DJM, the end.

[dogbox321]

6 hours ago, 96701 said:

 

How do you know that my cash is hard earned? 

 

 

Probably not with that waist coat........  (Certainly clashes next to 4472!)  

 

If you have money to burn....... start with the waist coat!   LOL! 

[Phil Parker]

1 hour ago, Roy Langridge said:

Since the DJ failure there have been a number of people indicating they knew of red flags at the beginning, when others did not. 

 

Why then are we perpetuating such risks by talking about “another crowdfunder”? There is no harm or legal issue with saying “this is what concerns me with the X project...” As long as it is factual (e.g. we don”t know who they are and they have locked their recent visitors), I see no problem with sharing such concerns.

 

3

 

1) There is a sperate thread for crowdfunding discussions I have mentioned several times and linked from the top of this thread. 

2) "As long as it is factual" - except that someone would need to check all these "facts" as many people think their opinion counts as a fact. 

3) You may not see a problem, but if any of these "facts" turn out to be false and detrimental to a business or individual, someone is going to end up in court.

[tomparryharry]

6 hours ago, DY444 said:

 

Unless you were privy to Hornby's confidential commercial plans and internal discussions for the period in question I don't see how you can possibly know with any certainty that their 71 was a spoiler.  If DJM scanned the prototype first doesn't mean Hornby didn't already have it on their development roadmap.  Hornby do have a history of SE electric prototypes (eg Networker, Javelin, Eurostar, HAL) and so it seems to me that a 71 is not a completely left field choice of prototype for them.   Having said that the 71 is a strange model to pick a fight over compared to the more mainstream and popular Terrier and 66 and so I see few parallels with Hornby's well documented attempts to upstage what Rails and Hattons were doing.   I also have to say that I find it difficult to believe that Hornby perceived DJM to be a serious threat to their business and so without compelling evidence I remain unconvinced that it is was anything other than a coincidence. 

 

 

 

 

Edited June 8, 2019 by tomparryharry
Reply deleted.

[Phil Parker]

1 minute ago, tomparryharry said:

 

As an outsider looking in, I tend to disagree. Sure, Hornby financial accounts are confidential, but I expect to see some more twists & turns as time goes on.  If we take the 18" Austerity as an example, DJM have effectively cornered the market. Hornby can't really release the austerity without direct comparison against the DJM version, which is a far better detailed model. With my tongue in my cheek, I'll ask this question. Who has connived to keep the DJM model off the market? It'll be interesting to see who has 'saved' the moulds, and put it back into production. Time will tell.

 

Cheers,

 

ian.

 

Oh good. Conspiracy theories now. Thread locking is beckoning. In the meantime, tinfoil hats on everyone. 

[Roy Langridge]

3 minutes ago, Phil Parker said:

 

1) There is a sperate thread for crowdfunding discussions I have mentioned several times and linked from the top of this thread. 

2) "As long as it is factual" - except that someone would need to check all these "facts" as many people think their opinion counts as a fact. 

3) You may not see a problem, but if any of these "facts" turn out to be false and detrimental to a business or individual, someone is going to end up in court.

 

Fair enough, it is just that in amongst this thread there are people alluding to other ventures that then lead to misunderstandings and can do harm to others. The LLC discussion was a good example.

 

Roy

[DavidH]

As an aside, regarding the "Dave has mortgaged his house" claim. (Bold text is added to quotes from DJM subforum below.)

 

"The OO gauge J94 has all my money ploughed into it from my house (putting my money where my big mouth is)" (DJ, 8 Sept 2013)

 

"I'll lose my house (literally) if that scenario came about" (DJ, 17 Nov 2013)

 

"Soon after my leaving [Dapol], I decided that my path for the future was clear to me and started DJModels.

With this announcement came the realisation that a great deal of capital was needed and as such, owning a house and living in another, I capitalised on this and sold the property to allow my dream to become reality." (DJ, 22 July 2015)

 

"...those that have an axe invariably never have the sphericals to put their house on the line and do it themselves, and merely comment from the safe sideline. There are words for that type of person." (DJ, 16 Sept 2016)

At the risk of being that type of person, has the house been remortgaged or sold?

 

Is the third one the real truth - it seems a quite complicated and specific story to spin if it isn't, when previously Dave had been happy for everyone to assume he'd lose his house if the business failed. (Of course, maybe it's more complicated: one was sold and the other remortgaged. But Dave doesn't say that.)

I noticed from searching for house on the DJ subforum, that after the first claim of "money ... from my house" (see above, 8 Sept 2013), everyone leapt in with variations of he put his house on the line for us. This then morphed into the popular idea that he had remortgaged it. Dave has never written "mortgage" or "remortgage" on his subforum.

 

Incidentally, Dave saying he had put his "house on the line" follows about three years of some RMWebbers using that phrase.

 

So, in conclusion, maybe we don't have to be fearful that he will lose his house? ... or at least, lets wait to see what the accountants come up with, in case it is a fiction that we created?

 

It's been a stick to berate critics with since 2013, I think it's about time it was put to one side.

[Vistisen]

7 minutes ago, Phil Parker said:

 

1) There is a sperate thread for crowdfunding discussions I have mentioned several times and linked from the top of this thread. 

2) "As long as it is factual" - except that someone would need to check all these "facts" as many people think their opinion counts as a fact. 

3) You may not see a problem, but if any of these "facts" turn out to be false and detrimental to a business or individual, someone is going to end up in court.

 

 

[tomparryharry]

6 hours ago, Phil Parker said:

 

Oh good. Conspiracy theories now. Thread locking is beckoning. In the meantime, tinfoil hats on everyone. 

 

Edited June 8, 2019 by tomparryharry
Reply deleted.

[Roy Langridge]

Talked to our accountant yesterday evening and there is a difference between a director's loan where you lend money in, not out (borrowing is a different kettle of fish) and founder's contribution.  Founder's contribution need not be in the form of a loan, i.e. you don't intend to recoup that money. There is also the fact that this contribution need not be directly financial. An example of this, when we set up our business, my partner and I paid for our laptops and licenses ourselves, some months before we were established.

 

That said, if the founder is a director and is wanting to take a salary, I would be surprised if any significant cash injection wasn't recouped as the tax situation between recovering cash lent and paying salary is very different.

Roy

Edited June 8, 2019 by Roy Langridge

[DY444]

7 minutes ago, tomparryharry said:

 

As an outsider looking in, I tend to disagree. Sure, Hornby financial accounts are confidential, but I expect to see some more twists & turns as time goes on.  If we take the 18" Austerity as an example, DJM have effectively cornered the market. Hornby can't really release the austerity without direct comparison against the DJM version, which is a far better detailed model. With my tongue in my cheek, I'll ask this question. Who has connived to keep the DJM model off the market? It'll be interesting to see who has 'saved' the moulds, and put it back into production. Time will tell.

 

Cheers,

 

ian.

 

Leaving aside the conspiracy theory element I don't understand the point.  As things stand it seems highly unlikely that any further models will be manufactured under the DJM name so what difference does it make how much better a DJM model is or isn't?  Once any residual DJM stock is sold it becomes a moot point unless another manufacturer acquires the tools some time in the future.

[black and decker boy]

23 minutes ago, tomparryharry said:

 

As an outsider looking in, I tend to disagree. Sure, Hornby financial accounts are confidential, but I expect to see some more twists & turns as time goes on.  If we take the 18" Austerity as an example, DJM have effectively cornered the market. Hornby can't really release the austerity without direct comparison against the DJM version, which is a far better detailed model. With my tongue in my cheek, I'll ask this question. Who has connived to keep the DJM model off the market? It'll be interesting to see who has 'saved' the moulds, and put it back into production. Time will tell.

 

Cheers,

 

ian.

I’d beg to differ on both points. Hornby continue to release their J94 which doesn’t seem to end up in bargain bins at 50% off.

 

DJM heavily discounted his stocks over many months.

 

Whilst the DJM body is better, it’s mechanically diabolical and regular complaints of poor running (I have 3 by the way).

[tomparryharry]

5 hours ago, DY444 said:

 

Leaving aside the conspiracy theory element I don't understand the point.  As things stand it seems highly unlikely that any further models will be manufactured under the DJM name so what difference does it make how much better a DJM model is or isn't?  Once any residual DJM stock is sold it becomes a moot point unless another manufacturer acquires the tools some time in the future.

 

 

Edited June 8, 2019 by tomparryharry
Reply deleted.

[The Stationmaster]

11 hours ago, Roy Langridge said:

I found this advice: https://www.gov.uk/register-creditor-bankruptcy 

 

I have not seen anybody else post this - if they have I apologise. 

 

Roy

I posted it - but umpteen pages back so it has no doubt got lost among the long grass and - dare i say it - the cakes.

[bigP]

2 hours ago, Roy Langridge said:

Since the DJ failure there have been a number of people indicating they knew of red flags at the beginning, when others did not. 

 

Why then are we perpetuating such risks by talking about “another crowdfunder”? There is no harm or legal issue with saying “this is what concerns me with the X project...” As long as it is factual (e.g. we don”t know who they are and they have locked their recent visitors), I see no problem with sharing such concerns.

 

I have posted this after GWR+fan”s post but not quoted it as it is only one of several that have used reference to  other unnamed ventures.

 

Roy

 

23 minutes ago, Phil Parker said:

 

1) There is a sperate thread for crowdfunding discussions I have mentioned several times and linked from the top of this thread. 

2) "As long as it is factual" - except that someone would need to check all these "facts" as many people think their opinion counts as a fact. 

3) You may not see a problem, but if any of these "facts" turn out to be false and detrimental to a business or individual, someone is going to end up in court.

 

 

Roy, 

 

There are numerous people on this forum, and on others, who will have been aware of Dave Jones previous ventures (prior to his time at Dapol) and will see the parallels to what has happened here.

 

I could tell a few tales, but since I wasn’t directly involved they would be just that, tales.  Unless those directly concerned wish to come forth with facts then it is a very ropey situation to be dabbling in.

 

As Phil quite rightly points out, if the “fact” turns out not to be so factual, someone could be in a world of pain. I for one am cautious of any trouble that the forum provider could be dragged into for simply ‘publishing’ such postings.  The digital world can be quite ‘grey’ at times.  

 

I believe, despite the criticism and concerns here and elsewhere, others were quite able to, for want of a better phrase, give Dave another chance.  He worked on and produced some great models whilst at Dapol so why shouldn’t he be able to pull it off on his own?

 

To me it appears that whilst his business model was more ‘traditional’, ie commissions for retailers, own funded products etc, he was managing a small but ticking along business.  But as soon as the crowd funding model is employed then for those familiar with his N-thusiast Resprays and N-Sprays ventures it became all too familiar territory.

 

The best one can do without alluding too much would to link to this post, from 2015.....

 

 

Regards,

Paul

 

[David Stannard]

It's a sad state of affairs, go back a week and you had the village horde baying for blood, now we have the reverse where many are lamenting the loss of another small supplier. I will give DJ one thing in his attention to detail was hard to beat, I am so glad that I picked up my Hattons 58xx when I did, she is a beautiful little loco that certainly is worlds apart from the old Airfix now Hornby model.

[Markwj]

I quite agree the 'I put my house on the line' comment needs to be stamped on. No one asked him to and no one made him do it. Dave took a calculated risk with his own money then took another risk with everyone else's. Unfortunately it hasn't paid off and although maybe to some not huge amounts but people have lost out. It may be money I won't miss but this doesn't mean I can't be annoyed about it. I know Dave may have lost more than most but lots of people have gone into liquidation before and yes it's crap but lots of people pick themselves up again and carry on. Dave has shown he can bounce back and he probably will but no venture he is part of will ever see my money.

[truffy]

7 minutes ago, David Stannard said:

I am so glad that I picked up my Hattons 58xx when I did, she is a beautiful little loco that certainly is worlds apart from the old Airfix now Hornby model.

I agree, it's a beautiful-looking model. I was tempted to invoke rule #1 on it, but I could only find weathered versions. I don't like factory weathering, I prefer to buy pristine and weather it myself.

[DY444]

33 minutes ago, David Stannard said:

It's a sad state of affairs, go back a week and you had the village horde baying for blood, now we have the reverse where many are lamenting the loss of another small supplier. I will give DJ one thing in his attention to detail was hard to beat, I am so glad that I picked up my Hattons 58xx when I did, she is a beautiful little loco that certainly is worlds apart from the old Airfix now Hornby model.

 

Hmm I don't recall much baying for blood.  I recall bafflement at the motives for the press release and the questioning of the validity of some of its content (the latter vindicated by the subsequent amendment).  I recall comment over the history of patchy communication from the company.  I recall concern from those, and for those, who had made payments and were getting uneasy.  I recall opinion on some of the conduct of the company.  I recall opinion on where things might have gone wrong.  I recall speculation about the future of the company.  I don't recall many demanding that the company should be wound up.

Edited June 8, 2019 by DY444

[Oldddudders]

I believe there are members who might share your view of the 58xx bodyshell but have found the chassis to be a very poor performer, despite trying several models. One senior member has been talking of putting a kit chassis underneath instead. Similarly disappointed comments have been made about O2 and 0298 chassis, although mine run reasonably well. Perhaps tolerances in manufacture had slipped, making for chancy purchase. Good 'uns and bad 'uns. Not unique to DJM.

[Hippo]

19 minutes ago, Oldddudders said:

I believe there are members who might share your view of the 58xx bodyshell but have found the chassis to be a very poor performer, despite trying several models. One senior member has been talking of putting a kit chassis underneath instead. Similarly disappointed comments have been made about O2 and 0298 chassis, although mine run reasonably well. Perhaps tolerances in manufacture had slipped, making for chancy purchase. Good 'uns and bad 'uns. Not unique to DJM.

 

Its the same with the 18" Austerity. I have quite a few, a couple run really well the others are average. They do look the part and I would have bought more if the next batch of NCB and MSC ones had ever turned up.

 

[96701]

3 hours ago, dogbox321 said:

 

 

Probably not with that waist coat........  (Certainly clashes next to 4472!)  

 

If you have money to burn....... start with the waist coat!   LOL! 

Getting a bit personal. At least I'm not hiding behind a pseudonym. LOL

[Colin_McLeod]

So 96701 is your real name then

[Ian Hargrave]

1 hour ago, David Stannard said:

It's a sad state of affairs, go back a week and you had the village horde baying for blood, now we have the reverse where many are lamenting the loss of another small supplier. I will give DJ one thing in his attention to detail was hard to beat, I am so glad that I picked up my Hattons 58xx when I did, she is a beautiful little loco that certainly is worlds apart from the old Airfix now Hornby model.

 

Indeed it is and I like mine very much.I have reluctantly however to admit its beauty is skin deep as are other DJM models. It’s mechanism and performance are not up to current standards and quality is,shall we say,variable and have been the subject of many hot exchanges on this forum....however good the body shell is.Mine are happy toddling along with their autocoaches....and that’s fine and unchallenging .If Dave and Hattons had installed a decent chassis,mechanism and not Mickey Mouse motor then all would have been well.As it is......I refer you to Captain K’s illuminating posts on the subject.He .....and other experienced modellers ....have firm and forthright views on the model.. 

 

Next up in the frame....his Class 71.....Mickey Mouse strikes again .So my experience of DJM models.? The analogy is one of a Mercedes saloon with a Trabant engine. Baying for blood or cooing in sorrow. .?  Faites vos jeux mes amis.

Edited June 8, 2019 by Ian Hargrave
Error

[Edwardian]

5 hours ago, DY444 said:

 

Leaving aside the conspiracy theory element I don't understand the point.  As things stand it seems highly unlikely that any further models will be manufactured under the DJM name so what difference does it make how much better a DJM model is or isn't?  Once any residual DJM stock is sold it becomes a moot point unless another manufacturer acquires the tools some time in the future.

 

On a point of information, as a former director of an insolvent company, Mr Jones would face legal restrictions on the re-use of the name, or a sufficiently similar name. There are exceptions. 

 

Liquidation suggests sale of assets, such as they might be, on a break-up basis.  Administration would have permitted sale of the business, including trading style and IP, as a going concern.  This does not seem to be the route taken.

 

If there is anything to continue - and I do not mean to seem unkind here, but the tooling assets are said to have been seized by a third party and the quality and accuracy of the designs seem not above question -  it seems likely that this would be a different, probably unrelated, company under a fresh brand.  It is possible that the thinking behind the IP grab was an attempt to monetise the designs as something that could be sold off on insolvency, but equally it could be an attempt by a designer to safeguard his IP in the event of insolvency.  I am not sure if it is known whether the IP rights were registered in favour of the company or the individual.  Given trading risk it is not uncommon to have IP rights held separately from a trading company.

 

For these reasons I am doubtful that much tangible will be saved from the wreckage, though you never know. It is possible, as I say, that the former proprietor retains IP and his might be the best offer the liquidator gets for any assets, though, as I say, the tooling might not be available. I suspect, however, that for those who had an interest in forthcoming projects - and I am among them insofar as I remain very enthusiastic about a small industrial of the Hudswell Clarke ilk - I suspect that it will prove the case that the better and only option is for such projects to start afresh elsewhere.

 

Though not a post 1945 modeller (not post 1914 most days) I do think the APT would have been a wonderful thing to do and can only hope that someone else takes up the baton.

 

Again, I reflect on the difficult personal circumstances that business collapse inevitably involves.  I hope all of us, not just those of us who have gone through similar negative experiences, will spare a thought and some reserve of goodwill for the ex-proprietor and all those affected, including Durham Trains of Stanley, which is a great shop and who were doing a good thing. I'm sorry that it did not work out.

 

2 hours ago, Colin_McLeod said:

So 96701 is your real name then

 

He's not a number, he's a human being!

 

    

 

  

Edited June 8, 2019 by Edwardian
spelling!

[jcredfer]

1 hour ago, Oldddudders said:

I believe there are members who might share your view of the 58xx bodyshell but have found the chassis to be a very poor performer, despite trying several models. One senior member has been talking of putting a kit chassis underneath instead. Similarly disappointed comments have been made about O2 and 0298 chassis, although mine run reasonably well. Perhaps tolerances in manufacture had slipped, making for chancy purchase. Good 'uns and bad 'uns. Not unique to DJM.

 

I agree about "disappointments" not being unique to DJM.  Like others here I have a Kernow {DJM} Austerity 0-6-0ST and like a good number who have commented, it isn't a good runner, despite the natty "Fur Coat".  I am no Elecrical/electronic expert, but a person, who is an expert and in the business, responded to comments to say that the type of motor {coreless} used in the model was not really suited to shunters, along with other similarly slower models.  He did give reasons for the comment, which seemed logical, although somewhat beyond my O-level physics.  That would seem to imply a design induced problem and maybe lack of research.

 

Regards

 

Julian