sure the
dear old IR won't baulk at chasing that up. As someone else has
already said, they shot themselves in the foot bigtime by admitting
they were massaging the apparent selling price to get below 500K.
Quite how or why the producers let that go out on air is a mystery.
Bit of an 'oops' methinks.

David

"Mike Mitchell" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 12 Dec 2003 02:01:45 +0000, Richard Faulkner
wrote:

I would actually like to see them do it for real.

They'd probably have to go off and have a good cry. They are far too
emotional a pair to be let anywhere near something as technically
demanding as modern construction work, building regs and so on. As
designers their work looks fantastic, but as builders or renovators I
do not think they have a clue. I would have been much more interested
in a programme with Nigel showing us how to do a bog-standard
renovation without these two flibbertigibbets getting in the way all
the time.

It was really a programme about two talented drama queens.

Surely you mean talentless??


MM

I persoanlly would like to see more of the lady architect they used
yesterday, she had some good ideas and I think better taste than
those two wallys.

I hope they do an out take show, then we really might find out what
happened with the first builder!

Angela

Suz wrote:

This was how they sold it, but from a few programmes in it was obvious that they are doing all the houses in parallel, presumbly
because of time constraints. Looks like it was done all last winter, there have been no summer shots. Damn I was looking forward
to seeing your typical builder topless and showing some "cleavage".

This is probably one of the best explanations when you think about it....

The production team would have set up parallel builds in order to bring
the show in in a reasonable time frame - and use a solid block of the
presenters and productions staffs time. This leaves the problem of
needing to predict in advance what the profit from each build will be,
in order to set the appropriate financial "entry point" on supposedly
subsequent builds.

The moment one of the builds actually returns significantly less profit
than anticipated (and this had happened twice big time so far), the
whole house of cards falls down, and it becomes impossible to maintain
the illusion that the builds were done in strict sequence.


--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
The money program on radio 4 said that yu can get away with it if its
reasonable.


Which it obviously wasn't as they conspired to defraud as soon as they
were
told that the stamp duty hike at 500k existed.
They told the viewers exactly what they were doing !



Its not illegal.
The stamp duty is on the land and the property. Not on 'demountable
objects' or indeed furniture. However the revenue takes a dim view of a
500 grand house with 300 grand of fitted carpets and curtain rails. But
will accept maybe 10k.

Whatever the finer points of it being legal what they did
was completely bogus.
The fittings are hired for the program so to sell them
they have to be bought - from the alleged profit

The Independent reported yesterday that the Inland Revenue is taking a
very keen interest in the £500K sale, plus the ten grand for "fixtures
and fittings".


The money program on radio 4 said that yu can get away with it if its
reasonable.

Which it obviously wasn't as they conspired to defraud as soon as
they were
told that the stamp duty hike at 500k existed.
They told the viewers exactly what they were doing !



Its not illegal.
The stamp duty is on the land and the property. Not on 'demountable
objects' or indeed furniture. However the revenue takes a dim view of a
500 grand house with 300 grand of fitted carpets and curtain rails. But
will accept maybe 10k.

Up till now no one has really made a point of separating the two. Now
there is a point, so people will...as much as they can get away with.

Its legal and its only the fact that a stupid law that allows untaxed
transactions below 500k and taxes them at full whack at a penny over
that makes it a thing to be done.

If OTOH they simply taxed the residue ABOVE 500k at a small percentage,
then it wouldn';t be woth the bother of fiddling around with accounting.

Its a stupid tax in its implementation, it reduces the liquidity of the
market, and will be repealed as soon as tony and the boys get shoved
into the nether darkenss whence they came.



Its implementation has not changed over the years no matter what
government has been in power, so there is no reason to think the Boys in
Blue will change it.

The recent change in the law means that people will have to justify the
price of the fixtures and fittings at the time of sale, and the revenue
will be able to examine the transaction for up to 9 months.

Effectively, the Government have said that they know this is going on,
that they are losing revenue because of it, and they are taking steps to
recover more money out of it.

--
Richard Faulkner

On Fri, 12 Dec 2003 14:11:02 -0000, "David W.E. Roberts"
wrote:


"Mike Mitchell" wrote in message
.. .

It was really a programme about two talented drama queens.

Surely you mean talentless??

Not at all. As far as their design work goes I think they have
produced some fabulous looking properties from these sows ears they
bought.

MM

On Fri, 12 Dec 2003 10:59:32 +0000, Mike Mitchell
wrote:

snip

As these programmes progress through their allotted hour, one can see
the producers' - and scriptwriters' - minds at work. All such
programmes comprise deliberate peaks and troughs, the most blatant of
which currently is the "No Going Back" series on Channel 4. It is
almost laughable how one can predict with uncanny accuracy when the
next ad break (on ITV/Five/Channel 4) is coming up, as there will be a
sudden downturn in the family's fortunes. And then the ads are over,
and, magically, the problem is solved! Everything is once again
sweetness and light, and the intrepid family are now marching onward
and upward on the sunlit uplands of progress... yada yada yada.

Another 15 minutes and boom! Another calamity, another ad break. And
to think that there will be many thousands of viewers all lapping it
up and nodding sagely into their cardigans, "How brave, how very, very
brave..."

And me and the Missus sitting there shouting "you ****ing idiots" at
the telly every 10 minutes when another 10 grand of savings is lopped
off the family's savings as the result of another boneheaded decision


"ah yes, we're going to up sticks to a remote part of the Tuscan
countryside to do (waves finger in the breeze) countryside tours, and
we're going to use local builders who are obviously very reliable 'cos
they have been on all the other programmes and they'll do our bidding
in (waves finger in the breeze) a month when in reality there's 3
months of work to be done but never mind we're going to be open in 10
days"

I wonder if there's a questionnaire you have to fill out before they
come to film you:

1) are you mind-numbingly naiive and being led by the man of the
house? (this week's was a typical example)
2) have you seen the other 'no going back' shows?
3) do you speak the language of the country you're going to?
4) are you **** with figures and planning?

If the answers they get back are yes no no yes then you're in!
--
cheers,

witchy/binarydinosaurs

Chris Oates wrote:

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...

The money program on radio 4 said that yu can get away with it if its
reasonable.


Which it obviously wasn't as they conspired to defraud as soon as they

were

told that the stamp duty hike at 500k existed.
They told the viewers exactly what they were doing !



Its not illegal.
The stamp duty is on the land and the property. Not on 'demountable
objects' or indeed furniture. However the revenue takes a dim view of a
500 grand house with 300 grand of fitted carpets and curtain rails. But
will accept maybe 10k.


Whatever the finer points of it being legal what they did
was completely bogus.
The fittings are hired for the program so to sell them
they have to be bought - from the alleged profit



Its not teh fittings they were 'buying', its the fixtures. E.g. I could
sell my house as a house, and charge for the Aga, the boiler, the fitted
carpets, etc. etc.

Witchy wrote:


I wonder if there's a questionnaire you have to fill out before they
come to film you:

1) are you mind-numbingly naiive and being led by the man of the
house? (this week's was a typical example)
2) have you seen the other 'no going back' shows?
3) do you speak the language of the country you're going to?
4) are you **** with figures and planning?

If the answers they get back are yes no no yes then you're in!


In fact essentially you are correct.

Except they think of it as a single question 'will this make
entertaining television?'

What is interesting about a guiy who spends all evening first at teh
refeiernce library and on teh 'net checking thungs up, manages to
identify a decent l;awyer, talks to all teh builders first, and in short
approaches it as one would any other major project?

Nothing. Its about as interesting as going to an evening out with the
chartered accountants society. (Which I have domne, in fact. The high
spot was surreptitious placing of bets on the length of the speech by
the chairman. My accountant won with a mind numbing bet of 45 minutes.
He took 47).

Its all part of teh general celebratin of utter incompetence that has
hallmarked teh media and the education ssytem and teh government every
since Phony Tony came to power.

Its acleed 'empowerment' - making you feel that even you couldn't be as
big a dickhead as the bloke on the telly.



--
cheers,

witchy/binarydinosaurs

On Fri, 12 Dec 2003 10:59:32 +0000, Mike Mitchell
wrote:

As these programmes progress through their allotted hour, one can see
the producers' - and scriptwriters' - minds at work. All such
programmes comprise deliberate peaks and troughs, the most blatant of
which currently is the "No Going Back" series on Channel 4. It is
almost laughable how one can predict with uncanny accuracy when the
next ad break (on ITV/Five/Channel 4) is coming up, as there will be a
sudden downturn in the family's fortunes. And then the ads are over,
and, magically, the problem is solved! Everything is once again
sweetness and light, and the intrepid family are now marching onward
and upward on the sunlit uplands of progress... yada yada yada.

Another 15 minutes and boom! Another calamity, another ad break. And
to think that there will be many thousands of viewers all lapping it
up and nodding sagely into their cardigans, "How brave, how very, very
brave..."

And me and the Missus sitting there shouting "you ****ing idiots" at
the telly every 10 minutes when another 10 grand of savings is lopped
off the family's savings as the result of another boneheaded decision



Hi.

All TV is staged like this, if not exactly like this. First you watch
the stuff and work out the plot. Then the theme, then what appeal-game
the show is playing, and who watches it. Then you figure out the
others too and then realise that watching these same cycles of rubbish
dressed up as 'exciting tv' is too mind numbing to continue with, and
go get a life.

Regards, NT

The Natural Philosopher wrote in message ...

It's about as one finds. Making money out of property development is a
big gamble and a fine balance between being a paste over it cowboy, and
a proper stucturally aware builder.

You have to be autely aware of what adds a perceived premum value to
aproperty, and what is expensive, nice, but doesn't get a potential
purchaser reaching for the cheque book.


Lets make this another thread: just what are the good and bad things
to spend on, in terms of affecting sale price?

Regards, NT

On Fri, 12 Dec 2003 16:31:05 +0000, Richard Faulkner
wrote:

Effectively, the Government have said that they know this is going on,
that they are losing revenue because of it, and they are taking steps to
recover more money out of it.

When Labour came to power in 1997 they made a big statement about how
the Tories had increased tax 62 times over their 18 year tenure, and
listed them all. Many people who had seen Labour in power in the 70's
were no longer around, and many who were not of voting age back then
did not have the experience either.

If the Tories ever regain the wish to get into power there's an open
goal waiting for them to score in returning this particular favour
about the number of tax rises.

PoP

John Rumm wrote in message ...
Suz wrote:

This was how they sold it, but from a few programmes in it was obvious that they are doing all the houses in parallel, presumbly
because of time constraints. Looks like it was done all last winter, there have been no summer shots. Damn I was looking forward
to seeing your typical builder topless and showing some "cleavage".

This is probably one of the best explanations when you think about it....

The production team would have set up parallel builds in order to bring
the show in in a reasonable time frame - and use a solid block of the
presenters and productions staffs time. This leaves the problem of
needing to predict in advance what the profit from each build will be,
in order to set the appropriate financial "entry point" on supposedly
subsequent builds.

The moment one of the builds actually returns significantly less profit
than anticipated (and this had happened twice big time so far), the
whole house of cards falls down, and it becomes impossible to maintain
the illusion that the builds were done in strict sequence.

But you do have to wonder why they didn't try to rebrand the series
with a different theme - did they think viewers wouldn't notice the
maths didn't add up or something? Maybe they had too much film in the
can where the 'boys' were referring to the 'experiment' to be able to
eradicate it.

It's also a bit puzzling about the departure of Nigel the Property
Developer. If the builds were in parallel, you'd expect him to have
been involved in all of them, wouldn't you; however he left after
build 3 or 4 in the sequence. My guess is he was only contracted to
do the small houses, and that the departure was planned all along, and
nothing to do with the primadonna antics of the boys.

Assuming the builds *were* parallel, and Nigel was meant to be
involved in all of them, I would think the producers would have had
him firmly tied in contractually, as otherwise disappearing midway
through a production shoot like this would have totally destroyed the
illusion of continuity.

Plausible?

David

Richard Faulkner wrote in message ...

The stamp duty is on the land and the property. Not on 'demountable
objects' or indeed furniture. However the revenue takes a dim view of a
500 grand house with 300 grand of fitted carpets and curtain rails. But
will accept maybe 10k.

Up till now no one has really made a point of separating the two. Now
there is a point, so people will...as much as they can get away with.

Course they have! - it's been going on for ages on a smaller scale (ie
10-fold) with the 50K stamp duty threshold.

David

On Fri, 12 Dec 2003 17:55:12 +0000, N. Thornton wrote:

The Natural Philosopher wrote in message ...

It's about as one finds. Making money out of property development is a
big gamble and a fine balance between being a paste over it cowboy, and
a proper stucturally aware builder.

You have to be autely aware of what adds a perceived premum value to
aproperty, and what is expensive, nice, but doesn't get a potential
purchaser reaching for the cheque book.


Lets make this another thread: just what are the good and bad things
to spend on, in terms of affecting sale price?


I will defer to the expertise of Estate Agents in this matter but I'd
reckon on it being the things that people don't want done whilst they live
there.

1) Installing GCH. (not improving it when it's already got it though).
2) Rewiring if the wiring is so bad that a lender would require it.
3) Anything that would stop a lender being happy regardless of weather
needed or not.

Also maybe
4) Removing a dated and/or cheap look to kitchen or bathrooms.
5) Adding a shower even if only an over bath unit. - It is now nearly
impossible to let a flat without a shower in the middling rental market
round here - so I guess the same applies to buying.
6) Replacing the electrical fittings with a consistent and modern style -
cheap but can make a big difference.
7) Nice light fittings.




--
Ed Sirett - Property maintainer and registered gas fitter.
The FAQ for uk.diy is at www.diyfaq.org.uk
Gas fitting FAQ http://www.makewrite.demon.co.uk/GasFitting.html
Sealed CH FAQ http://www.makewrite.demon.co.uk/SealedCH.html

On Fri, 12 Dec 2003 14:37:57 -0000, "Angela" wrote:

I persoanlly would like to see more of the lady architect they used
yesterday, she had some good ideas and I think better taste than
those two wallys.

Watching the show made me think that apart from a fireplace and the
paint in one room, the rest of the design was hers. IIRC, the
wallies even said they hired an architect because this size of project
was way above their league.

I hope they do an out take show, then we really might find out what
happened with the first builder!

Probably left due to "artistic" differences. i.e. he had to be
stopped from physically attacking the wallies by the production crew.

Personally, I just loved the Harrogate house where they argued that
they had measured the garage and it was big enough for a car :-))

As others have said, the series has depended on fresh (large)
injections of capital.