You are here: Home > Message Board > News & Politics > Carillion go into liquidation
March 19 2024 4.26am

Carillion go into liquidation

Previous Topic | Next Topic


Page 5 of 8 < 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 >

 

View Stuk's Profile Stuk Flag Top half 17 Jan 18 3.29pm Send a Private Message to Stuk Add Stuk as a friend

Originally posted by pefwin

Remember 2008 and companies too big to fail?

Those who cited we should let the market take it's course, then, are now in power and that is exactly what they did with Carillon, but would you really want to admit it?

We will not have a state pension in a few years, you'll find that the Work Place Savings Scheme will be its substitute for but the worst off.

I've been saying that for years. Even deferring the state pension age is taking the piss, especially before equalising it for both sexes, IMO, but not taking the piss as much as when Gordon Brown deferred the age you can draw your private pension!

 


Optimistic as ever

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View johnfirewall's Profile johnfirewall Flag 18 Jan 18 6.55pm Send a Private Message to johnfirewall Add johnfirewall as a friend

It's all gone quiet after it emerged Leeds CC were about to offer them a multi million pound contract just last week or at least I've refused to listen to 'Today in Parliament' to hear the hypocritical attacks over the choice of supplier since.

It brings some perspective to the Labour backlash, which appeared hours after liquidation was announced, in the form if ill informed rants about 'privatising the profits and socialising the losses' and government connections within the firm.

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Lyons550's Profile Lyons550 Flag Shirley 19 Jan 18 4.22pm Send a Private Message to Lyons550 Add Lyons550 as a friend

Originally posted by .TUX.

My response was in relation to those investing their own funds not being reimbursed for any losses from public funds so i'm not sure why you've aimed this post at me tbh.
But while we're here, every single 'investor' in any given company holds some responsibility in situations such as this*, however small.

Edit.......*Including our government (in this case).



Edited by .TUX. (16 Jan 2018 7.32pm)


Sorry TUX first perusal of this thread since i posted that. It was in fact in response to Becky's post ...so must've clicked on the wrong post when replying. Apologies

 


The Voice of Reason In An Otherwise Mediocre World

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Lyons550's Profile Lyons550 Flag Shirley 19 Jan 18 4.23pm Send a Private Message to Lyons550 Add Lyons550 as a friend

Originally posted by Stuk

They didn't have one. The last one left in September and the new one was due to start next week.


So he jumped...(?)

 


The Voice of Reason In An Otherwise Mediocre World

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Lyons550's Profile Lyons550 Flag Shirley 19 Jan 18 4.28pm Send a Private Message to Lyons550 Add Lyons550 as a friend

I also think there needs to be a big shake up in legislation which prevents big companies from leaving it so long to pay their debts to suppliers. cash flow is the life blood of any business and a such prompt payment of work done is key...for far too long big companies have had their cake and eat it in this area!

Payment should be made within 14 days no more no less, failure to do so should incur penalties or see them banned from receiving lucrative contracts from Government/Public purse until they have.

 


The Voice of Reason In An Otherwise Mediocre World

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
jeeagles Flag 19 Jan 18 4.47pm

Originally posted by Lyons550

I also think there needs to be a big shake up in legislation which prevents big companies from leaving it so long to pay their debts to suppliers. cash flow is the life blood of any business and a such prompt payment of work done is key...for far too long big companies have had their cake and eat it in this area!

Payment should be made within 14 days no more no less, failure to do so should incur penalties or see them banned from receiving lucrative contracts from Government/Public purse until they have.

Legislation was brought in in 1996 for this. I think you have 5 days to say you will dispute payments or 28 days to pay.

Everyone thought this was a great idea and it worked well until the recession started. Then reality kicked in.

- If the main company has no money, everyone further down the food chain won't get paid... Carillon were owed £800m from the middle east.
- All companies in the market where in a vulnerable position so if the government didn't award contracts to any of these companies they wouldn't have got anything done.

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Quote this post in a reply
View Stuk's Profile Stuk Flag Top half 19 Jan 18 4.49pm Send a Private Message to Stuk Add Stuk as a friend

Originally posted by Lyons550


So he jumped...(?)

He'd have probably had a 3-6 month notice period prior to leaving. Might've jumped, might've got a better offer or any other reason though.

 


Optimistic as ever

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Stuk's Profile Stuk Flag Top half 19 Jan 18 4.55pm Send a Private Message to Stuk Add Stuk as a friend

Originally posted by Lyons550

I also think there needs to be a big shake up in legislation which prevents big companies from leaving it so long to pay their debts to suppliers. cash flow is the life blood of any business and a such prompt payment of work done is key...for far too long big companies have had their cake and eat it in this area!

Payment should be made within 14 days no more no less, failure to do so should incur penalties or see them banned from receiving lucrative contracts from Government/Public purse until they have.

30 days generally works okay, even if you don't actually get paid within 30 days. They assume 30 days from the end of the month.

The construction industry is rather strange in that it's one of the few sectors that you (pretty much) have to give a client credit even if you've never heard of/worked from them before. Can you imagine a garage fixing your car and then letting you pay them a month later?

All companies that have policies of over 30 days are w***ers. And almost all the large players do.

 


Optimistic as ever

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View CambridgeEagle's Profile CambridgeEagle Flag Sydenham 19 Jan 18 4.58pm Send a Private Message to CambridgeEagle Add CambridgeEagle as a friend

Originally posted by Lyons550

I also think there needs to be a big shake up in legislation which prevents big companies from leaving it so long to pay their debts to suppliers. cash flow is the life blood of any business and a such prompt payment of work done is key...for far too long big companies have had their cake and eat it in this area!

Payment should be made within 14 days no more no less, failure to do so should incur penalties or see them banned from receiving lucrative contracts from Government/Public purse until they have.

This is a manifesto policy from Labour and was in the 2017 manifesto.

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View CambridgeEagle's Profile CambridgeEagle Flag Sydenham 19 Jan 18 5.11pm Send a Private Message to CambridgeEagle Add CambridgeEagle as a friend

Originally posted by johnfirewall

It's all gone quiet after it emerged Leeds CC were about to offer them a multi million pound contract just last week or at least I've refused to listen to 'Today in Parliament' to hear the hypocritical attacks over the choice of supplier since.

It brings some perspective to the Labour backlash, which appeared hours after liquidation was announced, in the form if ill informed rants about 'privatising the profits and socialising the losses' and government connections within the firm.

New Labour were indeed a significant force for ill when it came to PFI/PPP and while the national party is more reflective of the current membership and the opinion of the electorate on this issue, many Labour run councils are still wedded to the old New Labour dogmas on this. Just look at Haringey council's attitude towards provision of housing and public realm. This won't last for much longer as the membership will eventually be given the chance to vote in more representative council candidates and the wider electorate the chance to vote them into office.

The model is clearly one where the public sector risk is excessive given the balance of risks and rewards for these contracts. Just look at rail provision. When Virgin are about to make a loss they get a bailout from Grayling which costs the taxpayer up to £2bn and Branson makes a sweet sweet profit. The service meanwhile is less good than it was when the public sector took back the contract from National Express 10 years ago when it failed, and certainly much worse value for money.

The NAO has come out and said the risks are unfairly skewed and these contracts are not good value for money.

Just listen to Andrew Adonis. He was previously pro-PFI, but given his experience in government and as an advisor to government he's changed his mind comprehensively. Corbyn is right when he says it's a racket. One of the most recent appointments to Mitie's board for instance was a Tory peer.

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View CambridgeEagle's Profile CambridgeEagle Flag Sydenham 19 Jan 18 5.16pm Send a Private Message to CambridgeEagle Add CambridgeEagle as a friend

Originally posted by johnfirewall

It's all gone quiet after it emerged Leeds CC were about to offer them a multi million pound contract just last week or at least I've refused to listen to 'Today in Parliament' to hear the hypocritical attacks over the choice of supplier since.

It brings some perspective to the Labour backlash, which appeared hours after liquidation was announced, in the form if ill informed rants about 'privatising the profits and socialising the losses' and government connections within the firm.

Don't forget it was the odious Thatcher that started PFI in the first place and forced councils to outsource services.

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Stuk's Profile Stuk Flag Top half 19 Jan 18 5.20pm Send a Private Message to Stuk Add Stuk as a friend

Originally posted by jeeagles

Legislation was brought in in 1996 for this. I think you have 5 days to say you will dispute payments or 28 days to pay.

Everyone thought this was a great idea and it worked well until the recession started. Then reality kicked in.

- If the main company has no money, everyone further down the food chain won't get paid... Carillon were owed £800m from the middle east.
- All companies in the market where in a vulnerable position so if the government didn't award contracts to any of these companies they wouldn't have got anything done.

That was for the public sector buyer to pay their bills to the likes of Carillion, not to force Carillion to pay their subbies within the same terms.

 


Optimistic as ever

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply

 

Page 5 of 8 < 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 >

Previous Topic | Next Topic

You are here: Home > Message Board > News & Politics > Carillion go into liquidation