Carillion

Glen_Clark

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Smaller companies have little choice other than to accept the terms on offer if they wish to do business. Credit insurance isn't an option either.

I think you're right. But I have turned down work when they extended the payment terms. And I must admit I didn't shed any tears when the competitor who took the work from me didn't get paid

GreatApe

gfplux wrote: »

As many on this thread have said going bankrupt is a normal risk of business although more likely if the business in badly managed.
There are always people who can make money out of other people mysery but it’s good to know they share out the cash.

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/theresa-branded-total-hypocrite-trousering-11868280?utm_source=POLITICO.EU&utm_campaign=b338921a7e-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2018_01_18&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_10959edeb5-b338921a7e-190026745

—-
“Theresa May has been branded a “total hypocrite” for accepting £50,000 from a firm accused of making money off Carillion’s failure.

Naya Capital Management UK, which made the generous donation to the Tories a week before the general election, is one of a string of hedge funds that bet on the company’s share price falling.

Their value fell more than two-thirds in July, with Naya reportedly making £7.6million.”
——

Why is that being a hypocrite?

Hedge funds short shares and if the price goes down they make money.

Either that is acceptable or it is not and the country the laws and the government see shorting shares as a non evil. So why is accepting a donation from said firm unacceptable? Its not like shorting the shares made carillion fail it was their bad management

Its not like they are selling drugs or women or doing something evil

This is just the loony left.
Bail the company out and they will cry its a bailout of the banks and shareholders
Let it fail and they will cry its screwing over the workers
All this shows is the loony left are hypocrits

DiggerUK

”It was the best of times, it was the worst of times”

Memo from the Couldn’t Make It Up Department

Pennywise

DiggerUK wrote: »

Memo from the Couldn’t Make It Up Department

Do you really want me to dig up the list of Labour advisers who've subsequently been accused of doing illegal/immoral/dubious things?

Glen_Clark

GreatApe wrote: »

Bail the company out and they will cry its a bailout of the banks and shareholders

Not Quite because Carillion wasn't a bank - Banks are treated differently to Construction Companies which isn't fair.
And I haven't heard anyone say Carillion shareholders should be bailed out with taxpayer's money. Quite the opposite - they are asking why so much taxpayer's money is put their way. £billion contracts which now have to be bailed out.

antrobus

Glen_Clark wrote: »

I think that was still correct when I posted it.
According to an update on the FT website at 18.58 today Richard Howson CEO was due to receive his £660,000 salary and £28,000 benefits until October. But there has been a public outcry over it. The Insolvency Service said today it will not now be paid. But their statement implied Directors will be allowed to keep past bonuses - Since they changed the rules in 2016 to prevent their bonuses being clawed back in the event of collapse.

You clearly don't understand what liquidation means. Once a company hits that wall, nothing gets paid. Which is what the IS said. And what the government said; "any payments to directors beyond liquidation date have been stopped". The IS is only going to pay them if it wants them to turn up and do some work.

Just like everybody else.

GreatApe

Glen_Clark wrote: »

Not Quite because Carillion wasn't a bank - Banks are treated differently to Construction Companies which isn't fair.
And I haven't heard anyone say Carillion shareholders should be bailed out with taxpayer's money. Quite the opposite - they are asking why so much taxpayer's money is put their way. £billion contracts which now have to be bailed out.

If I book my plumber to do work next week and my plumber goes bust tomorrow what have I lost?

If I then go ahead and book a different plumber to do the job is that a 'bailout'?

antrobus

Glen_Clark wrote: »

I just looked at the front page as I wouldn't waste any more time on it.
I don't know if they had put Carillion on the front page in an earlier edition, before suddenly taking it off again like Osborne's Evening Standard - link: https://www.thecanary.co/uk/2018/01/16/obvious-evening-standard-took-carillion-off-front-page-image/

So what?

What point are you trying to make?

antrobus

Glen_Clark wrote: »

Not Quite because Carillion wasn't a bank - Banks are treated differently to Construction Companies which isn't fair.

Banks are now subject to reasonably competent regulation. Are you saying that building contractors should be regulated in a similar manner?

Glen_Clark wrote: »

And I haven't heard anyone say Carillion shareholders should be bailed out with taxpayer's money. Quite the opposite - they are asking why so much taxpayer's money is put their way. £billion contracts which now have to be bailed out.

What "£billion contracts" now have to be bailed out?

DiggerUK

Pennywise wrote: »

Do you really want me to dig up the list of Labour advisers who've subsequently been accused of doing illegal/immoral/dubious things?

Only if you don’t mention Mr. Blair, Mr. Straw, Mr. Vaz, Mr. McTernan, Uncle Tom Cobley and all..._