God, didn't you just want to push that woman off the top of her
unfinished roof! What was the POINT of this programme?!! I thought it
was supposed to be all about making money from property by spending
enough, but no more, to do up a tired or dilapidated property, then
selling it. Sarah Beeney tried everything to persuade these
know-it-alls to revise their plans, yet they not only didn't listen to
a word she said, they treated her advice with contempt. You could
observe it, most of the time, on the woman's face. And then they had
the nerve to say that whether £5,000 or £50,000 profit, it was still a
profit! Er, excuse me, Mr & Mrs Property Developer, but there is a
£45,000 discrepancy between those two figures, duh!

And then they had to sell their own property to pay for the mismanaged
extra work they thought essential - ha bloody ha! Three weeks with
friends? How could anyone have stood them for three days?

This show tonight was the nadir of Property Ladder. It was not about
making money from property and how to save on costs. It was about a
personal tussle between the presenter and some folks who were just not
prepared to listen to any advice. And we never did get to hear whether
they sold it for half a million or whether, like Colin and Justin
found, they are still waiting for the right idiot to come along.

MM

"Mike Mitchell" wrote in message
...
God, didn't you just want to push that woman off the top of her
unfinished roof! What was the POINT of this programme?!! I thought it
was supposed to be all about making money from property by spending
enough, but no more, to do up a tired or dilapidated property, then
selling it. Sarah Beeney tried everything to persuade these
know-it-alls to revise their plans, yet they not only didn't listen to
a word she said, they treated her advice with contempt. You could
observe it, most of the time, on the woman's face. And then they had
the nerve to say that whether £5,000 or £50,000 profit, it was still a
profit! Er, excuse me, Mr & Mrs Property Developer, but there is a
£45,000 discrepancy between those two figures, duh!

And then they had to sell their own property to pay for the mismanaged
extra work they thought essential - ha bloody ha! Three weeks with
friends? How could anyone have stood them for three days?

This show tonight was the nadir of Property Ladder. It was not about
making money from property and how to save on costs. It was about a
personal tussle between the presenter and some folks who were just not
prepared to listen to any advice. And we never did get to hear whether
they sold it for half a million or whether, like Colin and Justin
found, they are still waiting for the right idiot to come along.

MM

Its just frustrating to watch a people lose money on what could have been a
reasonable proposition. Still, its easy to say when you've "gone through the
mill". First time round we all make mistakes.

In message , Mike Mitchell
writes
God, didn't you just want to push that woman off the top of her
unfinished roof! What was the POINT of this programme?!! I thought it
was supposed to be all about making money from property by spending
enough, but no more, to do up a tired or dilapidated property, then
selling it. Sarah Beeney tried everything to persuade these
know-it-alls to revise their plans, yet they not only didn't listen to
a word she said, they treated her advice with contempt. You could
observe it, most of the time, on the woman's face. And then they had
the nerve to say that whether £5,000 or £50,000 profit, it was still a
profit! Er, excuse me, Mr & Mrs Property Developer, but there is a
£45,000 discrepancy between those two figures, duh!

And then they had to sell their own property to pay for the mismanaged
extra work they thought essential - ha bloody ha! Three weeks with
friends? How could anyone have stood them for three days?

This show tonight was the nadir of Property Ladder. It was not about
making money from property and how to save on costs. It was about a
personal tussle between the presenter and some folks who were just not
prepared to listen to any advice. And we never did get to hear whether
they sold it for half a million or whether, like Colin and Justin
found, they are still waiting for the right idiot to come along.

MM

It seems that all of these programmes have the same goal in mind, i.e.
to make the developers look like idiots. presumably, that is what the
programme makers have determined attracts viewers.

I have not seen one version of this type of programme which offers
sensible considered information, subsequently put into practice.

As has been said, it would be interesting to see Sarah Beeny and the
other "experts", acting as the developers, but perhaps that is not "good
television"?

--
Richard Faulkner

On Tue, 6 Jan 2004 21:55:18 -0000, "TonyK" wrote:

Its just frustrating to watch a people lose money on what could have been a
reasonable proposition. Still, its easy to say when you've "gone through the
mill". First time round we all make mistakes.

Yes, we do. I've made many. But these folks seemed totally unconcerned
that they had spent double their original "budget". This is not good
business practice. In fact, it's pants.

MM

In article ,
says...
In message , Mike Mitchell
writes
God, didn't you just want to push that woman off the top of her
unfinished roof! What was the POINT of this programme?!! I thought it
was supposed to be all about making money from property by spending
enough, but no more, to do up a tired or dilapidated property, then
selling it.

It seems that all of these programmes have the same goal in mind, i.e.
to make the developers look like idiots.

To be fair, they generally are idiots, though.

--
Hywel I do not eat quiche
http://hyweljenkins.co.uk/
http://hyweljenkins.co.uk/mfaq.php

On Tue, 06 Jan 2004 21:23:07 +0000, Mike Mitchell
wrote:

And we never did get to hear whether
they sold it for half a million or whether, like Colin and Justin
found, they are still waiting for the right idiot to come along.

I thought the final minute sais they had turned down an offer for half
a million and were holding out for a higher offer.

Hywel Jenkins wrote:
In article ,
says...
In message , Mike
Mitchell writes

God, didn't you just want to push that woman off the top of her
unfinished roof! What was the POINT of this programme?!! I
thought it was supposed to be all about making money from
property by spending enough, but no more, to do up a tired or
dilapidated property, then selling it.

It seems that all of these programmes have the same goal in mind,
i.e. to make the developers look like idiots.

To be fair, they generally are idiots, though.

Amateur developers are often idiots. People who do it as a living --
long term, and successfully -- tend to be a lot more rational than that.

--
Cheers,
Harvey

Mike Mitchell wrote:

God, didn't you just want to push that woman off the top of her
unfinished roof! What was the POINT of this programme?!! I thought it
was supposed to be all about making money from property by spending
enough, but no more, to do up a tired or dilapidated property, then
selling it. Sarah Beeney tried everything to persuade these
know-it-alls to revise their plans, yet they not only didn't listen to
a word she said, they treated her advice with contempt. You could
observe it, most of the time, on the woman's face. And then they had
the nerve to say that whether £5,000 or £50,000 profit, it was still a
profit! Er, excuse me, Mr & Mrs Property Developer, but there is a
£45,000 discrepancy between those two figures, duh!

And then they had to sell their own property to pay for the mismanaged
extra work they thought essential - ha bloody ha! Three weeks with
friends? How could anyone have stood them for three days?



I would have divrced that red headed know it all bitch immediately.

In fact, I wouldn't have married her in the first place.

What a tosser.

Typical bloody art fart all confidence and no bloody sense, and
completely unable to distinguish between property development and an ego
statement on interior design.



This show tonight was the nadir of Property Ladder. It was not about
making money from property and how to save on costs. It was about a
personal tussle between the presenter and some folks who were just not
prepared to listen to any advice. And we never did get to hear whether
they sold it for half a million or whether, like Colin and Justin
found, they are still waiting for the right idiot to come along.


I don't think it was a tussle at all. It was a wry shrug of teh
shoulders as Mrs Knowitall wasted huge amounts of her husbands money and
everyones time proving that people who think they are 'designers' can't
run a business project.



MM

Harvey Van Sickle wrote:


Amateur developers are often idiots. People who do it as a living --
long term, and successfully -- tend to be a lot more rational than that.


Darwin. The suilly ones lose money and go back to being management
consultants and social wurkahs.

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

God, didn't you just want to push that woman off the top of her
unfinished roof! What was the POINT of this programme?!! I thought it
was supposed to be all about making money from property by spending
enough, but no more, to do up a tired or dilapidated property, then
selling it. Sarah Beeney tried everything to persuade these
know-it-alls to revise their plans, yet they not only didn't listen to
a word she said, they treated her advice with contempt. You could
observe it, most of the time, on the woman's face. And then they had
the nerve to say that whether £5,000 or £50,000 profit, it was still a
profit! Er, excuse me, Mr & Mrs Property Developer, but there is a
£45,000 discrepancy between those two figures, duh!

And then they had to sell their own property to pay for the mismanaged
extra work they thought essential - ha bloody ha! Three weeks with
friends? How could anyone have stood them for three days?



I would have divrced that red headed know it all bitch immediately.

In fact, I wouldn't have married her in the first place.

What a tosser.

Typical bloody art fart all confidence and no bloody sense, and
completely unable to distinguish between property development and an ego
statement on interior design.



This show tonight was the nadir of Property Ladder. It was not about
making money from property and how to save on costs. It was about a
personal tussle between the presenter and some folks who were just not
prepared to listen to any advice. And we never did get to hear whether
they sold it for half a million or whether, like Colin and Justin
found, they are still waiting for the right idiot to come along.


I don't think it was a tussle at all. It was a wry shrug of teh
shoulders as Mrs Knowitall wasted huge amounts of her husbands money and
everyones time proving that people who think they are 'designers' can't
run a business project.



MM





I especially liked the bit at the end...

Presenter: "Will you do it again?"
Weird Woman: "Yes"
Presenter: "Eh?!?!"
Weird Woman: "Yes, and i'm going to be working on other people's projects
too..."

I only hope these 'other people' watched her spank her husband's cash away
so readily!!!

AJN



---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.558 / Virus Database: 350 - Release Date: 02/01/2004

On Tue, 06 Jan 2004 22:39:55 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

I would have divrced that red headed know it all bitch immediately.

In fact, I wouldn't have married her in the first place.

What a tosser.

Typical bloody art fart all confidence and no bloody sense, and
completely unable to distinguish between property development and an ego
statement on interior design.

Presumably you missed out on BBC2's 'new' version of C4's 'no going
back' in which a bunch of clueless ******* decided to run a bar stroke
restaurant in Portugal despite never having run a bar or restaurant
anywhere before?

It was most comical, particularly the husband who just acted like a
total control freak in a gale of opposition from his parents who had
good advice, which was presumably just what the programme makers
wanted.

I don't think it was a coincidence that he looked and acted like Chris
Evans. (ex Radio 1 DJ, and let's focus on the 'ex')
--
cheers,

witchy/binarydinosaurs

Mike Mitchell wrote:

God, didn't you just want to push that woman off the top of her
unfinished roof!

Don't the regs require the bannister rails to be something much
more substantial with smaller gaps?

Chris
--
Chris J Dixon Nottingham UK


Have dancing shoes, will ceilidh.

In article ,
says...
Hywel Jenkins wrote:
In article ,
says...
In message , Mike
Mitchell writes

God, didn't you just want to push that woman off the top of her
unfinished roof! What was the POINT of this programme?!! I
thought it was supposed to be all about making money from
property by spending enough, but no more, to do up a tired or
dilapidated property, then selling it.

It seems that all of these programmes have the same goal in mind,
i.e. to make the developers look like idiots.

To be fair, they generally are idiots, though.

Amateur developers are often idiots. People who do it as a living --
long term, and successfully -- tend to be a lot more rational than that.

None of the people that I've seen on the show seem to realise that
they're not development *their* house, but are developing *someone
else's* house.

--
Hywel I do not eat quiche
http://hyweljenkins.co.uk/
http://hyweljenkins.co.uk/mfaq.php

In article , TonyK wrote:
And then they had to sell their own property to pay for the mismanaged
extra work they thought essential - ha bloody ha! Three weeks with
friends? How could anyone have stood them for three days?
[...]
Its just frustrating to watch a people lose money on what could have been a
reasonable proposition. Still, its easy to say when you've "gone through the
mill". First time round we all make mistakes.

But this was their 3rd development in the area (see www.channel4.com)!

Zane.

In article ,
Harvey Van Sickle wrote:
To be fair, they generally are idiots, though.

Amateur developers are often idiots. People who do it as a living --
long term, and successfully -- tend to be a lot more rational than that.

But would it make good television if the amateurs said, after explaining
to Sarah their plans and hearing why she thought they were pants, "You're
right, let's do it your way instead"?

Actually, I think it would. And while it would put Sarah in the position
of having to prove herself right (positively, as opposed to showing clips
of estate agents and prospective buyers echoing her words), it wouldn't
really be much of a risk, would it?

Zane.

wrote in message
...
In article , TonyK
wrote:
And then they had to sell their own property to pay for the
mismanaged
extra work they thought essential - ha bloody ha! Three weeks
with
friends? How could anyone have stood them for three days?
[...]
Its just frustrating to watch a people lose money on what could
have been a
reasonable proposition. Still, its easy to say when you've "gone
through the
mill". First time round we all make mistakes.

But this was their 3rd development in the area (see
www.channel4.com)!

Zane.

If they have no employment and therefore no income and having to stay
with friends. How do they finance these weird conversions.
Note they had an offer of half a million which they rejected (and pigs
might fly)It seems apparant the buyer pulled out?
Did they ever sell or is this programme a con?

On Wed, 7 Jan 2004 00:45:26 -0000, "Peter Coddington"
wrote:


wrote in message
...
In article , TonyK
wrote:
And then they had to sell their own property to pay for the
mismanaged
extra work they thought essential - ha bloody ha! Three weeks
with
friends? How could anyone have stood them for three days?
[...]
Its just frustrating to watch a people lose money on what could
have been a
reasonable proposition. Still, its easy to say when you've "gone
through the
mill". First time round we all make mistakes.

But this was their 3rd development in the area (see
www.channel4.com)!

Zane.

If they have no employment and therefore no income and having to stay
with friends. How do they finance these weird conversions.
Note they had an offer of half a million which they rejected (and pigs
might fly)It seems apparant the buyer pulled out?
Did they ever sell or is this programme a con?


Do bears **** in the woods?



..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

On Tue, 06 Jan 2004 21:23:07 +0000, Mike Mitchell
wrote:

This show tonight was the nadir of Property Ladder.

Nadir or zenith ?

It made you watch. It caused a reaction. That might be bad property
development, but it's good TV.

Sarah Beeney tried everything to persuade these
know-it-alls to revise their plans,

Who is Sarah Beeney ? Does she _do_ anything, or is she just someone
on the telly ?

wrote in message
...
In article , TonyK
wrote:
And then they had to sell their own property to pay for the mismanaged
extra work they thought essential - ha bloody ha! Three weeks with
friends? How could anyone have stood them for three days?
[...]
Its just frustrating to watch a people lose money on what could have been
a
reasonable proposition. Still, its easy to say when you've "gone through
the
mill". First time round we all make mistakes.

But this was their 3rd development in the area (see www.channel4.com)!

Zane.

3rd! How on earth did they get past their 1st!

Assuming they got "better" as they went on I'd love to have seen their 1st
attempt LOL

On Wed, 07 Jan 2004 01:23:14 +0000, Andy Dingley
wrote:

On Tue, 06 Jan 2004 21:23:07 +0000, Mike Mitchell
wrote:

This show tonight was the nadir of Property Ladder.

Nadir or zenith ?

The first.

It made you watch. It caused a reaction.

I watched only to see whether there would be any developments. After
the first 20 minutes of Sarah trying to get Mrs Developer to listen to
reason, I could see that she was fighting a hopeless battle. Then it
became a mission to see said woman fail - as a warning to others,
which I definitely think did come across. Although, conveniently, we
did not see the final outcome of whether they actually sold at any
kind of a profit or whether they suffered a loss, it was clear that as
a lesson in how to develop property the programme was a dead loss.

That might be bad property
development, but it's good TV.

But we don't watch a bad property development programme and say, oh,
that's okay, because it's good TV!

Sarah Beeney tried everything to persuade these
know-it-alls to revise their plans,

Who is Sarah Beeney ? Does she _do_ anything, or is she just someone
on the telly ?

She is a successful property developer!

MM

It is hard to be certain, but I'd say that the bloke's assertion that
they had had an offer of 500k was a simple lie. Surely no-one was
surprised when it turned out they had "turned this offer down".

One reason I draw this conclusion is that we have already seen on the
"Justine and Colleen Million Pound Property Experiment" that there is
a stamp duty discontinuity in pricing around there. If the blustering
oaf had claimed to have had an offer at "a penny under 500k" it would
have been more plausible, but as he was keeping all the figures in his
head maybe that 1p got lost in the wide open spaces in there. This
issue means they are also insane to hold out for higher offer as the
next price range is around 575k.

I was intrigued by the nasal strangulated voice of the red-haired
harridan - was she English ?

Many Thanks,

Ted Woodley

Andy Dingley wrote in message . ..

Who is Sarah Beeney ? Does she _do_ anything, or is she just someone
on the telly ?

Apparently she has her own property development company.....
Although I did wonder last night how much she's getting paid for
Property Ladder and how much she makes from the property co. Maybe she
has plebs to do the work for her and gets both incomes.....


Alastair

The best bit for me was when they stayed at the Red Cow pub, very fitting!

Bill

In article ,
Richard Faulkner wrote:

I have not seen one version of this type of programme which offers
sensible considered information, subsequently put into practice.

As has been said, it would be interesting to see Sarah Beeny and the
other "experts", acting as the developers, but perhaps that is not "good
television"?

Except that Sarah Beeny *is* a successful property developer,
and her advice on this programme is usually very sound...

G.

On 7 Jan 2004 01:12:59 -0800, (Alastair) wrote:

Andy Dingley wrote in message . ..

Who is Sarah Beeney ? Does she _do_ anything, or is she just someone
on the telly ?

Apparently she has her own property development company.....
Although I did wonder last night how much she's getting paid for
Property Ladder and how much she makes from the property co. Maybe she
has plebs to do the work for her and gets both incomes.....

.....her head is screwed on, then!

MM

On 7 Jan 2004 00:09:13 -0800, (Ted Woodley)
wrote:

It is hard to be certain, but I'd say that the bloke's assertion that
they had had an offer of 500k was a simple lie. Surely no-one was
surprised when it turned out they had "turned this offer down".

One reason I draw this conclusion is that we have already seen on the
"Justine and Colleen Million Pound Property Experiment" that there is
a stamp duty discontinuity in pricing around there. If the blustering
oaf had claimed to have had an offer at "a penny under 500k" it would
have been more plausible, but as he was keeping all the figures in his
head maybe that 1p got lost in the wide open spaces in there. This
issue means they are also insane to hold out for higher offer as the
next price range is around 575k.

He was a bit taken aback, though, when, having claimed he couldn't
actually say offhand what the total spend was, Sarah piped up with
"£129,000", which proved to be right on the button, give or take a
couple of hundred quid. I also had the feeling that there was an
increasingly sarcastic tone underlying Sarah's comments as the
programme progressed, as if to say, if these ******s are not going to
listen, then at least the viewers will be left in no doubt as to their
status in the five-knuckle shuffle department.

I was intrigued by the nasal strangulated voice of the red-haired
harridan - was she English ?

Of course she wasn't! Yet another brash, arrogant know-it-all from
across the pond. Dontcha jus' love 'em to bits!

MM

On Wed, 7 Jan 2004 09:35:11 -0000, "Bill Gardener"
wrote:

The best bit for me was when they stayed at the Red Cow pub, very fitting!

Maybe they'll be renaming it Mad Cow.

MM

No-one wrote:

And we never did get to hear whether
they sold it for half a million or whether, like Colin and Justin
found, they are still waiting for the right idiot to come along.

I thought the final minute sais they had turned down an offer for half
a million and were holding out for a higher offer.

I loved the way they casually said they'd had a half million quid offer
and then said they were holding out for more. I have a sneaking
suspicion they made the offer up to avoid looking silly.

--
Scott

Where are we going and why am I in this handbasket?

Witchy wrote:

On Tue, 06 Jan 2004 22:39:55 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:


I would have divrced that red headed know it all bitch immediately.

In fact, I wouldn't have married her in the first place.

What a tosser.

Typical bloody art fart all confidence and no bloody sense, and
completely unable to distinguish between property development and an ego
statement on interior design.


Presumably you missed out on BBC2's 'new' version of C4's 'no going
back' in which a bunch of clueless ******* decided to run a bar stroke
restaurant in Portugal despite never having run a bar or restaurant
anywhere before?



Oh, yes. Saw some of that and found it too depressing.

Everyone thinks its easy running a business. I've run three. Its a total
bitch. Everyone thinks making a profit is just about spending money and
having a decent end result. It isn't. You are dealing with two large
numbers - cost and return. They are always close together - never more
than a few percent apart. Profit consists in tuning the cost down below
the return.

A veruy old acquaintance of mine bought a computer parts distributin
business from someone years ago. The seller remarked that what he wanted
to do was 'something with computers' but what he ended up doing ws 'fine
tuning the cashflow'

An instinctive appreaciation of cost benefit analysis is the one and
only absolute pre-requisite for running a PROFITABLE business.

However, as one of my ex-colleagues remarked, 'you don't need to make
money to make money' and proved it by selling his loss making business
to someone else at a huge profit, who sold it on to...yes. Worldcom!






It was most comical, particularly the husband who just acted like a
total control freak in a gale of opposition from his parents who had
good advice, which was presumably just what the programme makers
wanted.

I don't think it was a coincidence that he looked and acted like Chris
Evans. (ex Radio 1 DJ, and let's focus on the 'ex')


No. The world is largely composed of two sorts of people, those that ar
*******, and accept it, and those that are *******, but think they are
actually clever.

Those who are actally disciplined enough, or simply motivated enough to
learn from mistakes and refine their businesses towards eventual profit,
are few and far between.

After all its always much easier to PRETEND that you are clever, and
hope to thereby sucker someone else out of their money.


I have observed that most would-be entrepreneurs are, in teh final
analysis, not actually interested in actually making money. They are
interested more in "being, and being seen to be, entrepreneurs"

I ermembver vivisly the TV program that featured Clive Sincialr and Alan
Sugra. Whilst clive raved on about te technical merits of the 8088
versus the z80, Alan sugar merely remarked that 'he didn't understand
all that technical stuff, he just wanted to get a product that worked
out to the sort of customers he understood at a price they could afford'

Guess who is still in business...

Good business is essentially boring attention to detail with a
sprinkling of vision and luck thrown in.

It makes boring TV.



--
cheers,

witchy/binarydinosaurs

Hywel Jenkins wrote:


None of the people that I've seen on the show seem to realise that
they're not development *their* house, but are developing *someone
else's* house.



That is because their motivation is not profit, but the realisation of
their own ideas.

It took being penniless in a foreign country with no social services to
indicate clearly to me the difference between working for yourself, and
working for a customer.

And in many ways its just as much fun to bend your skills towards

meeting someone elses design criteria, as your own.


Mind you, spend enough marketng dollars and you can convince the world
that what you wanted to produce is what they wanted to buy. See Microsoft.

wrote:

In article ,
Harvey Van Sickle wrote:

To be fair, they generally are idiots, though.

Amateur developers are often idiots. People who do it as a living --
long term, and successfully -- tend to be a lot more rational than that.


But would it make good television if the amateurs said, after explaining
to Sarah their plans and hearing why she thought they were pants, "You're
right, let's do it your way instead"?

Actually, I think it would. And while it would put Sarah in the position
of having to prove herself right (positively, as opposed to showing clips
of estate agents and prospective buyers echoing her words), it wouldn't
really be much of a risk, would it?



When I sold my business, for really not too bad money, it was handed
obver to a sarah like person, who reckoned 'she could have done it so
much better'

Withing two years it was on the rocks, and within three was sold off, to
a firm who has just sold the dregs of what I built to someone else again.

Subsequently I have seen so many apparently sane people go mad once they
had their own propjects to run, especially using other poeples money,
that I now realise that the appearance of sanity in business and teh
ability to actually achieve a profitable result, are not at all the same
thing.

I have a friend of SWMBO's family who runs a substantial building and
construction firm. He reckons that 50-7% gross margin is good for the
trade. He reckons to achieve that is a question of hard nosed project
management, and careful design. Inventiveness and artiness has no place.
99% of customers do not want to live in the millenium dome, but well
found properties of flexible layout, and bits that work ON WHICH THEY
CAN EASILY IMPOSE THIR OWN STYLE such as it is (not, in most cases).

Big spaces with inteseting features like alcoves and dormers, can be
adpated to make amazingly nice rooms. You don't need to make them
amazingly nice tho. Leave that to teh buyer. Just spend teh minimum to
hint at teh exciting possibilities.

Flattering the ego of the potential buyer ' of course its a very
FUNCTIONAL space that you could REALLY add character to by...'


A grotty little bathroom into which a decent bath can never be instrted
without seriosu structiral modification has limited appeal. Unless yu
can find a rich art fart sucker who thinks its the bees knees.








Zane.

Andy Dingley wrote:


Who is Sarah Beeney ? Does she _do_ anything, or is she just someone
on the telly ?



It was remarked by someone deep in our local radio (that I happened to
overhear at a pub) that the media is now comprised of career media
people, straight out of 'meedyar studdys' who have absolutely no
experience of the real world, and are selected solely on the basis of
being able to project a false persona to the camera.

Its the same in politics.

The point is not to edcucate, or pass rational comment, merely to
entertain and gain ratings and hence advertising revenue.

Or in the case of politicians, to sell the party brand to the
electorate. It is not necessary to be able to govern or manage anything
in order to become prime minister, apart from the party apparatus,
merely be a good sales and marketing type.

Cf Phony Liar.


If only the vast numbers of people who to "polTicks and Meedyar studdys"
were being taught that...they might vote somewhat differently.

Alastair wrote:

Andy Dingley wrote in message . ..


Who is Sarah Beeney ? Does she _do_ anything, or is she just someone
on the telly ?


Apparently she has her own property development company.....


Anyone can set up a company and call themselves a property developer.

Whats it called? Lets look at the books!


Although I did wonder last night how much she's getting paid for
Property Ladder and how much she makes from the property co. Maybe she
has plebs to do the work for her and gets both incomes.....




Probably.


Alastair

But these folks seemed totally unconcerned
that they had spent double their original "budget". This is not good
business practice. In fact, it's pants.


One thing that made me angry recently was a viewer of our family home, which is
up for sale. This woman proceeded to catalogue all her 'special needs' for a
house makeover - special taps, marble floors.... I'd almost nooded off by the
time she came to lapis-lazuli spittoons. She then expected me to reduce the
price of the house by the amount all this garbage would cost her, and put in an
offer £60,000 below the price I carefully spelled out for her. Quite deaf to
anything that contradicted her.

=== Andy Evans ===
Visit our Website:- http://www.artsandmedia.com
Audio, music and health pages and interesting links.

"Mike Mitchell" wrote in message
...

God, didn't you just want to push that woman off the top of her
unfinished roof! What was the POINT of this programme?!! I thought it
was supposed to be all about making money from property by spending
enough, but no more, to do up a tired or dilapidated property, then
selling it. Sarah Beeney tried everything to persuade these
know-it-alls to revise their plans, yet they not only didn't listen to
a word she said, they treated her advice with contempt. You could
observe it, most of the time, on the woman's face. And then they had
the nerve to say that whether £5,000 or £50,000 profit, it was still a
profit! Er, excuse me, Mr & Mrs Property Developer, but there is a
£45,000 discrepancy between those two figures, duh!

And then they had to sell their own property to pay for the mismanaged
extra work they thought essential - ha bloody ha! Three weeks with
friends? How could anyone have stood them for three days?

This show tonight was the nadir of Property Ladder. It was not about
making money from property and how to save on costs. It was about a
personal tussle between the presenter and some folks who were just not
prepared to listen to any advice. And we never did get to hear whether
they sold it for half a million or whether, like Colin and Justin
found, they are still waiting for the right idiot to come along.

What these property development programmes clearly demonstrate is that it is
not easy and you can end up loosing your house. This should be emphasised a
lot, as many have naively tried and failed.

If they got the 1/2 million then they did well, but they could have done oh
so much better, with much less effort. The buyer will have a great house
as all is new.

I disagreed with Beanie in keeping the original layout. One of the
selfbuild mags did a slot on a similar terraced house rip-out about 5 years
ago, which was not so severe, which I think was in Kew. They made downstairs
all one room, put a modern open tread staircase half way down the space
parallel to the road. To Maximise bedroom space they put the bathroom in
the roof space using Velux windows and a warm roof. I think they opened up
the bedrooms to any available roof above to create the impression of space
too. They maximised all the available space inside the house, extending out
the back too. This would have cost far less than the one last night and had
greater and more appealing impact.

It all depends on the area, whether it is worth doing all this to a small
terraced house. Last nights e.g., was worth it in the end, as was the Kew
one.




---
--

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.555 / Virus Database: 347 - Release Date: 23/12/2003

"TonyK" wrote in message
...

"Mike Mitchell" wrote in message
...
God, didn't you just want to push that woman off the top of her
unfinished roof! What was the POINT of this programme?!! I thought it
was supposed to be all about making money from property by spending
enough, but no more, to do up a tired or dilapidated property, then
selling it. Sarah Beeney tried everything to persuade these
know-it-alls to revise their plans, yet they not only didn't listen to
a word she said, they treated her advice with contempt. You could
observe it, most of the time, on the woman's face. And then they had
the nerve to say that whether £5,000 or £50,000 profit, it was still a
profit! Er, excuse me, Mr & Mrs Property Developer, but there is a
£45,000 discrepancy between those two figures, duh!

And then they had to sell their own property to pay for the mismanaged
extra work they thought essential - ha bloody ha! Three weeks with
friends? How could anyone have stood them for three days?

This show tonight was the nadir of Property Ladder. It was not about
making money from property and how to save on costs. It was about a
personal tussle between the presenter and some folks who were just not
prepared to listen to any advice. And we never did get to hear whether
they sold it for half a million or whether, like Colin and Justin
found, they are still waiting for the right idiot to come along.

MM

Its just frustrating to watch a people lose money on what could have been
a
reasonable proposition. Still, its easy to say when you've "gone through
the
mill". First time round we all make mistakes.

They had the advantage of having expert advise available at all time. They
could have learnt from others mistakes and made a lot of money a lot more
quickly, still had their house and the them and the buyers would have been
happy.


---
--

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.555 / Virus Database: 347 - Release Date: 23/12/2003

"Richard Faulkner" wrote in message
...
In message , Mike Mitchell
writes
God, didn't you just want to push that woman off the top of her
unfinished roof! What was the POINT of this programme?!! I thought it
was supposed to be all about making money from property by spending
enough, but no more, to do up a tired or dilapidated property, then
selling it. Sarah Beeney tried everything to persuade these
know-it-alls to revise their plans, yet they not only didn't listen to
a word she said, they treated her advice with contempt. You could
observe it, most of the time, on the woman's face. And then they had
the nerve to say that whether £5,000 or £50,000 profit, it was still a
profit! Er, excuse me, Mr & Mrs Property Developer, but there is a
£45,000 discrepancy between those two figures, duh!

And then they had to sell their own property to pay for the mismanaged
extra work they thought essential - ha bloody ha! Three weeks with
friends? How could anyone have stood them for three days?

This show tonight was the nadir of Property Ladder. It was not about
making money from property and how to save on costs. It was about a
personal tussle between the presenter and some folks who were just not
prepared to listen to any advice. And we never did get to hear whether
they sold it for half a million or whether, like Colin and Justin
found, they are still waiting for the right idiot to come along.

MM

It seems that all of these programmes have the same goal in mind, i.e.
to make the developers look like idiots. presumably, that is what the
programme makers have determined attracts viewers.

The amateurs make themselves look like idiots. Beeny does strongly say
where they are doing it wrong and explains why. Though some have overruled
her and it has worked.

Those two were in management. How did they do their jobs right with that
sort of logic.


---
--

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.555 / Virus Database: 347 - Release Date: 23/12/2003

In article , IMM
wrote:


and you can end up loosing your house.

Much better to tighten the house, unless you meant "losing"?


--
AJL Electronics (G6FGO) Ltd : Satellite and TV aerial systems
http://www.classicmicrocars.co.uk : http://www.ajlelectronics.co.uk

"Andy Luckman (AJL Electronics)" wrote in message
...
In article , IMM
wrote:


and you can end up loosing your house.

Much better to tighten the house, unless you meant "losing"?

People do need tight houses, otherwise they will wander off.


---
--

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.555 / Virus Database: 347 - Release Date: 23/12/2003

Andy Evans wrote:

But these folks seemed totally unconcerned
that they had spent double their original "budget". This is not good
business practice. In fact, it's pants.


One thing that made me angry recently was a viewer of our family home, which is
up for sale. This woman proceeded to catalogue all her 'special needs' for a
house makeover - special taps, marble floors.... I'd almost nooded off by the
time she came to lapis-lazuli spittoons. She then expected me to reduce the
price of the house by the amount all this garbage would cost her, and put in an
offer £60,000 below the price I carefully spelled out for her. Quite deaf to
anything that contradicted her.


What counts is what she is prepared to pay and what you are prepared to
accept.

The rest is hot air and fluff.

Ive dne teh same: Looked art a crumbling listed cottage, worked out what
would be needed to set it right, subtracted that from market value, and
offerd 50 grand less than what it was mortgaged for.

Not accepted. Fine. Move on.



=== Andy Evans ===
Visit our Website:- http://www.artsandmedia.com
Audio, music and health pages and interesting links.