Whilst we struggle with bills, BG profits up.

macman

MillicentBystander wrote: »

Cue the usual wholly irrelevant comparisons to a well known/infamous grocer in order to justify these figures.....;)

OK then, how about a comparison to a well known/infamous satellite TV company instead?
Sky and BG have approximately the same number of UK customers, but Sky (last year's figures) made almost twice the profits of BG: £1.19 bn compared to £0.606bn. £100 per customer per year compared to £50. And that's on a much smaller annual spend. Sky's profit margin is more like 18% compared to BG's 5%. And Sky, last time I checked, don't have to bear the capital costs to build new power stations.
I suspect that your response will be that no one needs subscription TV, but they do need gas and electricity. Well, obviously 12 million people out there do not agree, as Sky continues to increase it's subscriber base, despite the recession.
If BG were to be a bit more media-savvy and announce their figures in the height of summer, I doubt that they'd barely get a mention for this.
Why aren't the BBC and the popular press laying into Murdoch for 'rip-off price and profit increases'? Oh, I almost forgot, Murdoch owns most of the popular press...

ollski

Why not start MSE GAS and undercut the greedy big 6 so everyone will switch to you. You can capture the whole market and tick along at break even. Job done.

Wywth

ollski wrote: »

Why not start MSE GAS and undercut the greedy big 6 so everyone will switch to you. You can capture the whole market and tick along at break even. Job done.

Why not start OLLSKI GAS?

I don't think MSE, like most other businesses, can be bothered to run on a break even basis.
Remember, Martin has made £87million from this site alone, and that ignores the profit he took in the first 9 years of running it.

No one here (except Martin) can be sure what profit it made in those first 9 years, but no one pays £87million for a business, unless they themselves can see a healthy return from it.

ollski

Wywth wrote: »

Why not start OLLSKI GAS?

I don't think MSE, like most other businesses, can be bothered to run on a break even basis.
Remember, Martin has made £87million from this site alone, and that ignores the profit he took in the first 9 years of running it.

No one here (except Martin) can be sure what profit it made in those first 9 years, but no one pays £87million for a business, unless they themselves can see a healthy return from it.

Is my sarcasm veiled too thickly .

sheffield_lad

We the end user need to accept that the era of cheap fuel is over!!! otherwise this moaning will run and run.

We have some of the cheapest energy in Europe (not that the press will tell you), both France and Germany pay more!

Folk moan about the lack of compertition but where is there more than 6 main players?

Supermarkets? Asda, Tesco, Morrisons, Sainsburys
Mobile networks? o2, Voda, Tmob, Orange, Tesco
TV companies?, BBC, ITV, C4, C5, SKY
Broadband?

You see my point. Too often a contract mobile phone or Sky TV comes before gas/electric folk need to realign their priorities. The world will consume another 33% in energy over the next 20yrs how can anyone think that more demand will lead to lower bills? That's without even mentioning the closure of coal fire power stations.

Energy will go up, cut your other less necessary costs and get used to it.

MillicentBystander

macman wrote: »

OK then, how about a comparison to a well known/infamous satellite TV company instead?
Sky and BG have approximately the same number of UK customers, but Sky (last year's figures) made almost twice the profits of BG: £1.19 bn compared to £0.606bn. £100 per customer per year compared to £50. And that's on a much smaller annual spend. Sky's profit margin is more like 18% compared to BG's 5%. And Sky, last time I checked, don't have to bear the capital costs to build new power stations.
I suspect that your response will be that no one needs subscription TV, but they do need gas and electricity. Well, obviously 12 million people out there do not agree, as Sky continues to increase it's subscriber base, despite the recession.
If BG were to be a bit more media-savvy and announce their figures in the height of summer, I doubt that they'd barely get a mention for this.
Why aren't the BBC and the popular press laying into Murdoch for 'rip off price and profit increases'? Oh, I almost forgot, Murdoch owns most of the popular press...

At least you had the good grace to explain why your 'argument' is fatally flawed (as you were making it, bizarrely). As far as I know no-one has ever died from lack of satellite TV....

penrhyn

A few posters on here may disagree.;)

Nada666

As far as I know no-one has ever died because they would only put £112 on their meter and refused to stretch to £117.

MillicentBystander

Nada666 wrote: »

As far as I know no-one has ever died because they would only put £112 on their meter and refused to stretch to £117.

I sincerely hope you are deliberately missing the point but on witnessing your other posts i wouldn't put money on it.

antrobus

MillicentBystander wrote: »

I sincerely hope you are deliberately missing the point but on witnessing your other posts i wouldn't put money on it.

And what point would that be?