Should Jaguar be bailed-out????

shop-to-drop

kittie wrote: »

It looks as though they will be bailed out :mad: :mad: :mad:

That will be a very bad decision and I also believe very unpopular. What are they thinking?

Sapphire

No, it definitely should not be bailed out. Other failing companies are not being bailed out (apart from banks, unfortunately). Why should a car company, producing luxury products that are bad for the environment and that few people want, be bailed out with taxpayers' money?

winged_avenger

So the Government bailed out the banks and are likely to bail out Jaguar.....could anyone explain why they did not bail out the 25000+ shopworkers at Woolworths and the 1700 at MFI?

paulherts

Definitely not.

How much is Tata's sponsorship of Ferrari worth?

Mandelson is being more cautious this morning, obviously getting negative feedback and we all know that this Govt leaks potential policy to guage public opinion. He is now saying that the Govt would be a lender of last resort and Tata must exhaust all other avenues first.

Jag has been a white elephant for years.

This is a time for a fundamental reassessment of capitalism unfortunately our govt is perpetuating the mistakes that got us into this mess in the first place.

confused31_2

How are they being bailed out?? they have asked for a loan for a year because the banks wont lend them the money,

They will pay the loan back with interest, so its like a mormal loan, in any normal climate the banks would lend them the money, Tata could probably borrow the money from their own country, but considering they probably provide incomes for probably over 100,000 workers in the uk indireclty, why shouldnt they ask for help.

Why should Tata help put food on the table for 100,000 uk tax payers, when the banks the government in the uk own, wont lend them any money, if i was Tata i would tell the government, if they dont lend them the money then they will just have to pay the 100,00 workers dole money, which wont be paid back as a loan.

Then move the companies to India where its a lot cheaper to manafacture, the problem the government have got is finding work for 100,000 workers who wil be claiming benefits.

Im sure paying 100,0000 people claiming benefit money of at least 100 pound a week would cost the government about 5 million a week, and if jaguar landrover go where will these people re train and work? building trades gone, retail is not doing well.

The only jobs that seem to be safe are firemen( which they are cutting back on) Nurses, Doctors, Policeman,Midwfes and funeral directors and i dont think they are going to need 100,000 people.

Its a shame it as got to this, but Tata are a massive world wide company, its not as if there lending it to a company thats doing bad, if it dont pick back up and Jaguar landrover close im sure Tata would have to pay the loan back, otherwise they would have to liquidise the whole of the Tata group.

So if i was Tata, i would just say to the government lend us the money otherwise we are off.

Then the government can get the money they were going to lend, and give it weekly to the people out of work, it makes sense that does.:T

confused

Generali

The UK taxpayer shouldn't bail out private companies. If Jaguar doesn't make enough money to keep going they should be allowed to go bust. Then someone will buy the assets from the receivers if they think they can make money from them.

The reason for these car companies being bailed out is to keep the banks going IMO.

aeuerby

If JLR goes bump, won't the tax payer still end up paying for it via the benefits system?

confused31_2

Generali wrote: »

The UK taxpayer shouldn't bail out private companies. If Jaguar doesn't make enough money to keep going they should be allowed to go bust. Then someone will buy the assets from the receivers if they think they can make money from them.

The reason for these car companies being bailed out is to keep the banks going IMO.

what a load of boxxox car companies being bailed out to keep the banks going ahahahahaha, why has Tata had to go to the government for the loan,???? because the banks wont lend them it!!!!!!!!!! derrrrrrrrrrrrrrhhhhhh

How can jaguar landrover go into recievership????

Tata need to go into resievership not landrover jaguar, they will just up sticks and go and build in india, the money is for future develpoment of new vehicles, they have said they can see there needs to be change for more economical cars and thats what they need the money for, not to keep them afloat its for future products.

Its like everyone going on about currys closing, currys are part of a group, the group as to close for the recivers to come in, you cant have a group of companies and make one bankrupt, if currys are in trouble so are pc world and dixons.

Its like owning 2 houses if you secured a loan on the one house and it fell into negative equity, you couldnt just say to the bank have that house that ones gone bankrupt, as they would look at what other assets you have got and take the other house.

Thats why when people are going on about letting the recievers in, do you really think Tata is going to close?????

confused

confused31_2

aeuerby wrote: »

If JLR goes bump, won't the tax payer still end up paying for it via the benefits system?

Thats what a lot of people dont seem to realise, and remember with benefits they dont have to be paid back, the government are not silly that money will be given the go ahead by the government next week..

confused

Generali

confused31 wrote: »

what a load of boxxox car companies being bailed out to keep the banks going ahahahahaha, why has Tata had to go to the government for the loan,???? because the banks wont lend them it!!!!!!!!!! derrrrrrrrrrrrrrhhhhhh

How can jaguar landrover go into recievership????

Tata need to go into resievership not landrover jaguar, they will just up sticks and go and build in india, the money is for future develpoment of new vehicles, they have said they can see there needs to be change for more economical cars and thats what they need the money for, not to keep them afloat its for future products.

Its like everyone going on about currys closing, currys are part of a group, the group as to close for the recivers to come in, you cant have a group of companies and make one bankrupt, if currys are in trouble so are pc world and dixons.

Its like owning 2 houses if you secured a loan on the one house and it fell into negative equity, you couldnt just say to the bank have that house that ones gone bankrupt, as they would look at what other assets you have got and take the other house.

Thats why when people are going on about letting the recievers in, do you really think Tata is going to close?????

confused

Limited liability is the concept that you are missing for most of your post.

derrrrrrrrrrrrrrhhhhhh

Sheesh!