Russ does it again!

On 06/01/2016 13:19, Peter Duncanson wrote:

Presumably the insurance premiums would be based on the retail value of
the items. Another relevant value is how much the items in the warehouse
cost to buy.

Insurance is supposed to cover actual losses not potential losses.
Therefore I would expect the payout to be on the purchase price (the
actual loss) rather than the sale price, because there is no guarantee
that they would have been sold.

Jim

On Thu, 07 Jan 2016 13:31:17 GMT, pamela wrote:

On 16:58 6 Jan 2016, Peter Duncanson wrote:

On Wed, 06 Jan 2016 15:40:31 GMT, pamela wrote:

On 12:25 6 Jan 2016, wrote:

On Wed, 06 Jan 2016 11:14:27 GMT, pamela wrote:

Where else could you by a Mini Purifier Euro SuperClamp for a
measly £75.50?


Aren't you overlooking something? That is a special offer at HALF
PRICE!!!!!

No one in their right mind would believe Russ's claims or pay his
prices. For every 999 people who scoff there is going to be 1
person whose judgement has degenerated so significantly that they
are no longer truly in their right mind and it's that person who
might make a purchase.


Speaking purely Hypothetically what would happen if such a supplier
who puts what appears to be unrealistly large values on items
compared to similar things that perform the same function were to
lose them all in a warehouse fire.

Would the insurance company just pay out based on the value the
retail prices suggest they could be worth at the prices advertised
or say the corperate version of " yer avin a laugh mate" we value
it xxxxx pounds. take it or leave it.

G.Harman

Along those lines, I took a look at how much profit Russ Andrews
Accessories Ltd makes. See the first document listed he

https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/c...filing-history

I saw the acquisition of fixed assets for a large amount and then the
annual write down also for a similarly large amount. To be honest,
I'm not sure exactly what this implies and maybe someone else
understands this better than I do.

However, it's strange to see the company paying so much for items
(presumably these are products for sale) which can be bought for
significantly less than he sells them for. Maybe he's buying from
another company of his which has already made a big mark up on prices.
This sort of arrangement is common for "transfer pricing" in which tax
liability is placed on a company based in a low-tax country.

My impression is that the items he sells are not standard
mass-produced products but specially made ones. We may seriously doubt
that they perform significantly better than normal off-the-shelf items
but I've no doubt they do cost more to produce.

Even if Russ's items cost a bit more than usual to make, his mark up is
still huge.

The mark up is probably split between Russ Andrews and the supplier.
This lists the manufacturers of the products RA sells. There are 20 in
addition to RA:
http://www.russandrews.com/manufacturer/

I think the other manufacturers will be making a(n) (in)decent mark up.

As usual "manufacturer" means the company that designs and sells the
goods under its name. The actual physical manufacture is likely to be
done under contract by companies in China or other low-wage places.

--
Peter Duncanson
(in uk.tech.digital-tv)

"Martin" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 7 Jan 2016 10:19:47 -0000, "Woody"
wrote:


"Martin" wrote in message
. ..
On Wed, 6 Jan 2016 18:40:29 -0000, "Woody"

wrote:


"Martin" wrote in message
m...
On Wed, 6 Jan 2016 11:30:13 -0000, "Sid"
wrote:


"JohnT" wrote in message
...
Some fantastic bargains. Russ has done us proud again!

http://www.russandrews.com/winter-promotions/?page=all

Where else could you by a Mini Purifier Euro SuperClamp for a
measly
£75.50?

--
JohnT


I expect he supplies to the NHS

and EA pumping stations, in particular the one at the Foss
barrier
in York
--


To go off at a tangent for a moment, it is reported that the
reason
the pumps failed was because the supposedly watertight bulkhead
doors
of the pumphouse (opening outwards) let water in....... They are
now
talking about relocating the control gear on the roof of the
building.
Why, for heaven's sake? Go into any water tower and you will find
all
of the control gear and pumps are totally hermetically sealed and
will
work under water. EA cutting costs no doubt.

The rubber seals on the doors had perished.
There's a good set of comments in the comments to articles in the
York.


If the pumps when running can shift 30,000 litres a second
(reported)
I doubt they are of insufficient capacity!

The flow of the Foss was reported as being 30,000 litres a second.

The comments to articles on the subject in York Press are worth
reading,
ignoring the political ones. The latest article is here.
http://www.yorkpress.co.uk/news/1418..._improvements/
--


Yeh but.... The pumps are supposed to be able to handle 32000 litres
per second so why was the local MP making a statement in Parliament
that the pumps we insufficiently rated to handle to load. They
clearly
were - if they had worked!

because either he is grossly misinformed and/or he and his advisors
don't know
their elbow from their Rs. The number of lies that have been told is
staggering.

I note with interest in the Times yesterday that the original spend
on
flood protection was £360m but this was reduced in the cuts to £270m
with a distinct spending bias towards the south and south east of
England.

I rest my case m'lud.

The Dutch spend £2 billion per year on flood defences. UK plans to
spend
£2billion over 6 years, whilst individuals lose billions per annum
on flood
damage.
--

Actually Martin, the MP is a she. She was elected last May and her
background is as a Physiotherapist* in which she has a degree from the
University of East Anglia. She is a shadow defence minister - for
which she is clearly eminently qualified?

*I won't say a thing against physios - I'm married to one!


--
Woody

harrogate3 at ntlworld dot com

On Thu, 07 Jan 2016 17:55:20 +0000, Woody wrote:

"Martin" wrote in message


Yeh but.... The pumps are supposed to be able to handle 32000 litres
per second so why was the local MP making a statement in Parliament
that the pumps we insufficiently rated to handle to load. They clearly
were - if they had worked!

because either he is grossly misinformed and/or he and his advisors
don't know their elbow from their Rs. The number of lies that have been
told is staggering.

Perhaps, its probably more that she is a Labour MP whereas the Government
is a Conservative one. Not that any MP of any party would ever seek to
score points off an opposition member.

Coincidentally it was also a Conservative Government at the time the
barrier was commissioned and implemented.

On 07/01/2016 17:55, Woody wrote:

*I won't say a thing against physios - I'm married to one!

Does she give you a happy ending?

Bill

"Bill Wright" wrote in message
...
On 07/01/2016 17:55, Woody wrote:

*I won't say a thing against physios - I'm married to one!

Does she give you a happy ending?


In 40 years of marriage I can guarantee one thing Bill - you never get
any sympathy!

:-))

--
Woody

harrogate3 at ntlworld dot com

"Martin" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 7 Jan 2016 10:19:47 -0000, "Woody"
wrote:


"Martin" wrote in message
. ..
On Wed, 6 Jan 2016 18:40:29 -0000, "Woody"
wrote:


"Martin" wrote in message
m...
On Wed, 6 Jan 2016 11:30:13 -0000, "Sid"
wrote:


"JohnT" wrote in message
...
Some fantastic bargains. Russ has done us proud again!

http://www.russandrews.com/winter-promotions/?page=all

Where else could you by a Mini Purifier Euro SuperClamp for a
measly
£75.50?

--
JohnT


I expect he supplies to the NHS

and EA pumping stations, in particular the one at the Foss barrier
in York
--


To go off at a tangent for a moment, it is reported that the reason
the pumps failed was because the supposedly watertight bulkhead
doors
of the pumphouse (opening outwards) let water in....... They are now
talking about relocating the control gear on the roof of the
building.
Why, for heaven's sake? Go into any water tower and you will find
all
of the control gear and pumps are totally hermetically sealed and
will
work under water. EA cutting costs no doubt.

The rubber seals on the doors had perished.
There's a good set of comments in the comments to articles in the
York.


If the pumps when running can shift 30,000 litres a second
(reported)
I doubt they are of insufficient capacity!

The flow of the Foss was reported as being 30,000 litres a second.

The comments to articles on the subject in York Press are worth
reading,
ignoring the political ones. The latest article is here.
http://www.yorkpress.co.uk/news/1418..._improvements/
--


Yeh but.... The pumps are supposed to be able to handle 32000 litres
per second so why was the local MP making a statement in Parliament
that the pumps we insufficiently rated to handle to load. They clearly
were - if they had worked!

because either he is grossly misinformed and/or he and his advisors don't
know
their elbow from their Rs. The number of lies that have been told is
staggering.

I note with interest in the Times yesterday that the original spend on
flood protection was £360m but this was reduced in the cuts to £270m
with a distinct spending bias towards the south and south east of
England.

I rest my case m'lud.

The Dutch spend £2 billion per year on flood defences.

almost one third of the land mass is land reclaimed from the sea/lakes and
which is below sea level

these ongoing costs were factored in when deciding to reclaim the land and
not spewing the money in the future is not an option

comparing this forced spending with the UK is apples and oranges

tim