JD Classics, what have they been up to?
Discussion
lowdrag said:
From what I have heard from people close to the plaintiff he was looking to invest because the banks were giving nothing. Personally I believe he was hoodwinked by Derek Hood and somewhat naive, despite being a rich businessman.
Yes, as such you would have thought he'd still have done a 'due dilligence'......and, this is where, as you say the Hood hoodwinking came into play.And this, is no doubt due to the fact he was already a customer of JD for some time, and probably trusted what Hood was saying during conversations prior to this, probably before he sold his business.
I think I'd be of the same thoughts as Donkey Apple, if he was a punter that had made the decision himself to invest in classic cars and walked in off the street to Hood, but I think the previous established customer relationship and perceived trust with Hood allowed Hood to go fishing for bait.
Its a shame that the piss poor interest rates have driven the classic car (and other collectibles markets) beyond the enthusiasts and we're in this mess in the first place.
Yes, such a shame that we're even discussing this guy, he's a waste of space, and yes what a mess our hobby/passion is in with all these absurd so called values flying around !
I was at an event in the City of London yesterday, The London Concours at the Honourable Artillery Company, and whilst it was a great day and there were some fabulous cars on show, some of the prices that were being asked !! just amazes me, i guess because it was in the city and thats where all the money is, but the ordinary "enthusiast" /Joe Bloggs cant afford these cars any more.
There was an E Type there ruined by one of these so called restorers where that put fat blingy chrome wheels on it and big brakes, take the bumpers off ect ect, a horrible looking thing, anywyay, they were asking 400k for it ! crazy money ! and i spose someone will buy it as an "investment" and stick it in a storage facility with a cover over it hoping it'll go to a couple of million in 3 weeks time !
I was at an event in the City of London yesterday, The London Concours at the Honourable Artillery Company, and whilst it was a great day and there were some fabulous cars on show, some of the prices that were being asked !! just amazes me, i guess because it was in the city and thats where all the money is, but the ordinary "enthusiast" /Joe Bloggs cant afford these cars any more.
There was an E Type there ruined by one of these so called restorers where that put fat blingy chrome wheels on it and big brakes, take the bumpers off ect ect, a horrible looking thing, anywyay, they were asking 400k for it ! crazy money ! and i spose someone will buy it as an "investment" and stick it in a storage facility with a cover over it hoping it'll go to a couple of million in 3 weeks time !
aeropilot said:
lowdrag said:
From what I have heard from people close to the plaintiff he was looking to invest because the banks were giving nothing. Personally I believe he was hoodwinked by Derek Hood and somewhat naive, despite being a rich businessman.
Yes, as such you would have thought he'd still have done a 'due diligence'......and, this is where, as you say the Hood hoodwinking came into play.And this, is no doubt due to the fact he was already a customer of JD for some time, and probably trusted what Hood was saying during conversations prior to this, probably before he sold his business...
anonymous said:
[redacted]
It's definitely subjective. As I said before "based on what we know so far, I don't see evidence of that kind of behaviour/motivation". I'm happy to call him naive and foolhardy based on what's been disclosed, but "greedy" is usually immediately followed by "got what he deserved".So for now, I'll be circumspect and say "not proven". Hood, on the other hand, appeared to be motivated by greed and little else.
silentbrown said:
anonymous said:
[redacted]
It's definitely subjective. As I said before "based on what we know so far, I don't see evidence of that kind of behaviour/motivation". I'm happy to call him naive and foolhardy based on what's been disclosed, but "greedy" is usually immediately followed by "got what he deserved".So for now, I'll be circumspect and say "not proven". Hood, on the other hand, appeared to be motivated by greed and little else.
BrabusMog said:
Isn't wanting to accumulate more money when you're already sitting pretty, by its own nature, greed? Nobody deserves to get stitched up but it doesn't seem like Tuke was just buying cars to indulge his passion.
I really don't get this kind of argument. Once a businessman, always a business man. Should Branson and Sugar step down and say they've had enough? Why should they - they started with nothing and it is their life's blood to continue in business. And you don't stay in business if you lose money. Michael Tuke was in prosthetics, built up a company giving employment to many and a lot of cash to the government in taxes. He sold out and, being a businessman, looked for making a better return than the banks were giving. Enter stage left a silver-tongued impresario offering good returns, but remember that the agreement was that Hood would take a commission not up front, but on the back end. A commission of 10% of the profit on resale, so it was in his interest to work hard for the investor. Or so the theory went. It all went tits up when Hood decided that Tuke was ripe for plucking and, to use your words, got extremely greedy. It wasn't Tuke who got greedy because if you follow all sales and purchases I think he lost money, hence the forthcoming court case.lowdrag said:
BrabusMog said:
Isn't wanting to accumulate more money when you're already sitting pretty, by its own nature, greed? Nobody deserves to get stitched up but it doesn't seem like Tuke was just buying cars to indulge his passion.
I really don't get this kind of argument. Once a businessman, always a business man. Should Branson and Sugar step down and say they've had enough? Why should they - they started with nothing and it is their life's blood to continue in business. And you don't stay in business if you lose money. Michael Tuke was in prosthetics, built up a company giving employment to many and a lot of cash to the government in taxes. He sold out and, being a businessman, looked for making a better return than the banks were giving. Enter stage left a silver-tongued impresario offering good returns, but remember that the agreement was that Hood would take a commission not up front, but on the back end. A commission of 10% of the profit on resale, so it was in his interest to work hard for the investor. Or so the theory went. It all went tits up when Hood decided that Tuke was ripe for plucking and, to use your words, got extremely greedy. It wasn't Tuke who got greedy because if you follow all sales and purchases I think he lost money, hence the forthcoming court case.BrabusMog said:
I agree with you but, as others have said, speculation on classic cars has moved the hobby out of reach for many enthusiasts that could have previously indulged their passion on one car...
Whether that's the case or not it has no relevance to your accusation of greed. RichB said:
BrabusMog said:
I agree with you but, as others have said, speculation on classic cars has moved the hobby out of reach for many enthusiasts that could have previously indulged their passion on one car...
Whether that's the case or not it has no relevance to your accusation of greed. BrabusMog said:
RichB said:
BrabusMog said:
I agree with you but, as others have said, speculation on classic cars has moved the hobby out of reach for many enthusiasts that could have previously indulged their passion on one car...
Whether that's the case or not it has no relevance to your accusation of greed. 
That'll teach me to post on Pistonheads while I'm watching the cricket!
DonkeyApple said:
lowdrag said:
From what I have heard from people close to the plaintiff he was looking to invest because the banks were giving nothing. Personally I believe he was hoodwinked by Derek Hood and somewhat naive, despite being a rich businessman. We all have our achilles heel.
Whatever his driver there was zero logic from anninvestment perspective. Plenty of very smart businessmen are absolute morons in other aspects of their life but it seems hard to imagine that someone who was clearly very savvy and who had been wealthy for a very long time would then rationally go all in with a portfolio of unregulated investments, all in the same market and a market renowned the world over for fakes, fraudsters and filler. But certainly stranger things have happened and the magnetic power of individuals like Hood does indeed impact strongly on people. The reality is that it’s utterly irrelevant that he was being dumb enough to buy £80k cars for £200k. In this regard he is either an idiot or greedy schmuck for not bothering with any credible third party research. And so what that he threw £40m of his hard earned family wealth into inflated assets. He’s a grown man and he chose to go punting in a wholly unregulated market infested by sharks. He very clearly thought the merrygoround was going to last longer than it did and he’d be able to move the assets on to other punters but plain and simple he got caught by the market with his trousers down fully compounded by choosing to buy at the wrong prices or to buy fakes or whatever in the first instance.
The simple legal reality is that his only recourse for his stupidity, naivety, complicity, avarice or just plain innocent bad luck is that he had a piece of paper saying ‘agent’ and believes that Hood acted as ‘principal’. Without that he is just another mug getting rinsed in a dodgy market infested by dodgy people.
neutral 3 said:
Perfectly said. Greed motivated him to buy cars, at his age / any age, he should have been happy with his £40 odd million quid from the sale of his medical co...
Is that a fact? Did he not perhaps want to own a nice collection of cars? I have no idea, which is why I'm asking. Gassing Station | Classic Cars and Yesterday's Heroes | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff