Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
Sign in to follow this  
Fromage Frais

Norfolk Property Developer Given Vital Lifeline

Recommended Posts

Part of a £3bn empire built up by a Norfolk property developer has been brought back from the brink of administration after intervention by three Norfolk MPs.

Commercial property developer Targetfollow was yesterday facing the threat of having one of its subsidiaries taken into administration over debt owed to Lloyds TSB.

But the three MPs stepped in at the 11th hour and asked senior Lloyds executives not to call in administrators over the three-year £250m loan to part of the Targetfollow Group, which expired this week.

A further three-year loan of more than £400m, to a second subsidiary of the group, is due to expire later this year.

Full Story

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Part of a £3bn empire built up by a Norfolk property developer has been brought back from the brink of administration after intervention by three Norfolk MPs.

Commercial property developer Targetfollow was yesterday facing the threat of having one of its subsidiaries taken into administration over debt owed to Lloyds TSB.

But the three MPs stepped in at the 11th hour and asked senior Lloyds executives not to call in administrators over the three-year £250m loan to part of the Targetfollow Group, which expired this week.

A further three-year loan of more than £400m, to a second subsidiary of the group, is due to expire later this year.

Full Story

Two Tories and one Lib Dem interfering in markets.

After the actions of Labour with respect to RBS et al, it now seems to be unanimous : there is cross party agreement that failed companies should not be allowed to go bankrupt.

No wonder we are in such a financial mess. Rising moral hazard will only make it worse.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ohh FFS!!!! These MP's have no business interfering in markets etc mad.gif !

KILL THEM WITH FIRE!!!

:D

Fire's too good for them.

Edit - nurrr speeling.....

Edited by Bearfaced-Chic

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest sillybear2

It's nice when politicians run banks, isn't it?

Fannie & Freddie are also well known for their political corruption and backhanders, and look where that lead.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Like the Offcers of the Titainc running up & down try to convence EVERYONE it was under control......

it took 2 hours 43 mins to sink (i think)...........I think we are now @ the 2 hours point.

Mike

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Like the Offcers of the Titainc running up & down try to convence EVERYONE it was under control......

it took 2 hours 43 mins to sink (i think)...........I think we are now @ the 2 hours point.

Mike

Yeah, but at least a load of bankers went down with the Titanic. Aside from that, I've read that the Titanic might have been better off if it had sailed straight into the iceberg, rather than trying to avoid it...*

* no, seriously

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's nice when politicians run banks, isn't it?

Fannie & Freddie are also well known for their political corruption and backhanders, and look where that lead.

Whats even more wonderful is that w own 41% of the bank also (I think) ergo we are paying them to delay our bank liquidating an asset. Now i wonder if those assets fall even more we have paid for 3 MPS to loose us more money!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest sillybear2

Two Tories and one Lib Dem interfering in markets.

After the actions of Labour with respect to RBS et al, it now seems to be unanimous : there is cross party agreement that failed companies should not be allowed to go bankrupt.

No wonder we are in such a financial mess. Rising moral hazard will only make it worse.

The cross party consensus now seems to be that nobody should ever be allowed to go bankrupt, ever, especially if it involves property and mates.

If he's insolvent and reliant on unviable ponzi loans there's no reason why this guy shouldn't be liquidated, the properties would still be left standing regardless of of who owns them on paper.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest sillybear2

Which MPs, let's write to them - idiots!

"Dear MP,

Please stop being a corrupt crony c**t.

Regards,

A. Voter."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just think of all the unsold properties flooding onto the Norfolk County market in one go!

The manipulation is blatant now for everyone to see!

Your Govt inhabitants are in a major conspiracy against the majority of the UK population!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So what points should we be making against this type of interference?

on the plus side: tenants won't get evicted

on the bad side: it's wrong. morally.

companies like this need to be stopped from existing - they are based solely on debt and are non productive.

Perhaps property companies over 10 houses need to register as social landlords and get in place policies and procedures to safeguard tenants?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is no silver lining. Lloyds shareholders get stuffed, housing costs remain high while executives of this failed company pay themselves more. The houses won't disappear and lloyds may very well have decided to keep tenants in situ. If there were evictions, rents would fall enabling those tenants to find cheaper housing. And if they were on housing benefit, less spending by the council

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps property companies over 10 houses need to register as social landlords and get in place policies and procedures to safeguard tenants?

I think all landlords should be registered and minimum standards applied.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, but at least a load of bankers went down with the Titanic. Aside from that, I've read that the Titanic might have been better off if it had sailed straight into the iceberg, rather than trying to avoid it...*

* no, seriously

yep - by tearing a gash all the way down the side it compromised every water tight compartment in the whole ship, whereas head-on it would have dented and probably fllooded the front two but the rest would have stayed intact and she would have stayed afloat, AFAIK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A town not far from me used to have a woolworths. Obviously that went bust and vacant and almost immediately there were calls for the council to purchase the rent on the store to stop it looking empty, perhaps to turn it into some kind of street art gallery. Thankfully they didnt get their way and a short while later a new store opened with jobs.

Makes you think though. If the council had jumped in, bidding up rents, would have that new store opened and created new jobs. Or would have the lack of retail space and high rents put them off?

Governments only know how to destroy things, not create them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, but at least a load of bankers went down with the Titanic. Aside from that, I've read that the Titanic might have been better off if it had sailed straight into the iceberg, rather than trying to avoid it...*

* no, seriously

Yes,quite true. The ship was compartmentalised and the iceberg scoured it's way through several causing a fatal loss of buoyancy.A head on would have crushed the ship back for possibly twenty metres or so but crucially ruptured fewer compartments.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
<br />I think all landlords should be registered and minimum standards applied.<br />
<br /><br /><br />

Rentals over a year (ie longterm with more tenancy rights) should be pegged at a multiple of something like - council tax.

This would be a killa for local councils (two birds - one stone) trying to rip people off too, as thousands of their townspeople would face large rent rises if councils try on large council tax rises!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes,quite true. The ship was compartmentalised and the iceberg scoured it's way through several causing a fatal loss of buoyancy.A head on would have crushed the ship back for possibly twenty metres or so but crucially ruptured fewer compartments.

Agreed a head on collision would have taken the bow off. The ship would have stayed afloat. Limped into new York Harbour for 12 months of repairs whilst the Capt was flawed alive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
<br />Yes,quite true. The ship was compartmentalised and the iceberg scoured it's way through several causing a fatal loss of buoyancy.A head on would have crushed the ship back for possibly twenty metres or so but crucially ruptured fewer compartments.<br />
<br /><br /><br />

You don't know the full picture!

The bulkheads did not completely seal off compartments; top to bottom!

But the engineers did not have the last word for very long...the perfect ship was no longer the vessel that best expressed the art of the shipbuilder. It was the ship that made the most money...Passengers demanded attention; stewards could serve them more easily if doors were cut in the watertight bulkheads. A grand staircase required a spacious opening at every level, making a watertight deck impossible...Stokers could work more efficiently if longitudinal bulkheads were omitted and the bunkers carried clear across the ship. A double hull ate up valuable passenger and cargo space; a double bottom would be enough...One by one the safety precautions that marked the Great Eastern were chipped away in the interests of a more competitive ship...

When the "unsinkable" Titanic was completed in 1912, she matched the Great Eastern in only one respect: she, too, had 15 transverse bulkheads...But even this was misleading.

The Great Eastern's bulkheads were carried 30 feet above the waterline; the Titanic's, only 10 feet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • 152 Brexit, House prices and Summer 2020

    1. 1. Including the effects Brexit, where do you think average UK house prices will be relative to now in June 2020?


      • down 5% +
      • down 2.5%
      • Even
      • up 2.5%
      • up 5%



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.