The Daily Arsenal

[Hoddle is a god]

That's why the developers who buy off you have such tight margins. We would never buy off someone like you. We don't have to, as we source the sites ourselves.

 

[PINKIE]

Nope, we've been through this before. I secure land ie it comes into my control/ownership, I secure planning and then sell it on to developers. It's a very straightforward concept and it's the second time you've failed to understand it, which is odd given your expertise!

HIAG got schooled about severance packages when it came to Adebayor's contract being terminated at Spurs and the subsequent continuation of his wages from Spurs until he signed for Palace. This was despite HIAG claiming that he would 'own me every time' as he was involved in constructing contracts all of the time. Turned out he didn't know anything about them at all.

 

[Tobes]

You misundertand me, Stan. My return is ten-fold what my fees would have been.

The GDV on our latest project is around £1.3 million, with net costs standing at around £700,000. I take 50% of the net profit, which (as I am sure you will appreciate) will stand me in a far greater sum than the conveyancing+plot scheme costs.

Sorry, but I'm calling bullshit on that.

A £600k net return off a £700k total cost is beyond what is even remotely believable in today's market - particularly darn sarf where you're supposedly trading

As is a developer handing you 50% of said profit in return for your professional services.

 

[Stan]

On this particular project, we are looking to buy for around £300k (directly from the charge holder) and at less than half of what our lender will value it. Its going to cost us approximately £400k to build (including the costs of finance, and other costs and charges). The lender will give us 65% of the actual value of the project (£600k x 65% = £390,000). We only need £300k for the purchase. The lender will fund 100% of the build costs (approx £350k).

Looking at the figures again, I am being overly generous with the GDV. It's more likely that we'll make £1.1m in sales, but it is currently a rising marking, so you never know.

If you're taking the net profit as a percentage of the acquisition + build costs, then, yes, that will be higher, naturally. In this case (and viewing it conservatively, as I say), that's £400k/£700k x 100 = 43%

How else would you calculate the net profit? GDV - total costs. That's it.

You comically threw a hissy when I pointed that out and said that I was wrong! You dumb bastard!

 

[Hoddle is a god]

Sorry, but I'm calling bullshit on that.

A £600k net return off a £700k total cost is beyond what is even remotely believable in today's market - particularly darn sarf where you're supposedly trading

As is a developer handing you 50% of said profit in return for your professional services.

You're not following the plot, Tobes.

We're dealing directly with the bank, who want to clear their mortgage. The pub owner got planning on the site but then ran out of money, and he needs to clear the mortgage to stop them calling on his PG. We're getting the site at around half its market value, before it falls into the hands of the Receivers. This isn't a deal that is on the open market. That's the whole point, mate.

You call bull-**** as much as you like. It makes not one jot of difference to me.

 

[Stan]

On this particular project, we are looking to buy for around £300k (directly from the charge holder) and at less than half of what our lender will value it. Its going to cost us approximately £400k to build (including the costs of finance, and other costs and charges). The lender will give us 65% of the actual value of the project (£600k x 65% = £390,000). We only need £300k for the purchase. The lender will fund 100% of the build costs (approx £350k).

Looking at the figures again, I am being overly generous with the GDV. It's more likely that we'll make £1.1m in sales, but it is currently a rising marking, so you never know.

If you're taking the net profit as a percentage of the acquisition + build costs, then, yes, that will be higher, naturally. In this case (and viewing it conservatively, as I say), that's £400k/£700k x 100 = 43%

By the way, conveyancing fees and general legals on a £300k purchase will be no more than £6k. Your partner must be as thick as you are to allow you to waive those fees in exchange for half of the imaginary £400k profit.

 

[Tobes]

On this particular project, we are looking to buy for around £300k (directly from the charge holder) and at less than half of what our lender will value it at

So you're buying land at 50% of its market value? From a financial institution?

**** off HIAG

 

[Hoddle is a god]

You comically threw a hissy when I pointed that out and said that I was wrong!

Hardly a hissy fit.

So, I'm going to end up with more "profit" than I thought. It's still going to be around £200k-£250k for my share (on our conservative sales figures). Oh, dear! I'm wounded!

You dumb bastard!

I see that my "estate agent" jibe has really stung you. Sorry, mate. I'll try to go a bit easier on you next time.

 

[Stan]

You're not following the plot, Tobes.

We're dealing directly with the bank, who want to clear their mortgage. The pub owner got planning on the site but then ran out of money, and he needs to clear the mortgage to stop them calling on his PG. We're getting the site at around half its market value, before it falls into the hands of the Receivers. This isn't a deal that is on the open market. That's the whole point, mate.

You call bull-**** as much as you like. It makes not one jot of difference to me.

You said earlier you were buying the site from the LPA Receivers. Now you're buying it from a bank before it goes to the receivers. Contradictory.

 

[Stan]

Hardly a hissy fit.

So, I'm going to end up with more "profit" than I thought. It's still going to be around £200k-£250k for my share (on our conservative sales figures). Oh, dear! I'm wounded!




I see that my "estate agent" jibe has really stung you. Sorry, mate. I'll try to go a bit easier on you next time.

I don't mind estate agents.They're reasonably easy to control.

 

[Hoddle is a god]

So you're buying land at 50% of its market value? From a financial institution?

**** off HIAG

We're actually buying from the owner (a company) at the price at which will clear the company's mortgage, so that the director/shareholder doesn't run the risk of having a call on his PG. There is nothing illegal about it. If the property falls into the hands of a Receiver, then it will have to be properly marketed, and it will undoubtedly cost us more to acquire.

 

[Tobes]

You're not following the plot, Tobes.

We're dealing directly with the bank, who want to clear their mortgage. The pub owner got planning on the site but then ran out of money, and he needs to clear the mortgage to stop them calling on his PG. We're getting the site at around half its market value, before it falls into the hands of the Receivers. This isn't a deal that is on the open market. That's the whole point, mate.

You call bull-**** as much as you like. It makes not one jot of difference to me.

If you're dealing directly with the bank then he's already in default and they've taken control of the property for disposal. His DG would surely only become a part of that equation once the asset has been liquidated and any shortfall to the mortgage value has been calculated?

I've bought a number of repossessed properties and a bank doing a deal off the open market is a new one on me.

 

[PINKIE]

Wow, HIAG has really tied himself up in knots with his bullshit on this one

 

[Stan]

Hardly a hissy fit.

So, I'm going to end up with more "profit" than I thought. It's still going to be around £200k-£250k for my share (on our conservative sales figures). Oh, dear! I'm wounded!




I see that my "estate agent" jibe has really stung you. Sorry, mate. I'll try to go a bit easier on you next time.

You're a lawyer who is also a property developer who didn't know how to calculate return on cost and proved you were right by presenting an incorrect calculation. You dumb bastard!

 

[Tobes]

We're actually buying from the owner (a company) at the price at which will clear the company's mortgage, so that the director/shareholder doesn't run the risk of having a call on his PG. There is nothing illegal about it. If the property falls into the hands of a Receiver, then it will have to be properly marketed, and it will undoubtedly cost us more to acquire.

You said in post [HASHTAG]#785[/HASHTAG] you were dealing directly with the bank

Sort your story out

 

[Hoddle is a god]

You said earlier you were buying the site from the LPA Receivers. Now you're buying it from a bank before it goes to the receivers. Contradictory.

The bank has threatened to appoint a Receiver. We've been negotiating directly with the bank to make sure that doesn't happen. I'm trying to get the bank to discount some of its mortgage, which I think it will go for. We could end up getting the property for less than the £299k that's owing on the mortgage. The key thing for the seller is that the director doesn't get caught on his PG.

By the way, I'm not going to disclose to you every last nuance of my business. So what if I haven't spelt out every exact detail, exactly as it stands? What the **** does it matter to you?

 

[Hoddle is a god]

You said in post [HASHTAG]#785[/HASHTAG] you were dealing directly with the bank

Sort your story out

See my last post.

 

[Stan]

We're actually buying from the owner (a company) at the price at which will clear the company's mortgage, so that the director/shareholder doesn't run the risk of having a call on his PG. There is nothing illegal about it. If the property falls into the hands of a Receiver, then it will have to be properly marketed, and it will undoubtedly cost us more to acquire.

So when you said you were buying the site from a Receiver what you meant was you were buying it from a bank but actually what you meant was you were buying it from the owner. Well that's clear and plausible.

 

[Stan]

You said in post [HASHTAG]#785[/HASHTAG] you were dealing directly with the bank

Sort your story out

He said in post [HASHTAG]#758[/HASHTAG] that he was dealing with the receiver, By the time we get to post [HASHTAG]#857[/HASHTAG] he'll be dealing with the Baron who owned the land at the time of the Magna Carta.

 

[Hoddle is a god]

By the way, conveyancing fees and general legals on a £300k purchase will be no more than £6k. Your partner must be as thick as you are to allow you to waive those fees in exchange for half of the imaginary £400k profit.

I've brought the deal to the table. It's a no-brainer. Without me, he wouldn't have got his hands on it. Either he cut me in, or I would have found someone else to do it with me. That's business, Stan. I thought you would have understood that.