Starting to think Rolex buyers enjoy all this drama that goes with finding ss sports models as mush as the champagne AD experience. It's just a watch...
Totally agree with that. People in this forum often criticise others for doing "naughty things" such as flipping for profit etc and then are quite happy to take part in a tax avoiding bung. Hypocrisy reigns supreme and this thread is the proof. If these people are prepared to indulge in these little fiddles, just ask yourself one question, would you take a chance on dealing with them - they may fiddle you.Originally Posted by Haywood_Milton
Don’t you have another choice though, which is to do without the watch? I’m not having a dig, just genuinely interested in the effect of the passion that owning one of these Daytonas seems to create.
In answer to the OP’s question, I wouldn’t drop him in it but I’d point out that he might not be so lucky with the next person he tries it on with.
Is getting a Daytona that important to you that you’d be prepared to break the law?
If so, why not just hold them up at gunpoint?
People always want what they think they can't have perhaps. If it was readily available then I doubt we would see the feeding frenzy. Limit supply, increase desirability.
Cheers..
Jase
You have no proof of your presumptions, other than forum ‘chats’ and there is no real substance (unless you know differently?).
When you look long into an abyss, the abyss looks long into you.........
I was just thinking the exact same thing myself. If they were a regular sight in AD Windows the demand would disappear
All I know is that I am fussy who I would deal with and there is marked evidence in this thread of some hypocrisy. You deal with who you want and I will deal with those I trust.
I’m not sure I could go along with the idea of paying someone cash for this “privilege”. I think I would rather walk away and never return to that shop. (I imagine they would be unconcerned by this, but it is a personal choice)
Sent from my iPhone using TZ-UK mobile app
Do the deal but video it.
Of course - I am no different in this respect.
Trust has been the mainstay on here for many years, perhaps less so now but it is something I always try and uphold and challenge where there is doubt.
When you look long into an abyss, the abyss looks long into you.........
Good but at least this thread has exposed a couple of high risk characters who show a lower than preferred moral compass.
This idea that “everyone’s at it.....”
You do it the legal way or live in fear of a knock on the door / the other dishonest parties doing the dirty on you at some point / a disenchanted staff-member blowing you up / have to reconcile all that your parents taught you about right and wrong, honest and dishonest. They did, didn’t they?
In my sector one now has to have an explicit anti-bribery policy documented and the FCA would be all over this misbehaviour.
I have a much greater faith in legal, straight, taxed business than some, it seems. Even offer me a bent deal, ask to be paid in kind rather than invoice me or boast about what you think is such a clever form of tax evasion and if you’re lucky it will just be the last time I entertain your enquiry. It is not ubiquitous, it isn’t acceptable and anyone who thinks it’s ok because they have kidded themselves “everyone’s at it” is a weak, bent fool.
I am an FCA whistleblower.
I have called HMRC cheats hotline.
I have made Suspicious Activity Reports to the NCA.
I’ll “snitch” to the police if you deserve it - and I’ll do each of the above proudly. I’m one of a much greater majority who works damn hard, pays his tax, makes sacrifices and is sick of the increasing acceptability of “cheating the system.” You aren’t cheating the system, you’re cheating the rest of us and I’ll stop you if I can.
Sunning myself in the Maldives on taxed and legal proceeds at this very moment, which means I can sleep at night.
If certain others on this thread can hush their conscience......shame on them. I cannot say that I don’t wish their time to come.
H
Last edited by Haywood_Milton; 29th March 2018 at 15:27. Reason: Spelling correction : form not for
Not sure why people are surprised by this. It's called corruption and it can be found anywhere when a person is given power over something.
Incidentally, I've had the same thing happen when a guy told me he could get me a new GMT Master II but I'd have to pay more than list. Someone is making a profit there obviously
I think members are more disappointed, irritated, infuriated etc rather than surprised.
Was it an AD who was asking for an off-the-books cash premium for the GMT you mention, or a third party seller simply making a profit? That is a wholly different scenario.
I think Rolex would be furious if they found what the OP describes to be true.
H
I would NEVER EVER buy a new Rolex. The whole Rolex limited supply and demand together with being made to feel privileged because the AD is shafting you, just doesn't do for me. This posting is a prime example.
I'm sure you're right but with the second hand market sitting where it is, it's not surprising. No it was a guy working at a second hand watch place who had a friend at an AD. The implication was that he could get to the top of the lists at an AD because of his friend and would then sell them on. I assume the 'friend' would take a share of the profit as well as the the guy I spoke to. Dodgy, unethical and corrupt, but sadly not surprising.
Again, I'm wondering how the boss of the AD doesn't already know about this. These Daytonas seem to be allocated to big spenders only and not just sold to anyone a sales assistant decides. Surely this is not just a lone crooked individual, it must be the whole team that work there?
One can always buy via a grey dealer at a premium.
When you look long into an abyss, the abyss looks long into you.........
It's my dream to one day be considered wealthy and virtuous enough to give a shop my money for something.
Just the other day I was in Aldi's perusing the European version of a mars bar (Titan), I thought, bugger it, I'm going to buy a multipack. I put in my trolley, hoping beyond measure that today would be the day I could buy some dodgy chocolate. Nope, the cashier gave me a scolding right there and then, in front of the entire shop! She told me that to even be in with a chance of owning a packet of Titan's I needed to spend at least a score on some dodgy Kit Kats.
Well let me tell you I turned beet red, apologised profusely and left the shop in shame. Awful experience.
OK - I'm clearly naive. I see this as unacceptable, but I'm also surprised that this form of behaviour is percieved to be widespread.
Poking the hornet's nest, perhaps this is how so many people can afford a steel sports Rolex in the first place?
I thought the spivs, estate agents and second hand car dealers and Rolex thing was just a myth but it’s obviously true.
I still don’t understand the attraction of a Daytona either? The old ones are lovely, the new ones look like they popped out of a christamas cracker.
Agreed.
Got to agree here Haywood. It’s sickening how many folk would put legality and morality to one side for a sodding watch! I have to say though, from what I’ve read on here in the last few weeks, I’m not surprised in the slightest.
Wouldn’t surprise me if this was at “Oldmyths,” a business whose reputation among the wider public is spectacularly undeserved. I am aware of many “surprising” activities in its stores and it is a shame that Hatman14, Mr. Bowtell, so strangely disappeared from the forum when his off-piste activity was exposed. He could have told us much, no doubt. I’d bet he still visits anonymously.
Anyone know if he’s still at the Bullring store? I hope to meet him at some point. Might make for another bit of “Trip Advisor” fun....
Last edited by Haywood_Milton; 29th March 2018 at 11:04.
You often hear stories such as:
“Buy some jewellry or Watch X and we will sell you a Daytona”
How acceptable is this regarding law and trading standards?
I think I also read somewhere of the above mentioned store chain being caught but do Rolex give a monkeys when its not a small independant?
Last edited by kultschar; 29th March 2018 at 11:07.
Color photocopies of 20’s.....
Best thing to do is take him up on the offer, pay for the Watch and then withhold the cash. Then you can give him a little life lesson in bribery!
What’s he going to do? Nothing he can. Explain if he kicks up a fuss he’ll get the sack or you’ll involve the police & revenue to boot (as I’m sure he’s done it before)
Anyone considering paying over retail is crazy and just perpetuates the ridiculous circus that is buying a new Rolex.
What a joke it is indeed!
I can't believe no one's mentioned the letterbox yet? You know what to do
Had one Dave, sold it in less than two weeks - it's a girls watch remember.
It's a point of principal. It's fine for large organisations to avoid tax and for the well paid to have their money sent here there and everywhere so they can side step the taxman.
Last week I had my car door fixed, the mechanic said £30 off for cash - of course I took his offer. Are seriously telling me that in the same situation you would demand an invoice and insist that he puts the transaction through the books then cough up the extra £30. I don't think so.
Haywood, care to expand on the part about Lee?
I have met him previously and according to my last contact with him, he was no longer at the Goldsmiths store.
By PM if you prefer.
i don’t think there is anything wrong or inherintly bad about paying over retail. At the rates we’re going paying over retail secures u the watch and if u wait 2-4 years prices may we’ll have risen close to that anyway. Not always black and white. Tho i have personally never paid for a watch above retail price but i don’t look down on those who do.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
That’s what I said on another of the myriad of Rolex threads.
I am really glad I don’t like or aspire to own these watches after reading threads like this.
No watch is worth the greed and avarice this engenders to break the law.
Haywood Milton is a role model, if I ever change my views on Rolex I would just go and buy one from him.
It would not surprise me in any way if a large number of daytonas and other hard to get watches are dealt with in a similar manor. Of course the store manager will be in on it and be wanting his cut. Maybe not all in this manor with a cash bribe but a lot will go to friends to sell and split the money
I can only echo some of the comments above... this is bribery.
Clearly this kind of things happens every day, especially with estate agents / land etc, but it doesn't mean you have to get involved too.
It's a watch.
Nothing more... a watch.
It's perfectly acceptable, may not be palatable, the retailer is offering to sell you the Daytona with certain conditions. It is up to the customer to accept the terms or not.
It is not bribery either, just the terms of sale.
Last edited by nunya; 29th March 2018 at 12:07.
Completely unacceptable for an AD to do this.
The dodgy point is that the £3000.00 bung to the salesperson is tax free.
If an AD sells it to a grey dealer, the AD pays the full tax as does the grey dealer, so whilst you may or may not like the morality, it is 100% legal and HMRC gets their money.
There is no point in others moaning at Haywood, he is 100% spot on.
What happens if the guy in question declares the 3 grand on his tax return (unlikely I know)
How would he even do that - is it earnings from his employment or as self employed?
Would have to be self-employed I guess.
I’d appreciate a PM too, as he sold me my BLNR and when I went to enquire on a Hulk was told he had left the business too. It’s also an AD less than 10 miles from home
*edit - found the thread, reading it now. I never had an issue with him during my purchase, did realise that I was not given any extra links but never choose to pick up on it, as the watch fitted me perfectly out the box*
On topic. I would never agree to something like this. Regardless of the watch or offer whatever it is. Personally I prefer to do things “by the book”, even if it means I wait for a SS Daytona or never get one at list
Last edited by EmilA; 29th March 2018 at 13:26.
This, I am afraid, is just delusional.
If the dealership was an independent, they can set their own prices but you would see a 'single figure' price.
In such a situation, word would quickly get to Rolex that an AD was deviating from the MSRP. In the same way they would have a word to dealers selling below list, they would have a word selling above it.
What is happening here is that the specific member of sales staff is charging MSRP (which goes through his employers' books) and also asking for a facilitation payment, a bribe given to speed up the performance of an existing duty - in this case to get you a Daytona faster than you would without making the payment.
Therefore, irrespective of whether (unlikely) the sales staff declare this as taxable income, the underlying payment would be made in breach of the Bribery Act 2010 and both parties to the payment would be liable to prosecution.
You may also want to refer to the Unfair Contract Terms Act and associated Acts and regulations if you labour under the misapprehension that the retailer can unilaterally impose its own terms on the buyer.
Totally agree with this post. If everyone paid the amount of tax due then either tax rates would be reduced or there would be more money available for essential services.
Tax evasion affects us all and cannot be condoned imo.
Nunya wasn't referring to the Daytona bung deal, he was referring to the offer of a hard-to-get watch if the customer also bought another piece at the same time.
That's two who spectacularly missed the point of his post.
That's my point, before the customer agrees it's just terms of the offer. Nothing is being imposed.
Now, that is the funniest thing I've heard today
Not missed the point at all. I was just saying looking at it from the consumer point of view. Irrespective of the bung deal or spend more deal, no retailer legally or otherwise is imposing anything on anyone. The consumer has the right to walk away.
Sorry off topic:
The government are guilty of worse cons. For example car insurance tax. They make it a legal requirement to have car insurance, so you pay it, then they have the F cheek of taxing you because you bought something you have to buy.
Their reasoning (tenuous but valid sadly) is they you do not have to buy a car!!!
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote